THE TABLET

A IVeekly Newspaper and Review.

WITH SUPPLEMENT.

D u m VO B IS GRATUXAM U R , AN IM O S ET IAM ADDIM U S U T IN INCCEPTIS V E S TR IS CON S TAN TER M AN EA T IS .

From the Brief of H is Holiness to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, 1871.

Voi. 46. No. 1839. L o n d o n , J u l y i o , 1875.

P rice ¿d. B y P ost s % d

[R eg is tered a t t h e G e n e r a l P o st O f f ic e a s a N ew spaper.

C h ro n ic le o f t h e W e e k :—

Page

The Debate on Central Asia.— The Declaration of Paris.— Mr. Lowe and the Labour Laws.— Religious Teaching in Board Schools.— Compulsory Education. Mr. Whalley and the Jesuits.— Household Franchise in Counties. — The Resolution of the Left.— The French Electoral Law.— An Immortal Assembly.—The Public Powers Bill.— M. du Cassagnac .and M. Gambetta.— Dr. Falck in Rhineland.— The Pope and Cardinal Ledochowski.— The Revolutionary Party in Russia.— The Car list War.— The Title of Sultan. M . Louis Blanc on Political Compromises, &c., &c. . . . . .. 33

CONTENTS .

L e a d e r s :

. . .

Page

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

The Military Situation in Spain.. 37 | Compulsion in Education . . . . 44 The O ’Connell Centenary.. .. 37 The Floods at Toulouse . . . . 44 The “ Ultramontane ” Bugbear.. 38 ; Jubilees . . . . . . . . 44 Astronomical Christianity .. .. 3g 1 The Irish University Education _ ^ 1 Motion .. .. . . . . 4^ O ur P r o t e s t a n t C o n t e m p o r a r ie s : ! SS. Anselm’s and Cecilia’s, Lin

Page

Talong Stock .........................40 coln’s-Inn-Fields............................. 45 R e v ie w s : ! ^ r' *n the Rhine Provinces 45

Professor Dupont’s Ontology . . 42 An Appeal .. .. . . ..45 The Contemporary Review . . 42 1 P a r l ia m e n t a r y S ummary . „ 45 S hort N otices : j R ome Letter from our own Cor

The Great Land Question . . 43 respondent . . . . •. 49 The First Christmas .. .. 43 D io c e sa n N ew s :— Sir Thomas Maxwell and his j Westminster.— Visit o f the CarWard . . . . . . ..43 dinal Archbishop to St. Joseph's Gossipping Guide to Wales .. 43 j Missionary College of the Sacred The Magazines for July .. . . 43 | Heart, Mill H i l l ......................... 50

D io cesan (continued) :

Page

Hexham and Newcastle . . . . 51 Liverpool . . .. .. . . 51 Newport and Menevia .. . . 52 Nottingham .. .. . . ..52 I r e l a n d :

Letter from our Dublin Corre­

spondent . . .. . . ..52 F oreign N ew s :—

France.. .. . . . . . . 53 The Floods in France . . . . 54 Germany . . . . . . . . 54 Austria . . .. .. •• 55 Bavaria .. . . . . . . 55 M em oranda :—

Educational . . .. . . . . 55 Cricket .................................... 56 G e n e r a l N ews ............................56

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

THE DEBATE ON CENTRAL

ASIA.

M :

R. B A IL L IE C O C H R A N E ’S speech on the progress o f Russia in Central Asia, and her probable advance elsewhere, was bristling with facts and truths— but truths upon which it is not convenient at present to insist. Considering the present relations between the Russian Government and our own, and the negotiations still perhaps in progress between them, nobody can be surprised that the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs declined to follow the member for the Isle o f Wight into the consideration o f the late Count Rostopchine’s plans for the eventual demolition o f the British Empire. The line which Mr. Bourke took, as the mouthpiece of the Government on this question, was equally practical, prudent, and dignified. H e frankly acknowledged that the progress o f Russia was a phenomenon which neither the Government nor Parliament ■ could look on with indifference, and admitted that it was impossible to maintain that that Power had kept its engagements with regard to Khiva. But this was a point on which, though it ought not to be lost sight of, it would be unwise to dwell. He would not commit himself to the policy of “ masterly inactivity” which had been just advocated by Sir George Campbell, because whether it was a wise policy or not must depend entirely on circumstances. This was the key-note of his speech. “ It had never,” he said, “ been the policy of this country to declare beforehand “ what course it would adopt under hypothetical circum“ stances or upon conditions which did not exist.” I t is perfectly well known to everybody that we do not wish to extend our Indian frontiers, but there may doubtless be in the future a danger o f the two nations “ drifting to“ wards one another/ as was pointed out by Prince Nesselrode, so that the preservation o f a reasonable distance between their frontiers was for the interest o f both. But this Government has altogether given up the idea of formally marking out a neutral zone or territory, principally because it is impossible to agree what that neutral zone shall be. Afghanistan was proposed; but that was out of the question ; besides since then there had been territorial changes— the extension o f Russia towards the south and east— which have materially altered the condition o f affairs. In plain words, we cannot be bound down to declare for all time what may be or what may not be a danger to our Indian Empire. I f we were to agree that Afghanistan was to be the neutral zone, a future generation might see Russia pressing too near to our northern frontier; if we fixed on Budakshan and Kashgar, she might be found advancing by Herat. And the proposition that each Empire should exercise political in

N e w Se r i e s , V o l . XIV. No. 348.

fluence in a separate sphere outside its frontier would beequally inadmissible, because it is impossible to define “ political influence,” and there would be no end of misunderstandings as to whether either country were fulfilling its engagements. Moreover, in a country where there were so many nomad tribes not very scrupulous about boundaries, neither could be responsible to the other for all that occurred beyond its frontiers in the sphere supposed to be under its influence. In a word, we are not an aggressive Power, and our Asiatic neighbours know i t ; we will not enter into any engagement which may prejudice their interests, or might hamper our defence o f our own possessions. We look upon the status quo without apprehension, for our relations with Russia are at present o f the most friendly character— relations which, with Mr. Bourke, we hope will not be in any way affected by this debate, or, we may add, by his own frank and manly exposition o f the policy o f England.

Mr. O ’Clery’s motion for the instructions Siven t0 kords Clarendon and Cowley to Par is . s 'gn the declaration o f Paris was met by Mr.

Bourke in a way which will be scarcely satis­

factory to those who feel strongly about this important question. The motion itself indeed could not be made, another division having been taken on the motion to go into Committee of Supply; but Mr. O ’Clery made his speech, and told the House with perfect truth that the interest taken in this subject by the public was on the increase. The technical argument upon which he based his case was that the Declaration was not authorized by Parliament, and had never been ratified by the Crown. This, however, Mr. Bourke was able to turn aside by the answer that other international engagements— such as the declaration with regard to the independence o f the Islands o f the Pacific, and several commercial and postal conventions had not been ratified, and he hoped the time would not come when such an argument would be used by a Minister of the Crown as a reason for abandoning such a Declaration as that o f Paris. As for the papers, they could not be produced, being o f a peculiarly confidential character, because Lord Clarendon was not only Plenipotentiary, but also Secretary for Foreign Affairs, so that he had no instructions to receive from anybody but the Cabinet. But the objection which is becoming more and more widely entertained against the changes introduced by this Declaration into the Maritime Law of Nations cannot be disposed o f by this kind o f reply. It is believed that in the next war it will be found that the power of England— which can only make itself felt at sea— is materially crippled by the abolition o f privateering and the maxim that “ the neutral flag covers enemies’ goods “ except contraband o f war.” We do not attach very much importance to the first of these changes, for if any Power