THE TABLET A Weekly Newspaper and Review

D u m V O B IS G R A T U L AM U R , A N IM O S E T IA M ADD IM U S U T IN INCOEPTIS V E S TR IS C O N S TAN TER M AN E A T IS .

Brom the Brief of His Holiness Pius IX. to The Tablet, June 4, 1870.'

Vol. 51. No. 1983. L ondon, A pril 13» 1878.

price 5d. b y post ¡%

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

Page

C h ronicle o f t h e W e e k :—

The Address in the Lords.— Lord Derby’s Speech.— Lord Salisbury on the Personal Responsibility of Ministers.— The Address in the Comn-ons.— The Second Night. — Russia and Roumania.— The Question of Bessarabia.— Prince Gortchakoff’s Reply. — The Chance of a Congress. — The Ministerial Appointments. — Refusal of Grants to New Voluntary Schools.— The Allocution in the Late Consistory.— St. Ninianand Ven. Bede.—The Latin Names of Argyll. ....................... . . .

449

CONTENTS.

L e a d e r s :

Page

The Return o f Cardinal Manning 453 The Budget . . .. . . . . 453 The Ministerial Crisis in Prussia 454 Review o f Results of Irish

National Schools . . . . . 455 R e v iew s :

Select Works of the Ven. Father

Nicolas Lancicius, S .J . . . . 457 The Temples of the Jews . . 458 The “ Month ” for April . . . . 458 S hort N o t i c e s :

Our Malay Conquests . . . . 458 Our Sunday Fireside . . .. 458 May Papers.. . . . . . . 458 Pottery and Glass Traders’

Review . . . . . . . . 459

C orrespondence :

Pago

Reform of Church Music.. . . 459 Vatican Fictions . . .. .. 461 A Sad Case .. .. . . .. 461 St. Mary’s Catholic Church,

B o s t o n .................................... 461 St. Antony of Padua . . .. 461 The Fast of Lent . . . . . . 461 The Catholic Deaf and Dumb

Institution at Boston Spa . . 462 St. Mary’s Home . . . . . . 462 P a r l ia m e n t a r y Summary . . 462 R ome :— Letter from our own

Correspondent . . . . . .4 6 5 The Late Very Rev. Dr. Grant,

Rector of the S cots College, Rome 467

The Holy Father on Modern

Page

Civilisation and the Church . . 468 D io ce san N ews

Westminster.......................................469 S o u th w a rk ....................................... 469 Clifton .. . . . . . . 470 Hexham and Newcastle . . . . 470 Nottingham.. ........................... 479 I r e lan d :—

Letter from our own Corre­

spondent . . . . . , 470 M em oranda :—

Religious . . . . . . . . 471 G en er a l N ews .. . . . . 471

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

THE ADDRESS IN THE LORDS. T

HE House of Lords has voted the

Address in reply to the Queen’s Message without a division, and the upshot of the Ministerial speeches is decidedly favourable to the maintenance of peace. Lord Beaconsfield expressly stated that, although every one of the articles of the Treaty of Santo Stefano is “ a deviation” from the Treaties of 1856 and 1871, he would not, if Russia would consent to place the Treaty before a Congress, call them “ violations” of those treaties, but would look upon them rather “ as suggestions of the Russian Government to be laid before the Congress in order that they might be considered, and, if just, be adopted by the Powers of Europe” ; and he admitted that Russia could not be expected to appear at the Congress “ merely in the same character that she assumed when she became a signatory to the Treaties of 1856 and 1871.” It is not therefore fair, by saying baldly, as Lord Carnarvon did, that the Government wishes to tear up the Treaty of Santo Stefano, to represent it as bent on depriving Russia of all the advantages gained in the war. We acknowledge the necessity of constituting a new government for much of what formerly made up Turkey in Europe, but we obj ect to the settlement which Russia has forced Turkey to agree to, and to these matters being settled at all without the European Powers having a voice in the settlement. It does not follow, however, that the Treaty of Santo Stefano must be absolutely torn up as unsusceptible of modification. The first part of Lord Beaconsfield’s speech consisted of an historical retrospect of our negotiations with Russia since this time last year, and proved successfully that the attitude of the Government has never varied. And although there is not likely to be much doubt upon the subject at home, it is well that it should be thoroughly understood abroad that England is still perfectly ready to go into a Congress. Nor did she start any such difficulties as were debated between other Powers. There were questions about where it was to meet, whether it was to be a Conference or a Congress— “ which, I believe,” said Lord Beaconsfield, “ are exactly the same”— and as to the presidency, and so on ; but in all these discussions England took no part, and accepted whatever was proposed. And when the Prime Minister’s speech is taken in connection with those of his colleagues it becomes apparent that all hopes of a Congress are not yet abandoned. As regards the actual subject of the debate— the calling out of the reserves— Lord Beaconsfield put it in its true light by pointing out that the technical term of reserve force was misleading, for in our system it is applied not to our last, but

New Series, Vol. XIX. No. 492.

to our first resource. Nor is the force thus supplied one “ sufficient to carry on a great war” ; it is only “ a considerable and adequate” force appropriate to such an emergency as the present. Or, as Lord Salisbury well put it, “ our position is not a warlike position; we are simply taking measures of precaution. “ Are you prepared,” he asked, “ to say you will never take them unless you are resolved on war, or there is a certainty of it ? No one in this House would maintain so impossible a position.” What saves all the nations of Europe from maintaining their military preparations at the highest point of efficacy is simply the existence of international law and respect for treaty rights, and in proportion as international law loses its force, and the guarantees of treaties are withdrawn, it is the duty of Government to take all necessary precautions, but these precautions “ do not involve any settled designs of war, still less any menace to any Power in the world.” To a man who could pretend that England should in such a crisis remain disarmed while other nations are armed,Lord Beaconsfield would say Naviget Anticyram, only he trusted, “ for Heaven’s sake, that his lunacy would not imperil the British Empire.” He entirely acquitted his noble friend, whose loss he deplored, of such lunacy, for Lord Derby had added the sanction of his authority “ to the summoning of Parliament and the demand for the vote of credit.” Unfortunately, Lord Derby subsequently stated that those two steps were precisely those to which he always entertained a strong objection.

LORD Der b y ’s SPEECH.

Altogether it is difficult to know what to say of Lord Derby’s speech. He appears in it as the man we have so long known; the man of judicial mind and admirable coolness of head, but with the defects accompanying those qualities, not the least prominent of which is a tendency to minimise the importance of everything. And it is difficult to understand the wider divergence between himself and his late colleagues, of which he spoke, as implying less than that he does not see that the Treaty of Santo Stefano touches any interests which we should be justified in defending by arms. The calling out of the reserves “ was not,” Lord Derby tells us, “ the sole— indeed, not the principal— reason of the unfortunate divergences which arose.” It is not to be imagined that the preparation of the Circular can have had anything to do with them, for we have Lord Salisbury’s authority for believing that the despatch was not written until after Lord Derby resigned. It must have been composed with great rapidity, for it was made public the very day on which Lord Salisbury’s appointment was announced; but Lord Derby, having said in his speech that it was originally intended as an instruction to our representative at the proposed Congress, Lord Salisbury