The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-24 00:00:00

THE COUNT DE MONTALEMBERT

On The Press and The Liberals of Europe.

In the newly published livraison of Le Cor_
respondant, just received, we observe a remarkable
contribution from the hand of the Count de Mon-
talembert. It is apropos to the.new Italian journal
17 Conservative. From the masterly argument
comprised within this contribution, we are tempted
to quote the following noble passages, of which we,
therefore, furnish, at once, a hasty but exact trans-
lation

'
everything
snyo
ss
vit system.
meda.l s rseost shdn,
eeebpgucertanandav
abes osauvtyi
tniahi
tl
this
str
,et
without
intei t
ihanol
l u the
ee
exaggeration Periodicalwhole
countries
Press,
nietrsocial
is
the world. Nothing can be done without it; and,
in truth, nothing durable or effectual can well be
done against it. It is all-powerful for evil, but it
is also the one great means to good. All powerful
for evil: that, alas, is only too evident. It is
sufficient to read those organs which hold the fore
most place, and have the widest circulation in
France, in England, in the salons the cafes of
Europe, le Si7;cle, the Times, l'lndependance, la
Revue des Deux- Mondes ! But why, then, should
not the press be all-powerful, also, for good ? It
is a problem at once of the present and a
the future ! True it is that it serves
no earthly good to lament over the license of the
press and to sigh for the censorship. A decisive
proof of which, that, namely of France nowadays,
has demonstrated that the restrictive and preven-
tive system, applied with as much ability as
energy, has restrained and suppressed none but the
Catholic and Conservative organs, and has only
tended to exercise, in prodigious proportions, the
influence and prosperity of the journals qualifying
themselves to be revolutionary. It is not a profane
or demagogic writer, it is the most determined
enemy of modern ideas, it is the most resolute
pan,gyrist of the first and the second empire, it is
M. Louis Veaillot who has been personally inter-
dicted from writing in his own journal. And this
exceptional proscription which, applied to an ad-
versary, wounds us and humiliates us much more
than if it had struck one of ourselves, is only, after
all, a natural though an excessive or exaggerated
interpretation of the legislation that very journal
itself had vaunted as the legislation even of the
Church.

It is not outside of, much less is it above, itself,
that one ought to look for a remedy to the dangers
of the revolutionary press, or to the infirmities of the
Conservative press. These infirmities are precisely
that which ought the most to waken our solici•
tude, and they are almost always independent of
the Legislature. Only, if that which rules the
French press were but less menacing, we might a
little more, perhaps, at our ease speak of our infir-
mities. We might profit by that relaxation to de-
monstrate how that mural and religious reaction,
which happily operated in so many souls and
hearts between 1848 and 1851, has, since then,
miserably failed, mainly, if not entirely, by reason
of a press capable of propagating the principles of
that reaction, of assuring its results, and above all
of honouring its standard.
No pretext can justify the writers, who, without
mission and without authority, obtrude themselves
as encyclical teachers, as official and officious
interpreters of the thought of the Church, audaci-
ously excluding from the pale of orthodoxy all
those who have the happiness not to think as they
do, and who, after having
thus enlightened accord-
to their brilliant notions the ranks of the faithful,
proclaim as it were to the sound of trumpet, that
the Chief of the church (of whom, thank God ! they
are not even the acolytes) has solemnly reproved the
spirit of modern times and the genius of liberalism.
Au assumption, which would be as revolting as
perilous, if it were not, still more, both puerile and
grotesque ! What, in truth, is the spirit of modern
times, if it is not the spirit of humanity, such as it
is in this nineteenth century ? And with what
spirit could the Church exist, if it is not with the
spirit of humanity P Where, indeed, is any where
discoverable that spirit of antiquity which one
ought to prefer to the spirit of our own times?
And if there were anything of the kind anywhere
discoverable, let us ask, is there one amongst us
who would have the hardihood to undertake the
task of resuscitating it ? What antique spirit,
moreover, is there that can be mentioned, that has
not been modern in its own time, precisely as this
modern spirit of ours will, in its turn, also become
antique P And as to Liberalism, is it possible to
imagine any more flagrantly imprudent enterprise,
to say the least of it, than the undertaking a war
against that which is nothing better than the
vital air of this nineteenth century—against that
saving and reparative element of democracy which,
sooth to say, is the only political form possible in
contemporary society ?

No, the Church has never condemned, she will
never condemn Liberalism, any more than she has
ever condemned Absolutism or Feudalism, the
Roman Empire, or the Invasion of the Goths, or
any other of the great movements or grand trans-
formations of history. The Barbarians manifestly
were of equal account with the Democrats. The
Church has never spared any of their vices, but she
has never repudiated them, she has never proscribed
any one of their new and generous instincts, any
of those institutions which, born in their forests,
have now, during a dozen centuries, delivered us
and preserved us from CDeiaristn. That which she
condemns, and that which we reprobate with her
and like her, is the evil which is done in the 'rime
of Liberalism, as it has been done likewise in the
name and in the interests of monarchy and of aria
tocracy.

What she does prescribe, are those blemishes which
human infirmity mingles with these democratic in-
stitutions and these liberal ideas, as with every thing
else here below without exception. Without doubt,
it would be difficult to disengage liberalism from
these demerits, and above all to prevent democracy
from arriving at a social rule more tyrannical,
more brutalizing, than all preceding authorities,
as that one in effect wherein individual liberty
might be completely absorbed and confis-
cated iu the voice of the multitude. The
Catholics can and ought to assume to them-
selves the far larger portion of this glorious
and indispensable task. To tear off the mask from
the false liberals, from those eternal enemies of
liberty, who avail themselves precisely of its very
name and of its very banner, in order the more
effectually to stifle it—behold that which is useful,
legitimate, necessary. But to confound in thesame
unreasoning or indiscriminating reprobation all the
liberals and all modern liberties, that is surely the
height at once of injustice and of folly ! What can
he more iniquitous in effect than, in the name of
the prejudices and of the raucous of an obsolete
schoo', to hurl excommunication against the in-
vincible and perfectly legitimate aspirations of
all classes in all the nations of the earth
who are now rallying under the name of
liberalism. What can be more insensate than to
encourage the clergy to curse and to repulse those
institutions and guarantees which are already, or
will be very speedily,the appanage of all the peoples,
even those the least in advance, and which, let it be
well remembered, no sovereign, no, not one, would
venture in future to refuse, at least in principle,
even though he might in his heart concur with these
new tutors in their inclination to postpone it, to
evade it, or to set it aside altogether. Wes not
Pius IX. hailed by all Europe as a liberal Pope ?
And are our new teachers so very certain that the
Pope who shall succeed Pius IX., shall not have,
like him, also his liberal phase ? The Apostolic
Emperor of Austria, again, has he not enthroned
liberalism in that vast empire of his, which seemed
to be the impregnable citadel of abso-
lutism, and which has yet found only in
parliamentary institutions the elements of its
brilliant and happy, but wholly unlooked-for rege-
neration ? But yesterday, as it were, in his address
upon the opening of the Reichsratli (18th Juno), did
he not exult in " the prosperity, the authority, and
the puissance of the Empire under the protection
of liberal ideas ?" The Emperor of Russia, more-

over, has not he been compelled to promise liberal 111".
stitations to his subjects, as the inevitable condition
only
issue the sacrifices he demands from them, as the ly
issue of the crisis now impending ? The Queeno of
Spain, also, that faithful and persistent ally of
Pius IX., does she not reign in the name and in the
interests of Spanish liberalism ? The Emperor
Napoleon 111., whom it was the custom so re-
cently to vaunt everywhere, as the restorer
of Catholic monarchy and as the Leader of Euro-
pean reaction, has he not above everything
arrogated to himself, with a moat jealous solicitude,
the title of Liberal, and the benefits whioh that title
confers ? Finally, throughout all the recent elec-
tions, has there been any where discernible one soli-
tary Catholic candidate not inextricably identified
with the imperial system—has there been one
amongst those even the least allied with Parliamen-
tarianism who has dared to present himself to the
electors without pointedly laying •claim to the title
of Liberal, simultaneously with the advance of his
claim to the title of Catholic?
Those who choose are perfectly at liberty to de-
plore these facts ; but it is impossible to deny them.
'They have the right to acknowledge all their pre-
dilections and all their antipathies, but they have
not the right to render the Church and Catholic
doctrine responsible for them.
To pretend—in the presence of a multitude of
facts so startling and so decisive—to pretend, in the
name of an impracticable orthodoxy, to engage the
Catholics and the Clergy in a systematic and im-
placable antagonism to the spirit of modern civilisa
lion—to enchain them to Utopian fancies—to ally
them to phantoms—to render them thus incapable
of all interference in public life, of all influence
upon contemporary society—impotent to encounter
and even to comprehend those political struggles
which should be as their daily bread—is, in our
opinion, to be guilty of the most dangerous
and the most inexcusable attempt which
can menace the Church in our time. lam
mistaken; there is one thing yet more inex-
cusable. It is that blind docility with which
these extravagances are listened to, repeated and
propagated by that public opinion which is espe-
cially accustomed to exercise with prudence and
intelligence the gifts of God.
We say all this without hesitation, and with a
confidence justified by thirty-three years of polemical
labours in the service of the Catholic cause.
We ardently desire that our Italian brothers
may escape from that tendency whioh has manic
tested itself so perilously in France and in Bel-
gium. We hope above all that their religious
journals will not contribute to it as many of those
of France and Belgium have done- Nowhere
would the danger be greater, or the consequences
more fatal, than in Italy, for it is there especially
to-day, more than anywhere else, that it is most
essential to teach the Catholics to comprehend the
spirit of modern times, to cast their lot with it,
and to defend together with the institutions whicb
they owe to it, justice and the liberty of the
Church and the liberty of all. It is there espe
cially that it is most necessary to avoid illusions,
and to recognise that all return to the past is
impossible.
We are told that the actual state of Italy will not
last. We hope so heartily ; but it is by no means
certain. That which is certain—which is above all
certain—is that the ancient state of things, the state
prior to 1859, will NOT return ! No, whatever may
arrive, there never will be re-established the poli-
tical and social organisation which was then de-
stroyed. Names may be restored, individuals may
reappear, as has been seen with our ourselves (in
France) in 1814, but the laws, the institutions will
remain radically transformed.
We implore each day of the Almighty that we
may see the Pope restored to the integrity of his
rights and re-established in possession of the most
ancient and legitimate kingdom in the world. But
this restoration, which would cause every Ca-
tholic heart to thrill with joy, cannot, and
ought not,.to bring with it the restoration of the
old political and administrative system of the
Por.tificai States.
No, the ancien regime will return nowhere—it will
no more return in Italy than it will in France. Will
that, however, which is to come be worth more or be
worth less than that ancien regime ? No one can
tell. It will be better or it will be worse, but, in
any case, it will be another thing, and that other
thing can only be a more or less prudent and equit-
able adaptation of the spirit of modern democracy !
Woe to those who would shut their eyes against the
overwhelming force of this evidence.

Emigration from the United Kingdom,

The emigration from ale United Kingdom in
1862 amounted to 121,214 souls, of whom 58,706, or
upwards of 48 per cent., went to the United States;
15,522, or a little more than 12 per cent., to British
North America ; 41,843, or nearly 34 per cent., to
Australia and New Zealand; and 5,143, or more
than 4 per cent., to other places. The emigration
of 1862 exceeded the emigration of 1861 by upwards
of 29,000 souls, and was laburtgfell er than the averof tage
he
of
the four previous years,
emigration of 1855, 1856, and 1857, and was less
than two-fifths of the etnigration of the eight years
from 1847 to 1855. The greatest decredse, both ie
1861 and 1862, was, as might be expected, in the
~migration to the United States. In 1861 this
emigration had fallen to 49,764, equal to 54'22 per
cent. of the whole emigration of that year. In 1862
it rose to 58,706, but its proportion to the whole emi-
gration was even less than
rtion in 1861 to the whole , being only 48mi '43
per cent.; in fact, its propo e-
gration was smaller in 1863 than in any year since
1841. In the 21 years which have elapsed since
1841, the proportion of the emigration to the United
States to the whole emigration has varied from
79.78 per cent. to 48.43, the average being 61'93.
The decrease in the last two years was of course the
result of the civil war. The same cause increased
the proportion of the emigration to British North
America. Between 1849 and 1862 the proportion
of that emigration to the whole emigration varied
from 5.55 per cent. in 1859 to 13.85 percent. in 1861.
In 1862 it amounted to 12.80 per cent. Neverthe-
less, the emigration to British North America,
though proportionally large, was absolutely small.
With the exception of the four preceding years
(1858 to 1861 inclusive) it was the smallest since
1839. Of the whole number of emigrants, 49i
or 40.98 per cent. were Irish. this proportion is
larger than in 1861, and in some recent years, and
indicates an increase of pressure upon the labouring
class in Ireland. Whenever that is the case the
ample remittances so nobly sent home to their
friends in Ireland by those who have preceded them
afford a ready means of extending the emigration.
The amount returned as sent home in 1862 was
£463,024, making in the 16 years for which there
are returns a total of £12,642,000. It is necessary
to repeat that these returns are very imperfect, as
they contain none of the remittances through the
post or through private hands, or through any of
the banks or mercantile houses, which decline to fur-
nish us with information. It would scarcely be
unreasonable to estimate the amount of which there
are no returns at half as mt.ch again as that of
which there are returns. During the first four
months of the year the emigration is, for obvious
reasons, generally small. The numbers who emi•
grated in those months during the five years preced.
inn
the present year were-1858, 31,423; 1859,
33,767 ; 1860, 38,285; 1861,34,749; 1862,30,016. In
1863 they have amounted to 68,571. Of this emigra-
tion there proceeded to the United States 46,904,
which, though numerically large, is not iargerin pro-
portion to the whole than the average of former years.
But the proportion of Irish in the emigration was con-
siderably larger than in previous years. Thus, the
proportion of Irish was in 185863, 54.61 per cent.; 1859,
63.17; 1860, 64.06 ; 1861, .71 ; 1862, 58'95.
In 1863 it was 70.59 per cent. The proportion of
single men to the whole emigration to the Union
States was, in 1858, 37.20; 1859, 38 57 ; 1860, 35-74
1861, 32.85; 1862, 3264. In 1863 it was 36-16.
The Commissioners believe that the great increase
in the Irish emigration of the present year is to be
attributed rather to the distress caused in Ireland
by an nnfottunate succession of bad seasons, and to
the high wages now prevailing in the United Statca
than to any preconceived intention on the peat of
the emigrants to take service with either party in
the civil war now raging.

LATEST INTELLIGENCE.

REUTERS TELEGRAMS.

FRANCE..

THE ~ CONSTITUTIONNEL" ON THE POLISH
QUESTION.
PARIS, JULY 24.

The Constitutionnel of this morning, in an article
signed by M. Paulin Limayrac, declares that the
Russian reply is everywhere considered unsatisfac-
tory. The language of Russia in April last gave
reason to hope for a more favourable reply. The
Constitutionnel examines several points of Prince
Gortschakoff's despatch, and regrets that he should
see, in the diplomatic action of the Three Powers,
the strongest motive of the insurrection.
"Prince Gortscbakoff believes that the revolu
tionary party in Europe alone interests itself in
Poland, whilst in reality it is Europe herself."
The Constitutionnel protests against the imputa-
tion that the Polish question is the work of foreign
agitation, since the whole Polish nation has, for 50
years, protested against the actual state of things.
The Constitutionnel, in conclusion, says :—" We
'egret that the Russian reply is not more satisfac-
tory, but it is not necessary to stir up excitement
as some journals have done. The Government of
the Emperor dues not require to be urged on. Its
wisdom guards it from precipitation, as its
patriotism preserves it from faltering.
The Empress has arrived at Vichy, where her
Majesty met with an enthusiastic reception.
The Siecle has received a second warning for an
article recommending a plebiscite of the whole
French people to vote for or against a war for
Poland. The motives of the warning are stated to
be that this article is derogatory to the authority of
the Emperor and the essential bases of the Consti-
tution, and that such suggestions can only compro-
mise the interests of the great oause they pretend
to serve and give a pretext for agitation, which
the Government could not tolerate.