THE TABLET

A Weekly Newspaper and Review

D um v o b i s g r a t u l a m u r , a n im o s etx am a d d im u s u t i n in c c e p t i s v e s t r i s c o n s t a n t e r m a n e a t i s .

From the B r ie f o f H is Holiness to T he T ablet, Ju n e 4, 1870.

Vol. 48. No. 1896. . L ondon, A u g u s t 12, 1876.

P rice 5d. By Post 5%d.

[R eg istered a t th e General Post Office a s a N ewspaper

Chronicle of the Week:—

Page

The Education Bill. Lord Hartington’s Motion.—Lord Robert Montagu’s Amendment. — The Third Reading.—The Bill in the Lords.—The Vivisection Bill.— The Suez Canal Shares.—The Fall of Kujazevatz.—Capture of Kaitschar.—Moukhtar Pasha and the Montenegrins.—Cruellies in Bulgaria. The Turkish Defence. —Mr. Bourke’s Explanation.— Scheme of Turkish Reform.— Egyptian Finance.—Mr. Cave’s Mission.—Terrible Railway Accident .. .. .. .. .. 193

CONTENTS.

Leaders:

Page

The Education Bill _ .. . - 197 The Debate on Irish National

Education .. .. .. .. 197 Public Conscience in Italy .. 198 Mr. Butt’s University Bill .. 199 The Musical Value of the Gre­

gorian Chant .. .. .. 200 P ictures :

The Mignot Collection .. .. 201 R eview s :

Hefele’s Councils of the Church.

Vol. II. .. .. .. .. 202 The Discipline of Drink .. .. 203 Catholic Eschatology and Uni-

versalism .. .. .. .. 203 S hort N otices :

Confidence in the Mercy of God 204 Semi-Tropical Trifles .. .. 204

S hort N otices (continued):

An Inquiry into the Nature and

Page

Results of Electricity and Magnetism .. .. .. .. 204 Picturesque Europe .. .. 204 The Belfry .. .. .. .. 205 Correspondence :

Indulgences in England.—The

Rosary .. .. .. .. 205 A Literary Inquiry.. .. .. 205 Parliam en tary S ummary . . 205 R ome :—Letter from our own Cor­

respondent . . .. .. 209 D iocesan N ews :— Westminster .. .. .. .. 210

D iocesan (continued) ;

Page

Southwark......................................2ir Clifton .. .. .. .. 211 Newport and Menevia .. . . 211 Nottingham .. .. .. . . 211 Shrewsbury .. .. . . .. 2ir I reland

Letter from our Dublin Corre­

spondent ............................. 212 F oreign N ews ;—

France

................................ 213

Germany ................................ 213 M emoranda :—

Religious ..

214

General N ews ............................ 215

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

LO RD H A R T IN G T O N did not move his amendment to the Education B ill on the rePort o f amendment being hartington’s brought up, in the form originally announced motion. by him to the deputation at Devonshire House.

H e discovered that the forms o f the House precluded him from moving the recommitment of the B ill in a motion which also stated his reasons. He, therefore, contented himself with simply moving that, in the opinion o f the House principles had been introduced into the B ill since its .second reading, which were not then contemplated by the House, tending to disturb the basis on which elementary education now rests, impeding the formation o f new schools, introducing discord into the election o f school boards, and placing the management o f schools in the hands o f persons who neither contribute to their support nor are elected by the ratepayers. The ratepayer is always a favourite stalking horse o f the Liberal party. Lord Hartington’s disclaimer o f any intention or desire to defeat or even delay the passing o f the B ill must have been anything but agreeable to his Radical friends— it is absurd to call them followers. Their object in waiting upon him last week was to persuade him to move such a resolution as, if it were successful, would defeat the Bill. Lord Hartington knew perfectly well that such a resolution, even if he could conscientiously move it, so far from uniting the Liberal party would only serve to show more clearly how hopelessly it is split up on this important question. He, therefore, suggested the milder resolution, which, in a modified form, he proposed on the subject. But it is obvious that even if this resolution had passed the B ill must at least have been delayed and probably would not have passed this session. Lord Hartington particularly objected to Clause 47 and Mr. Pell’s Clause. H is friends, the Dissenters, were injured by the first, inasmuch as by it assistance will be given to denominational schools out o f proportion to what they receive from voluntary contributions. B y Mr. Pell’s Clause an attack was made upon the School Board system, which excited great alarm. Lord Sandon had an eas) task in replying to Lord Hartington’s statements, which were evidently the outcome o f the exigencies of his position, being the leader o f a party which acknowledges no guidance, and least o f all his. Lord Sandon pointed out that there are already many schools supported entirely by the pence o f the children and the Government Grants, having no voluntary subscriptions, or none to speak of. The state of the case is this :—The average cost per child is now 32s., and the average Government Grant is 13 s . 8d., which still leaves 18s. 4d. to be supplied ; so that taking the fees a t the high figure o f 10s., a considerable sum is still left to

N ew Series, V ol. XVI. No. 405.

be supplied by voluntary subscriptions. There is no doubt that— as we said at the time of the passing o f this clause— the benefits conferred thereby on poor voluntary schools will be very great. We cannot understand the jealousy and narrow-mindedness o f the party which affects a monopoly o f advocating “ civil and religious liberty ” on this point o f religious education. A s Sir G. Bowyer put it, if Catholics, who are a poor body, build schools for their own children, why cannot Dissenters, who are a more wealthy body, do the same ? Lord Hartington’s resolution was negatived by a majority o f 62— 182 to 120 .

After Lord Hartington’s resolution had been. l° rd thus disposed 0f( Lord Robert Montagu Montagu’s move(3 as an amendment to Clause 14 , amendment, that where a School Board has failed to make regulations under the 25th Clause o f the Act of 18 70 it shall be the duty o f the Guardians o f the Poor to pay the school fees o f those children whose parents from poverty are unable to pay them. Mr. Forster strongly opposed the clause, as it would make the 25 th Clause compulsory instead o f optional, and Lord Sandon was unwilling to reopen the question. Subsequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that as various cases of hardship had been proved, especially in the case o f poor Catholics in large towns, the Government would accept the amendment. The Opposition were fu rious; they taunted the Government with making an alliance with the Catholic members, and with a constant change o f front. An admirable speech, which was loudly cheered, was made by Mr. Sullivan in his most eloquent manner. H e denied the allegation o f Sir W. Harcourt that Catholics desired what the latter called “ clerical domination ” in educational matters. What they maintained was that education, divorced from religion, might make skilful infidels, but would never produce good citizens. H e warned the Liberal party that i f they forced the poor man, when he could no longer pay, to send his children to a school from which his conscience rebelled, they would not carry the country with them. But the Opposition were determined to defeat the clause if they could, so they resorted to the tactics o f moving the adjournment o f the House, though continually defeated, until half-past four on Friday morning, when the Government gave way. A t the next sitting Lord Sandon explained the intention o f the Government. Great injustice had been done to the poor in large towns, which included (as several Irish members had pointed out) a large proportion of Catholics, to whom it was a serious grievance to be forced indirectly, by the operation o f the 25th Clause o f the Act o f 1870, to send their children to Board Schools. Therefore they proposed— i f Lord Robert Montagu would withdraw his amendment— to omit from Clause 14 , which provided that the Guardians should