THE TABLET

A W eekly Newspaper and Review

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

Prom the B r ie f o f His Holiness Pius IX . to The Tablet, fu n s 4, 1870.

Vol. 52. No. 1998.

London, J u l y 27, 1878.

p r i c e Sd . b v p o s t sm

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

C hronicle o f t h e W e e k :—

Pa?e

The Government Policy and the Opposition.— The Grounds o f A ttack. — Lord Beaconsfield’s Speech. — Cabinet Secrets.— The Protocols of the Congress.— Lord Hartington’s Resolution.— Bosnia and Herzegovina.— The Agitation in Italy.— Sir Garnet Wolseley in Cyprus.—The Indian Vernacular Press Act.—The Duke of Connaught.— Representation of Clare. France and the Anglo-Turkish Convention.— TheGeneva Government and the Federal Council. . . 97

C O N T

L e a d e r s :

The Government and the Oppo­

Page sition . . . . •• •• 101 The German Catholics and the

General Election .. . . . . 101 ct Italia Irredenta." . . .. 102 Poland and the Congress................ 103 R ev iew s :

The Life of St. Patrick . . . 104 Catholic Systems of School Dis­

cipline . . . . . . . . 105 The Eucharist on Calvary.. .. 106 S hort N otices :

Claims of the Uninstructed Deaf-

Mute to be Admitted to the Sacraments . . . . . . 106

E N T S .

S hort N otices (continued) :

Page

Le Progrès dû Catholicisme . . 107 A Plea for Irish Catholic Boys . . 107 L ’Evangile au Dahomey et à la

Côte des Esclaves . . . . 107 In a World of His Own . . . . 107 Stonyhurst, Present and Past . . 107 C o rrespondence :

The Government Policy and the

Opposition.. . . . . .. 107 Appeal ....................................107 The Reform of Church Music . . 108 Catholic Poor School Committee and Diocesan Inspectors’Salaries 109 Worn-out P r i e s t s ........................ n o All Soul’s Day .. . . . . n o Dr. Nicholas Harpsfield . . . . n o P a r l ia m en t a r y S ummary . . i n

R ome : — Letter from our own

Correspondent ...

Page

. . 113

D io ce san N ews

Westminster.......................................115 Southwark . . . . . . . . 116 B e v e r l e y .......................................116 Birmingham.. . . . . ... 117 Hexham and Newcastle . . . . 1 1 7 Salford ........................ . . 1 1 7 I r e l a n d :—

Letter from our own Corre­

spondent ......................... — 117 F oreign N ews

Germany . . , , .. . . 1 1 8 M em oranda :—

Educational.. . . . . n g Gen e r a l N ew s ...............................119

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

THE •GOVERNMENT

POLICY AND

THE OPPOSITION.

NOTHING is more repugnant to us letter from than an unwarrantable imputation of unworthy motives. We are therefore more than sorry that Lord Ripon should have misunderstood some remarks which we made last week, as is proved by a him, which we publish elsewhere. We were certainly far from intending to charge everybody who dissents from the policy of the Government in Eastern affairs with being influenced exclusively by party considerations, and Lord Ripon himself is about the very last person against whom we should have thought of bringing such an accusation. But there are in every party some minds so essentially partisan that they are always disposed, when they have to judge of the policy or acts of their political adversaries, to assume that they could themselves have done much better, and that what has been done has been done badly, because it has been the deed of persons whom they sincerely distrust and dislike. And it is really impossible for us to agree with Lord Ripon— if this be indeed his contention, which we doubt—that in this case prejudices of a personal character do not in any minds, and to any extent, enter into the causes of the violent attacks recently made upon Lord Beaconsfield and his policy. That such prejudices should— often unconsciously as regards those who entertain them— be sometimes “ inflamed and envenomed ” by personal disappointment is only natural. Human nature is human nature, and as long as political parties exist, the condemnation of the acts of those in power, at which those out of power may have arrived on perfectly honest grounds, will be liable, in some minds, to be inflamed by the personal animosity generated by a long course of antagonism. And we would say the same of any party, or at least of some members of any party. Our remarks were of general application. “ Few men,” we said, “ can with equanimity see a rival preferred to the place which they believe they would fill better themselves. Fewer still will generously join in applauding a rival for an achievement, the opportunity of which has been denied to themselves.” We fear that, as a general statement, the proposition is incontrovertible. But it does not follow that there are no exceptions to the rule. And the article referred to carefully guarded against an application of the charge to the whole Opposition in the very sentence which follows that quoted by Lord Ripon. “ It will then be no novelty,” we said, “ should the work which Lord JBeaconsfield and the Government have accomplished at

N e w S e r i e s , V ol. XX . No. 507.

Berlin and Constantinople be depreciated, caricatured, and held up to scorn, by at least some o f the snore violent and less informed o f their political opponents.” Among these we should certainly never class Lord Ripon.

With regard to the grounds assigned for the condemnation of the Ministerial policy, we will th e a tta c k . or“ y say Without going into the question whether the war could have been prevented by the Berlin Memorandum—-a question which has been pretty well threshed out by this time— it appears to us that what people ought to ask themselves is whether, given the results of the war, and the preliminary Treaty of Santo Stefano, any better means of correcting those results could be found than those provided by the Treaty of Berlin taken in connection with the Anglo-Turkish Convention. It is easy to lay one’s finger upon possible inconveniences which .may be entailed upon us in the future by the last named arrangement. But what vi e have to consider is whether the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages. This is, of course, a matter of opinion on which men are free to differ, and on which they will differ, according as they are inclined to favour a bold or a more cautious foreign policy. Some minds are naturally disposed to shrink from the assumption of grave responsibilities ; others are accustomed to accept those responsibilities as necessary concomitants of great undertakings befitting a first-class Power. It is certain that without the assumption of such responsibilities and the acceptance of such risks no great Empire was ever built up, and no great Empire will ever be long maintained. We would, therefore, welcome “ an addition to our national duties,” if the alternative were a contraction of our sphere of beneficent influence. And if, as Lord Ripon says, “ the strong opposition ” to the Government policy “ is felt, not by the members of the Opposition alone, but by others also,” it is at least equally true that that policy is warmly supported, not by adherents of the Government alone, but by many who have been their consistent opponents. There can be no doubt about the general feeling in this country, and little doubt about the ultimate verdict of enlightened Continental opinion. Even M. Gambetta has already perceived that the strictures of his paper on the occupation of Cyprus are not to be justified. We do not often find ourselves in agreement with that politician, but we are glad to be able to conclude these remarks with his testimony to their truth. Speaking to the l im e s Correspondent, he is reported to have said : “ In establishing herself at Cyprus as an advanced guard, and in constituting herself protectress of the Asiatic interests in Turkey, England has abandoned that policy which I call ‘ insular,' to resume her policy of watchfulness on the Continent. She ceases, to be