THE TABLET

A W eekly Newspaper and Review

D u m VO B IS G R A T U L AM U R , A N IM O S ET IAM ADDIM U S U T IN IN CCEPTIS V E S T R IS CON S TAN TER M A N E A T IS .

From the Brief of H is Holiness to T he T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.

Vol. 50. No. 1956. L o n d o n , O c t o b e r 6, 1877.

P r ice sd. B y P o st s%d

[R e g is t e r ed a t th e G en e r a l P o s t O f f ic e a s a N ew spaper

Page

C h ro n ic le o f t h e We e k :—

The War.— French Ministers— Supposed Resistance to “ a Policy of Violence.” — The President’s View of his Position.— Necessary Antagonism of State Powers.— A Defect of Modern Republics.— The Bonapartists— M. Rouher's Address.— The Electoral Period in Paris.— Want of Coherence of the French Opposition. — The French Episcopate and Foreign Relations.— The Late Cardinal Riario-Sforza. — D eath of the Bishop o f Kerry.— Church and State in Prussia. — Hungarian Filibusters,— Professor Tyndall on the Soul and Religious Beliefs. —The Penge Case, &c, . . .. 4*7 1

CONTENTS.

L e a d e r s :

Page

The Crisis in France . . . .4 2 1 Mutual C r it ic ism .........................421 The Protestant Crisis in Berlin . . 422 Amalgamation of Irish Poor L aw

Unions . . •• •• . 423 The Late Very Rev. Dr. Wilkin­

son, President of St. Cuthbert’s College, Ushaw . . . . •• 424 R ev iew s :

Remarks on the Present Con­

dition of Catholic Liberal Education . . . . •• 425 The “ Month” for October . . 426 S hort N otices :

S hort N otices (continued)

Bonn to Metz per Bicycle in Six

Page

Days .. . . . . . . 428 Magazines for October . . . . 428 C orrespondence :

CriticsandControversialists . . 429 Literary Intolerance .. .. 429 Was M. Thiers a Revolutionist or Not? . . .. . . . . 429 The Indian Famine . . . . 429 The Grimes Case .. .. .. 429 St. Joseph’s, Bunhill-row.. . . 430 R ome :— Letter from our own Cor­

Rambles by the Ribble . . .. 427 The Monk of the Monastery of

Yuste .................................... 427 Evans’s History o f England .. 427

respondent ......................... 433 D io ce san N ews :—

Westminster.. . . . . . . 434

D io cesan N ews (continued) .

Southwark .. Birmingham.. Newport and Menevia

Northampton Shrewsbury.. Salford I r e lan d :

Page

•• 435

Letter from our own Correspondent ....................... - 437 Foreign N ews :—

Germany U nited "States G en er a l N ews

. . 439

C H R O N I C L E O F T H E W E E K .

IT seems to be thought at Constantinople that Mehemet Ali’s “ strategical movement ” to the rear of the Lom indicated a want of resolution, and that general has been recalled and replaced in his command by Suleiman Pasha. The latter at any rate is not likely to fail from want of dash, if we are to judge of him from the desperate resolution with which he has been hurling his devoted troops against the impregnable fastnesses of the Shipka pass. Suleiman Pasha is succeeded in the Balkans and the command in Roumelia by Reouf Pasha who, by the bye, was by no means as fortunate as Suleiman in his struggle with General Gourko. The Russians are setting down for a winter campaign and for a regular siege of Plevna, and General Todtleben, of Sevastopol fame, has arrived to take the place of General Zotoff as chief of the Staff to Prince Charles of Roumania, the nominal commander of the beleaguering army. From Asia we have the news that Mukhtar Pasha has repulsed another Russian attack, inflicting a loss of 400 men on his assailants. He and Osman Pasha have each received from the Sultan the title of “ Ghazi,” or the Victorious, together with the first class decoration of the Osmanie in brilliants. On the other hand General Tergukassoff claims to have cleared the Russian territory of Ismail Pasha’s troops.

In the absence of all news of greater f r e n c h interest from the seat of war, public attention su p p o s e d r e - is perforce directed to the preparations for the s is t a n c e elections in France. The English Press goes t o “ a p o l i c y on prophesying with the greatest confidence

0F „ the utter defeat of the Marshal and his Gov io l e n c e . vemment; we will not imitate it by venturing on any forecast of what Sunday week may bring forth. We do not believe that anybody even in France— not even M. de Fourtou or M. Gambetta— is in the least able to foretell with any certainty what the verdict of the country will be. The last device for frightening it into resolute opposition to the Government is a report, industriously circulated, that the Due de Broglie and General Berthaut, the Minister of War, were going to resign. These two Ministers, it was said, would certainly not lend themselves to a coup d 'retat, or anything openly unconstitutional, such as the levy of the taxes by military force in defiance of a Chamber which refused to vote them, and their resignation, therefore, might be taken as a proof that something of this kind was in contemplation. The limes thinks it a great pity that they do not resign at once, as by “ abstaining from making up their minds ” they “ lend their countenance to fatal courses,” and “ are preparing for a day when their chief and their colleagues shall turn upon them and insist that every motive of

N e w Se r i e s , V ol. X V I I I . No. 465.

honour and of safety requires that they stand by one another, in accepting the consequences of acts for which one and all have been responsible.” This is what the limes fears that the two Ministers will do, but lather naively declares its conviction that their withdrawal from the Cabinet now “ would have a profound effect, because it would be a distinct admission that a policy of violence was on the point of being adopted, and the warning thus conveyed to France would at once strengthen the nation and disorganise the schemes of those who are now devising means of overcoming the nation.”

But what if no such schemes, if no such t h e “ policy of violence ” is meditated either by the PRE-viewNT S Marshal or any of his Ministers. This would o f h is be a natural, though to the Opposition an inconp o s i t io n . venient, explanation of M. de Broglie and General

Berthaut’s continuance in their posts. We believe that the view which we before now indicated, whether it be just or not, is really and sincerely held by the President and his advisers. They have not the least intention or desire to upset the Republic, but they understand its institutions otherwise than they are understood by the Opposition in France and the mass of the English papers. The President to them is not a constitutional monarch, the Chamber is not the sole ultimate authority by which his policy is to be determined. In their eyes President, Senate, and Chamber of Deputies are three co-ordinate elective authorities, and the latter has no right to dictate despotically to the others. The President is elected on his personal merits and for his political views, just as is the majority in the Senate or Chamber, and it is an understood thing that he is to govern, speaking generally, within the limits of his known policy. It would be as absurd, they consider, that Marshal MacMahon when President should have M. Gambetta for his Minister, as that M. Gambetta, if chosen President, should have the Duc de Broglie for his.

That this element of “ personal power ” is n e c e s s a r y not a new introduced by Marshal Maco f s t a t e Mahon we have a vary convincing proof in the p ow e r s— history of M. Thiers’s Presidency. That states­

man was always “ governing” instead of “ reigning,” and behaving rather as a Minister than as a Constitutional Monarch, as a helmsman rather than as a figure-head to the bark of State. It is true that he was always threatening to resign, and the chief grievance against Marshal MacMahon is that in no case is he likely to quit his post. But M. Thiers was President for an indefinite period and in a strictly provisional regime, and it would be absurd to expect that a President, elected for a certain term of years should resign every time that he found himself in conflict with one of the two other Powers in the State. In the constitution of the United States of