Support

of the Church

But the crowning co-operation, that which surpassed all the others, and, even alone, would allow the hope of victory to be indulged, was the spontaneous, active, ardent, and universal support of the clergy! The Catholic Church was the bond and nucleus of the whole campaign. Alone she would be able to seize the evil by the roots, reform opinions, restore morals and prepare a new dawn. Through her and for her the battle must be fought. Catholicism was the supreme hope, the supreme thought. Since the salvation of society was at stake, a social authority was necessary for action. Philosophy and politics were at one on this point.

"This majority (the Right of the Assembly) was an admirable instrument for religious, political, and social renovation. . . . It was above all, from the very first day to the end of its mandate, an essentially Catholic majority. It loved religion and liberty. .

"The most generous and clear-sighted souls confessed to themselves that the ruin of 1870 had been a chastisement, and might become an expiation, and that the return to Christianity was the first condition of the recovery of France." 1

All would have spoken in the same style. They never failed, in the honest exposition of their thoughts and deeds, to put religion in the first rank and to proclaim "the solidarity of the Church and France," above all, to keep in view "the crisis which Catholicism is traversing," while preparing the solution of affairs in France.

1 A. de Margerie, 1873, Page d'Histoire Contemporaine, p. 4.

2

• Chesnelong, La Campagne Monarchique d'Octobre 1873, p. 10.

So principle and practice met. The battle for ideas was proclaimed by those who were most closely engaged in the battle of realities. If the support of the clergy was anticipated, the reason was that the triumph of the Church was at bottom the dearest hope to be realised by victory.

Forces

But the power of the opposing party, of the that is to say, the rising tide of democracy, Opposition could not be ignored. Ever since the Revolution, every phase in history had given its sanction to a fresh gain to democracy: under the first Emperor, the Civil Code; in 1830, Liberal institutions; in 1848, Universal suffrage; and even during the Second Empire, the levelling down of the classes crushed under the weight of a centralised autocracy.

Democratic

Democracy, whose levelling principle is Ideals so seductive to the masses, was the system which, already announced by de Tocqueville in 1835, gained realisation day by day in conformity with the predictions of that morose observer : "We are moving towards an unlimited democracy. I do not say that that is a good thing. But we are moving in that direction, urged by an irresistible force. Every effort made to arrest this movement would only be a halt. Democracy seems to me from this time forth to be a fact which a government may claim to regulate but certainly not to stop." 1

Against this current, the political party in power bestirred itself; but it could not be mistaken as to the

1 Letter of M. de Tocqueville to his friend, de Kergorlay. See d'Eichtal, Alexis de Tocqueville et la Démocratie libérale, p. 90.

force of the impetus by which the country was carried away. The fact was too apparent, too brutal. Thus this latent impulse was mastering those even who claimed to be controlling it. Those men who felt most assured of their own "right could no longer ignore the feeling, henceforth deeply rooted in all consciences, in favour of the superior 'right" belonging to the community of citizens.

The growth of irreligion was another Irreligion peril, deeply painful to these pious souls, and no less indisputable. Pagan teaching had gradually descended from books to newspapers, from newspapers to the masses. Here, too, ideas had made their own way. Convictions deserving of respect claimed the most popular names, Victor Hugo, Littré, Michelet, Quinet; the funerals of illustrious men were civil funerals. In the presence of death, incredulity was strengthened. Here was a propaganda more powerful than that of books, carrying away the indifferent and the young by the force of example, and favouring the more calculated enterprises of sectarians.

The

in the Assembly

Turning from the country in general Opposition to the Assembly, we find the Opposition less numerous perhaps, but yet certainly very formidable by their unity, their vigour, the courage of the rank and file, and, above all, that of the leaders.

There was a fraction of the Right Centre, very near the Left Centre, which, it was said, would serve one day to call over the waverers of the Left; but was it quite certain that the "callers" would not take flight at the decisive moment? M. Target's followers were mobile, disturbed, and disturbing. Their weak souls were ready for any evolutions. One of their

VOL. II.

49

E

disciples said, "We betray somebody every day." Those were the cynics. But there were also men with scruples; standing on the dividing edge of both camps, they could, by their very want of balance, decide the victory.

Among the members of the Right Centre were many who, either from fidelity to the Orleanist cause or from parliamentary tradition, or through fear of Bonapartism or clericalism, preserved their freedom of action and did not always adhere to the words of their leaders. Looking upon M. Thiers, and upon those who had become reconciled to the Republic and to the Democracy, they asked themselves if such examples did not deserve something better than insults or epigrams.

As for M. Thiers, well and good! It was the correct thing to find fault with his personal ambitions, his senile vanity, his antiquated liberal sentiments, his imprudent pledges in favour of the Republic. But could men like Dufaure, CasimirPerier, Laboulaye, Léon Say, Rémusat, Chanzy, be regarded in the same way?

The Democracy can never be sufficiently grateful to these brave and honourable men. They protected and defended its first, its most difficult, steps. And in doing so they certainly showed great merit, for they obeyed their convictions at the price of most cruel sacrifices. Their relations, traditions, habits of mind, everything held them to the opposite shore. They resolutely crossed the river, and the others followed because they had built the bridge. Believers or non-believers, rich or poor, they harboured no illusions as to the consequences their decision would bring for themselves and those dear to them; they acted

according to what they believed to be right, in quest of repose and peace for their country.

Circumstances often obliged them to fight in the first rank and to bear the burden of the day. Let us add, further, that they felt themselves supported with remarkable discipline by the whole Left, which, declaring a momentary truce to its divisions and individual rivalries, marched united behind this first group, and behind its own illustrious leaders who had assumed the guidance of the struggle.

These eminent men, all of them eloquent orators, formed a group which influenced opinion by its

mere renown.

Grévy, now no longer President, but on his bench, as in the chair, grave and vigorous; Laboulaye, abundant and supple; Jules Simon, insinuating and subtle; Ferry, tenacious and rough; Léon Say, sparkling with wit and knowledge; ChallemelLacour, bitter and vehement, each of them, following the other at the tribune, made the task of the Cabinet difficult, forcing it to remain on the watch, without a moment's respite.

But not one of them, not M. Grévy, nor even M. Thiers, was to exercise, if not upon the Assembly, at least upon the men of the party, an influence comparable with that of a man who, at that time the favourite of the Democracy, was soon to reveal himself in the parliament as the consummate tactician who would compel the victory: Gambetta.