and other benevolent associations. M. Lafontaine is a lawyer of eminence.

After three hours deliberation, the Court-consisting of seven judges, none of them Protestants, we believe-through the President, M. Vilneau, discharged the appellants from the sentence and the accusation of the tribunal below. We give the material points in this decision, because of its great importance, and because of the clear view it takes of the subject.

The Charter, the Court say, "has not had for its object to protect only the liberty of opinion and belief, which, shut up in the impenetrable sanctuary of the conscience, escapes from the dominion of human laws; but to assure well the free manifestation of this belief, by words or external acts that is to say, by the performance of certain practices or ceremonies. Religious liberty, indeed, like all our political liberties, is submitted to the necessities of social order; for the purpose even of its conservation, this liberty has need of the surveillance of the temporal authority; but that surveillance, intended to repress the abuse of right, ought not to impede, nor, above all, prevent its exercise. Hence by the law of the 7th Vendémiaire a previous declaration must be made to the civil authorities, that they may adopt those measures of police and safety which they may deem necessary."

"The Penal Code of 1810, carrying this requirement still further in Arts. 291 and 294, has, it is true, rendered the existence of associations, whose intention is to occupy themselves with religious matters, subject to the consent of the Government; but these restrictive enactments are irreconcilable with the right, clearly understood, of professing freely one's religion. In effect, to admit, in this case, the necessity for the citizens to ask the consent of the Government, would be to recognise in it the power to refuse, and by consequence, render illusory one of the most precious rights of man. The necessary consequence of the incompatibility between Art. 5 of the Social Pact (the Charter) and Art. 291 etc. of the Penal Code, is, conformably to the Art. 70 of the Charter, the virtual abrogation of the last mentioned enactments, in all that relates to the performance of religious worship."

"It is vainly desired to apply to this cause the law of

April 10th, 1834. In effect, that law was only intended to prohibit associations, properly so called, resulting from an agreement between the persons associated, and whose object or pretext might be to occupy themselves with theories or religious controversies; but it was evidently not intended to touch the simple assembling of individuals, united by the same Religious sentiment and for the performance of religious worship. This interpretation results from the discussion in the legislative body, particularly from the formal declaration of the Minister of Religion-a declaration which led to the rejection of the amendments proposed as superfluous and useless."

Many Protestants had attended this trial, deeply interested in its successive proceedings. At its close, as soon as the judges had retired, the pastors who had heard the judg ment of the Court, weeping from joy and gratitude, rushed into each other's arms. The emotion was general; neither Catholics nor Protestants could restrain their feelings.The next day, a deputation of the pastors and elders waited on M. Lafontaine, to express to him their gratitude for his zeal in defence of religious liberty. A solemn thanks giving service was held in the temple at Orleans. The promises of the Lord to those who should be brought before civil tribunals, (Mat. 10: 16-20,) the intervention of Gamaliel in favor of the Apostles, the precepts of Paul on the duties of Christians to magistrates, (Rom. 13,) and David's song of thanksgiving, (Ps. 95: 1-7,) were read; and hymns were sung expressing confidence, gratitude and joy. The impression left on the heart was sweet, solemn and edifying.

From this decision, the Procureur Général of the Royal Court of Orleans appealed to the Court of Cassation. The trial before that Court continued from April 7, to April 12, 1838. M. Bresson, a counsellor, made a report on the memorial of the case, which had been prepared and published by Count Julius Delaborde-advocate for Messrs. Doine and Lemaire-and on the argument of the Procureur Général of the Royal Court of Orleans. After this, the court was addressed at length by M. Delaborde in behalf of the accused, and by M. Dupin, in behalf of the State. A large concourse of persons attended the trial.

Lord Brougham, who had arrived from England the night before, was present during the whole of it.*

The arguments of Messrs. Delaborde and Dupin, which unquestionably display great ability, have been written out and published, together with the memorial of the former, in a volume which constitutes the sequel to the trial at Orleans. But M. Dupin, we are sorry to say, greatly disappointed the friends of religious liberty. For many years-though nominally, and for aught we know, from conviction, a Roman Catholic-he had distinguished himself as the advocate of the chartered rights of the Protestants. In the affair of Poizot, he demonstrated the absurdity of granting liberty of worship in theory, and denying the means of enjoying it. His address before the Court of Cassation, in the case of M. Oster, was remarkably candid and just. But on the present occasion, with his great powers, and his almost boundless resources of legal knowledge, he stooped to play the part of a special pleader and obsequious sycophant.

The strongest argument of M. Dupin, and that on which he laid great stress, in favor of governmental interference with religious worship, was, that without this right, Paganism, and even the mysteries of Isis, might be introduced; and that, in no other way could immoralities be prevented in meetings held professedly for religious purposes. He held up the case of the St. Simonians, and the Jesuits--that sword whose handle is in Rome, but whose point is everywhere. But the answer to all this is exceedingly simple. There is not a Protestant in France, who would object to the closing of meetings held professedly for religious worship, but in reality, for political objects or immoral practices. It was on this ground, that the Government chased away the St. Simonians. They were propagating doctrines which, like those of Owen and the Socialists in England, and Frances Wright and others in America, were subversive of society. As to the Jesuits, they were suppressed during M. Casimir Perrier's administration, in 1832, because they were secretly laboring to overthrow the Government. But the Protestants desire to worship, and edify each other in pub

He took his seat beside his friend and admirer, M. Dupin, and evidently felt the deepest interest in the result.

lic. They not only consent to comply with the law of 7th Vendémiaire, but they even solicit the presence of the municipal agents at their meetings, to assure themselves that nothing improper is said or done. Nearly all the persons who have been hindered in their attempts to hold meetings, and instruct the people, teach the doctrines of communions, acknowledged and supported by the State; nay, they belong to those communions, and have been properly accredited to perform the very work, for attempting which they were arrested and condemned. This was the case with M. Oster, and with Messrs. Doine and Lemaire. The law of the 7th Vendémiaire was sufficient; and with it, Protestants, and Catholics too, so far as we know, were satisfied.

But we hasten to the decision of the Court. The Chamber, or branch of the tribunal before which the case was tried, consists of fourteen or fifteen judges. Their opinions were divided; twelve being in favor of the judgment pronounced, and two against it. The appeal was rejected, and the accused were discharged, on the ground, that the meetings held by them were not connected with any "association of more than twenty persons," but "were formed spontaneously, without being arranged and concerted beforehand." At the same time, principles were laid down which are utterly at variance with the rights of Protestants. But we will give the leading points of this decision.

"Religious liberty," the Court say, "consecrated and, guarantied by the Charter, has neither excluded the surveillance of the public authorities, over the meetings which have for their object the performance of worship, nor the measures of police and of safety, without which that surveillance could not be efficacious. Art. 5. accords with the necessity of obtaining the authorization of the Government in the cases contemplated by Art. 291 of the Code. The public order and peace might be compromised, if particular associations, formed in the bosom of different religious sects, or making a pretext of religion, might, without the permission of the Government, erect a pulpit or elevate an altar everywhere.

"The Organic Articles do not permit any part of France to be erected into a parish or sub-parish; or any domestic chapel, or any particular oratory to be established without an express authorization from the Government.

"The free exercise of the religion professed by the ma

jority of the French, ought to confine itself to these limits; it is subjected to these restrictions; the Organic Articles of the Protestant worship display them under the forms appropriate to that worship; and Arts. 291 and 294 of the Code contain only analogous enactments.

"The law of the 7th Vendémiaire, irreconcilable in the greatest part of its enactments with that of the 18th Germinal, relative to the organization of public worship, and deciding on matters which have since been regulated by the Code, is, by the terms of Art. 484, necessarily abrogated. At most, the surveillance and intervention of public authority ought not to be separated from the protection promised to all religions; this protection is also a guaranty of public order; but it cannot be demanded, save by the religions recognised and publicly exercised.

"The virtual abrogation of the Arts. 291, etc., of the Code can be inferred, neither from Art. 5 nor Art. 70 of the Charter."

This is certainly the most wonderful specimen of judicial Jesuitism that we have ever seen. It pronounces the law of the 7th Vendémiaire to be in opposition to the Organic Articles, and therefore null and void: two laws inconsistent, which were made for totally different purposes! The law of the 7th Vendémiaire was intended for all religious persuasions, and has no reference to any established churches, for none then existed. Its object was to secure the public safety, by requiring that all meetings for religious worship should be so held, as to prevent them from being made occasions for plotting the overthrow of the Government. The law of the 18th Germinal was made to unite the Catholic and Protestant churches with the State. This was the sole and avowed object of the Organic Articles. Nor is there the slightest reason for considering the law of the 18th Germinal at variance with the 7th Vendémiaire. The latter agrees fully with Art. 5 of the Charter; and serves as its proper compliment; the two together containing the grant and the definition of religious liberty.

This decision contains another absurdity. It declares the law of the 7th Vendémiaire annulled by the Organic Articles, because, being in conflict, the later law must destroy that which is prior. Why, then, does not the Charter annul Arts. 291 and 294 of the Code, since it is manifestly