THE TABL A W e e k l y Newspaper and Review.
DUM VOBIS GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS UT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEATIS.
From the B r i e f o f H is Holiness P iu s I X . to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, 1870,
V o l . 76. No. 2622.
L ondon, A ugust 9, 1890.
P r ic e sd., b y P ost
-r-*
[R eg iste r ed a t t h e G en e r a l P o st O f f ic e a s a N ew s pa p e r .
CON TENTS.
C hronicle of t h e W e e k : Page
Imperial Parliament: Miscellaneous Affaire— Lord Knutsford and Swaziland — The Premier at the Mansion House— About Ireland and Obstruction— The End of the Constantinople Riot— The Cession o f Heligoland— Kaiser William in England—The Copper Syndicate — The Austrian Imperial Marriage — Mr. Chamberlain and his Constituents — Shooting Affair at Wellington Barracks— The Medical Congress— The Revolution at Buenos Ayres — Execution of Kemmler .. ¡.~i .♦ . . 201 L eaders :
Twice Condemned . . . . . . 205 The “ Pro Patria” Suppression. >. 206 Why Stutter ? . . .: . . 207 The Canons of Bari and Confes
sion.. . . . . . . . . 208
L eaders (Continued) :
Assisted Education
Page . . 209
N o tes . . . . . . . . . . 209 Veni, C re a to r .................................... 211 R ev iew s :
Englishmen in the French Révolu
tion .. . . .. . . . . 212 Mémoires du Duc des Cars . . 213 Life and Works o f St. Bernard .. 214 True Courage, and Other Stories 214 A Man of Mark .. . . . . 214 ' The Scriptural Doctrine o f Sacri-
fice»and Atonement . . . . 214 Taken Away from Dr. Barnardo . . 214 C orrespondence :
Rome :—(From Our Own Corre
spondent) ...................... . . 217 Dublin :— (From Our Own Corre
spondent) .................................... 218
* *
—
Rejected MS. cannot be returned unless accompanied with address and postage.
CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT— MISCELLANEOUS
AFFAIRS. .
. U R IN G question-time, at the end o f last week, Mr. T . W. Russell asked the Government whether there were any papers in the Foreign Office relating to Sir George Errington’s mission to Rome in the time o f the Government o f Mr. Gladstone, and, i f so, whether they could be produced. Mr. W. H . Smith promised to make inquiry. Whereupon Mr. Gladstone rose and with great excitement, in a speech which we print at greater length elsewhere, denounced the question and questioner, proceeding to distinguish between Sir G. Errington’s mission and that o f Sir Lintorn Simmons. On the House resolving itself into Committee o f Supply, on the vote for .£4,898,521 to complete salaries and expenses o f the Post-Office, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre called attention to the greatly increasing revenues o f the PostOffice, and urged that there was considerable neglect and delay in the service. Among other speeches that were made Mr. Henniker Heaton said that he had spent much time in investigating the accounts o f the Post-Office, and he had found that for many years the revenues had been nearer four than three millions. But the manner o f presenting Post-Office accounts was so confusing that it was very difficult for an outsider to understand them. The whole of the expenditure in regard to public sites, for instance, was charged to revenue account— a thing which no firm would do. No fewer than three different statements of accounts were presented last year in connection with the Post-Office, and’ each of the three was different. He was not prepared to bring before the House the numerous grievances which he had looked up, but he ventured to assert that any officer, however eminent, entering the Post-Office, at once became as stubborn and as obstinate as any official in the country. Mr. Raikes in reply said that however interesting and attractive the principle that the Post-Office should have no surplus might appear, the House of Commons would never assent to it when it was recognised that the adoption o f the policy meant an additional taxation pf three millions a year. Mr. Heaton, he said, had gone over familiar ground, but he feared that the question1of accounts must long remain an open one between the Post-Office and Mr. Heaton. Mr.
L e t t e r s to th e E d itor :
Page
Christianity and Civilisation . . 220 Jesuits in Mangalore . . . . 221 The Barnardo Trial . . .. 221 St. Huchony’s Well . . .. 221 The Centenary of St. Gregory the
Great . . . . . . . . 221 Volunteers in Sunday Schools .. 222
Catholic Young Men’s Societies . . 222
“ Grand Academies ” at Stonyhurst 224
From Dubuque to the Cardinal . . 226
The New Bishops . . . . . . 227 F rom E v e r yw h e r e . . . . 227 Social an d P o l it ic a l . . * ... 227 O b it u a r y ...........................................227
SU PPLEM ENT. D ecision s of R oman C ongrega
Page t io n s ....................................................... 233 N ew s from th e S chools :
Supplementary Instructions to In
s p e c t o r s ................... . . Speech Day at Beaumont.. .. Downside and Oxford Examina
tions . . . . ■ .. .. Technical Education . . .. Catholic Collegiate Institute, Man
233 234 234 234
chester . . . . .. .. 235 Arno’s Court Reformatory, Bristol 235 About E d u c a t io n ........................... 235 N ew s from th e D io c e s e s :
Westminster.. .. . . " . . 236* S o u th w a rk ................... ... 236 Birmingham.......................................236 Leeds ......................... . . 236 Liverpool ......................... . . 237 Newport and Menevia . . . 4 237 St. Andrews and Edinburgh . . 237
Mr. Gladstone and the Vatican *-• 237
A . O ’Connor then called attention to the fact that the Secretary o f the Post-Office, Sir A . Blackwood, had taken the chair at a public meeting held at Exeter Hall in September (to which we have before referred in these columns), for the purpose o f making what was described as “ a triumphant rejoinder to some strictures which had been recently passed by the Court o f Queen’s Bench ” on Dr. Barnardo. Mr. O ’Connor rightly contended that this was improper conduct in an official. In order to call attention to the question he moved the reduction o f the vote by ;£ io o . After Mr. Raikes had replied, a division was taken and the reduction lost by a majority o f 121.
In the Lords, on Monday, Lord Knuts
— l o r d k n u t s f o r d f o r d ) replying to Earl Granville, expounded
AND SWAZILAND.
the result o f the negotiations with respect to Swaziland. The respective positions o f
England and the Transvaal towards that country had, he explained, previously been regulated by the Convention following the Boer War. The independence o f Swaziland had been recognised by the Convention. Neither England nor the Transvaal could annex or assume protection over Swaziland; but England had a right, which the Transvaal had not, in case o f need to send commissioners and police to keep peace on the frontier. The K ing o f Swaziland was given an English adviser, and the government o f the white settlers was provided for by a white committee, which broke down and was succeeded by a regency. Things, however, drifted from bad to worse. The K ing appears to have been a too gracious individual. H e granted concessions to everybody; conceded all his property, all his territory, even all his kingly rights. The Transvaal wished to remedy affairs by annexing the country. T o prevent this a joint Commission was appointed, and Sir F. de Winton sent to act with it. There were three courses; that the whites should be taken over by England, or by the Transvaal, or that they should be put under a joint Government. Against the first and last courses Sir F. de Winton reported; he favoured, on the whole, the cession o f the whites to the Transvaal. But the Government considered English opinion, and what they believed to be Swazi opinion : they decided for a joint Government. Hence the Convention just concluded, o f which this is the purport. The independence o f the native Swazi Government is secured, but the white settlers are placed under a joint administration. A Court o f Justice is established to administer Roman Dutch law among the whites, decide all cases, and examine into disputed concessions. A ll lawfully acquired rights are to be recognised. The Transvaal engages not to interfere
New Series, Vol. XLIV., No. 1,131.
,
