Ravignan," the other by the Abbé Dupanloup.15 Sainte-Beuve, who never bore the last-named author much good-will, said in the Chroniques parisiennes, when the impression of Dupanloup's book was fresh upon him, that it was 'très-honorable et d'un ton parfait.'

What is it,' Dupanloup wrote, that is really meant when we speak of the spirit of the French Revolution? Are our free institutions meant by it, or liberty of conscience, or political, civil, individual liberty, liberty of opinion, of education, and of the family, equality before the law and in the distribution of offices and taxes? We likewise desire all these things; and demand them for ourselves and others.' In the same work Dupanloup declared most explicitly that he was entirely for Guizot's bill. His measure,' he says, is the only liberal and truly political one, and worthy of the Charter. It satisfies every demand, and is the only one capable of effecting that great and desirable work, the re-establishment in France of religious peace.16 Guizot, on his part, declared from the tribune 'that the University was infringing rights, and not taking sufficiently into account religious convictions.' This was in the year 1847, and Catholics were under no illusion in describing the turn affairs had taken in public opinion, as well as in Parliament, as one beyond all expectation favourable to them. They were certain of success as far as the Government was concerned. But whether this success did not cost them excessive sacrifices in their own camp, is a question on which it is worth while to listen to those who were best acquainted with all the circumstances, and took the clearest view of them. At the head of these is Archbishop Affre. He lifted up a voice of warning as early as 1844, saying: A most offensive tone has been chosen and a very unchristian manner has been adopted for the defence of Christianity.' Dubourg, Archbishop of Besançon, expressed himself equally plainly when he said: Catholic journalism is ruining us.' F. Ozanam, who, being himself a professor of the University, was able, better than most, to distinguish just reproaches from unjust demands, and who could not be suspected of lukewarmness, for he was a real apostle among the poor, and an example to teachers, thought it most important that strife should be avoided, that a Catholic party should not be formed, and men alien to the faith transformed into enemies of the Church." De Tocqueville judged in like manner, although he was a decided partisan of free competition. He said: 'I have in vain tried to promote moderation; but now I can do nothing more, and like so many great affairs in this world, this also is left to the chapter of accidents.' 18

14 Ravignan: De l'existence et de l'institut des Jésuites. "Dupanloup, De la pacification religieuse.

16 Dupanloup, Défense de la liberté de l'Eglise, vol. i. p. 408.

"Ozanam, Œuvres complètes, vol. xi. pp. 44-47, 58-59. At p. 84 there are these remarkable words: 'I do not desire to see a Catholic party, for then there would no longer be a Catholic nation.'

18 De Tocqueville, Nouvelle correspondance inédite, pp. 212 and 215.

This chapter was opened in the tempest of 1848. After the election of Louis Napoleon as President of the Republic, the portfolio of Education was given by him to Falloux, a friend of Montalembert, as a pledge to the Conservative and Catholic party. It was Falloux who, soon after his appointment, summoned a Commission, in 1848, to work out the draft of a new Education Bill. It consisted of twentyfour members. The editors of the Ami de la Religion and Union (Riancey and Laurentie), Montalembert, Abbé Dupanloup, and Abbé Sibour, Corcelles, Melun and Augustin Cochin, represented Catholic interests; the University sent Cousin, Saint-Marc Girardin, Dubois, professors from all parts of France, among them a Protestant clergyman. Falloux was President, Thiers Vice-President, whom also the Legislative Assembly had elected to bring up the report. The bill was in its essential features a compromise between the two contending parties. It touched but slightly upon academical studies properly so called, it modified Guizot's law, principally by rendering all schoolmasters liable to be removed, but it changed considerably the condition of intermediate education. The University remained as it was, and retained the right of granting degrees, and of nominating two-thirds of the inspectors for the whole of France. But besides the State institutions, free schools under certain fixed conditions might be established. But the great difficulty for the Commission was the question of religious orders. Thiers was quite ready to accept the principle of liberty of education, but with the exclusion of the Jesuits; it was his opinion, that they were unnecessary, and that public opinion was against them. Dupanloup replied, in eloquent terms, that certainly the Jesuits were by no means indispensable to the Church, but all the more indispensable to her were justice and protection for the innocent. On his way from the sitting of the Commission to the Assembly, Thiers said to his companion Montalembert: Le diable d'abbé, il a joliment parlé, la justice et l'innocence!' and shaking his head, repeated several times, la justice et l'innocence!' He then proposed to Montalembert that he should undertake in his stead the defence of the religious orders. 'You will produce no impression,' said Thiers to him, but I shall.'. When he came in his speech to the passage: 'Maintenant, passons aux Jésuites,' he was interrupted by a cry from the left: Oui, vous êtes passé aux Jésuites.' Thiers, however, did not allow himself to be put out, and replied that liberty of education and of association were written in the Constitution.19 Subsequently, in March 1850, the so-called Falloux law was carried by about 400, as against 250 votes, all the Conservatives, including the Orleanists, voting for it.

This was the solution of the conflict which had lasted for more than twenty years. All just and reasonable people considered it as the best that could have been obtained under the circumstances; it

"The above anecdote was told by Montalembert to a friend who noted it down.

wounded conflicting interests as little as possible, it gave an open field to individual activity. But, for this very reason, it did not seem acceptable to extreme parties. Nothing less was to be expected from the Left, but that they should stigmatise and reject it, as a 'Loi de sacristie': on the other hand, the revolt of the Univers was quite unexpected by the public at large; it tried to bring about the miscarriage of the Bill, and on the evening before the last great debate upon it in the Assembly, the 13th of January 1850, this journal openly uttered the word 'treason.' In that debate, Montalembert again spoke: After this bill is carried,' he said, 'Catholics will no longer be in want of liberty, but rather liberty will stand in want of Catholics.' Veuillot retorted: "The ministry of education is still the ministry of the University; we hold that one of our party must enter this fortress of monopoly only through the breach, and in order to level it for ever with the ground.'

20

With the instinct of self-preservation, Veuillot recognised, from the first, his real adversary in Count Falloux. In 1848 a provincial journal published an article, which said: 'Is it advisable to maintain the position, strategy, and organisation, which hitherto has been called the Catholic party? After a strict investigation, and not without a certain reluctance, we answer this question in the negative. We repeat daily that parties exist no longer. Well, then, we make no exception in favour of the Catholic party!' 21 This article was written by Falloux. Veuillot never forgot it, and when Falloux's Education Bill was laid before him, he rejected it in these words: Every compromise contains in itself the germ of future dissension, which must prematurely break up the Catholic party; far better continue the contest.' 22 When the Education Bill became law, Falloux was no longer a minister, but after, as before, Veuillot protested against it. In the columns of the Univers, priests began to assail their bishops. Ravignan, a truly noble-minded and pious man, was denounced to the General of the Jesuits, and obliged to exculpate himself for having acknowledged the gratitude he owed to his friends, Montalembert and Dupanloup.23 Our own troops have mutinied,' was the lament of the deeply-wounded Montalembert. Que voulez-vous?' replied Dupanloup; ' vous avez formé un corps de lansquenets: à présent, que vous prononcez le mot de paix, ils se révoltent contre vous, eux qui ne vivent que de pillage!'

6

Two years later, in 1853, the Emperor Napoleon thought proper to subject the Education Law to a revision, which diminished the influence of the Church. In those days Veuillot was his ally. The members of the Commission of 1849 were either his adversaries

20 Montalembert, Euvres complètes, vol. iii. p. 366.

21 Veuillot, le Parti Catholique, réponse à M. de Falloux, p. 37.

22 Ibid. pp. 46–61.

21 R. P. de Ponlevoy: Vie du R. P. de Ravignan, vol. ii. p. 186.

or his victims, but the Univers showed itself more conciliatory towards him, than towards those former friends, and on the 31st of December, 1855, wrote as follows: 'Honneur à vous, homme que Dieu a choisi-Marchez fièrement, Sire, au milieu de votre peuple, dont les acclamations vous saluent.'

Falloux was able to look back with undisturbed satisfaction upon one episode of his Ministry of ten months' duration. It was upon his proposal, that on the 6th of April, 1849, the Government nominated Abbé Dupanloup for the Bishopric of Orleans, and he was consecrated on the 9th of December of the same year. There followed now several years of comparative repose and of prosperous and successful work. Dupanloup left behind him in Paris many warm friends, among whom the principal were M. Thiers and Falloux, whereas his relations with Montalembert, no doubt on account of political differences, did not assume, until some years later, that intimate character which, once formed, remained uninterrupted to the end. He unwillingly exchanged from time to time the quiet residence at Orleans for the restless busy life of the metropolis, taking up his abode whenever he came back there with the priests of the Missions étrangères, in the Faubourg Saint-Germain, not far from his friend Gratry. But he was really only at home when staying with some devoted friends in the mountains of Savoy, or in his own house, in the ancient city to which he loved to apply the line of Racine :

Et de Jérusalem l'herbe couvre les murs.

Even his enemies have done justice to the noble activity and dignity of his life as priest and bishop. He lived most simply, and strictly according to rule. He rose early, prayed for a considerable time, said mass at seven o'clock, and then worked uninterruptedly till noon, when he breakfasted with the priests of his household, and any guests who might be stopping with him. He then generally took a long walk or found relaxation in a drive to the College of St. Mesmin. On his return he resumed work or received necessary visits. Dinner was served at seven o'clock, after which he remained with those who were present till nine, at which hour he regularly retired. It was during those evening hours that his friends, men and women, not only from Orleans, but from all parts of the world, used to gather round him in the only salon in the episcopal residence decorated with the portraits of his predecessors, and where he, generally walking up and down, would, in his lively way, express his views on every possible subject. Those who preserve personal recollections of those hours, look back on them with gratitude. There it was still understood that social intercourse is recreation, not merely duty, and that conversation should be relaxation as well as incitement to the mind, neither a compensation for neglected study, nor a

fatiguing loss of time. There the traditions were to be found still living, of that refined and cheerful social intercourse, the recollection of which once caused Talleyrand to exclaim, that he who had not known it' n'a pas connu le plaisir de vivre.' Dupanloup's head was silver white, when one of Feuillet's novels chanced to fall into his hands. We shall not mention its name, but it was not Sibylle. To witness the delight he took in the book, was an enjoyment to others as well, and he spoke much and long about it. All who knew him can bear witness that up to his death his heart remained warm and young, and the keen sympathy he preserved with all that is noble and good, and especially for his fellow-men, is the secret of that influence which he exercised upon high and low with almost unexampled power. People of all sorts and conditions, men of high position and renown, ladies of rank, souls in trouble and needing help, all were anxious for the favour of his hospitality, which was given generously and indefatigably, because he considered the house of a bishop as in part belonging to all who entered it. In those small and modest rooms, whose whitewashed walls gave them the appearance of monastic cells, many an inward struggle has been fought out, many a vocation decided. We know of not a few who date from that spot a new epoch in life. To the poor, Dupanloup gave royally; when he had nothing left of his own, he would ask others, but he never failed to relieve real want. In his pastoral office he was indefatigable, and demanded from his clergy the greatest sacrifices. Not all, however, could keep pace with him, or accommodate themselves to his inflexible will, and in this respect he had to encounter many difficulties. Quel homme! il mettrait le feu à la mer,' exclaimed one day a poor parish priest, upon whom he had come like a whirlwind; on his part, however, the Bishop was quite ready to reply as Arnauld did, when rest was ordered him: I rest? I have Eternity for that.' In 1854, the Academy elected him one of its members, not as author, or orator, but, faithful to its traditions, as a man of high and general distinction. This was the only honour he received under the Empire. He never became reconciled to Bonapartism. The first pastoral he issued after the coup d'état, spoke with praiseworthy courage of the First Empire as having wished to set up the Church without liberty and ending by persecuting her. His various official utterances are models of dignified reserve. The Imperial officials, on their side, were directed to avoid him, and of Napoleon the Third he once remarked to a friend that he had 'un peu de superstition et beaucoup d'hypocrisie.'

It is not only as Bishop that future generations will think of Dupanloup as connected with Orleans. He will be remembered as having with true patriotic enthusiasm constituted himself the guardian of the abiding memory of Joan of Arc. When he came to Orleans that memory had faded, and nothing was to be seen in places