most intolerant in their legislation have been touched by the new spirit.

In Sweden, not many years ago, every administrative and judicial function was strictly limited to the professors of the Lutheran creed. Even the practice of medicine and the right of teaching were confined to them. All attempts to induce a Lutheran to change his creed were penal offences, severely punished, and every Swede who abandoned the religion of his country was liable to banishment for life. It was not until 1860 that the existence of dissenting bodies was, under severely specified conditions, recognised; but in 1862, 1870, and 1873 laws were passed permitting Swedish Lutherans to join other religions, and opening nearly all public posts and employments, as well as the seats in the Legislature, to men of all religions.'

Austria, again, not long since was a great centre of religious and political reaction, but it is now one of the best-governed countries in Europe, and there are very few modern legislations which will better repay study than that of Austria since 1860. The Concordat of 1855, which secured the Catholic Church a monopoly, has been annulled, and the Austrian Constitution makes all civil and political rights independent of creed, and guarantees to all subjects perfect liberty of conscience and worship. A distinction, it is true, is drawn between recognised and unrecognised religions. The former, by the organic law of 1867, comprised, in addition to Catholicism, the Protestant religions of the Confession of Augsburg and of the Helvetic Confession, the Greek Church, and the Jewish Synagogue; but a law of 1874 greatly enlarged the circle, by providing that

'Block, Dict. de la Politique, article Suède.' See, too, Dareste, Les Constitutions Modernes, ii. 41, 42, 48, 51.

1

all other creeds might obtain a full legal recognition if they satisfied the Minister of Public Worship that there was nothing in their teaching, worship, or organisation contrary to law or morals, and that they were sufficiently numerous to support a Church. These recognised religions may constitute themselves as corporations, regulating their own affairs, founding establishments, and exercising publicly their religious worship. The adherents of religions that are not legally recognised have, however, a full right to celebrate their worship in private houses, provided there is nothing in that worship contrary to law or morals. In the State schools, religious instruction must be given separately to the scholars of different denominations by their own priests or pastors, or by lay teachers appointed by the different religious bodies. A valuable and most significant portion of the law of 1874 provides that the ecclesiastical power must never be used, except against the members of the Church to which it belongs, and that it must never be used with the object of interfering with the observance of the law, or the acts of the civil power, or the free exercise of any civil right.1

Spain and Portugal are the last examples that need be given of countries in which, though scepticism and indifference are very rife, the whole population, with infinitesimal exceptions, is of one nominal belief, and in which the steady teaching of the Church and many generations of intolerant legislation have made the establishment of religious liberty peculiarly difficult. According to the judgment of those who are best ac

1 See Dareste, Demombrynes. There is an admirable series of papers examining in detail the Austrian legislation since 1860 in the Revue de Droit Interna

tional et de Législation comparée. They are scattered through several volumes. See especially tom. viii. pp. 502-5.

quainted with these countries, there exists in both countries, but especially in Spain, a strong determination to secularise the government, to limit Church property, and to restrain ecclesiastical power, accompanied by much indisposition to encourage any multiplication or competition of religions. Few countries have witnessed, in the present century, more confiscations of Church property than Spain, and the political influence of its priesthood is very small, though it is not impossible that the establishment of universal suffrage in 18902 may tend to its revival. The Catholic religion is recognised as the religion of the State, but it is provided that no one on Spanish soil may be molested for his religious opinions and for his worship as long as he respects Christian morality, though the public manifestations and ceremonies of the State religion' alone are authorised. Small congregations of Spaniards who dissent from the Established Church worship freely and publicly in the chief towns.

6

In Portugal the law is very similar. The Catholic religion is recognised as the religion of the kingdom; all others are permitted to strangers, and they may have edifices destined for their worship, but they must not have externally the appearance of churches. No one may be molested for his religion, provided he respects that of the State and does not offend public morality.' At the same time, a Portuguese who publicly apostasises from the Catholic Church is punished by twenty years' suspension of political rights. The priests have also in Portugal a recognised place as registering

1 An interesting account of religion in Spain will be found in Garrido, L'Espagne Contemporaine, pp. 123-62 (1862).

See Dareste, i. 626.

3 Revue de Droit International, xx. 334.

agents at elections for the Chamber of Deputies, and these elections conclude with a religious ceremony.'

It will be evident, I think, to those who have taken an extended survey of the subject, that the line of religious liberty which ought to be drawn in any country, like most other political lines, is not an inflexible or invariable one, but one which largely depends on many fluctuating considerations. The religious legislation of a country where there are grave differences of opinion will naturally be somewhat different from the legislation of a country where there is a practical unanimity, and where opposing creeds can only be introduced. by immigration or by proselytism from without, and considerations of public order may most legitimately modify and limit religious legislation. Religious processions, demonstrations, or controversies in the streets, which would probably produce obstruction or riot, or which are intended to injure some class or person, or which would irritate public opinion, may be most properly forbidden, while those which are practically harmless are allowed.

There is a broad and intelligible distinction between the right of freely expressing religious or political opinions in churches or meetings to which no one is obliged to come, in books or papers which no one is obliged to read, and the right of expressing them in the public. streets, which all men are forced to use, and which are the common property of all. The first and most essential form of liberty is the liberty of performing lawful business without molestation and annoyance, and this liberty is most imperfectly attained when it is impossible for men, women, or children to pass through the streets without having attacks upon their religious

'Demombrynes, i. 495, 503–5, 510.

VOL. I.

34

belief thrust forcibly upon their attention. In most countries such street controversies are rigidly suppressed. Where they are permitted, they ought surely to be deemed a matter of tolerance, and not of right; to be regulated in each case according to special circumstances. Some years ago it was the habit of a Protestant missionary society to placard the walls throughout the Catholic provinces of Ireland with questions and arguments subversive of the Catholic faith, and missionaries might be seen driving along the roads throwing controversial leaflets to every peasant, and into every turf-basket as they passed. In my own judgment, such a method of propagandism ought not to have been permitted, and it is probable that most of those who disagree with me would admit the principle for which I am contending, if the arguments that were disseminated had been directed, not against Catholicism, but against Christianity. In France, where a stringent law forbids meetings in the streets, it has been, under the Republic, a common thing to see profane and often obscene caricatures of the most sacred persons and incidents in the Evangelical narratives publicly exposed. The prohibition of such placards in the streets would surely not be a violation, but a vindication, of liberty.

In India, questions of religious liberty of great delicacy and difficulty have arisen. For a long period it was the steady policy of the British Government not only itself to maintain an attitude of strict religious neutrality, but also to discourage proselytism as a grave danger to public order. The English,' Lord Macartney declared, never attempt to disturb or dispute the worship or tenets of others; . . . they have no priests or chaplains with them, as have other European nations.' In 1793, when the charter of the East India