THE TABLET A Weekly Newspaper and Review

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

From the B r ie f o f His Holiness Pius IX . to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.

Vol. 517. No. 1989. L o n d o n , M a y 25, 1878.

prick sa. by post

[R eg iste r ed a t t h e G e n e r a l P o st O f f ic e a s a N ew spaper.

C h ronicle o f t h e W e e k

Paçe

The Indian Debates.— Mr. Fawcett, Sir John Holker—and Mr. Gladstone. — The Declarations Against War.—The Scare at Constantinople . — Abortive Insurrection at Constantinople. — Naval Defence o f the Colonies.*—The Baltic;— Politicians and the Press. — The Proposed Russian Cruisers. — The CottonTrade.— The Besant Case. — The Sunday Society.— Telegrams from Rome. — The Bishop of Orleans and the Voltaire Centenary. .. . . . .6 4 1

L ea d e r s :

C O N T

Page

The Return of Count Schouva-

loffand the Indian Debates . . 645 The German Government and the

Socialists . . . . — . . 645 How Far is the National Debt an

Evil? . . ......................... 646

R ev iew s :

The Dublin Review . . . . 647 Memoirs of Lady Chatterton . . 648 La Revue Générale . . . . 649 The Contemporary Review . . 650 The Nineteenth Century.. . . 651

E N T S .

Page

Short N otice :

Jacquemart’s History ofFurniture 651 C orrespondence :

Faith of our Fathers.— XVII. . . 652 “ Practical Hints on the Educa­

tion o f the Sons of Gentlemen ” 652 “ The Little Sisters of the Poor.”

— Home for the Aged . . . . 652 Home for Catholic Girls at

B r ig h to n .................................... 653 P a r l ia m en t a r y Summary . . 653 R ome : — Letter from our own

Correspondent ....................... 657

Page

D io cesan N ews Westminster.......................................659

S o u th w a rk .......................................659 Clifton . . . . . . . . 659 Hexham and Newcastle . . . . 659 Northampton ............................660 Salford . . . . . . . . 660 S cotland...............................................661 I r e lan d

Letter from our own Corre­

spondent ......................... 661 F oreign N ews

Germany . . . .

. . 662

M em oranda :—

Educational . . . . . . 662 G en er a l N ew s . . . . . . 662

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

AS was to be expected, great interest was manifested in the debates which com1 menced simultaneously in both Houses of Parliament, on Monday, on the Constitutional •questions raised by the motions of Lord Selborne and the Marquis of Hartington. Both Houses were thronged by members and by visitors, many distinguished personages being among the latter. In the Lords, the chief features of the debate were the elaborate and argumentative discourses o f the two great lawyers who spoke on either side, and the short but able and characteristic speech with which the Prime Minister closed the discussion. Lord Selborne stated his case with great precision, and argued it out with calmness and dexterity. He sought to establish, first, that the consent of Parliament is necessary before any Imperial force, other than that specified in the Mutiny Act, can be employed in time of peace elsewhere than in India; secondly, that according to the Indian Government Act of 1850, Indian troops cannot legally be used out of the country without the same sanction. Lord Cairns replied, and argued with great force and eloquence against these propositions, contending that the Indian army is part of the forces of the Crown, and that to the Crown belongs the prerogative of directing its movements. The speeches of these two noble lords were such as were to be expected from able and eloquent men and accomplished lawyers; and rather of that description of forensic eloquence which is addressed in argument to a learned Judge than in the nature of an appeal to a jury. They were more calculated to instruct and to convince than to excite an audience. Lord Beaconsfield spoke in his best style, and with much dignity. His short speech, enlivened as it was by some touches of humour which were keenly appreciated by the House, seemed to command universal concurrence in his view that the discussion ought not to be prolonged, and no one could doubt his thorough sincerity when he expressed his readiness on the proper occasion, when the seal should be removed from his lips, and the Government at liberty to speak without detriment to the public interest, to reply to the accusations which have been made against him. In the Lower House, Lord Hartington opened the debate in a speech eminently characteristic of his merits and of his defects as a Parliamentary orator. He discussed the question which he had propounded with great fairness and with much vigour. With perfect self-possession and coolness, and with thorough mastery over his argument and himself, he kept on the even tenor of his way ; he never got excited, and never appealed to the passions of his friends, who, eager as they were to support him and assert themselves by their cheers, had to make occasions for themselves rather than avail themselves of any opportunities for such demonstrations offered by their chief. Lord Hartington seldom makes good hits in his party speeches, and does not seem to care to do so ; his followers are often thoroughly satisfied, but seldom roused to the display of any enthusiastic appreciation of his efforts. Sir M. H. Beach, who replied on the part of the Government, is an orator of another order, and he was not far advanced in his very effective speech before the quiescent attitude that reigned in the House was thrown off, and cheers and counter-cheers followed in quick succession. He defended the conduct of the Government with great spirit, and called upon the House to defend them against “ vulgar personalities.” Such a phrase as this could not pass unchallenged, and its withdrawal was called for with some warmth, which, however, turned out to be needless, as Sir Michael explained that he did not refer to any members of the House, but to quite other persons. When Sir Michael had concluded the dinner hour had arrived, and left only a thin House to listen to a clever speech from Sir C. Dilke. Other speakers of less note followed, and at a later period Mr. Chaplin made a slashing speech from the Government side of the House, and then Sir W. Harcourt rose and began, in his familiar style, to criticise the performances of the members who had taken a view opposed to his own. Unlike his leader, Sir W. Harcourt evidently relishes, and often invites, the cheers of his friends; and when he proclaimed that the conduct of the Government involved a theory more dangerous than any propounded since the days of the Stuarts, he was rewarded by their tumultuous applause. The debate, which was not terminated in a single sitting, as in the Lords, was closed for the night by a remarkably successful speech from Mr. Stanhope.

On Tuesday the debate was resumed by

Msir^ hn^’ ^ r‘ Fawcett, who attacked the Government h o l k k r — on broad principle that they had incurred expense without the previous sanction of Par­

liament, and without an emergency to justify such a course. He also gave notice that on the Indian Budget he should move that, as the army of India is so large that an indefinite number of Indian troops can be spared to aid England in an European contest, the Indian military expenditure is excessive, and should be reduced, so that taxes burdensome to the people of India may be repealed. And he added a kind of menace, which can scarcely be considered very patriotic, that he “ should speak in distinct words, which he thought would be understood in India, unless, under the gagging Press law recently introduced, they were charged with sedition and suppressed.” But he acknowledged the effectiveness of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach’s retort upon the leaders of the Opposition, and complely threw over Mr.

N e w S e r i e s , V ol. XIX. No. 498.