Part 6 (1/2)
These measures against the religious groups were, in spite of outcries of persecution, after all matters of internal administration. But, meanwhile, causes for direct dissension with the Vatican had arisen over questions involving the _Concordat_ regulating the relations of Church and State.
The first dispute was about the method of appointing bishops. The Concordat gave to the Government the right of appointing bishops, subject to the papal ratification of the appointee's moral and theological qualifications. During the Third Republic the habit had grown up of mutual consultation before appointments were made, a practice which led the Vatican to a.s.sume that its initial influence was as great as that of the Government, and finally to make use of the formula _n.o.bis nominavit_, or _nominaverit_, as though the Government merely proposed a candidate subject to the Vatican's free right to accept or to reject. The keen-scented Combes took an early opportunity to raise this issue by making certain appointments to bishoprics without previously consulting the Vatican. In the midst of the discussions Leo XIII died in July, 1903, and was succeeded by Pius X, whose character was utterly different from that of his predecessor. His primitive faith saw in France the home of heretics like the Modernist, the Abbe Loisy; and his Secretary of State, the ultramontane Cardinal Merry del Val, was as hostile to France, as his predecessor Cardinal Rampolla had, on the whole, been well disposed to the ”eldest daughter of the Church.” Between Merry del Val and Combes no agreement was possible. So matters went from bad to worse.
In the autumn of 1903 the King of Italy made a visit to France, and in 1904 it was deemed advisable to have President Loubet return this visit to emphasize the new cordiality between France and Italy, the settlement of long-standing difficulties, and to cultivate as much as possible one member of the Triple Alliance. The Pope protested violently against this visit to his enemy in Rome and made it clear that he would refuse to see Loubet. The diplomatic crisis became acute and the French Amba.s.sador to the Vatican was recalled.
Soon came a complete rupture over the treatment by the pontifical authorities of two French bishops, Geay of Laval and Le Nordez of Dijon.
They had shown themselves loyal Republicans and had become the object of attack in their own dioceses until personal scandals were imagined or raked up against them. Combes took the part of the bishops and, to punish the Vatican for interfering with the French prelates, definitely broke off diplomatic relations in July, 1904, withdrawing even the charge d'affaires who had been left after the departure of the amba.s.sador.
For some time, plans for the separation of Church and State had been under discussion in a somewhat academic way by a committee or _Commission_ of the Chamber, under the general guidance of Ferdinand Buisson and Aristide Briand. The latter had even drawn up a preliminary project. But Combes, in spite of his vehemence in words against the Church, hesitated to involve the Ministry. He knew that the country at large was fully satisfied with the maintenance of the Concordat and that some of his own colleagues in the Cabinet, as well as Loubet, preferred not to disturb it.
Suddenly a great scandal broke out. The enemies of the Ministry got hold of the fact that General Andre, through some of his subordinates in the War Office, was carrying on a regular system of espionage upon army officers suspected of luke-warm republicanism or of Clerical sympathies, and was using as spies members of Masonic lodges or even subordinate Masonic army officers throughout France.[16] These spies had filed innumerable notes or memoranda known as _fiches_, containing information, rumor, or scandal concerning the persons involved, their families and intimacies. The discovery that leading members of the Cabinet had been countenancing methods as reprehensible as those of the worst of their opponents, caused an uproar. The Cabinet seemed on the point of being overthrown when one of its enemies did it a great service. A wild and blatant anti-Ministerialist named Syveton rushed up to the Minister of War and struck him two blows in the face during a meeting of the Chamber. The effect of this deed was to cause a temporary reaction in favor of the Ministry, but also to draw Combes more to the Radicals, and he promptly brought forward his own governmental separation plan, which was considerably at variance with the Briand project. The respite was, however, only momentary, and, after sacrificing General Andre, Combes gave up the struggle and resigned in January, 1905, without being actually put in the minority.
It cannot be denied that there was a considerable deterioration in government during the regime of Combes. In attempting to thwart the Clerical Party he let himself lapse into methods as objectionable as theirs. His anti-clericalism breathed the spirit of persecution, as much as did the intrigues of the clergy during the early days of the Republic. He transformed Waldeck-Rousseau's plans for the regulation of religious orders into a measure of proscription. He countenanced underhanded intrigues, and allowed his Minister of War to undermine army discipline by his methods of political espionage almost as much as it had been undermined in the days of the supremacy of the Clericals. The concessions of the Ministers of War and of Marine to the Socialists and pacifists considerably weakened the efficiency of both army and navy.
Combes's administration was pre-eminently one of self-seeking politicians.
Yet, on the other hand, certain very praiseworthy achievements may be registered to its credit. One of these was the act of General Andre, in 1903, inst.i.tuting a new private investigation of the Dreyfus case. It resulted in the discovery of material sufficient to justify a new demand for revision, which the Cour de Ca.s.sation admitted in March, 1904.
Another achievement was the _rapprochement_ with England known as the _Entente cordiale_ or friendly understanding, which following the new amity with Italy greatly strengthened France face-to-face with Germany.
The Russian alliance had given France one definite European ally, and the cordiality with Italy, a member of the Triple Alliance, cleared the situation in the Mediterranean and on the frontier of the Alps. The _Entente cordiale_ was engineered by Edward VII as a result of his visit to Paris in 1903. The accord of April, 1904, was really due to English as well as French fear of German aggression. It liquidated all the old contentions between England and France, one of which, the French Sh.o.r.e Dispute over Newfoundland fis.h.i.+ng rights, dated back to the Treaty of Utrecht in the early eighteenth century. But, above all, France definitely gave up her Egyptian claims in return for freedom of action in Morocco guaranteed by England. For France was anxious to add Morocco to her African sphere of influence. A secret arrangement with Spain gave that country reversionary claims to certain parts of Morocco. By the agreement with England the bad blood caused by the Fashoda incident was wiped away, a new intimacy sprang up between ”Perfidious Albion” and ”Froggy,” and through the natural drawing together of England and France's ally Russia, the Triple Entente came into being some years later, which was destined to face Germany and Austria in the Great European War.
Combes's successor as Prime Minister was a member of his own Cabinet, Maurice Rouvier. More moderate in views than Combes, he would have been content to let the Separation bill rest, but the Radicals were in the saddle and he let things take their course. The discussions over the project went on through most of the year 1905, under the guidance of the Minister of Wors.h.i.+p, Bienvenu-Martin, and particularly of Aristide Briand, the _rapporteur_ or spokesman for the _Commission_ in the Chamber. The bill, again and again modified in a spirit of conciliation and leniency under the guidance of Briand, finally resulted, as promulgated on December 9, in a sincere effort for a compromise between different views on religion. It showed a desire, since Church and State were to be divorced, to treat the former fairly. Provision was made, when the budget for religious purposes should be suppressed, for the legal inventory of ecclesiastical property, the pension of superannuated clergy, and the formation of legal corporations to insure public wors.h.i.+p (_a.s.sociations cultuelles_). It must be remembered that the new measure applied quite as much to the Protestants and to the Jews as to the Catholics. Before the separation the Protestant pastors and the Jewish rabbis were maintained by the State no less than the Catholic clergy.
Their numerical insignificance made them of little importance in the general combat over the Clerical question. Nor could they fairly be accused of intrigue against the Republic.
The year 1905 is noteworthy for two other important events. One was the reduction of the term of compulsory military service from three to two years. This measure was carried through largely under the auspices of General Andre and proved an over-dangerous concession to the anti-militarists and pacifists, since it was destined so soon to be repealed. The other was the sensational diplomatic dispute with Germany over Morocco, which resulted at first for France in a worse humiliation than Fashoda.
Germany under Bismarck had encouraged the numerous French colonial schemes, as a way of keeping her busy abroad and of diverting her thoughts from Alsace-Lorraine. But as the Empire began to develop its Pan-Germanism and its aspirations to world-power under William II, it grew jealous of England and France and of their arrangement of 1904 to settle the interests of Morocco. Forthwith Germany began to intrigue with the Sultan of Morocco against the French, and declared that, as it had not been officially informed of the agreements between England, France, and Spain, it intended to disregard them. The defeat of Russia by j.a.pan, in particular, encouraged Germany to feel that France, deprived of its ally, could be bullied with impunity. On March 31, Emperor William landed at Tangier and proclaimed that his visit was to the Sultan as an ”independent sovereign.” Germany also called for the convocation of an international meeting to regulate the Moroccan question. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Delca.s.se, objected to the thwarting of his plans, but because of the deterioration of the army and navy and the lack of hoped-for Russian support, Rouvier was obliged under German threats to drop him from his Cabinet and to agree to the convocation of the Conference of Algeciras.[17]
FOOTNOTES:
[16] It should be remembered that, in France, the Freemasons are an anti-religious political quite as much as a benevolent order.
[17] The pro-German position, expressed in such works as E. D. Morel's _Morocco in Diplomacy_ (1912), is that Sir Edward Grey and M. Delca.s.se were engaged in tricky schemes to dispose of Morocco without regard for German interests; that Germany was not officially notified by France of the public agreements with England (April, 1904) and with Spain (October, 1904); that these two agreements were both accompanied by secret ones which nullified their effect; that M. Delca.s.se resigned, not under German pressure, but at M. Rouvier's wish, for having unduly involved and compromised France.
CHAPTER IX
THE ADMINISTRATION OF ARMAND FALLIeRES
February, 1906, to February, 1918
The international conference for the regulation of the Moroccan question met at Algeciras in southern Spain, in January, 1906. Twelve powers partic.i.p.ated, including the United States. The negotiations were prolonged until the end of March owing to the unconciliatory German att.i.tude, and resulted in an arrangement which the Germans looked upon as totally unsatisfactory to themselves. In the shaping of the general results the United States had considerable influence. The agreement put out of discussion the sovereignty of the Sultan, the integrity of the empire, and the principle of commercial freedom, and was largely devoted to the question of the establishment of a state bank and the organization of the police in international ports of entry. In the bank France was to have special privileges, and the police was to be under the supervision of France and Spain. Germany was eliminated.
In the midst of the uncertainty over the outcome of the Conference two important events took place in France, the second of which came near seriously weakening the French position. These were the election of a successor to President Loubet and the downfall of the Rouvier Ministry.
M. Loubet's term expired in February and he did not desire re-election.
The two chief candidates were Armand Fallieres and Paul Doumer. M.
Fallieres was an easy-going, good-natured, and well-meaning but second-rate statesman. Doumer was far more brilliant and vigorous, but was accused of self-seeking and was thought a less safe person to elect.
Unfortunately, M. Fallieres, when chosen, had his master, and was largely under the control of Clemenceau.
Meanwhile the almost unprincipled vacillation of M. Rouvier and his spineless policy caused increased dissatisfaction to the Chamber. During the discussion of a riotous episode connected with the enforcement of the Separation law, which had resulted in the death of a man, Rouvier was overthrown. He was succeeded by a colorless person, Sarrien, who included Clemenceau in his Cabinet as Minister of the Interior. The latter gradually pushed his chief aside and finally replaced him before the end of the year as Prime Minister.