THE TABLET

A W eekly Newspaper and Review.

D um VOBIS GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS UT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEATIS.

From the Brie) of H is Holiness to T he Tablet, June 4, 1870

Vol. 44. No. 1807. London, November 28, 1874.

pricesa bv posts^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 s t O f f i c e a s a N e w s p a p e r .

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

Page

Lord Acton's Evidence.— Imaginary Disunion:— Mr. Shee’s Mistake.— Dr. Dollinger on Infallibility.— The Bishop o f Birmingham’s Pastoral.— The German Press.— Opening o f the Twelfth Italian Parliament.—French Municipal Councils.— Population of France.— Democracy in the United States.— The Civil War in Spain. — Rubrical Elasticity.— Feast of the Immaculate Conception .. 673 L e a d e r s :

Mr. Gladstone’s Divided Alle­

giance .. . . . . .. 677 The “ Pall Mall Gazette ” and the

“ Tablet” .. . . .. . . 677

CONTENTS.

L e a d e r s (continued) :

“ The Subjective Conscience and

Page the Objective Law ” . . . . 678 Mr. Baxter on Italy . . .. 679 Old English Pilgrimages.— Co­

ventry . . . . .. .. 680 O u r P r o t e s t a n t C o n t e m p o r a r i e s :

Rationalist Sense and Ritualist

Nonsense .. .. .. . . 681 P i c t u e e s :—

The French Gallery .. .. 682 R e v i e w s :

Fowler’s Elements of Logic, De­

duction and Induction . . . . 683 The Contemporary Review . . 684 Children’s Books .. .. . . 685 S h o r t N o t i c e :

Letter from the Lord Bishop of

Orleans to M. Minghetti . . 686

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :

Page

Lord Acton’s Charge against

Fénelon . . .. .. .. 686 The Deposing Power of the Su­

preme Judge of Christendom . . 687 Sir G. Bowyer and Mgr. Capel . . 690 Ne Sutor Ultra .. . . . . 690 Divided Allegiance.. .. . . 691 Ecclesiastical Music . . . . 691 R o m e :— Letter from our own Cor­

respondent . . .. .. 689 M r . G l a d s t o n e ’s E x p o s t u l a t i o n ;

Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of

Birmingham .. .. . . 692 Letters in the “ Times,” &c. .. 693 Lord Arundell of Wardour . .* 693 Rev. Dr. W. A. Johnson . . . . 693 The O’Donoghue, M.P. .. . . 693

M r . G l a d s t o n e ’ s E x p o s t u l a t i o n

(continued) : Rev. Paul Bottalla, S.J. . . . . 693 H. Owen Lewis, Esq., M.P. . . 694 D i o c e s a n N ew s :—

Westminster .. . . . . .. 695 Southwark . . . . . . ...695 Beverley .. . . . . . . . 695 Hexham and Newcastle . . .. 695 Liverpool .. .. . . . . 695 Nottingham . . . . . . . . 696 Plymouth . . .. . . .. 696 I r e l a n d :

Letter from our Dublin Corre­

spondent . . .. . . . . 696 F o r e ig n N ew s : '

France.. .. .. .. . . 697 G e n e r a l N ew s . . . . 697

CHRONICLE OF THE W EEK.

LORDACTON S EVIDENCE. L ‘

ORD ACTON has not delayed long in responding to the various challenges which his letter to Mr. Gladstone called forth. In support of the assertions contained in that letter he fills three columns and a-half of the l im e s with an array of authorities which at first sight looks very formidable, and which the impartial judges who sit in the tribunal at Blackfriars of course pronounce to be “ overwhelming.” Neither of these facts is surprising; for no one supposed that Lord Acton invented any of his charges ; and his evidences in justification may, without any disrespect to him, be described as exactly suited to the place where they appear, and the audience to which he appeals. We say this without imputing much blame either to him or to them on that score. It is manifest, however, that the defence under such circumstances has but small chance of being heard ; for the world loves attacks, and has no patience for defences. It is obvious that a full answer to every point in this long indictment, which ranges over so many centuries, and refers to so many persons, events, circumstances, and documents, cannot properly be given in the space at our disposal. We will at once, however, grapple with the most important, by far, of the charges brought forward on this occasion— that, namely, which accused St. Pius V. of sending an assassin to murder Queen Elizabeth. Lord Acton has now produced his evidence; and, as was to be anticipated, it entirely fails to establish any such accusation against the Saint. Here is the original charge, as stated in the letter to Mr. Gladstone : u Pius V., the only Pope who has been proclaimed a “ Saint for many centuries, having deprived Elizabeth, com■“ missioned an assassin to take her life.” Now for the proofs. These consist (1) of Lord Acton’snarrative of certain incidents, and (2) of a few sentences from certain documents, separate from their context, and arranged in juxtaposition, either by himself, or by that bitter enemy of everything Catholic, M. Mignet. The chief points of the narrative are as follows. Ridolfi, a Florentine, and secret agent of the Pope in England, set on foot a conspiracy against Queen Elizabeth, and thereupon went to Rome to explain the details to Pius V., “ and to seek his aid.” “ Pius earnestly recommended the “ matter to the King of Spain, assuring him that it was most “ important for religion.” “ At Madrid Ridolfi produced “ credentials which left no room for doubt that he spoke “ the real mind of the Pope.” “ When Ridolfi exposed his “ commission it became apparent that it resolved itself into “ little more than a plot for murdering Elizabeth.” This statement is supported by a few scraps of sentences, which seem to prove that one member of the Spanish Council regarded the “ despatching ” of the Queen of England

New Series. Voi,. XII. No. 316.

as desirable, and that another described her death as “ the real o b j e c t a n d the charge is further strengthened by a letter from Philip II., to the Duke of Alva, distinctly saying that Ridolfi had a plan for killing Elizabeth, and (after some matter admitted in the quotation) going on to state that Ridolfi had informed the Pope “ of all,” and that “ the Holy Father had written to him (the King), and by his “ Nuncio had informed him that he regarded this affair as “ being of the highest importance for the service of God.” Such are Lord Acton’s proofs, and, as marshalled by him, they might seem at first sight very difficult to rebut. Yet we do not hesitate to affirm that they utterly fail exactly at the point where they should be strongest. There is, absolutely, no proof that Ridolfi ever mentioned to Pius V. the underplot for the murder of Elizabeth. Ridolfi, indeed, may have said so at Madrid; but there is strong evidence to show that his word is worthless, and it is beyond question that in the matter of this very conspiracy he deceived the Pope upon a very important point, namely, the Duke of Norfolk’s religion. And here we must accuse Lord Acton of the suppression (from whatever cause) of facts which are essential. Who would guess from his narrative that the conspiracy which took Ridolfi to Rome and Madrid was that for which the Protestant Duke of Norfolk was beheaded ? Who would guess that the Pope had been told by Ridolfi that the Duke had undertaken, in the name of the majority of the English nobility (till then supposed to be Protestants), to raise 23,000 men, and overthrow the Government of Elizabeth, seizing her as a hostage for Mary, if only 8,000 Spanish troops could be landed at Harwich or Portsmouth ? Or, again, who could guess that the placing of Mary of Scotland on the throne, with the Duke of Norfolk for her Consort, and the re-estabhshment of the Catholic religion in England, seemed, according to this scheme, to be near at hand, if Philip would only lend his aid ? Here were reasons enough for the recommendation of Ridolfi to that monarch ; and nothing could well be more misleading and unfair than to keep out of view the existence at that moment of this apparently formidable combination in favour of all that Pius held sacred. Ridolfi, however, had, as we have said, deceived the Pope on this subject, and the letter which he took to Rome and Madrid as the Duke of Norfolk’s was, if not entirely forged, at least interpolated ; for (to mention one proof) it is beyond belief that the Duke ever could have written that Harwich was in Norfolk, his own county, as the copy has i t ; or that other falsehoods in that paper came from him. And if Ridolfi deceived Pius about the Duke, he may well have deceived Philip about the Pope. It is plain that Philip had only the agent’s word that he had informed the Holy Father “ of all ; ” for, notwithstanding the letter of recommendation which Lord Acton has quoted, the King had