of their position, and those proud, ignorant, and obstinate fools who think themselves the true representatives of Catholicism in the world, like the people who write in the English Churchman,' who pretend, like Neale himself, and so many others, to understand every beauty, and practise every virtue of Catholicity while maintaining their schismatical disobedience against Rome and their outrageous contempt of the Romanists in England. These men, I am convinced, will always prove the worst enemies of the Church, more so than infidels themselves."

The article upon "Le Devoir des Catholiques," gave offence at Court, where constitutional agitation was feared, as it has always been the instinct of kings to fear it; and when Montalembert returned for a few months to France, his reception was not gracious. "When do you

think of returning to Madeira?" was the kindest thing King Louis Philippe said. The return to Madeira, however, was a very short one, made only to escort his wife back again in recovered health to their home; and henceforward public life swallowed him up, and the next seven years were spent in making history, and in adding many a brilliant page to the records of public eloquence and national progress in his beloved France.

36

CHAPTER XII.

PUBLIC WORK—THE QUESTION OF EDUCATION.

:

WE have already had occasion to indicate the state of the law in France in respect to education but it may be well to set it more clearly before the reader before proceeding to record the progress of the brilliant Parliamentary campaign which finally changed it. National education in France had been placed in the beginning of the century by Napoleon in the hands of the University. This selection of an authorised source of State education, which should always be within the control of Government, was entirely in accordance with French ideas; or rather, it was one of those triumphant pieces of arbitrary legislation which have given shape and colour to modern French ideas, and moulded the nation into the form under which we know it best. It was such a settlement of the question as only an absolute ruler could have made; but

it had so many recommendations and conveniences that it is not to be wondered at if a much-vexed constitutional Government, careful and troubled about many things, and glad to escape the additional burden of such a vast addition to its labours as must have been involved in a new settlement of the system of education, clung desperately to the old rule. At the first glance it seems reasonable and fitting enough that all such questions should be remitted into the hands of a body of men specially trained to their consideration, and with whom it rested to grant all the privileges of literary rank. Were we to suppose, however, Oxford or Cambridge endowed with this immense power, and possessing the sole authority in all educational matters, we should more easily realise the state of affairs under the French system. In such a case our parish schools, intended for elementary education only, might be so far free that any Englishman possessed of certain qualifications would be authorised to conduct them but for every other kind of school in England, private and public, it would be necessary that two or three of the masters should be graduates of the chosen university, and that they should submit their system of education and the books they used to the supervision of the

academical body from which they drew their diplomas.

The comparison, however, would be more fair if we substituted the London University for the older institution; for the University of France had at the time of which we treat no religious foundation, and banished that part of education from its courses altogether. At the time of its institution by Napoleon it had been placed at least nominally on a religious foundation, one of the articles of its charter providing that "all the schools of the Imperial University should take for the basis of their teaching-1st, the principles of the Catholic religion." Under the Restoration this rule had been attempted to be carried out, and a bishop had been placed at the head of the educational system; but this, according to Montalembert himself, who asked for no religious monopoly while he attacked the secular, had succeeded only in making both the Government who enacted it and the religion in whose name it was carried out, unpopular in the country. After the Revolution of 1830, France ceased to have any State religion, and the religious basis of education was necessarily abolished. The University then became in name, as it had long been in fact, an entirely secular institution, scarcely even indifferent, more usually taking a

hostile attitude in respect to religion. And it is the nearest parallel we can find to say that were the entire education of England to be placed in the hands of the London University, every higher school interdicted which had not the licence of that body, and no man allowed to open any classes for instruction unless he were one of its graduates, the state of affairs in France would be to a certain extent reproduced. We are aware that the comparison is still defective, for there were no institutions such as those of Oxford and Cambridge to modify the sway of the French University; while, on the other hand, the London University would not venture among ourselves to treat religion with the same careless scorn which the French corporation was capable of. But it is, we repeat, the nearest parallel we can make. The amended charter of 1830 had admitted the necessity of a remedy for this state of affairs, and had pledged the Government," with the least delay possible," to provide for "public instruction and freedom of teaching." This article of the charter, as the reader has seen, was the cause of Montalembert's first public appearance, and the foundation of his constitutional opposition to a system which was hateful to all good Christians - Catholic and Protestant alike—and which might well have