THE TABLET

A Weekly Newspaper and Review.

W ITH S U P P L EM E N T .

Dum vobis gratulamur, animos etiam addimus ut in incceptis vestris constanter maneatis.

From the Brief oj His Holiness to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.

Vol. 40. No. 1695. L ondon, October 5, 1872.

P r ic e sd. B y P ost s Vz

[R eg ister ed a t t h e G en er a l P ost O f f ic e a s a N ew s pa p e r .

C h ro n ic le of t h e W e e k : Opinion

Page

»on the Award.— American Views.— Lord Redesdale again.— The Judgment of the “ Debats.”— Mr. Lowe .and Sir A. Cockburn.— Mr. Lowe on the Financial Position.— Mr. Forster at Bradford.— Mr. Stansfeld and Trade Unions.— Mr. Miall on Disestablishment.— The Geneva Persecutions.— The Persecution in Germany.— Garibaldi on Liberty.— M. Thiers and the Permanent

.Committee.— M. Thiers and M. Gambetta.— M. Thiers and Gari-baldi.— M. Thiers, the Army, and Peace.— 'The Commercial Treaty and Navigation Laws.— Germans in France.— French in Germany.— -North Schleswig, &c., &c. . . 417

CONTENTS.

L ea d e r s :

Page

Rosary Sunday . . . .4 2 1 The Dollingentes and their Critics 421 The Russell Cabinet and the Ca­

tholic University . . . 422 The Massacre at Drogheda and

Page

Ritualists.— The Jesuits and their Dangerous Designs.—The “ Civiltà Cattolica” on Father Faber’s Spiritual W o r k s ......................................429 C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :

W e x f o r d ....................................424 T he A nglican M ovem ent :

The Test of Catholicity . . 425 R e v ie w s :

Sequel to the Conversion of the

Protestant Orders.— The Table . 430 “ Ritualism” .... 431 The Society of S. Vincent de Paul. 431 Catholic Church, Aberdeen . .431 Queries 431 The Bedford Mission . . .4 3 1 R ome :

Teutonic Race .... 426 Anglicanism and the Fathers . 427 Daily Steps to Heaven . . , 428 The Contemporary Review . . 429 S hort N o t i c e s : Church and State in Discord.— Puttyput’s Protégée. — Practical Jokes. — Protestant

Letter from Rome .... 432 R ecord of the German P ersecu­

t e

D io ce san N ew s :

W estm in s te r ........................................ 434 S o u t h w a r k ........................................ 435

433

D iocesan N ews (continued) Page

Birmingham .

Liverpool

• 435

• • 435

I reland:

Letter from our Dublin Corresponclent

• 435

Foreign N ews :

Switzerland

Alsace

Sweden 4 ,

• • 436

• • 437

• 437

M emoranda :

Religious

Literary

Scientific

Fine Arts

Medical

General N ews

• 438

. 440

• 441

. . 441

. 441

• 441

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

ON .THE AWARD. T

OPINION

HE contributions of the week on the Geneva Award have been considerable. The Saturday Review says with truth that disinterested and competent people will have little difficulty in satisfying themselves that, where the arbitrators differed, the Chief Justice is, as might have been expected, in the right, and that, while the others give a verdict, he delivered a judgment. In •one sense it would perhaps have been more convenient if the arbitrators had not agreed that each should furnish a separate statement of the grounds on which they arrived at their decision, for nothing can be more extraordinary than some of the reasons adduced. Mr. Adams, for instance, thus argues the principal moot point, the meaning of due diligence. “ Due,” he says, is derived from “ debere” ; which nobody will question— and “ debere” from “ de habere,” “ quasi habere de alio,” and, therefore, “ due” means “ owing” to another. It does not seem to strike him that the question is not what due means etymologically, but how much is due ? Sir A. Cockburn’s view is, that the words mean that diligence which a •Government might be expected to exert in its own concerns, and on this ground he dismisses the claim in the cases of the Florida and Shenandoah. Miscarriages such as these must sometimes occur, and if a neutral is to be liable for .the possible consequences, neutrality will become a thing too burdensome to endure. Either the law as laid down at Geneva will not be accepted by other Governments, or “ maritime nations will look on belligerents with very con“ siaerable dread.” This is the view taken by Count Beust who, in a despatch in the Austrian Red Book, recommends the determined rejection of the new rules as preposterous and retrograde. Sir A. Cockburn does not conceal his dislike to the concessions by which the new rules acquired a retrospective force, and his opinion of the way in which the treaty-negotiations were conducted is pretty evident.

The American papers which have come to hand judge variously of the settlement, according as they are supporters or enemies of General Grant. The New York Times approves of it; and the Tribune says, that as the Americans are to pass the greater part of their national life as neutrals, they have simply put weapons into the hands of jealous belligerents for the annoyance of their legitimate industries; and further, that while England can repudiate the award as a precedent for the future, America cannot, as her arbitrator was a party to it. The World says that the claims admitted might have been just as well adjusted under the ClarendonJohnson treaty— which is true, and goes to support Sir A.

New Series. Vol. V I II . No. 204.

Cockburn’s objection to interest being charged since the date of the rejection of that treaty by the Senate. The New York Herald's judgment is, of course, equally unfavourable, and talks of the “ bitter feeling of humiliation and injustice rankling in the minds ” of the Americans, and actually accuses the English diplomatists of “ sharp practice,” which is rather good. There is nothing like instantly demanding an apology when you have trodden on a man’s toes. It puts you so completely in the right.

Here in England Lord Redesdale has again r e d e s d a l e r e t u r n e d t o tlie charge, with the argument— of a g a i n . which he complains that no notice was taken in the judgment— that the American Union cannot claim compensation for acts done at the instigation of a part of itself; and that any damages which England might have to pay ought partly to be recouped from the States which at the time formed the Confederacy. The argument is unanswerable; but then it would scarcely answer the real end, which was to pacify the Northerners. Whether, as it is, we have quite succeeded in attaining this end, may be judged from the tone of the American press.

Mr. John Lemoinne, in a well-reasoned article xlX t JUD°-e ' n ^le -D^ats, tells us that the award is “ a

“ d e b a t s . ” “ serious check for the diplomacy and policy

“ of England, which have been beaten from “ beginning to end” ; and, further, that it simply “ decides a “ special case and establishes no principle of law.” So true is this, argues M. Lemoinne, that “ no satisfaction has “ been obtained for the armed inroads into Canadian terri“ tory ” ; the only difference between them and the case of the Alabama being that the former were prepared on American territory in open day instead of in secrecy. Before leaving this subject we must mention the “ Cure “ for Alabamas,” proposed by a correspondent signing himself “ Expectans ” in the Times. It is that the shipbuilders should be warned that they will have to pay any damages awarded on account of ships furnished by them to a belligerent.

It is this that has called forth Mr. Lowe’s m r . l o w e somewhat imprudent criticism at. Glasgow. Lie cociiBmiN regrets that his learned friend the Lord Chief

Justice did not simply sign the award without giving a judgment of his own. But as the other arbitrators agreed that each should make a separate statement, it could scarcely be expected that the one who had something to say should refrain from saying it. To object to his doing so would be to deprive him of his judicial character. But this is apparently what Mr. Lowe does. He thinks, and we suppose his colleagues think, that America had no case against us according to the law of nations, and that “ our position “ was impregnable.” But as our object was not really “ a