THE TABLET
A W eekly Newspaper and Review
D um VOBIS GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS UT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEATIS.
From the B r ie f o f His Holiness Pius IX. to T he T ablet, June 4, 1870.
Voi. 54. No. 2048. L o n d o n , J u l y 12 , 1879*
price Sd. by post s^d fR B G lS T E R K D A T TH K G E N E R A L P O S T O F F I C E A S A N bW SPAPBR.
C hronicle of t h e W b e k
Page
The Iri.sh University Bill.— The Ferry Bill— Clause/— M. Keller’s Speech.— M. Paul Bert and the Jesuits—The Methods of Attack. Second Day of the Debate.—The Third Day. — Passing of the Bill. — Acquittal of M. de Cassagnac.— The Prince Imperial’s Remains.— The Arran2ements for their Reception.— The French Government and the Funeral.— Peace Negotiations with Cetywayo.— Court of Inquiry and Court-Martial on Lieutenant Carey.— Flogging in the Army.—The State of Ireland. — Meeting of the Conservative Party.— A Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, &c. . . . . 33
C O N T
Page
P e t e r ’s P ence ............................37 L e a d e r s :
The Government University Bill 37 Thh English Martyrs .. . . 37 The French Chamber and the
Jesuits . . ..
^ 38
Ministerial Changes in Prussia.. 39 R bview s ¡
The Monks of the West from St.
Benedict to St. Bernard .. 40 Sketches of the Life of Mgr. de
Mazenod . . . . .. ..41 Legends of the Saxon Saints .. 42 The “ Dublin Review” . . . . 43
E N T S .
S h ort N o t ic e s :
The Credentials of the Catholic
Page
Church .. . . .. .*45 Catholic Periodicals for July . . 45 C orrespondence :
The Nationality of St. Cuthbert 46 Catholic Teachers and Board
School Appointments .. . . 47 P a r l ia m e n t a r y S ummary : . . 47 R o m e : — Letter from our own
Correspondent . . . . .. 49 The Paternal Love of Leo X I I I . 50 The Abandonment o f Rome . . 51 D io ce san N ews Westminster . . . . ,.52
D iocesan N ews (continued)
P a je
Southwark .. Hexham and Newcastle .. . . 52 Liverpool Nottingham.. Plymouth Salford . . . . .. S cotland :
Galloway
. . ..
I r e lan d :—
Letter from our own Corre*
spondent . . . . . . - S3 F oreign N ews
Germany . . . , M em oranda :
Religious Educational.. G en er a l N e w s :
CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.
THE IRISH UNIVERSITY
BILL.
THE debate in the House of Lords on the second reading of the Government Bill for promoting University education in Ireland was re
markable for the unanimity with which it was admitted that Catholics have a substantial grievance in the matter, which could not be removed by the proposal of the Government, as explained by Lord Cairns when he introduced the measure. This view was urged with great force from the Liberal benches, and was practically uncontradicted by the Government. Lord Kimberley and Lord Spencer, who have both filled the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, were entirely agreed upon this point. The former, who opened the debate, held that the Government Bill in its present form gave no promise of a solution of the question, and he pointed out that if direct endowment of Catholic colleges was considered objectionable, still it would be possible to give payments for results in university education, as was done in case of schools by the Intermediate Act of last year. I f it were right to apply a portion of the surplus of the Irish Church Fund for the purposes of intermediate education, it could not be wrong to use the same fund for the purpose of solving the question of University education. The same view was urged by Lord O'Hagan, who remarked that the schools which benefited by the Intermediate Education Act were not paid as sectarian institutions, but because they laboured to give secular education— “ to provide the manufactured article, and the manufactured article being produced in a good condition, the manufacturer was rewarded.” Lord O’Hagan showed that the grievance of Catholics in Ireland had been recognised lor the last twenty-five years. It was, he said, established by a long series of acts and declarations of statesmen and Ministers, and it was too late in the day to deny that there was a grievance, the existence of which was, in fact, proved by the Bill before the House. The proposals of the Government were, however, in his opinion, utterly inadequate, and in fact only amounted to a pretentious revival of the Supplemental Charter of 1866, which, though it might have been all very well thirteen years ago, would now, in consequence of all that has occurred in the interval, be regarded in a different light. Lord O’Hagan compared the Government Bill as it at present stands to an “ ungainly skeleton, which might, however, without difficulty be clothed with flesh and muscle and become pleasurable to see and profitable to vitalise.” Lords Leitrim, Donoughmore and Inchiquin, concurred in the opinion that the Bill as it stood was inadequate, and appealed to the Govern-
N ew Series V o i . X X IL No. 557.
ment to amend it in such a manner as to meet the requirements of the Irish Catholics in the matter of higher education, and Lord Granville also appealed to the Government to state what they were really prepared to do in the way of grants for educational purposes in connection with their Bill. Lords Cranbrook and Salisbury had already spoken, but without making any definite statement with regard to the intentions of the Government, although something might perhaps be inferred from the remark of the latter that it was necessary to be satisfied under the circumstances of the day with bit by bit legislation. The Lord Chancellor, however, who followed Lord Granville, was more communicative, and made a statement which appears to throw some light on the intentions of the Government. He said : “ To the London University a grant of some thousands is made every year for the purpose of giving a reward to those who pass the examination, but that is not endowment, it is not the denominational system ; it is open to all comers and is one of the very best ways of promoting education. And I am quite sure that if the Senate to be created by this Bill were to come before Parliament and say that for the purpose of advancing education in Ireland it would be advisable to offer exhibitions and rewards, no objection would be taken on the ground that it would be denominational.” The Bill passed the second reading in the Lords without a division.
Saturday last was a great day in the debate on M. Ferry’s Education Bill. The notorious c l a u s e 7.-— Clause 7 came under discussion, and M. Keller, m . k e l l e r ’s the well-known and able Catholic Deputy, pro-
s p e e c h . posed an amendment which he supported in an admirable and effective speech, IHis amendment was that “ the right to teach, belonging to every Frenchman who satisfies the conditions of age, capacity, and morality required by the law, cannot be suppressed preventively, and can only be lost in virtue of a decision of the tribunals or of the authorities having the supervision of teaching (prtpos'ees a Fenseignemenf) in the cases contemplated by Clause 26 of the law of the 15th March, 1859, and by Clause 8 of the law of the 12th July, 1875.” After touching at some length on the great services rendered by the Brothers of Christian Schools, and the testimonies of former Ministers in their favour, M. Keller entered on a most brilliant defence of the Jesuits, against whom the indictment of the Government is principally directed, although they do not educate more than a twentieth of the youth of France, and although the other non-authorised congregations are equally attacked by the Clause. M. Keller, referring to M. Spuller’s report, read his quotation from the Esprit des Lois, in which Montesquieu says that “ the Republic,
