THE T

A W eekly Newspaper and Review T

D u m v o b i s g r a t u l a m u r , a n i m o s e t i a m a d d im u s u t i n in c c e p t i s v e s t r i s c o n s t a n t e r m a n e a t i s .

From the Brief of His Holiness to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.'

Vol. 48. No. 1895. L o n d o n , A u g u s t 5, 1876.

Price 5<J. By Post 5% d.

[Registered at the General Post Office as a Newspaper

Page

C hronicle of the Week :—

The Eastern Question in the Lords— And in the Commons.— The Turkish Defeat at Urbitza— And at Mcdun.— The Turkish Invasion o f Servia.— Cruelties in Bulgaria.--The Servian Wounded. — The Roumanian Note and the Powers.— The Health o f the ‘Sultan.— The Education Bill.— Further Opposition to the Bill.— School-Board Prosecutions.— The Irish Sunday Closing Bill.— The Fenian Prisoners.— Mr. Pope Hennessy.j— Abandoned Bills.— The Ministers at the Mansion House.. .. . . . . . . 161

CONTENTS.

Leaders :

The Debate on the Eastern Ques­

Page tion .................................................. 165 Pauperism in Ireland .. . . 165 Abolition of the Guarantees and

Demolition o f Churches in Rome . . . . .. •• 166 The B u l g a r i a n s ............................167 Scientific Unbelief.— I l l ................... 168 Pictures :

“ Balaklava” .......................................169 Reviews :

The History of the Norman Con­

quest of England, its Causes and its Results .. . . •• 170 System of Positive P o lity .. . . 171 The “ Month ” for August . . 171 Tales from Shakespeare . . . . 172

Short Notice :

Page

Life of Freddy Wragg .. . . 172 Correspondence :

Documents Concerning the Times of Persecution .. . . . . 172 Old Catholic Churches in the

British Empire . . . . . . 173 Indulgences in England . . . . 173 The Maybole Mission, Ayrshire 173 Mr. Gladstone and M. Loyson .. 173 Parliamentary Summary . . 174 Rome :— Letter from our own Cor­

respondent . . . . . . 177 Diocesan News :— Westminster . . . . . . . . 178

_

Diocesan (continued) ;

Page

S o u th w a r k ....................................... i jg Beverley . . . . . . . . 17g Northampton . . . . . . 180 Salford . . ......................... 180 Shrewsbury . . . . . . . . i8r Scotland—Western District . . 182 Ireland

Letter from our Dublin Corre­

spondent . . . . . . ... 183 Memoranda :—

Religious .......................................183 Educational .. . . . . „. 183 General News .. .. .. 184

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

THE EASTERN QUESTION IN THE LORDS. L (

O RD S T R A T H E D E N AN D CAM P ­

B E L L ’S resolution served its purpose, inasmuch as it gave Lord Granville an opportunity of criticising in a friendly spirit the foreign policy of the Government, and Lord Derby the like opportunity o f defending it. The resolution was simply that “ the House of Lords, “ anxious for the welfare of the various races subject to the “ Ottoman Empire, and for the improved administration of “ their government, is ready to support the measures which “ may become necessary for upholding the Treaties o f the “ 3oth ° f March and the 15th April, 1856,” whereby the integrity o f the Turkish Empire was guaranteed. The debate— if such it can be uatlod— made up in interest for what it lacked in spirit. Lord Granville thought that if the Foreign Secretary, at the time when the Andrday Note was being drawn up, had explained clearly to the three Powers that in matters of so great a European importance the .British Government must insist on taking its full share of the negotiations, the three Powers would have hesitated before doing what he believed they are now convinced was a great mistake on their part. Lord Granville was o f opinion that the Government could not have accepted the Berlin Memorandum, but at the same time he thought they should have tried whether some better proposal could not have been agreed on. H e hoped that whatever steps might be taken for the pacification of the insurgent provinces, something would be done for the amelioration of the condition of the Christian subjects o f the Porte. Lord Derby’s reply had necessarily been anticipated by his speech to the deputation at the Foreign Office. H e did not deny that it was desirable to discuss the question in Parliament, though he recommended Lord Stratheden not to press his motion. In reply to Lord Granville’s observations on the Andrdsy Note, Lord Derby explained that her Majesty’s Government judged it right to wait until the Note was presented to them rather than insist on knowing what the three Powers intended before, in all probability, they knew it themselves. Lord Derby said it was the last paragraph in the Berlin Memorandum which constituted its most objectionable feature, for it might be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as a direct encouragement to the insurgents to refuse the terms offered to them by the Forte. He defended the presence of the British fleet in BesWa Bay as a means of increasing our moral influence, and o f affording protection to the Christians. Lord Derby pointed out, in reply to an observation of Lord Granville with reference to autonomy, that there were grave difficulties in the way o f giving self-government to a semi-barbarous population, half Christian, half Mahomedam, who have not many

New Series, V ol. XVI. No. 404.

ideas— he would not say interests— in common. Lord Stanley of Alderley made some good points in his speech. He charged Mr. Bright with having used language which at the time was one of the principal causes o f the Emperor Nicholas crossing the Pruth before the Crimean war, and with using language now which was misleading public opinion here and in Russia. Lord Stanley considered that Lord Shaftesbury, when he wished to see the Russians on the Bosphorus, must have been strangely forgetful of the flogging of the Polish nuns, of all the Poles that had been sent to perish in Siberia and the mines of Nertchinsk, and o f the recent massacre of United Greek Ruthenes in Russian Poland. Lord Stanley also charged Bishop Strossmayer with promoting the invasion o f Bosnia by the Croat bands, but as the Bishop has been maligned on a former occasion with regard to his sentiments on Papal Infallibility, we believe that in this matter also he will be found to be blameless, though his sympathies would doubtless be with the insurgents. As Lord Stratheden declined to withdraw his motion, the Duke of Richmond and Gordon moved the previous question, which was carried, and Lord Stratheden’s motion, having probably served its purpose, was consequently not put to the House.

In the House o f Commons Mr. Bruce, Con^the IN servat*ve member for Portsmouth, moved a rec o m m o n s . solution calling upon the Government, while maintaining the respect due to existing treaties,

to exercise their influence with a view to secure the common welfare and equal treatment of the various races and religions which are under the authority of the Porte. His speech did not show that he thought that the Christian subjects o f Turkey were really under any disadvantages as compared with their Mahomedan fellow-subjects. Their grievances were agrarian and fiscal. Mr. Bruce failed altogether to make out that there is any ground for the Government to interfere at present. Mr. Hanbury pointed out that the oppressions which had brought about the insurrection were not committed by the Turkish Government but by the Mahomedan Slavs and the rich publicans and tax-gatherers who were Christians. Those engaged in the war were besides Servia and Montenegro, the one practically and the other entirely independent, Socialists, Garibaldians, and the tagrag of Europe, who were the persons most interested in preventing the reforms for which they professed to be asking. Mr. Forsyth, who held a brief for the Slavs, moved an amendment declaring it to be the duty o f the Government to obtain adequate and effectual guarantees for good and impartial government, irrespective of race and creed. H e contended that the autonomy of the insurgent provinces was the only remedy for the present difficulty. This would not be exactly the way in which to carryout the treaties o f 1856