It does not seem to me worth while to translate the first of these two
papers, as the issue involved was quite limited, and the broader deductions
of the government on which to base a rule of uniform action are embodied in
the second order, of which I have prepared a careful translation for your
perusal, which is hereto appended with the original.
The discussion in the press has been for some time working up to the point
now reached, although on a rather narrow footing. The general principle of
toleration as one of the bases of modern society seemed to be overlooked,
and the debate went on as though the issue was whether or no English
subjects (who are mainly interested in the question) had any right to claim
toleration on the ground of like or superior toleration in England. In this
aspect of the question, the Politica two nights ago triumphantly disposed of
the argument by reprinting in English the text of the proclamation of the
Queen, dated June 15, 1852, prohibiting wearing of religious habits, or the
performance of any religious ceremony or demonstration, by the Eoman
Catholic clergy or people in the streets.
The royal order now published by Mr. Cánovas accomplishes one marked result,
in completely separating the church from the school-house; and while
conceding to the former full inviolability and even protection within its
walls, it brings the latter under the secular working of the existing
educational acts. This result was a logical necessity of the issue presented
at Mahon. The governor of that city, or rather, to give him his right title,
the subgovernor of the island of Minorca, was charged with having entered a
hall in which a number of dissenters were assembled on a week-day evening,
and having commanded that singing then in progress should cease. The point
on which the whole
[Page 483]
question turned
was whether the hall in dispute was used for the secular purpose of
instruction or for the religious purpose of worship; and the royal order
annexed decides that it was not a church, but a schoolroom ) that the
singing complained of was not religious, but merely a mnemonic device for
fixing the multiplication-table and verbal conjugations on the minds of the
pupils; and that the subgovernor had not infringed any law or acted
unconstitutionally in doing as he did.
The circular of Mr. Cánovas, explanatory of the much controverted eleventh
article of the constitution, may certainly be deemed to go as far in the
direction of guaranteeing absolute inviolability for the dissenting church
and cemetery as the language of the eleventh article can possibly stretch.
The principle of religious propaganda, as doctrinal diffusion of ideas,
comes, as Mr. Alonso Martinez has shown, (see my No. 344,) under a separate
constitutional provision; and we now see that religious propaganda in the
form of public instruction is brought within still another article, leaving
the eleventh article to stand alone as simply securing freedom of religious
opinion and of worship, and no more.
It remains to be seen how this decision of the government will affect the
work of the evangelical establishments in Spain. Many of them, especially in
the smaller towns, have the schemes of worship, instruction, and propaganda
inextricably combined, one room serving alike for a chapel, for a
school-room, and as a place of meeting for a lecture or some like secular
social purpose. On the one hand, the local authority can hardly be expected
to know at any precise day or hour whether such an apartment is clothed with
constitutional inviolability or not; on the other, to confine the use of
such room to the one specific purpose of worship would bear heavily on the
poorer missions in the provinces.
In the cities, however, it would not be regretable if the whole matter should
end by requiring the construction of decent church-edifices, templos in fact as well as in name, for dissenting
worship—buildings whose outward form and specific use would leave no room
for controversy, and the establishment of which in Spain would mark an era
of permanence for the evangelical movement, which now rests on so feeble a
native basis.
[Inclosure.—Translation.]
Circular royal order, regulating religious liberty
and non-Catholic worship in Spain.
[From the Gaceta de Madrid, October 24, 1876.]
circular.
The natural difficulties which have arisen in the application of the
eleventh article of the fundamental law of the state, as they do in that
of any new legal text; the charges brought against a public officer,
which have been the subject of administrative investigation, and are
decided by a royal order of this date, and the various reclamations
which, in distinct sense and concerning events occurring in the practice
of the rights embodied in that article, are being presented from
different cities and localities to the government of His Majesty, impose
upon the latter the imperative duty of issuing certain rules in
conformity with the existing legislation of the kingdom.
The government of His Majesty is determined that the letter and spirit of
the eleventh article of the fundamental code shall be respected and
obeyed by all; its understanding is that the first and second paragraphs
of that article can afford no good ground of doubt to anyone; and that
the Catholic Eom an apostolic religion being proclaimed in the one as
official, in the other are respected the religious opinions of all those
who dwell outside the pale of that church, and the exercise of any other
worship
[Page 484]
is permitted which
does not oppose or contradict Christian morality. It is very clear
consequently, that the state protects the Catholic religion, for it is
its own, but that at the same time it admits and establishes the
tolerance of worship, guaranteeing the exercise of that right against
every form of aggression.
The government, however, is not unaware that the third paragraph of the
eleventh constitutional article has given rise in practice to doubts and
vacillations, which are not referable to the word ceremonies, the genuine sense of which cannot be obscured, but
to the phrase public manifestations. It should be
remembered, nevertheless, that in discussing the constitutional precepts
before the Cortes, the meaning which was to be given to the phrase in
question was declared, now spontaneously, now in response to concrete
questions put in the exercise of their right by the representatives of
the nation. This recollection may serve to dispel any groundless
censures on the score of inconsistency or arbitrariness which may be
leveled against the governmental measures now adopted, if they turn out
to be in harmony with the declarations made in the constitutional
discussion referred to.
This is not the first time that the governmental authorities and the
tribunals of justice have been obliged to give correct interpretation to
the phrase public manifestations. The existing
penal code, reformed on the 18th of June, 1870, frequently makes use of
it; and in punishing, in its one hundred and sixty-eighth article, a
certain class of public manifestations, it considers as promoters and
directors of the same all those who, by means of discourses, printed documents, mottoes, flags, or other signs
openly exhibited by them, or by any other acts, inspire them.
It cannot be denied, therefore, that the penal law, without confusing a
meeting with a manifestation, interprets the latter in a broad sense, and
seeks its essence in words, printed matter, mottoes, flags, and other
signs which are made use of in order to realize it. In virtue of this
interpretation, there have been prohibited in Spain, since that penal
legislation is in force, mottoes and public inscriptions alluding to
forms of government distinct from that at present existing, and there
are political parties without the fold of the common legality solely by
reason of the name they choose to give themselves.
And even setting aside the penal code, it is sufficient to resort to the
dictionary of the language, prepared by the learned academy which in
Spain watches over the purity and precision of our tongue, in order to
know that a public religious manifestation is any
act which, setting out from the closed precincts of the private
dwelling, of the temple, or of the cemetery, “declares, brings to light, or causes to be known that which is kept
or concealed within them.”
From this point the government sets out with the belief, with as much
good faith as firmness, that everything which may manifest in or upon
the public way the opinions, beliefs, or religious ideas of the
dissident sects, or which may make known in the same form the acts
relating to their respective worship, ought to be prohibited, and cannot
be authorized or tolerated by the authorities charged with guarding the
constitution of the state.
In professing this doctrine the government which to-day rules the
destinies of the kingdom, is certainly not an exception on so important
a point. In one of the countries which at the present day sets the
highest price upon religious liberty, where not merely tolerance is
proclaimed, but where it is pretended to guarantee the absolute liberty
of all worships, and especially of the Catholic worship, yet for high
national and international reasons there are, nevertheless, forbidden
certain public manifestations which are very ancient and firmly rooted
as customs, believing that if, on the one hand, governments are
constrained to permit the full exercise of religious liberty, it is
their duty, on the other hand, to scrupulously foresee, not only the
care of morality and health, but also the maintenance of public order,
preventing agitations among their citizens which find motives or
pretexts in any religious act performed outside the temples.
There is also a nation, and one of the most free, which, taking into
account the beliefs of the majority of its citizens, and even the
interest of those who profess other and diverse beliefs, does not allow
the members of the dissident churches, whether alone or accompanied, to
wear outside of their churches the garb peculiar to their religion, to
practice their rites and ceremonies, nor to carry banners, objects, or
symbols of any kind in the public way, and considering it a punishable
act when such proceeding takes place in the neighborhood of temples
dedicated to the service of the official religion. Such acts, performed
outside of private houses, of cemeteries, or of temples especially
destined for worship, are looked upon there as the occasion of great
scandal and of vexation for the majority—as an evident peril for the
public peace—and are energetically repressed.
In the interpretation of the constitutional article in question, the
government of the King does not propose to itself any different course
from the foregoing. It demands from the dissident sects, and in favor of
the official religion of the state, the respect and the consideration
which the penal code exacts for the form of government, which is
likewise the expression of the will of the immense majority of the
country, in such manner that everything which directly and in the
outward parts of the public way (or
[Page 485]
streets) may be contrary to the Roman Apostolic
Catholic religion must be proscribed, whether the same be done by
personal acts, or by emblems, inscriptions, advertisements, and other
signs.
But in order to exactly determine the limit which separates the lawful
from the unlawful, in order that the inviolability of the places
destined for the worship of those sects, so long as they do not attack
Christian morality, may be maintained in their shelter, those who
profess those doctrines may freely devote themselves to the exercise of
the right guaranteed in the constitutional precept; and in order,
moreover, that, under pretext of religious meetings or associations,
there be not constituted political organizations contrary to the
security of the state and to the maintenance of social order, it is
necessary that the public administration should know where to find the
places of worship, (templos,) and who they are
who direct, control, or represent them. It is indispensable, therefore,
that every Spaniard or foreigner about to open a temple consecrated to a
religion diverse from the Catholic, and which may come within the 11th
article of the constitution, shall give knowledge thereof to the civil
governors in the capitals of provinces, to the subgovernors in those
towns where this class of authorities act, and to the alcaldes in other
parts of the kingdom. Neither the ones nor the others should nor can
forget that the constitutional inviolability of the temple only
guarantees acts, rites, and ceremonies which are purely religious, since
for all other purposes, not only the ministers of any worship, whatever
it may be, but also those congregated within the precincts destined for
its practice, are subject to the laws of police and of hygiene
established by ordinances and regulations, and must be responsible for
the faults and offenses which may be committed within those precincts,
and especially by reason of their political nature, for those
comprehended in articles 144, 145, 181, 182, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202,
203, and 271 of the penal code.
There is, moreover, in this so very important a matter, a point
concerning which the government of His Majesty must express its frank
and resolute opinion. The lamentable confusion which, in some parts, it
has been sought to introduce between the temple, devoted to worship, and
the school, destined for teaching, cannot be in any manner allowed. The
temple is inviolable, according to the eleventh article of the
constitution; the school is submitted to the inspection, vigilance, and
correction of the government and of its delegates, according to the
seventh article of the decree of July 29, 1874, regulating the liberty
of instruction; and those governmental powers would be illusory if the
professor could invoke the inviolability of the priest, and convert at
his pleasure into a church the hall wherein he assembles his pupils in
order to instruct them in literature, arts, or sciences. Religion is the
object of the eleventh constitutional article; instruction, of that of
the twelfth article. The effects of the two precepts are distinct, as is
the nature of the rights they guarantee, and, in order to carry out
those effects and respect those rights, it is indispensable to fix with
clearness the line of division between the temple and the school. If
there be any one who may endeavor to excite controversies under cover of
an inexplicable confusion, the prudence of the government must avoid
them.
On the other hand, the free exercise of worship is recognized in Spain to
all inhabitants thereof, without distinction between natives and
foreigners; but the same thing does not occur with respect to the
liberty of instruction, a possession which is assured only to Spaniards
in the twelfth article of the constitution. Reasons of state, which
cannot but be evident to all, have obliged the Spanish law-makers of
every epoch, including those of the most liberal ideas, to make the
national character a requisite for the foundation or creation of
establishments of instruction, because it was impossible to consign to
the hands of strangers the sacred trust of the future generations who
bear in their consciences and in their understandings the future of our
country. Thus it is that, not only for the foundation of schools and
establishments of instruction, but even for the mere entrance into the
professorate of Spain, it has been necessary for the laws of public
instruction to give especial authorization to foreigners, as was the
case in the law of 1857, which only empowered them to teach the living
languages aid to give lessons in vocal and instrumental music. It
should, therefore, be particularly borne in mind by the authorities that
foreigners cannot be at the head of establishments of instruction,
whether public or private, because this is not permitted by the
fundamental code by reasons of grave considerations of high political
interest.
After this there only remains one last admonition to make in order to
complete the design of the government. The latter understands, and
proposes to act in accordance with its understanding, that outside of
the temple, which is inviolable so long as no punishable offense be
committed therein, and outside of other establishments authorized for
the purpose by special order, all meetings which may be held, whatever
may be their character and the ends proposed, remain subject to the
first rule of the royal order of February 7, 1875, which prescribes
“that there shall not be allowed the convocation or celebration of any
public meeting in streets, squares, or promenades or other place of
common use, without the previous permission, in writing, of the governor
of the province in the capitals, and of the local authority in other
towns.” If, perchance, therefore, any such meetings be held without
previously soliciting and obtaining
[Page 486]
the permission of the authority, it can be
dissolved forthwith as unlawful, and its authors handed over to the
courts of justice. No one can stigmatize this measure as unjust, because
it would be folly to demand of the government that it should grant to
the very small minority, as the dissenters are, that which it cannot
concede to Catholics, who constitute almost the totality of Spanish
citizens.
In this manner are fully explained the purposes of the government on the
points to which, directly or indirectly, the eleventh article of the
constitution maybe applicable; and such must be the interpretation to
which must be adjusted the conduct of the authorities and functionaries
to whom its compliance appertains. And in order that they may know more
clearly still what they are to obey, and that there be no room for
disculpation through allegation of unfounded vagueness in the
instructions contained in this circular, they are hereinafter condensed
in precise and concrete rules, namely:
- 1st.
- There is hereby prohibited, from this date, every public
manifestation of worship or of sects dissenting from the
Catholic religion outside of the precincts of the temple or the
cemetery of the same.
- 2d.
- For the effects of the preceding rule shall be understood as a
public manifestation every act executed upon the public way or
upon the outer walls of the temple and of the cemetery, which
may denote (que dé á conocer) the
ceremonies, rites, uses, and customs of the dissenting worship,
whether it be by means of processions, or of signboards,
banners, emblems, announcements, and posters.
- 3d.
- Those who found, construct, or open a temple or a cemetery,
destined for the worship or interment of a dissenting sect,
shall bring the same to the knowledge of the governor of the
province in a capital, of the subgovernor in places where such
an authority resides, or of the alcaldes in the other towns,
forty-eight hours before opening them to the public, stating the
name of the director, rector, or person in charge of the
establishment.
- A like notice will have to be given, if it have not already
been done, and within a period of fifteen days, counting from
this date, by the founders or persons in charge of the temples
and cemeteries in existence at the present time.
- 4th.
- The schools dedicated to instruction will perform their
functions independently of the temples, whatever be the worship
to which the latter belong, and they shall be considered as
separate therefrom for all legal effects.
- The directors or persons in charge of the same must be
Spaniards, and they shall bring to the cognizance of the
authorities to whom the foregoing rule refers the object of the
instruction, their names and academic degrees, if they possess
such, and those of the professors in whose charge the several
chairs (or branches of study) may be.
- 5th.
- The meetings held within the temples and cemeteries, as well
dissenting as Catholic, shall enjoy the constitutional
inviolability, provided there be not expressly contravened
thereat the ordinances and regulations of police, or that there
be not committed any of the offenses comprehended in and
punished by the penal code.
- 6th.
- The schools and educational establishments, without
distinction of worship, (or religion,) shall continue subject to
the constant inspection and intervention of the government, in
conformity with the precepts contained in the decree of July 29,
1874.
- 7th.
- The meetings which may be held outside of the temple and of
other places and establishments authorized for such purpose by
special order shall remain subject to the royal order of the 7th
February, 1875; and if for their convocation or celebration
there be not solicited and obtained the previous permission of
the authority in writing, they can be dissolved as unlawful on
the spot by the governor, subgovernor, or alcalde, respectively,
who shall deliver those who convoke or preside such meetings to
the disposal of the tribunals of justice.
By royal order accorded in council of ministers, I communicate this to
you for its publication in the official bulletin of your province, and
for its exact fulfillment.
May God guard you many years.
Madrid, October 23,
1876.
CÁNOVAS.
Señnor Civil Governor of the Province
of–––.
