THE TABLET -¿v.

A Weekly Newspaper and Review.

DDM VOBIS GRATULAMUS, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMOS UT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEAT.S.

From the Erie; oj His Holiness Pius IX. to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, ri?o.

Vol. 93. No. 3067. L o n d o n , F e b r u a r y 18 , 1899. price 5<l, bypost ¡mí.

[R eg i st e r e d a t t h e G e n e r a l P ost O f f ic e a s a N ew spaper.

C hronicle of th e W e e k :

Page

Imperial Parliament: The Bishops on the Defensive — The Debate in the Commons—Overcrowding in Towns—Mr. Labou' -chere and the House of Lords—

Ministers as Company Directors —The United States and the 'Philippines-----The Situation in Samoa— “ Truth ” and Catholic Lotteries — The Ex-Convict Widdows — The Growth of a Quarter of a Century—The Dreyfus Case : The Chamber and the Cabinet — General Mercier’s Evidence—Narrow Escape of a Liner—Count Torre Diaz on the Chances of Carlism . . . . 2*>7

CONTENTS

Leaders :

Page

The Westminster Cathedral . . 241 Roman Canon Law in England . . 242 N otes . . “ Richelieu R eview s : #

- - - - 243 at Beaumont College 245

The American Revolution . . Cambridge Conferences _ . . Elizabeth, Empress of Austria . . London Government . . .. Dawn on the Hills of T ‘ ang, or

China as a Mission Field .. Lays of the Knights .. .. Notes on the Painted Glass in

Canterbury Cathedral . . . . Sir Edward Burne Jones.. . . The Bishop of Plymouth . . . . For the Rescue of Orphans . . . .

245 246 247 247 248 248 248 249 249 249

C orrespondence ï

Rome <Frcm Our Own Corre­

Page spondent) . . — » — 253 News from Ireland _ — 254 News from France.. . . •• 255 L e t t e r s to t h e E d it o r :

Vital Statistics . . .. Very Simple........................ The Use of Incense ., Plague in Bangalore ., The Ritual Controversy . . The Irish University Question Mr. Justice Day at Wigan . . Popular Church History . . N ew s from t h e D ioceses :

•• 255 •. 256 . . 256 . . 256 . . 256 •• 257 . . 258 . . 260

Westminster . . . .

261

N ew s F rom t h e D io ceses (Con- Page tinued) Clifton *. Leeds . Liverpool . Nottingham . Salford . O b it u a r y . . . . Social a n d P o l it ic a l

. . 261 . . 261 . . 26t . 261 ». 262 ». 262 . . 264

SUPPLEM ENT. The New Cathedral, Westminster :

Progress of the Work . . . . 269 The Marble Columns . . . . 270 Notes . . . . . . 270 Historical or Devotional Decora­

tion ^. . . . # . . . . 272 Our Catholic Opportunity . . 273

Rejected MS. cannot be returned unless accompanied with address and postage.

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

THE BISHOPS ON THE DEFENSIVE. T

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT :

HAT the crisis in the affairs of the Church is taken seriously may be judged from the fact that the matter came up for discussion in both Houses of Parliament on the same night. In the Upper House eighteen Bishops had foregathered in their white lawn to present the country with a vindication of their action, or rather want of action, in regard to the increasing movement towards Ritualism in the Church of England. The Bishop of Winchester opened the discussion by explaining that the complaints made against the Bishops were based on the use of the episcopal veto in cases of prosecution for ritualistic practices, the courts being thus closed by the arbitrary action of the Bishops. His lordship pointed out that with three “ trifling but significant exceptions,” no living Bishop had exercised the veto. In 1876 the Bishop of Gloucester had vetoed a case that was before the Law Courts ; in 1886 the Bishop of Exeter had vetoed another; and the last was that of the reredos in St. Paul's, which, after having been decided in a court of law, was vetoed by the Bishop of London. Bishop Fraser, Bishop Ryle, and Archbishop Tait had actively discouraged resort to prosecution, and no one could doubt the genuine Protestantism of these men. The evil that was certainly growing was not the performance of overt or outrageous acts so much as the exaggeration of a truth; it was the growth of mistaken ideas of a materialisti« kind in regard to the Eucharist, of practices in regard to Confession and of the use of dangerous manuals of devotion. That evil must be checked, but not at the expense of that comprehension which was vital to the life of the Church of England. Lord Kinnaird based his demand for action on the following figures : “ Eucharistic vestments are declared to be illegal, and yet we find that, whereas in the year 1882 there were 336 churches in which those illegal vestments were used, the number has increased to 2,026. The use of incense has been declared illegal; and yet we are told that, whereas in the year 1882 incense was used in nine churches, it is now used in 381. Then take the case of altar lights at the Holy Eucharist. In they numbered 581. They have now increased kw S3RiB<!. Vol. I.XI., No. 2,376 1882

to

4,334. I am told that these are illegal. There is, at all events, some doubt as to their legality. And I am told that the majority of competent authorities hold them to be illegal. The question of the mixed chalice is a moot point, but the cases have increased to 4,030.” The Bishop of London agreed as to the seriousness of the crisis. There was a general agreement that all cause of misunderstanding must be speedily removed, but that would not be effected by the recommendations of the new Elijah, Sir W. Harcourt. The Bishops had acted as Englishmen rather than as ecclesiastics, and they were glad of the crisis because it strengthened their hands. Lord Halifax’s speech consisted mainly of a restatement of the ideas put forward in his article in The Nineteenth Century in favour of the continuity of the Church of England, which could not, he alleged, disclaim its relations with the continental Churches ! The Earl of Cranbrook welcomed the suggestion made by the Archbishops. Lord Kimberley very pertinently pointed out to Lord Halifax that they were dealing with a Church established by law and regulated by the Act of Uniformity. He looked with some apprehension on the erection of a new Court, as he understood that Lord Halifax and his friends were not prepared in the last resort to submit to the Civil Law of the country in such matters. His Grace of Canterbury thought that the agitation proceeded from a fear on the part of the laity that Church doctrine was imperilled, and the Bishops had never been remiss in dealing with doctrinal excesses. There had been excess in ritual, too, but with no desire to join the Church of Rome, and it would be absurd to dismiss men who were doing devoted work. The tribunal the Archbishops sought to establish was nothing more than that set up by the Prayer Book.

—-THE DEBATE IN THE

COMMONS.

In the House of Commons Mr. Smith continued his speech in favour of his amendment to the Address. After he had supplied further facts as to the prevalence of Ritualism,

Lord Cranbourne declared that the remedy for the situation would not be found in the dictation of doctrine by the State. Disestablishment would, he thought,only help the Ritualists. Mr. Mellor pointed out that since the Papal decision on Anglican Orders the Ritualists had no support either from the Church of Rome or the Church of England. The veto, of the Bishops should be done away with. Mr. Birrell could not support the amendment, for sacerdotalism was writ large over the formularies of the Church of England, which as well as the nation had outgrown the Thirty-Nine Articles. He would have nothing to do with any measure for the