WE have already touched upon aspects of Napoleon's ecclesiastical policy, and have noticed differences of opinion with regard to it. With the work of d'Haussonville we meet for the first time a systematic and thorough treatment, from a point of view which, though liberal, I would regard as primarily religious, and if we take Bignon, or perhaps rather Thiers, as typical of a worldly étatisme, we shall be able to make comparisons. For the convenience of the reader, however, I shall begin with a survey of the events, such as would be acceptable to all writers, whatever their tendency.
The Revolution had begun by trying, in spite of the protests of Pius VI, to force upon the Church a ready-made settlement, the Constitution civile du clergé. This attempt had merely led to persecution, and within the Church to confusion and out-and-out schism. It was abandoned in 1795, and the State ceased entirely to meddle with the Church, in theory at any rate. In practice the Church was no better off under the separation regime now prevailing. The clergy felt itself misunderstood and ill-treated, and its attitude to the Republic remained hostile. The reconciliation effected by the Concordat was valuable to Bonaparte, because it afforded him the gratitude of the priests, who were in any case subjected to his influence by the recognition of his right to appoint bishops. This gratitude was understandable. The Pope felt it too, in spite of his irritation over the Organic Articles which the First Consul unexpectedly tacked on to the Concordat. The unity of the Church had been restored, it had a recognized position in the State and was relieved of financial worries, and there was matter for satisfaction in the mere fact that the attempt to impose a revolutionary Constitution Civile, with a view to withdrawing the French Church completely from the Pope's authority, had failed. More than that, in order to facilitate the reorganization of the