THE TABLET
A Weekly Newspaper and Review.
D u m VOBIS GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS UT IN INCCEPTTS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEATIS.
From the Brief of His Holiness to T he T a b l e t , June 4, 1870,'
Vol. 44. No. 1791. London, August 8, 1874.
P rice 5d. B y P ost sJ^d.
[R egistered a t the General P ost O ffice a s a N ewspaper
‘C hronicle of th e W eek : —
Page
The Public Worship Bill.—The Lords’ Amendments in the Commons.—The Fiji Debate.—The Irish Bills.— The French Assembly — its Prorogation. — Charges against Catholics—the Attempt at Kissingen.— The “ Atrocities ” in -Spain.—The Last Carlist Account. — Captain Schmidt.— Reprisals.— Incidents of the War.— Relative Strength of the Combatants.— German Intervention. — Carlist Supplies and the Complaints against France.—Action of the French Government. — Cardinal Guibert’s Pastoral .. .. .. 161
CONTENTS.
L e a d e r s :
Sir William Harcourt and Canon
Page
Law .. .. .. .. .. 165 The Work of the Session .. .. 165 The Condition of „Sicily . . .. 166 An Evening on Chelsea Bridge .. 167 O ur P rotestant Contemporaries :
The Church of England .. .. 167 R eview s :
The “ Quarterly Review” .. 169 The Three Kings and other
Poems .. .. .. 17° History of the Catholic Church in
Scotland .. .. .. *7X Short N otice :
Domestic Floriculture .. . . 171 Literary, Artistic, & Scientific Gossip 171 C orrespondence:
Press Charges against Catholics.. 172
Page
The Pilgrimage to Pontigny .. 173 An Appeal from West Australia .. 173 Open Churches .. .. .. 173 The Reform of Church ’ Music .. 173 Parliam entary I ntelligence .. 174 R ome :
Letter from our own Cor
respondent .. .. .. 177 Roman Municipal Affairs.—The
Old Administration and the New 178 R ecord of G erman Persecution :
The Kullmann Affair .. .. 179 Prosecution of Priests .. .. 179 Further Imprisonments .. .. 179 D io cesan N ews :—
Westminster .. .. .. .. 179 Southwark .. .. .. .. 180 : Birmingham .. .. .. .. 180 !
Hexham and Newcastle .. Pag* .. 18O Newport and Menevia . . I8I Nottingham .. Plymouth . . I8I Salford Shrewsbury .. Scotland— Western District . . 18I Scotland—Eastern District .. i8r I reland ........................... Foreign N ews :—
France Prussia Austria
Alsace M emoranda :—
.. 183
Religious.— Catholic Union .. 184 Educational .. L e g a l .................................... G eneral N ews .. 185
CH RON IC LE OF THE W EEK.
BILL. T
THE PUBLIC
WORSHIP
H E bill for the regulation o f Public Wor
ship passed its third reading in the Com mons on Monday. On the previous Friday Mr. Disraeli had withdrawn his Resolution for providing a salary on the ground that a distinguished judge had offered to serve for no other renumeration than his presen t pension. Everybody jum ped to the conclusion that this was Lord Penzance, but now Mr. D israeli read a letter from the two Archbishops, stating that they intended to nominate Lord Penzance, who would accept the office “ with the provisions as to salary and emoluments embodied •“ in the bill hereafter to be made by P a r l i a m e n tw h e r e upon Mr. D israeli had to explain that it was another judge, and not Lord Penzance, o f whom he spoke on Friday. T h e l im e s points out that the only salary provided by the Bill .is the prospective value o f certain condemned offices, but the A rchbishops undertake that due provision shall be made out o f the fees o f the ecclesiastical courts. T h e y are quite right, i f there is to be such a judge, to complete the permanent arrangement at o n c e ; as, i f a judge had been appointed with no remuneration but his pension, the whole difficulty would have cropped up again on his death or retirement. On Tuesday the amendments o f the Commons were considered by the Lords, who agreed to all except that which gives an appeal to the Archbishop whenever a Bishop decides against proceedings being taken, and that which extends the operation o f the B ill to college chapels. T h e Archbishops o f Canterbury and Y o rk had no wish for the power o f appeal granted by the amendment, but they endeavoured to make it palatable to the Bishops ; and A rch bishop T a it quoted a number o f instances in which such an appeal was permitted, or the concurrence o f the Archbishop necessary. But it was strongly opposed by the Bishops o f W inchester, L incoln, and Oxford, the first-named prelate using the singular argument that Bishops were o f divine institution, and Archbishops o f human. T h e fact is, of course, true— -as regards real Bishops — but i f applicable to Dr. Browne’s purpose, would b e equally cogent against any appeal to a Metropolitan whatsoever. T h e B ishop o f L incoln was afraid o f a Pope a t Canterbury, and an anti-Pope at Y o .k , and asked the Lords to im agine what would have happened with Laud at Canterbury and his contemporary, Archbishop William s, a t York. Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon spoke on the same side, while thorough-going Low Church supporters o f the B ill, such as Lord Harrowby and Lord Fortescue, preferred the additional security which they thought would be given to the la ity by the right o f appeal to the A rch bishop, who was sure, as Lord Fortescue said, to be a
New Series Y ol. XII. No. 300.
man o f great moderation and discretion, and not one lik e the late B ishop o f Exeter. T h e Lord Chancellor proposed a k in d o f compromise by which the B ishop, after deciding that no proceedings should be taken, should send his dec ision to the A rchbishop for his concurrence, and i f th e A rchbishop d id not signify his concurrence w ithin ten days, should call on the parties to state whether th ey would abide by his (the B ishop’s) decision without appeal, and that on receiving their assent he should proceed to hear the case. I t does not appear clear what would happen i f th ey refused to abide by the B ishop’s decision. H owever, the proposal did not take with the House, and Lord Cairns withdrew it, upon which the Commons’ amendment was rejected by a majority o f 12— 44 to 32.
W ednesday’s debate in the Commons the lords afforded a diverting illustration of the curious in the cross-divisions which the introduction of a recommons. ligious question has brought to light. Mr. G lad
stone chastised Sir W. Harcourt, and Mr.
D israeli threw over Lord S a lis bury; Sir W. H arcourt com plim ented Mr. D israeli as the hope o f Protestant England, and told him not to mind his colleagues, for he had made them , and not they him. T h e Premier was not ill-pleased, and though he did not endorse the Liberal ex-Solicitor-General’s attacks on Lord Salisbury’s “ rash and rancorous tongue,” he told the House that his colleague was “ a master o f “ jib es, flouts, and sneers,” and credited him with an in tention o f provoking the majority in the Commons, by accusing it of “ bluster,” to insist on its amendments, and so defeat the Bill. Mr. D israeli hoped that the House would not fall in to his colleague’s “ trap and his remarks on Lord Salisbury excited great laughter, but at the same time a k ind o f uneasy suspicion that he might have gone too far, and that the “ terrible M a rqu is" might not take it in good part, and m ight attem pt to upset the coach. I t is to be hoped that the revived institution o f the whitebait dinner w ill have proved useful in smoothing away any asperities which the friction o f this debate may have created. A s to Mr. G ladstone, his speech was in his best and most lo fty manner; he condoned Mr. D israeli’s reference to speeches in the Lords on account o f S ir William Harcourt’s previous offence, complim ented Sir W illiam on the diligence with which he had got up his ecclesiastical law since Friday, and told him that when he had “ sown his parliamentary wild oats,’’ he would doubtless acquire “ temper and wisdom, consideration for the feelings “ o f others, strictness in stating the arguments o f opponents “ — in fact every political virtue that can distinguish a par“ liam entary notability "— and, “ i f he kept the study begun “ on Friday, a knowledge o f ecclesiastical law .” T h e punishment administered was severe, and the House th oroughly enjoyed it. On one point we have a strong rem onstrance
