MONTALEMBERT
523
MONTALEMBERT
free course to his mordant and incisive wit, and make personal attacks with impunity upon potentates and ministers. . . . His bitterness — and he was sometimes bitter — from him seemed ahnost amenity, the harsh- ness of the meaning; being disguised by the elegance of his manner and his perfect good grace." " It was a sight full of interest," says another, "to see this ar- dent, enthusiastic, impetuous young man rise in the midst of the Chamber of Peers, composed almost en- tirelj' of the relics of past conditions of society — men grown gray in public business, conversant with poli- tics, and among whom experience had destroyed en- thusiasm— and disturb with the accents of an impas- sioned voice the decent calm, the elegant reserve, and the polite conventionalities of their habitual discus- sions, as he vindicated the rights and interests of that religion which was said to have no partisans but old men, and no life but in the past." Montalembert did not, indeed, shine by lofty sustained imagery, like Burke and Grattan, the objects of his early admira- tion ; nor by polished rhetoric, flights of fancj', or strokes of humor, like Canning. His strength lay in earnestness, ready command of energetic language, elevation of thought and tone, rapidity, boldness, con- viction, passion, heart. His vehemence, his vis vivida, ■was power : when he warmed to his subject, he carried all before him with a rush. He had all, or almost all, that is comprised in the action of Demosthenes.
But as an author also Montalembert was now great- ly adding to his fame. He devoted a large share of his time to study, and as a result published a work on "Medieval Art" (Z>m Vandalisme et du Catholicisme dans les arts [1840]) and a " Life of St. Anselm" (Saint Anselme, fragment de V introduction a Vhistoire de St. Bei-nard [1844]). In 1843 he began to develop an un- usually great activity in the debates in the Chamber of Peers, and he delivered some masterly speeches on such general questions as the liberty of the Church, instruction and education, the theorj- and constitution of the monastic orders, and the affairs of Poland, in ■which he always took a deep interest. Towards the close of the same year, while staying at Madeira for the sake of his health, he published Du Devoir des Ca- tholiques dans la Question de la Liberte d' Eiiseiijnement. This was followed by his celebrated Letter to the Cam- briJge Camden Society, designed to disprove the at- tempts made by that society to identify the Reformed
valuable servant of Rome. ButtheUltramontanes des- ignated it as a base compromise of the best interests of the Church. The very paper which he had been main- ly instrumental in raising up — Z,'Z7mVers— denounced him and all who had been instrumental in passing the law in most virulent language. Thus is it evermore in the Church of Rome. Her most devoted members, if happily they do the bidding of the Ultramontanes, are applauded, and they who, while seeking earnestly to serve the Church, should yet fail to accomplish all that is demanded, are condemned and ignored. See Maynooth.
Although Montalembert lost the support of those upon whom he had reason to lean, he now found, as everj' honest man is sure to find, support from all classes, and he enjoyed further successes. Yet none of these elated or even satisfied him. He had dedi- cated himself to the interests of the Church, and fail- ing to gain that support from the source to which he believed himself entitled, he finally in 1852 deter- mined to close his political life. He was not super- seded in the Legislature until 1857, yet his political activitj' may be said to have closed in 1852. And now that he was free to consider the past and the part he had played, the bitter truth broke upon him that he had been acting for Romanism against liberty, and for the remainder of his life he determined to struggle manfully to repair or atone for his mistake. That he failed utterly it ■will not be necessary to state here. But even in his failure there is yet apparent the striving for truth and right, as we shall see pres- ently. At the outset of his political career under the republic he had avowed democratic sentiments, and voted against Napoleon's admission to the Assembly; but when the Bonapartists turned defenders of Rome, Jlontalembert's sj'mpathy was enlisted, and he for some time favored the Imperialists. After the confis- cjti(m of the Orleans property he ignored the Bona- jartitts, and it was therefore no small mark of distinc- tion which he received at this time from the Academy by election to its mcnil ership. In 1854 he was en- gaged in the publication of L'Avenir politique de VAn- gleterre (transl. in 185G), -which aims to show that the future prospects of England would be improved by a resumption of intercourse with Rome ; and this lead- ing idea he pursues through an infinity of digressions and speculations, interspersed with various particulars
Church of England with that of the Middle Ages and ! of English life as exhibited in its schools, its journal
ism, and its political institutions. He was bitterly as- sailed on both sides of the Channel, especially for what he said about the churches ; and in a letter dated La Roche-en-Breny, Jan. 3, 1856, he wrote, " This act has been, and deserves to be, looked upon as an act of foolhardiness. I have to contend both in Europe and America with the -whole weight of religious prejudice against Protestant England, and oi political prejudice against English freedom or English ambition." What turned out an act of still greater foolhardiness was an article in the Correspondant of October, 1858 (published separately in England), entitled Un Debat sur VInde au Parlement Anglais, which he made the vehicle of such exasperating allusions to the Imperial regime that it provoked a prosecution. In brilliant and enthusi- astically admiring pictures he drew the social and po- litical institutions of Britain, for the purpose mainly of covertlv contrasting them with the condition of his own naUve land. He was defended by Berryer, and gave his own evidence as to the exact meaning of the inculpated passages, which no English judge or jury could have held liliellous, but he was found guiltj', and the sentence on him was six months' imprisonment with a fine of 3000 francs: one month's imprisonment and a fine of 1000 francs on the publisher. The sen- tence, after being confirmed on appeal, was gladly re- mitted by the emperor; so that the prosecution proved a signal triumph to Montalemliert in all respects, and had'the singular advantage of presenting him for the