The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-18 00:00:00

M. DE .MONTALEMBERT,

Our readers have now had before them the whole
of M. de Montalembert's memorable pamphlet, and
certainly, if elegance of style and a judicious selec-
tion of materials be matters criminal in the eyes of
a correctional police, this admirable specimen of
modern French writing has no mercy to expect at
their' hands. In one respect we are condemned
to share the misfortune of M. de Montalembert.
The prosecution to which he is subjected, even
more than the extraordinary merit of his work,
will make its contents known all over Europe,
and thris an extended--nay, a sort of unnatural
publicity, will be given to opinions as regards the
great Indian controversy of May last which we
believe to be in many respects entirely erroneous. It
must be evident to all readers that, although M. de
Montalembert speaks of a debate on India, he has
confined his notice, with the exception of about three
lines devoted to Lord John Russell, to the speeches
on one side of the queStion, although it is by no
means true that nothing was said or could be said
on the other. But, worst of all, we cannot even
undertake our own defence against our eloquent
assailant, lest some expression might escape from
us which the correctional police might lay hold of
and turn against him. We must therefore submit
with the best grace we can to our hard fate, and
trust we may be indemnified by the triumph of
liberty of thought and speech in the person of M.
de Montalembert for this sacrifice which we make
•
to his safety.
Passing over, then, without further comment, M.
de Montalembert's account of the Indian Debate,
and his rejoicings that the opinion of the Times did
not in that instance prevail, we turn with great in-
terest to the views expressed by M. de Montalembert
on the present position of this country. We are
not in. the habit of giving much attention to the
very disparaging estimates of our position and
prospects which are constantly put forward by
foreign writers ; the animus is too hostile and the
ignorance too gross. But of M. de Montalembert
neither of these two things can with truth be said.
Unlike M. Le Maistre, who loved the institutions
but hated the nation, M. de Montalembert pro-
fesses himself as much attached to the latter as to
the former, and, as for knowledge, he is as well
acquainted with our institutions as most English-
men, with this additional advantage—that he is
better able to compare them with those of other
countries, and can regard them from without as
well as from within. Every feeling, every wish
of such a writer, is favourable to a country which
he not only regards with great, perhaps even with
too partial admiration, but also looks upon as the
only hope for the advancement of real liberty and
progressive civilization. And yet our critic views
our present situation with great disquietude. It is
not that we are hopelessly committed to the Pro-
testant heresy, for he admits that our liberality
and toleration are exceedingly favourable to the
mission of Catholie teachers. Nor does he appre-
hend danger to us from internal discord. He con-
siders that power in this country is substantially in
the hands of the middle classes, and there is no real
conflict between aristocracy and .democracy, and
that the nobility are only too ready to serve a
power the resolutions of which, when once arrived
at, they never dream of disputing. So far from
regretting the decline of party spirit, he views in
its extinction thebest proof of substantial progress
and sees no reason why matters should not go on
in a course of steady improvement without this
turbulent and exciting agency.. The danger which
he apprehends for us is not, internal, and is not
Asiatic; it is to be found, he believes, in the pre-
sent condition of Europe. In 1815 England pos-
sessed the sympathy and good wishes of every na-
tion on the Continent except France. Now it is
no longer so. We have become more liberal and
the Powers of Europe more retrograde, so that the
gulf between us is wide, and widens every day.
Our army has, he says, most unjustly but incon-
testibly lost its.prestige, and besides all these causes
there is a " moral repulsion " between us and the_
great Powers of Europe. There is, besides, envy',
at our prosperity and liberty. He thinks we trust
too much to our past glory, to our bravery, our
liberty, and our naval superiorsty. Mere physical
strength and courage, he believes, are gradually
losing their advantage by the progress of science
as applied to war. Our naval superiority
may be rivalled, as it has often been rivalled
before, and the result of that rivalry may not
always be as prosperous to us as in the days of La
Hogue and Trafalgar. Ancient glory is a source
of miscalculation rather than strength, and liberty,
like beauty or riches, is a good which requires to
be defended, and cannot always defend itself.
On the • whole, M. de Montalembert thinks that
we overestimate our resources, and that we may
easily be drawn by our pride and confidence in
ourselves into some war from which we may come
forth conquered, or at least greatly humbled.
These opinions, we confess candidly, do not carry
conviction to. our minds. Ns.y, perhaps in our
insular pride we think that we could demonstrate
their groundlessness by arguments which, at any
rate, would be satisfactory to ourselves. Our pre-
sent intention is not to enter into any controversy
on the subject, but merely to beg our readers t 9
take notice of the fact that such opinions arc pro-
fessed by a person so friendly and so intelligent as
M. de Montalembert, as well worthy of our mod
serious consideration. The fact is worthy of con-
sideration in two points of view. In the first place,
our friendly critic may be right, and we may be
wrong, in the estimate we respectively form of the
resources of this country as compared with the great
Powers of the continent. If we know our own
affairs better than he does, he most likely knOws
the affairs of our neighbours better than we do
and, as the whole question is one of comparison,
he perhaps stands in the more favourable con-
dition of the two for arriving at a just and
impartial judgment. We have had success enough
to turn the head of any nation or any individual,
and, as this is a disorder of which the patient him-
self is always ignorant, we • cannot be quite sure
that it has not turned ours. But the main value
which we attribute to M. de Montalembert's opin-
ion of our prospects in case of war is founded
on the consideration that, whether true or not, it
must undoubtedly be the opinion entertained of us
by a large portion of the statesmen of Europe. If
our friend and apologist thus doubts of our resources,
what must be the opinion of those whose morning
and evening prayer is for the destruction of liberty
as impersonated and upheld by England? Now, if
we are supposed to be unequal to the maintenance
of the position we occupy, it is of the last import•
ante that we should know it, for such a supposition
is more likely than any other cause to lead other
countries to apply to it the test of experiment.
Having once got a foreign witness whose evidence
is above suspicion, we shall do wisely not to neglect
his - warning, and to redouble every precaution
against the possibility of losing in a few disastrous
months the glorious works of centuries of labour,
self-denial, and valour.— Times

FRIGHTFUL ACCIDENT AT YEOVIL.—On Wed-
nesday afternoon an accident happened to Captain Phelips
and party, by which they were more or less injured. The
gallant captain, with his lady, also Mrs. Quantock, wife of
Major Quantock, and her little boy, had been spending the
day at Holland House, with Mr. H. Batten. At five o'clock
they left in a carriage, but had not proceeded far before the
horses took fright, and rushing off, dashed the vehicle vio-
lently against the wall, throwing the occupants into the
road. They were conveyed back to Holland House, and
Messrs. -Sherland, Coles, and Tomkyns, surgeons, sent for.
Captain Phelips was severely injured about his head and
arms, and his lady so injured that she has been confined to
her bed ever since. Mrs. Quantock escaped with a few
bruises, but her son had his collar bone broken and, one of
eyes severely injured .—Sherborne Journal.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—The Fatality of Disease.—Hollo--
way's Pills.—lt is distressing to look around us and see the
numbers that are hourly carried prematurely to their graves
who might easily be saved by _medicines suited to their
complaints.--: In the majority of cases diseases originate in
impure or impoverished blood. - Holloway's Pills act on
that-vital fluid. They expel froM the secretive organs and
the circulation the morbid matter Which produces infiam-
motion, pain, fever,.dehility, and . physical decay. When
taken according to the printed.directions attached' to each
box they have never been known.to fail: .Linder . a course
of these pills the sick man soon rises from his bed, and the
feeble become robust. The cure is not superficial Or tem-
porary, but complete-az& 12;ermanent, -