impending decree. Yet, if it is strictly true that the dogma was passed with practical unanimity of all present, on the value of that unanimity opinions will legitimately differ.
The conduct of the minority has been not unnaturally severely criticised. They grew feeble, says Ollivier,[1] the head of the French ministry, just in proportion as actions ought to have taken the place of words. Their arguments in their last consultation were weakness itself. Not to renew their protest in the Public Session was virtually to cancel the protest already made. It insured for the decree just that unanimity which its advocates desired, and which its opponents knew that it did not possess. It was a confession that they dared not utter Yes or No.[2]
Before Dupanloup left the city he sent the Pope a letter[3] suggesting one last expedient for averting the evils which a decree of Infallibility would involve. Let the Pope personally decline to confirm the decree. Let him say in the Public Session that he thankfully recognises the remarkable tribute to the prerogatives of his See, in the votes of so numerous an assembly of Bishops; nevertheless, considering the circumstances, and after mature reflection, he believes it more in accordance with apostolic wisdom and prudence to withhold his definite approval until a less disturbed and more propitious time. Dupanloup assured the Pope that this manœuvre would solve the problem, release men unexpectedly at the last moment from incalculable misfortunes, astonish the world, and win universal reverence and admiration. This singular epistle terminated with a promise to preserve inviolable silence on the advice which he ventured to give.
The night passed. Early on the morning of the
