away. That protection was provided by France. French soldiers guarded the city, kept the Italians out, and rendered the continuance of the Council possible. The armed intervention of France was described by the Archbishop of Paris[1] as a necessary expedient but not a permanent solution. It provided a temporary security, during which the Vatican Council was held. It is impossible not to admire the sagacity which seized the occasion. A little later, and it could not have been done. But security depended on French goodwill.
"If any one dreams," said Antonelli, "that there exists for us any human help, except the forces of France, he must be blind."[2]
But France at this critical moment showed signs of uneasiness. It felt that its protection was being utilised for the promotion of theories which it strongly disliked.[3] Count Daru, head of the French Ministry, sent an emphatic protest to Rome, in which he declared that the adoption of Ultramontane theories could not but alienate from Catholicism many whom it would be a duty to win. The Holy See was making the relation between the Church and the State more difficult and strained. In particular, the work of the French Ministry was thereby made exceedingly difficult. They would soon have to discuss in the Chamber the presence of French troops in papal territory. How can their presence be justified if the Pope rejects the principles of liberty which are essential to the very existence of modern Governments? The writer confesses that he was personally placed in a position most discouraging to a devoted adherent of the Roman cause. Public opinion in France was already amazed to find the Council
