Tme New Zealand a

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 22, 30 May 1907, Page 21

THE NEW ZEALAND TABLET THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1907. ' A PARIS SENSATION'

tffc|isjfc HRE'E successive French Ministries have comfj!i M frU bined to place .the burglar on a pedestal Sfl ' «&» ainc * d owe * h* m ere - They have made the kit of the ' crib-cracker ' a standing resort fjhaSl^ against the religious faith which .they hate I^%kJ^ and against the political opponents whom \ 4||p ' they dislike. They began the '' Second Reign of Terror ' with the wholesale pluntter of tens of thousands of French citizens, the head and front of whose offending was the Christian faith which they professed and practised. The elephant's trunk can .at will shift a log of teak or pick up a sewing needle. And the regime of French official robbery spared nothing, neithter the great .things nor yet small. It seized the great cathedrals 1 , seminaries, and hosnitals ; but it also stole the reliquary from the altar, pilfered the po!or-box in the aisle,, carried off the eomnitry pastor's laying hen and iron saucepan, ' prigged ' the orphans' soup-spoons and ransacked the clothes-presses of the Sisters of Charity. The larceny of the ambassadorial papers of an independent Sovereign Prince formed a 'fitting finale to the operations of the aggressively atheistic Radical-Socialist ' Bloc ' or c machine ' that now Tammanies lodge-ridden France. The official cracksmen "broke into the residence of Monsignor Montagnini, the representative of the Holy See in Paris ; they stole his private papers and the documents' of the Papal Nunciature to France ; and they concluded the high-handed proceedings by treating the papal representative as a common malefactor, placing him under arrest, an|d bundling him unceremoniously across- the frontier. "~ This illegal outrage upon personal right and inter-" national usage has, however, haid results that Premier Clemenceau, who engineered it, has neither anticipated nor desired. 'Of this, more anon. Even the suborned ' Bloc ' press find it ' dour wark ' to defend or palliate (as an English contemporary remarks) ' the idea of ransacMhg a man's deslc, and that man the guest of a nation '. The seizure of an oppoment's private letters has ever been repellent to British journalism, and ' G-rahamSsing ' could hardfy find even a shamefaced and stammering defender in an indignant House of Commons. Many English newspapers have allowed consideration for the ' entente cordiale ' to sew up their lips in regard to this grave international scandal of the raiding of the Montagnirii desk. A few — happily a very few— have sought to palliate the outrage. -To do

so, they have found it necessa-y to treat facts in a rather drastic way. But ' In vain we call_old notions fudge, And bend our conscience to our dealing, The Ten Comrrandments will not budge, And stealing will continue stealing '. The few British papers that defend the burglary of the Montagnini residence happen to be those that, echoing the ' Bloc '-subsidised ' Matin ', also huzza'd. the regime of plunder and persecution that has been in progress for the past five years in France. That is a circumstance which should make cautious journalists hesitate before accepting their testimony or their Inferences at par. So wideawake a journal as the Christchurch ' Press ' might be reasonably expected to pause and inquire further afield before m-aldng itself, %n regard to the Montagnini affair, their echo. Had our Canterbury contemporary been in possession of the facts, it would, no doubt, have joined, in the general verdict, that M. Clemenceau has committed that which to a French wit) is, in statecraft, worse than a crime— he has beien guilty of a blunder. The burglary at Monsignor Montagnini's house was indeed * A Paris Sensation '. But it was a ' sensation ' or a somewhat different kind from that which -our Christchurch "'contemporary makes it out to be. * ' Every crime has its pretext. «If ye'd turn on the gas in th' darkest heart ', says ' Mr. Dooley ', ' ye'd find it had a good raison for th' worst things It done —a good, varchous raison, Mke needin' th' money, or punish-in' th' wicked, or tachin' people a lesson to toe more careful, or protecting th' liberties iv mankind '. M. Clemenoeau had, of course, -his ' good, varohious raison ' for breaking and entering the MontagnirJi dwelling. Monsignor Montagnini had (he positively declared) instigated three Par-is pastors to violate the Associations Law, and the Holy See was engaged in a ' plot ' to Uestroy the French Republic. The world now knows that both these statements are utterly devoid of foundation. But M. Clemenceau ' needed the money '— he wanted the documents, hoping, no doubt, that something might be dug out of them that might be used as a weapoo of offence against the Vatican. It was a gambler's ' plunge . M. Clemenceau made the ■' plunge ' — to ' protect th' liberties iv mankind '. Burglars in the uniform of the French Republic made a forcible entry into Monsignor Montagnini's residence. They seized and carried away all the papers found therein, and placed them In the possession of M. Clemenceau. Our Christchurch contempora-y says : 'It appears, however, that the seizure was made after relations had been broken off with the Vatican, that the papers taken were such as passed after that event, the diplomatic documents proper having been lodged with the Austrian Ambassador. ' Even that would have been, in good sooth, bad enough. But our contemporary is in error as to some important facts. (1) The private papers and ' the diplomatic documents proper ' were alike stolen. (2) They were read and sorted out by the French Gor eminent, which had no other means of knowing what documents had passed before, and what after, ' relations had been broken off with the Vatican '. (3) The ' diplomatic document proper ' were for a considerable time in the possession of the French Government. And (1)" they were only ' lodged with the Austrian Ambassador ' after the scandal had, so to s>peak, become a diplomatic question of international importance, and the Austrian G-ovemment had officially demanded their surrender. Mdnsignor Mont'agnini's stolen private papers are still in the possession of M. Clemenceau. He waded through injustice and dishonor to secure them. But poetic justice has overtaken him. Another Epimetheus has opened what is for himself another Pandora's box,.

' The view taken by the French Government ', " says the Christchurch • Press ', 'is that Monsignor Monta-g- „ mini was thien ' (after the rupture of diplomatic relations) ' merely a private citizen '. But even in France ' a private citizen ', whether a Frenchman or a foreigner, has some rights that the law recognises and is supposed to" protect. And the papal representative was deified the protection which the law is (on paper) supposed to extend even to one who is ' merely a private citizen '—he was, in a very real sense, outlawed. Here are some extracts from a legal opinion by M. Boyer de Bouillane, an eminent lawyer of the Paris Court of Appeal :— ' When the Government wishes to proceed against a foreigner, two courses are open to it : ' That of the common lajw, according to which the Government prosecutes, arrests, searches, sequestrates, while the accused on his side defends fiffiiself with all the guarantees of liberty granted and prescribed by the law ; after which comes the sentence— if the charge is proved, he is condemned % if not, he fes acquitted ; ( That of the power of " high police ", in which case the Government expels without being obliged to give any explanation ; it expels 1 on the sole ground that the presence odf the foreigner on French soil is disagreeable to it. ' The right of the Government to select between these two courses is incontestable. But what the Government has absolutely no right to do is to combine the two methods of procedure \ In ' applying the two measures simultaneously ' against Monsignor Montagnini, the French Government (says M. Boyer de BoiJillane) ' perpetrates a flagrant illegality, for the prosecution necessarily imiplies tlje right of defence, whereas the expulsion necessarily suppresses it. So true is this ', adds he, ' such a crying abuse has never been committed against anybo/ly before. All the ministerial archives do not contain a single instance of it '. These proceedings (continues this noted legal authority) ' concern anid menace all foreigmers who pass through France or who reside in France. Everybody, no matter what his nationality or what the motive of has presence in France, is liable now not only --to be turned out of the country, but to be subjected to the sejqpestration of his papers, his effects, his bonds, his furniture, without any legal assurance that everything will be returned to him within a given tame '. Here we have the Pecksniffian, champion of ' the liberties iv mankind ' violating one of those elementary laws of civilised nations which are intended to protect ' the liberties iv mankind '. Such pretexts are the unwilling tribute that tyranny pays to justice. But ' We are best of all leid to Men's principles by what they do '. When Roper, the historic forger and coiner, was at last run to: earth, he had a look of .seraphic guilelessniess upo™ his face, and was singing a -hymn from a manuscript that lay before him on a table. The studied theatri- . cality ins the one case did not deceive the agents of justice. Nor> will many be impressed, in the other case, by the now admittedly ungrounded pretexts for illegal violence and outrage upon international law and usage perpetrated by the man who with grim and elephantine humor speaks of Satan as his fajher. 1 m The outrage on the person and propierty of the representative of the Holy See furnished ' A Paris Sensation' of a~ 'suffioi|ejntfiy< npvel' and startling Kind. Another) followed iw swift sequence. This was the publication of what the Parisian press generally agrees to call ' les papiers Montagnini '— tire Montaignini papers. The 'Press' commends the Holy See for its ' wonted wisdom in such matters '. Yet in the oourse of the very same, article it states, as a sheer matter of fact, *that the Holy See authorised the publication ! In other words, it asks its readers -to swallow, without salt, a statement" which, in effect, lays to the charge of the Vatican the sort of lunacy that one expects to find, not at

large, but in_ the padded cell.. Our Christchureto contemporary has apparently been trusting, in good faith but O'vernaich, to the lead of one or two English papers that are needlessly .concerned atfout clearing the French Government of the infamy of pu'blishine; the private and, intimate diaries and correspondence which it had stolen. We are offered no proof, nor the shadow of proof, for the statement that the Vatican authorised the publication, in order (as it is suggested by our Canterbury contemporary) to steal a march on the French Government. The only substitute for evidence that is tendered is this : that M. de Narfon (who is made ' a Roman Catholic journalist ') wrote a series of articles in the ' Figano ' (an Opposition paper) ' giving copious extracts from the impounded ' (i.e. stolen-) '"documents '. Here again our esteemed contemporary has been unhappy in its guides. They apparently bold- with the animated bolt in Kipling's ' A Day's Work '. that ' there is no sense in telling too much truth '. They have been severely economical here in stating the thing that is. Why was the ' Figaro ' alone singled out for honorable (or dishonorable) mention ? And why was it made to appear, by implication, a clerical journal, or one conducted in the Vatican interest ? And why were nof the public told a fact that is notorious to every one who dips, as we do, into the Paris secular press : namely, that ' the copious extracts ' which appeared in the ' Figaro,' and copious other extracts from the same diary and correspondence which did not appear in the 1 Figaro,' were published by newspapers of every political hue all over Paris? Here is a partial list both of Government and Opposition organs in which various bundles of the ' impounded documents ' appeared : The ' Matin ' (a paid Government organ), the ' Autorite,' the ' Gaulois,' - the ' Journal,' the ' Petit Parisien,' the ' Petite Republique,' the ' Messidor,' and the ' Libre Parole.' 'Is it suggested,' asks an English contemporary, ' that the papal agent, besides treasuring his correspondence and leaving it at home, also took copies and kept them elsewhere ? Are we to believe that he even kept his diary in duplicate, so that when M. Clemenceau stole the original, he was able to present a copy to the " Figaro " ? Passing that monstrous absurdity, is ~it likely that he would have offered copies of ( his letters to the " Matin," an official organ of. the very Government that had robbed him ?' £ s a There is a much simpler explanation. We give it in the words of the London ' Tablet ' of April 13 :— 'M. Clemenceau stole the letters and diary. Most of them were in Latin or Italian. M. Clemenceau wanted them translated,- and his venal hirelings sold the work to the press of Paris, and with fine impartiality let some appear in the " Figaro " and some in the "Matin" and the rest elsewhere. At any rate this is the only hypothesis which fits the facts, and it holds the fiei'd. ... ' We do not for a_ moment suspect M. Clemenceau of being immediately responsible for the publication of Monsignor Montagoiini's correspondence. The poor man had no idea what was in it when he gave it out for translation. Then the comic thing happened. His staff, emancipated as he would wish them lo be from any religious scruples, found they had gat a little goldmane—a correspondence in which their chief appeared as a politician whose soul was for sale. Naturally the opportunity was understood and seized ; they' stole from the thief, and the news was- hawked on the boulevard's. Paris grinned ; the Minister had been" at su(Ch pain® to facilitate this presentment of himself • he had stolen the letters- that contained it. But the laughter was longer and louder next day. when it w a s found that M. Clemenceau felt that the accusation was so serious, that so many of his countrymen who knew him would believe it true, that he was constrained to issue a formal .contradiction and explain i a v ? 7 a £. not *° be Purchased. The courage which had helped him to steal a priest's letters failed him now. Buit that was not all-his intelligence failed him also. His letter of denial was an admission ttfat in the opinion of his oountrymen, he was caoable of accepting a bribe. And so far, perhaps, has' intelligence served ham well ; but surely he ought to have ™s 0

understood that the men who believed him ready to change his policy for a price would be Likely to think him capable of covering the deal with a lie. The moral of the whole business seems to be" this—it is safer not to steal private letters from a guest, but if you do, it is only prudent to look through them yourself before handing them out in bundles to your staff to be translated.' Were such an outrage as that directed on the papal representative been committed in private life, the perpetrator would be sent ' in locum suum '—to cool his heels in gaol. Had it been committed against the representative of a Power with a sufficient army and navy, the French Republic would have been promptly placed between the alternatives of ample, and even abject reparation or war. The- result of the ' coup ' has, however, been a bitter disillusion to the thieves who raided the Monsignor's residence. A Commission was appointed by the Chamber of Deputies to examine the papers and' determine which, if any, of them are worth publishing. But in the meantime copies of the ' sealed ' papers have been published (fas stated) in every newspaper in Paris. Prance's sfdes are aching with laughter at the expense of the Commission. And not a scrap of evidence has been discovered to sustain the false pretence on which M. Cjemenceau used the magsman's ' jemmy ' to fprce open the desk of Monsignor Montagnini. Two of the three pastors were acquitted. And on the day ol the trial of the third (says the ' Journal des Debats ') ' the Public Prosecutor is forced to confess that nothing whatever affecting the prisoner has been discovered ' (in the Montagnini papers), ' and that not a line of the numerous compilations refers to him.' M. de Narfon " (referred to above) went through 1850 of the stolen documents, and declared that there is amongst them ' No document of a nature seiiously to compromise the Holy See, which, far from lending its support to any enterprise against Republican institutions, was, on the contrary, very anxious to see the Catholics place themselves on the constitutional basis demanded by Leo XIII.' ' Rome ', an its issue of April 6, gives very grave grounds for the conviction that at least one of the stolen documents has been tampered with by the ' Matin '-—in the way that one expects of the ' Matin '. But the net resi.it of ' Ihe Montagnini Bubble ' is this: mutatis mutan^ib, the public are in possession of the usual kiiid of private diplomatic documents, such as the student of history is familiar with in scores of published volumes, including the recent Hohenlohe Memoirs. The Montagnini papers contain his piivate opinions^about various personages that are more or less known or unknown. They likewise give the vdews of some diplomatist's 1 (or the Monsig/nor"s nnpressidns of their views) about the war against religion in Fiance. These views (if rightly set forth) do them much credit. But their publication naturally created an embarrassing situation, for which the British and other Ambassadors will not be grateful to M. Clemenceau and the venal ' casuab ' (not official experts) to whom hie entrusted the work of translation. As to the diplomatic disclaimers which ensued, each reader will take them for whatever he may consider theim worth. « Here is ' a curious reflection ' which suggests itself to an Italian contemporary :— 1 Clemenceau has bro'.ren out into a passion of invective simply because the Montagnini papers ! have revealed that some persons suspected him of being venal. Yet he shows no anger or shame— to say nothing of compunction— 'in face of the naked fact, now proved before the whole world, that he had these sheaves of worthless papers sequestrated on absolutely false pretences '. Catholics may well rejoice at the manner in which the Holy See stands vindicated of the ' faked ' charges which were made the pretext of the now historic Paris burglary. But there is one lesson conveyed by the inci-

dent which is not likely soon to be forgotten in diplomatic circles. It is thus expressed by one of our Continental contemporaries : ' That neither the private papers nor the private conversations of diplomats or political adversaries are safe (in France from violence and treachery while Clemcnciau and men of 'his type are allowed to rule. To-day it happens that the victim of the new political morality in France is the Church ; to-morrow it may be Germany or England or the United States '.