THE TABLET

A IVeekly Newspaper and Review.

W I T H S U P P L E M E N T .

D u m VOBIS GRA.TULAM UR, AN IM O S ET IAM ADDIMUS U T IN INCCEPTIS V E S TR IS CONSTAN TER M AN EATIS.

From the Brief o] H is Holiness to T he T ablet, June 4, 1870,

Voi. 42. No. 1734. L ondon, July 5, 1873.

P r ic e 5d. B y P ost s%d.

[R e g i s t e r e d a t t h e G e n e r a l P o st O f f i c e a s a N ew s p a p e r .

Page

C h r o n i c l e o f t h e W e e k : Mo­

nastic and Conventual Institutions. — Lord Russell’s Bill.— The Judicature Bill.— The Last CallanTrial. Sir Samuel Baker.— Catholic Witnesses.— The Pilgrimage to Paray. —The Lyons Burials.— M. GamT>etta on “ Clericalism.” — France, -Austria, and Italy.— The Municipal Elections Bill.— The Nievre Election.— The New French Tariff. — The French Constitutional Bills. — M. Ranc’s Defence.— The Ministerial Crisis in Italy.— The New Spanish Ministry.— Execution of the New Prussian Laws.— Orthodox and Heterodox Learning.— The Fall of Khiva . 1

L e a d e r s :

CONTENTS

Page

S h ort N o t ic e s : Photographic

Page

The Duty of Registration . . 5 Prince von Bismarck in Difficulties 6 “ The Principles of the Reforma­

tion” ............................................. 6 The Opening o f St. Philip’s Church at A ru n d e l.................................... 7 O ur P r o t e s t a n t Con tem po r a r ie s :

Exeter Hall. — Difficulties o f Bishops. — The “ Saturday Review” on the Reformation.— The “ Telegraph” on Bismarck.— The “ Standard ” on the Church . . 7 R e v ie w s :

History of the Early Church . 8 Saint Joseph . . . . . 10 Monographs, Personal and Social . 10

Views.— Conferences on the Spiritual Life.— Revue du Monde Catholique.— Etudes Religieuses.— Monastic and Conventual Institutions ..................................................11 C orrespondence :

“ Encaenia or Commemoration”

and Lady Margaret . . . 1 1 F. Ballerini and S. Alphonsus . 13 Dates in the Life of Pius IX . . 13 Pilgrimage to Paray le Monial .13 The Palæographical Society .13 The English Church of the Pas-

sionist Fathers in Paris .

The Catholic Union and the Church in Switzerland . . . . 1 3 P a r l ia m e n t a r y S umm ary . . 1 4

.13

G e n e r a l N ew s . . . . 1 5 R om e :

Page

Letter from our own Correspondent 17 Peter’s Pence......................................... 18 D io c e s a n N ew s :

Westminster .... Southwark .... Beverley . . . Clifton .................................... ...... I r e l a n d :

18 19

Letter from our Dublin Corre­

spondent .........................................21 F oreign N ew s :

France ..... 22 M em o randa :

R e l i g i o u s ........................................ 23 Catholic Union . . . . 2 3

CHRONICLE OF THE W EEK .

WHEN Mr. Newdegate made his annual attack on Convents on Wednesday, ventual in - it was obvious what comfort and supstitutions. port he had derived from the recent legislation in Germany. Religious Orders must be dread­

ful institutions— “ objectionable institutions,” the Times -calls them— if such measurss as those have been found necessary. It would have been more telling, however, if the member for North Warwickshire could have produced a single fact to prove that enquiry was necessary. H e made the astounding assertion that the exemption of Catholic Convents from inspection was a privileged exemption and made other denominations jealous. Is there then an inquisition into Anglican Sisterhoods ? and if Mr. Newdegate and a dozen friends chose to live together, would they be liable to the visits o f a Commissioner,perhaps, as he suggested, appointed by the Commissioners in Lunacy ? The speech of Mr. Pease, who led the opposition to the Bill, was a very fair one, and distinctly contradicted Mr. Newdegate’s assertion that the Catholic witnesses had been reticent before the Committee. He was well backed by Mr. Matthews and Mr. Serjeant Sherlock, who observed that if the 1,222 questions Mr. Newdegate had already asked could not elicit the information he wanted, he did not see how he was ever to get i t ; and by Mr. Munster, Mr. Downing, and Mr. Mitchell Henry, as well as by Mr. Martin, who, as usual, would not vote, but desired to “ convey to .his constituents and friends his in“ dignation at the measure.” It was rejected by 131 votes .against 96. Is it too much to hope that next year it will .not reach a second reading ? The time and temper o f the House are too valuable to be wasted on a motion no facts in support o f which have ever been substantiated.

land was “ a Government conducted entirely according to “ the orders and inspiration of the Roman Catholic Church.” He therefore proposed to declare that no Pope, or any other foreign sovereign, had any jurisdiction in these realms. We suppose he meant temporal jurisdiction, as the Times makes him say in its summary, though not in its report of his speech. But we should like to know what temporal jurisdiction has to do with the excommunication or suspension o f a priest. And it is a distinct perversion of the real issue to argue that “ no Papal Bull or Rescript could “ override that justice to which every subject of the Crown “ was entitled.” That Mr. O ’Keeffe was suspended by Cardinal Cullen acting under a Papal Rescript was a mere accident; the question would be raised equally, as far as the National Board is concerned, if he had been suspended by the Bishop o f his Diocese. A s a matter of fact it has before now been raised in this manner in other instances. The real point is whether the exercise o f spiritual jurisdiction over Catholics by the authorities o f the Catholic Church— be it Bishop, Archbishop, or Pope— is to b.e restrained by the civil law ; and further, when those authorities pronounce the ministrations of a priest invalid— for this is what suspension comes to— whether the law is to step in, and force those ministrations on children and paupers over whom it has a control. But Lord Russell and those who sympathize with him cannot resist the temptation which the alliterative denunciation o f Popes, princes, prelates and potentates always has for them, and therefore drag the Papal Rescript into the discussion. After speeches from Lord Kimberley and Lord O ’Hagan against the Bill, and from Lord Grey and Lord Carnarvon against the Bill, but against the Government o f Ireland also, the motion was a second time negatived without a division. On the same evening in the Lower House Mr. Bouverie gave notice that he would bring on his resolution on Friday.

On Monday, Lord Russell moved the second russell’s rea(3ing of his Bill for the better government o f bill. Ireland. He apparently intended to reserve himself for the answering of objections, and

•sat down without speaking, but no other Peer rose. The Lord Chancellor was therefore obliged to put the question, which Lord Russell failed to hear, and the Bill was thus negatived without a debate. But as soon as the state o f the case was explained by the Duke o f Argyll to Lord Russell, the latter rose and began a debate, which, as the division had been taken under a misunderstanding, the courtesy of the House allowed to continue. O f the provisions o f the Bill we have already spoken, We may mention, however, that Lord Russell explained his abolition of the requirement o f unanimity in juries to apply to cases of unlawful meetings and the like, in which it was now difficult to obtain convictions. But the most startling part o f his speech was that in which he declared his belief that the Government o f Ire-

TH E . JUDICATURE

B ILL .

When the House o f Commons went into Committee on the Supreme Court o f Judicature Bill on Monday, Mr. Gladstone announced an important change in its provisions. It could never, as he said, have been considered a merit that it should provide a Court o f Appeal for one o f the three countries only, but Ireland and Scotland had been left out o f the scheme, because o f the prevalent disinclination in both countries to give up the appeal to the House o f Lords. Other considerations, however, and notably the inconvenience o f having three Courts o f Appeal within the limits of the four seas, have brought the Scotch and Irish lawyers to a different conclusion, and the Government will accordingly modify the Bill so as to extend the jurisdiction of the Court o f Appeal to Scotland and Ireland. The exact mode in which this is to be done Mr. Gladstone could not undertake to state before Thursday, but a Scotch and Irish

N ew Series. V o l , X . No. 243.