THE TABLET

A IVeekly Newspaper and Review.

D u m VOBIS GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS UT IN INCGEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEATIS.

From the Brief oj His Holiness to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.

Vol. 42. No. 173S. L ondon, A ugust 2, 1873.

P r ic e sd. B y P o s T s ^ d .

[R egistered a t th e General P ost O ffice a s a N ewspaper.

' C h r o n ic l e o f t h e W e e k : The

Page

Duke of Edinburgh’s Allowance. —The Judicature Bill in the Lords. —The Rating Liability Bill.—The Education Act Amendment Bill.— Crown Private Estates.—The Purchase Grievances.— The “ Postoffice Scandal.”— Mr. Ayrton and Mr. Lowe.—The Greenwich Election. — Mr. Gladstone's Health.— “ Confession” in the Lords.— The 4t Pall Mall Gazette” and Paray.-leMonial.— The Volive Church of Montmartre.— Attacks on Devotion to the S. Heart.— M. de Cajzenove de Pradine’s Motion.—The Treaties of Commerce and the Surtax.— The Message of Mai-shal MacMahon, &c., &c. . . . 129

CONTENTS

L eaders :

The Provincial Council The Situation in Italy The Callan Schools again Evidence of Figures Our P rotestant Contemporaries:

Page • 133 • 133 • 134 • 135

C orrespondence :

The Catholic Deaf and Dumb In­

Page stitute ............................................... 140 Memoranda for Catholic Registra­

tion ...... 140 Louise Lateau and France . . 141 The Right of Voting at a Pro­

French Penitents and English Critics.—The “ Saturday Review” on Anglicanism.— Fruits of the Establishment .... 135 R eview s :

vincial Council .... 141 The Late Mgr. Charbonneaux . 141 P arliam entary Summary . . 141 R o m e ....................................................145

Historical Sketches . . . 137 The “ Dublin Review” . . . 138 The “ Quarterly Review” . . 139 S hort N otices : Études Religieuses, & c .— Revue du Monde Catholique ..... 140

Allocution of Our,' Most Holy

Lord Pius IX .................................. 146 Provincial Council of Westminster . 146 English Pilgrimage to Paray-le-

M o n ia l ...............................................147

D io cesan N ews :

Westminster . Southwark Birmingham . Hexham and Newcastle Newport and Menevia . I r e l a n d :

Letter from our Dublin spondent F oreign N ews :

France M emoranda :

Religious Educational . Literary G eneral N ews

Page

. 147 • 147 . . 148 . . 148

. 148

Corre-

. . 148

•

. 150 . 150 . 150

. 151

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH’S ALLOWANCE. O

N Monday a Royal Message to each

House announced the consent of the Sovereign to the marriage of H.R.H. Alfred Ernest Albert, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Kent, Earl of Ulster, Duke of Saxony, Prince of SaxeCoburg and Gotha, to H.I.H. the Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna, only daughter of H.M. the Emperor of All the Russias, and called upon the Commons to make, and the Lords to concur in, a further provision for His Royal Highness. The Message was taken into consideration on Tuesday, the Address in the Lords being moved by Lord Granville, seconded by Lord Salisbury, in the absence of the Duke of Richmond, and passed unanimously. In the Commons Mr. Gladstone moved, and Mr. Ward Hunt, in Mr. Disraeli’s absence,#seconded, two resolutions for the addition of ,£10,000 to the Duke of Edinburgh’s actual annuity of ,£15,000, and a contingent annuity of £6,000 to the bride in case of her widowhood. It was explained that in the original grant of £15,000 a year, a special clause was inserted empowering her Majesty or her successors, with the consent of Parliament, to reduce the annuity in the event of the Prince succeeding to the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Mr. Peter Taylor has given notice of opposition to the second reading of the Bill on the unintelligible ground that it is “ unwarranted by “ precedent and uncalled for by the circumstances of the case,” and we fear that there is little hope that meditation on the humiliating minority in which he found himself on Princess Louise’s Dowry Bill will lead him to reconsider his resolution. Mr. Holt then put a question which we have been expecting that somebody would ask. “ Would the “ Grand Duchess conform to the established religion ? ” Mr. Gladstone replied that theAct of Succession was intended to provide “ against the possession of the throne by a person “ professing a particular religion [the Catholic] not on the “ ground of what was properly religious in that religion, but “ on the ground of political danger, which we conceive, and, “ I am bound to say— I hope it will offend no one— -rightly “ conceive, attended the profession of that religion, when “ that Act was passed, in conjunction with the occupation “ of the British throne.” But this question obviously went further, and would form afprecedent for an enquiry which would be “ odious and unjustifiable.” Mr. Newdegate -naturally thought the question a pertinent one, but the matter dropped. Two remarks of the representatives of the Opposition are worth noticing; Lord Salisbury, taking up Lord Granville’s remark that royal marriages seldom accomplished the political objects which they were intended to promote, •observed that, “ though they could not be relied on as the

N ew Series. Y ol, X. No. 247

“ means of putting an end to war, he was not so certain that “ that they did not conduce to the maintenance of peace ; ” while Mr. Ward Hunt declared that, if the Government had proposed a larger amount, “ the House would cheer“ fully have granted it.” .

The arbitrations undertaken by Lord Cairns ture mLLui anc*,tlle ^ate Lord West;bury respectively having the lords, furnished Air. Gladstone and the Attorney-

General with an argument for binding ex-Chancellors to perform regular duties as Judges of Appeal, Lord Cairns very naturally explained last week that the work thus done could scarcely be called private business, as the arbitrators were invested by Parliament with more extensive powers than those of the Lord Chancellor ; and that the acceptance of the office by a high dignitary with other duties could scarcely be objected to, inasmuch as the Act declared that the only persons fit to be appointed to it were ex-Chancellors, Judges of one of the Superior Courts, or members of the Judicial Committee. Moreover, out of fifty-six sittings, four only were held on days when the Lords were hearing appeals, and on one of those four days the hours were sufficiently different to enable Lord Cairns to sit both in the House and in the Arbitration Court. The Lord Chancellor disclaimed, on the part of his colleagues, any intention of making a personal imputation either on Lord Cairns or Lord Westbury, but admitted that if they had had the case, as put by Lord Cairns, before them, the observations referred to would not have been made. Lord Selborne then proceeded to move that the Commons’ amendments to the Judicature Bill should be taken into consideration, and stated that he would meet any objection to the transfer of Ecclesiastical appeals by proposing that some of the Bishops should sit as assessors in the new court. After Lord Redesdale’s motion that the consideration of the amendments should be postponed for three months had been negatived by 61 to 34, Lord Cairns succeeded in restoring the provision struck out by the Commons, by which the Lord Chancellor sits in the Chancery division of the Supreme Court as well as in the Court of Appeal. This was carried by 48 votes to 36. The Lords also, on Lord Chelmsford’s motion, struck out the clause withdrawing the pension from ex-Chancellors who should not signify their willingness to serve on the Court of Appeal, although the Lord Chancellor observed that in these “ days of exaggerated “ views of privilege” the Commons might perhaps object to their striking out a money clause; but, in reply to Lord Cairns, he was happy to state that “ a high authority in “ another place” had assured him that “ the correction of a “ clerical error, even in a money clause,” would not be considered “ an alarming breach of privilege,” and Lord Cairns was thus enabled by the insertion of theword “ and” to give a