No. 247.
Mr. Adee
to Mr. Fish.
Madrid, September 13, 1876. (Received October 2.)
Sir: The religious question in Spain, growing out of the recent acts of the local authority of Port Mahon, seems at length to have reached a definitive [Page 452] point, so far as the action of the government of His Majesty is concerned, in the adoption of a general rule of conduct for the whole country. This result is, in my judgment, largely due to the querulous pertinacity of the opposition parties and press, in forcing on the government the issue, not of toleration, but of consistency and uniformity of rule.
As stated in my No. 252, this issue was one which the government seemed not unwilling to leave undetermined, making the question of extent of toleration or liberty in religious matters merely one of domestic and local police regulation, in the absence as yet of the awaited “organic law” of the Cortes.
But, while this could be safely done in Spain at large, certain districts, such as the southern mining regions and the Balearic Islands, presented special difficulties. The large foreign working population of the former offered but little ground of hinderance to almost complete religious liberty in comparison with the condition of things in the island of Menorca. In this latter place the reformed sects have carried on active propaganda for seven years past, adding to the already large foreign element a notable accession of native converts. No less than thirteen distinct mission establishments exist at Port Mahon, among schools and churches, all amply aided or supported by foreign contributions.
Feeling has in consequence run high for some time between the native Catholic element and the reformers. The chief ground of contest lay in the question of the schools. Each of the dissenting churches represented in that town had its well-supported scheme of free education—a propaganda which the active bishop of the diocese attempted to counteract by adverse movements in the public schools, introducing certain rites and ceremonies in them in the interest of the Catholic faith, and prescribing a course of doctrinal and religious studies. The result was the expulsion from the public school in March last of a boy of eight years, a son of the former consul of the United States in that city, for refusing to conform to the ritual or to learn the religious lessons assigned. This added in no small degree to the existing excitement, and an effort was made to raise the question to the dignity of an international issue; but as it was clear that the boy’s attendance was voluntary on the part of his parents, that schools of his own denomination were open to him, and that in general freedom from religious instruction in the public schools does not exist, as matter of reciprocity, in the United States, the affair was dropped.
Soon another chance for conflict arose. The dissenting schools and churches were announced to the public by advertisements in the newspapers as well as by means of sign boards and posters. On complaint being made, the subgovernor of Menorca, Don Antonio Castañeira, on the 19th ultimo, addressed an order to the director of the local journal, El Bien Publico, saying: “From and after to day you will abstain from printing and publishing announcements relative to the evangelical schools, which manifestations are positively prohibited by the constitution of the state.”
It is to be noted that this now celebrated order, the origin of the wide spread discussion of the past three weeks, applies, in terms, only to advertisements of evangelical schools, not of churches or acts of worship. Nevertheless, the discussion of the action of the subgovernor of Menorca has gone on in the apparent implication and admission that the principle involved covered all possible outward and public announcements of evangelical or anti-catholic character. And the government, [Page 453] having decided to approve the local measure taken by Sr. Castañeira, was at last constrained to accept the broad and strictly logical issue presented by its adversaries, and prohibit throughout Spain what it forbade at Port Mahon, and more too.
You will remember that, in Mr. Cushing’s dispatch No. 955, of May 18, last, (pp. 4 and 5,) the question of “sign-boards” is alluded to as being, in his judgment, settled by the newly adopted eleventh article of the present constitution. Such is also the conclusion reached by the government of His Majesty.
There is not in Madrid, nor so far as I know in all Spain, any evangelical church edifice having the outward appearance of such. All are distinguished by sign-boards. In addition to these, one of the mission enterprises here has long had a conspicuous painted announcement on a blank wall in one of the most frequented thoroughfares of the capital.
The government accordingly ordered that these signs and advertisements should be removed. Verbal orders to this effect were first issued through the ward officers, and were promptly obeyed by the Spanish evangelical pastors. Two of the directors of missions here, one an American the other a Scotchman, declined to obey a mere verbal order, requesting written evidence in justification of their accession to the commands of the government. This was promptly granted. By order of the Conde de Toreno, acting minister of gobernacion in the absence of Mr. Romero y Robledo, the following notification was served upon the evangelical pastors or managers:
The eleventh article of the constitution of the Spanish monarchy having declared that the Catholic apostolic Roman religion is that of the state; that in the Spanish territory no one shall he molested for his religious opinions, nor for the exercise of his respective worship, saving the respect due to Christian morality, not permitting, however, other ceremonies or manifestations in public than those of the religion of the state, I have deemed it convenient, confirming the verbal order which I communicated to you, to fix a fresh and definitive period of three days, wherein you shall make to disappear the inscriptions or placards which you have caused to be affixed in various places, relative to worship, teaching, or sale of religious books, and which announcements are not guaranteed by that constitutional precept.
May God guard you many years, &c.
The American on receiving this notice promptly took down the unpretending sign-board which designated his place of worship. The other after much delay has partly expunged his many announcements with white paint, rendering the remaining portions more conspicuous than before. I understand that he proposes to appeal to his government to protect his sign-boards by diplomatic means, a course which the American will, I think, refrain from. So much for the question of sign-boards and public announcements.
Fresh matter of acrimonious debate has arisen however, in charges preferred through the press that the subgovernor of Menorca, in addition to his approved course in respect to evangelical advertisements, has gone still further, and ventured, through excess of religious fervor, on ground where it is doubtful if the government can follow him.
It is said that he has prohibited singing in the evangelical schools because it is audible from the street; that he entered a Methodist place of worship at 10 o’clock at night and commanded that the psalm then in progress should be stopped; and that he has forbidden Protestants to accompany the dead body of one of their number to the grave. The government has directed strict investigation of these charges, and if they are substantiated, it is likely that the subgovernor will be afforded an opportunity of leisurely repentance for his hasty zeal.
On the whole I think it is not to be regretted that this incident has been provoked in its present guise. This discreet and orderly obedience [Page 454] to the commands of the superior powers exhibited by most of the mission enterprises certainly does not harm them; they lose nothing, as their places of meeting are known among the attendants, and “need no bush; and if led to accept the consistent offer of the government and build special edifices for their own accommodation, the gain will be all on their side.
And as for the government, the matter has served to fix with considerable accuracy the present practical limits of religious toleration on the one hand and of reactionary and ultramontane efforts on the other. The ground comprised between these boundary lines is well described in the following article from last night’s Politica, a journal which is understood to reflect the views of the president of the council of ministers in matters of moment like this:
We have motives for repeating, under authoritative information, that the view of the government in the incident aroused during these days by reason of the occurrences at Mahon is as follows:
The quiet accompaniment to the cemetery of the bodies of non-Catholics, without any ceremonies, cannot be other than allowable, and comes within the inviolability of the cemetery.
The place of worship (el templo) is absolutely inviolable. The utmost limit which may be reached is to prevent the services (culto) from being visible from the street; and even in such cases the government would reserve to itself the investigation of the circumstances.
Inscriptions and sign-boards are not permitted, according to the constitution and the declarations made in the Cortes.
Schools do not enjoy the inviolability of the place of worship, and must be treated as all (schools) are, not permitting in them any religious meetings, nor anything to disturb the neighborhood.
All this is in conformity with the constitution and with the liberal spirit which animates the government in the interpretation of the fundamental code.
These declarations cover the immunity of the “place of worship” and of the “cemetery” alluded to in my No. 252. That of the “book” is generally and acceptably understood to mean, as I take it, that the printing, publication, and circulation of evangelical books, tracts, or newspapers among those who seek them, is not a “public manifestation” under the constitution. Such publications must, of course, conform to the general laws of the press, in addition to which it is not improbable that restrictive measures as to exposure for sale or indiscriminate distribution of religious works may be forced upon the government by the demands of the opposition for “logical consistency” and “uniformity of action.”
I am, &c.,