Religious Freedom in Germany.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 11635, 16 March 1901, Page 5 (Supplement)

Religious Freedom in Germany.

The Germcn Reichstag was occupied on December 5 (the Berlin correspondent of the London Times says) with the debate on the first reading of a toleration bill brought in by the Centre or Clerical party. The bill seeks to secure com- J pletc religious freedom for all German subjects.. In agreement with its provisions, religious bodies which are recognised by any of the German Governments would be entitled to practise their , religion without let or hindrance through- { out the whole Empire. All limitations placed upon the dispensation of the Sacrament and upon religious propa- ' ganda by the laws of particular States would be abolished. Religious societies (orders) would not require to obtain special permission for their foundation or for the exercise of their functions. This last provision involves, of course, the repeal of the law against the Jesuits. | Motions in favour of repealing the exclusion of that order from Germany have frequently been passed by the Reichstag, but have consistently been rejected by the Federal Council. The Clerical proposals have been adversely criticised by the press organs of most of the other parties... as an unconstitutional interference^with the rights of tho Govern- ' ments $t the separate German States, ' and as an infringement of the federal _ character of the German Empire, upon which tbo Centre party itself has hitherto laid so much stress. „ • Before the debate began the Imperial Chancellor, Count von Bulow, made a declaration on behalf of the Federal Government. It was the custom of the Federal Council to wait until the Reichstag had passed a private bill before deciding whether it should be accepted or not. But the measure before the House affected tho conscience of the German people, and was so important that the Government thought it necessary at once to define its attitude. The Federal Government respected the convictions and the feelings which had Compelled Dr. Lieber and his party to bring in this bill. They were, however, uqable to accept it, because it placed limitations upon the constitutional independence of tho Federal States in a sphere which must remain within the legislative competence of their Governments. Count von Bulow went on to say that, personally, he was entirely in favour of the equal treatment of religious bodies, and that he hoped the religious inequalities which might exist in some of the German States would disappear. It was, however, his first duty to

see that the federal character of the Empire and the autonomy of the separnte States — so far as they were guaranteed by Imperial legislation — were not infringed without the consent of the separate Governments. He regarded it aa his highest duty to maintain undiminished the confidence which the Federal States reposed in the Imperial authority, and he trusted that the Reichstag would support him in that view. Dr. Lieber replied, and expressed the regret of his party that the Federal Council had not even waited to hear the arguments in favour of the bill before announcing that they could not accept it. He demanded that the measures should be referred to a committee of 28 members fo" discussion in detail. Dr. Lieber went on to complain of the way in which Catholics were treated in Saxony, in Mecklenburg, and in Brunswick. The bill before the House was not unconstitutional. The law against the Jesuits, against which Jie game formal argument could be urged as against the toleration bill, had been brought in by the Government and passed by the Reichstag. After a long discussion, in which representatives of all parties defined their attitude towards the bill,' it was referred to a committee of 28 members for further consideration. During the debate the Saxon, Mecklenburg, and Brunswick plenipotentiaries on the Federal Council replied to the charges of iatoleranoe which had been brought against their Governments.