FRANCE. 



Pope, showing that the scheme was intended 

 to swamp the university by a number of mem- 

 bers not belonging to it, in order to increase 

 the influence of the clergy in education. Sev- 

 eral members of the Right objected to the read- 

 ing of this document ; and, after it had been 

 read, a Senator asked who were its authors, to 

 which M. Jules Ferry said, " I have no doubt 

 M. de Falloux and Monsignore Dupanloup." On 

 January 27th a powerful speech was made 

 against the bill by M. Laboulaye, who said that 

 he was opposed to constant state interference 

 in matters of education, and that the present 

 measure did not suppress liberty, but virtually 

 strangled it. He thought that by such bills 

 the Republicans were paving the way for a 

 dictatorship. M. Jules Ferry spoke again in 

 favor of his bill on January SOth. He said 

 that the bishops were excluded from the pro- 

 posed Council because they had all joined the 

 Ultramontane party. Mr. Jules Simon opposed 

 the bill, and contended that the principle of 

 free instruction should be fairly represented in 

 the Council. An amendment, moved by M. 

 Delsol, in favor of giving the bishops and others 

 seats in the Council, was rejected by 147 to 122 

 votes. On February 14th the Senate, by 162 

 votes to 126, gave a second and final reading 

 to the bill. On February 19th the bill was 

 returned to the Chamber of Deputies, which 

 on February 21st agreed to the senatorial 

 amendments. On February 28th the bill was 

 promulgated in the official journal. 



The discussion of the second of the two 

 educational bills of M. Jules Ferry, concern- 

 ing the liberty of education, was begun in the 

 Senate on February 23d. M. Chesnelong spoke 

 against the bill from the Catholic point of view, 

 maintaining that there is only one genuine kind 

 of education, which is imparted by the Church, 

 and most effectually by the religious orders. 

 M. Pelletan, a member of the Left, made a 

 vehement attack upon the Jesuits, and argued 

 that the question at issue was not one of le- 

 gality but of freedom. M. Dufournal, in speak- 

 ing against the bill, was threatened with a call 

 to order for a reference to M. Ferry's civil 

 marriage, bat he disclaimed any offensive inten- 

 tion. M. Jules Simon spoke against the bill, 

 and maintained that clause seven, which ex- 

 cludes members of religious bodies not recog- 

 nized by the state from the right of teaching 

 in the schools, infringed the freedom of educa- 

 tion. The general debate was then closed, and 

 the discussion of the clauses began. On Febru- 

 ary 28th, M. Eymard Duvernay, of the Repub- 

 lican Left, proposed a counter- project. He ob- 

 jected to higher education in any but state 

 schools, but proposed a similar system to the 

 German privatdocenten. He also demanded 

 that Article VII should be struck out of the 

 bill. The scheme was, after some discussion, 

 withdrawn. On March 1st, Article I, which 

 suppresses the mixed juries, with whom the 

 conferring of degrees formerly rested, and re- 

 stores that right to the state, was adopted after 



the amendment of M. Brun maintaining the old 

 system had been rejected by 172 votes to 103. 

 The Chamber then passed Articles II and III, 

 the latter of which abolishes the fees paid by 

 students on entering state colleges, and con- 

 cluded by approving Articles IV, V, and VI. 

 According to Article IV, the law recognizes 

 two classes of schools of superior education : 

 1. Schools or groups of schools which are 

 founded or supported by communities or the 

 state, and which are called universities, facul- 

 ties, or public schools; 2. Schools which are 

 founded or supported by individuals or by so- 

 cieties, and which are not allowed to bear any 

 other name than that of free schools. Article 

 V provides that the titles of professor, doctor, 

 licentiate, and baccalaureus, can only be be- 

 stowed upon those who have acquired them 

 by passing the prescribed examination before 

 the state faculties. According to Article VI, 

 the opening of special courses of instruction 

 is exclusively regulated by the law of July 12, 

 1875. The most controverted article was Arti- 

 cle VII, which has already been referred to. 

 M. Bertauld, on March 5th, spoke strongly in 

 favor of the measure, contending that the 

 Jesuits had no legal right of existence, and 

 ought to be excluded from the rights and privi- 

 leges of French citizens. M. de Gavardie, after 

 shaking his fist at M. Bertauld, and being called 

 to order, continued to speak in very violent 

 terms, and the President for some time was 

 unable to restore order. M. Jules Ferry sub- 

 sequently spoke in support of the measure, 

 which he maintained was based on principles 

 of public policy. He said that the Jesuits were 

 in permanent conspiracy against the state, and 

 that their position in France had always been 

 illegal. He condemned the education given by 

 the Jesuits, and gave quotations from several 

 books, the teaching of which he regarded as 

 dangerous and hostile to the established insti- 

 tutions of the country. 



M. Jules Sirnon followed on the other side. 

 He said that from the outset he had intended 

 to oppose Article VII of the bill, but now it 

 had become a question of defending the prin- 

 ciple of liberty. The time had come for the 

 country to know whether freedom was to con- 

 tinue to prevail in France or not. The law 

 proposed by the Government was both useless 

 and impolitic, and he reminded the House of 

 the answer given by Henry IV to the university 

 professors who complained of the success of the 

 Jesuits namely, " Make your schools better 

 than theirs, and the pupils will come back to 

 you." M. Simon concluded by saying it was 

 by means of liberty that the Catholic Church 

 must be combated. The Minister-President, 

 M. de Freycinet, defended clause seven against 

 M. Jules Simon, and maintained that it in no 

 way violated liberty. A deep impression was 

 made by the aged Dufaure, who is at the same 

 time one of the honored champions of a repub- 

 lican form of government and a devoted mem- 

 ber of the Catholic Church. He declared that 



