The Sun.
London, England, 1825-11-24 00:00:00

THE CONSTITUTIONNEL.

TRIAL OF THE FRENCH JOURRNAL,
THE CONSTITUTIONNEL.
COUR ROYALE, AT PAIII3•--SOLEMN SITTING, Nov. 19.
Continuation of the Speech of the ADVOCATE-GENERAL.
Here, Gentlemen, an important reflection presents itself—
that a system of opposition should be established in a Journal ;
that it should oppose all acts which it considers connected .with
policy, with the freedom of worship, the public liberties, to
the rights of citizens, we can conceive; but that, quitting the
path of politics, of public liberties, of general rights, this op-
position (let us rather say this hostility) is shown towards persons
for the purpose of vilifying their morals ; that (as have already
seen, and as we shall see further on). It is pleased to repre-
sent the Priests as circulating the poison of debauchery, and
themselves practising immorality—that a proceeding against a
Priest is a good thing, if it be very scandalous—that it seizes
with avidity a horrible exaamle, if one presents itself—that it
is delighted at striking with these frightful pictures the imagi-
nations of the people, always too ready to receive prejudices,
and to generalize ideas of evil. We say, Gentlemen, and no
sincere man will contradict us, that it is no longer an opposition
which the law understands, that it is no longer a political oppo-
sition, a religious opposition, but a system of scandal directed
against the things themselves. What advantage, in fact, is it
to politics, to the liberties of the Galilean Church, the rights of
the citizens, to scandalize the words of the Priests, or to cast on
them the horror of some atrocious crime. It is, in effect, only
to attack the respect clue to religion itself. It is, undoubtedly,
allowable, to see in different lights the schools of mutual in-
struction and Christian doctrine ; but by what right does the
Constitutionnel, so great an enemy to all usurpation of power,
interpose in the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, as to the ad-
ministering of the Sacraments ? " These schools diminish,"
it says, " because some fantastic Priests refuse to allow the pu-
pils of those schools to participate in the Sacraments, and be-
cause some others refuse to admit to the benefits of the charity
the unfortunate relations who send their children there." Then
it adds—" Behold the odious means employed to destroy them.
It is by terror and persecutions that some are frightened : by
misery,by hunger,and all the horrors to which they aresubjected,
that others are-terrified." These schools diminish. We will
not examine whether this allegation is true with regard to all
France, and if the cause of the diminution (if it exist) does not
depend on a preference, free, independent, and proved by facts.
We will not chew you that at Paris the contrary of the allega-
tion is true ; but we will ask the Constitutionnel by what right
it imputes to the peiests the refusal of children the sacrament,
because they belong to those schools ? Who has revealed to
them the secret of confession ? There, Gentlemen, we see
usurpation of rights, a false accusation, and consequently a
caltlinny. We have the more right to say this, because we
have proved that no reclamation, no complaint had been made
on this point, either to the ecclesiastical authority, to justice, or
the adminiStration. But by what excess of hatred does it im-
pute to some of the priests the refusal of the assistance of the
charity to the misfortune who send their children to their mu-
tual schools ? We shall only say that the Constitutionnel dis-
plays hatred and injustice, or rather fanaticism and persecution
against priests, when it complains so much of the persecution
and fanaticism of the priests. But that which is truly curious
is a note oft ne article of the 6th May. A mission was sent to
Besancon, in January 1823. Would you believe that this mis-
sion has lowered the commwe, and considerably diminished
the produce of the duties ? Because the money employed at
the price of the chains, medals, scapularies, chaplets, flags, and
livres de cautiques et instructions. It is certainly not in the
spirit of religious controversy that the Constitutionnel of the
13th May, announced that the Commune formerly Francaise
of Veriox, is on the point of embracing Protestantism. We in
fact remark, throughout the whole of this article, an attempt
to produce contests between Catholics and Protestants. Let a
young Ecclesiastic, seconded by some intriguers, provoke an
opposition and hatred to this Bishop : this is very possible ;
but that a whole parish should, on this account, have abjured
the faith of their fathers. And if this were possible, why the
tone of triumph in the Constitution/re/ ? By what sentiment is
it animated, if not by that of hatred of the Catholic religion,
when it thus endeavours to excite disaffection ? In fact, what
motive did the Conststutionncl ascribe for the Bishop's inter-
diction ? The unpardonable crime of living on good terms with
the Protestants of the neighbouring parishes. %net is it to the
Constitntionnel that the priest himself has declared that reports
had been circulated against him, and that the Bishop had re-
proved him for several faults. This was nothing; it was ne-
cessary to render. the Catholics odious to the Protestants, and
toward this object every aim was directed. The Constitution.
nel insists that the inhabitants of Versoix refused to receive
their new Pastor ; " and of what consequence is it to this jour.
nal that a Provisional Administrator and a Curd have both
been well received by the inhabitants, even by those who sided
with the former Card ? What is it to this Journal that the
whole parish remained Catholic, not one person having left the
faith of his fathers ?" It was to strike a blow against the Ca-
tholic religion that the tale was told, and it was told. Is
such an action doubtful ? It is no question of contro-
versy ; it is hatred which speaks, which endeavours to
stifle. Neither the Charter, nor the laws of this or any
other country, ever authorised such attacks. The same spirit
is found in the articles of May 15th and 16th. They relate
to the town of Nerac, and we must read the articles to make
the Court know the declamation they contain. 44
See the pro-
gress of intolerance. Here is a flagrant violation of the right
of property. The Protestants of Nerac have been expelled
their church. The Cure of Nerac, at the head of his clergy,
has taken possession of the Protestant temple, chauuting Te
Doan for his victory. The Cure mounted the pulpit to ful-
minate his anathemas against the Protestants, who, plunged
in consternation, demand guarantees for the future, and
ask if they shall not be forced to flee to the desert, to find
•an asylum against intolerance ?" When you read such de-
tails, Gentlemen, you will think certainly that the Pro-
testants of Nerac have been expelled from their church,
and that the Cure has taken solemn possession. But, in this
Case, we have public acts. Let us ask, then, the fact. The
dispute relative to the property of a Church between the hospi-
tal of Nerac and the Consistory, goes back for its origin to the.
year 12 ; it was pursued before the tribunal, and a decree of
the Council of Prefecture gave sentence in favour of the hos-
pital. The cause is now before the Council of State. Can
there be a flagrant violation of property in a legal decision,
from which certainly there has been an appeal ? Here is a let-
ter from the Sub-Prefect of Nerac. He writes from Nerac,
May 23, 1825—s' The Constitntionncl has inserted, on the 15th
and Ifith of this month, an article relative to a dispute between
the Consistory of the Evangelical Church and the Administra-
tion of the Hospital, about the property of a Church. Not to
suspect the Editor of the most base want of sincerity, he must
have been deceived by one of those wicked persons whose life is
trouble and hope of mischief. The article of tire 15th contains
eleven assertions, each of which merits a denial. The Consti-
tutionnel etays the population of Nerac amounts to 5,600 per.
sons ; 2,600 being Protestants." The total number of Pro-
testant inhabitants really is 1,148; 420 only being within the
walls. The Council did not take up the question as the Cooeti-
tationnel says, it was imposed on it by the Council of State.
The Consistory was heard as well as the Administrator of
tire Hospital, which the Constitutionnel denies. The Con-
stitutionnel says the act of expulsion was executed. -It has
not been. Tire Prefect, in passing the Decree, recommended
that it should not be exerted till the Protestants had
another Church. So far from the Curd taking possession,
the Protestants are still hr possession of the temple. Sonic
thanksgivings were offered up in a chapel belOnging to the
sisters of Nevers, for the restoration to their hospital, of
the chureh_thiso is the Te Deem. There is no pulpit in
this chapel for the Curd to 'ascend, and he did not take pos.
sessioa of the church. The Constitutionnel confirms these
- false assertions in its Paper of the 16th. In both it chews the
Cure of Nerac, as a blind fanatic, and the authorities as sub-
mitting to a threed condescension. The Cure is a wise and
prudent man, full of charity, an apostle of Catholicism, hut s f
whom not even a Jew has any thing to fear. The Authorities
know the will of their Sovereign, and they do their duty. I in-
close a letter from the President of the Consistory to me. "The
most perfect concord has always reigned at Nerac, between
the members of the two different faiths, and in any case the
Protestants will only leave their Church to enter another, and
to this end, the cares of the Administration are directed, &c.,
&c., De la Bergerie, Sub-Prefect." The Protestants' Pastor's
letter also denied the assertions of the Constitutionnel. He I
was heard ; he wee not expelled. The Cure did not take pos-
session, and the Protestants of Nerac were not disturbed._ I
This letter was signed by Quatrcils, the Protestant Pastor."
"To these documents," continued M. Broe, after reading them
44
we can and the official proof, that the Protestants of Nerac
are now in possession of their church. In this manner, then,
has public opinion been deceived, and have the enemies of the
Church and State been encouraged. The object was to sow
discord. And do you suppose that the Constitutionnel inserted
the letter which the Protestant Pastor says lie sent him, of his
own accord ? Did it ever mention such a letter ? No. Some
days afterwards it spoke of the letter of the Sub-Prefect, and
though defeated in facts, it supported its statements by a refer-
ence to a-petition- then presented to the Chamber of Deputies ;
at length it spoke of the Protestant Clergyman, but only of his
letter to the Sub-Prefect, and, then, to weaken his testimony,
by saying that the petition to the Chamber of Deputies is signed
by him. The fact is still mis-stated, for the President of the
Consistory only signed to legalise it; and you may judge by
the subjoined copy, if this petition authorised the remarks of
the Conititutionnel.—(To be continued.)—(Constitutionnel.)