THE TABLET

A W eekly Newspaper and Review,

WITH SUPPLEMENT.

Vol. 35. No. 1558. L o n d o n , F e b r u a r y 19, 187 O.

P rice sd. Stamped 6d.

[R egistered for Transmission Abroad.

‘C hronicle of the Week : The

Bill. Capricious Evictions — SelfContradiction—Tactics of a School •—Cab Legislation—The Minority Clauses—The Colonial Debate— The Ballot — The War-Office— Southwark Election — Starvation in London—Secularist Schools— Dr. Temple’s Explanation — “ Ja n u s” and the Greeks—Chancery and Catholic Minors—Poor School Committee—Bigotry in the Navy — Communication with France—Papal Zouaves—&c., &c. 221 L e a d e r s :

The Irish Land Bill

• 225

The Education Bill . . . 225 State Emigration . . . . 227

CONTENTS.

L eaders (continued) :

Peter’s P en c e ..................................... 227 Anglican Movement :

The Arches Judgment.—Ritual

Commission . . . . 228 R eviews :

The Messenger of the Sacred

Heart of Jesus . . . . 229 The Hotel du Petit S. Jean. A

Gascon Story . . . . 230 Short Notices : CEcumenicity in relation to the Church of England —Life and Death of Jason—Letters of Placidus on Education—A few Specimens of Scientific History from “ Ja n u s”—Breviarium Romanum—Tried in a Furnace—•

S hort Notices (continued) •

Hidden Joy—Our Domestic Fireplaces .............................................. Correspondence:

The Catholic Poor-School Com­

mittee and the wants of Catholic Primary Education Denominational Education “ Ja n u s” P arliamentary Summary

L etters from R ome ; The Coun­

cil—The Revolution—The House of Savoy, &c.—Dr. Doilinger’s Lectures, &c.—Duration of the Council — Zouaves—English College— “ Free Church,&c. ”—Latest Arrivals . . . .

The Papal Defence Fund .

230 D iocesan News

B ritish and I rish N ews :

Great Britain

Ireland . . . .

232 232 232 F oreign News : China . . . .

232 Memoranda :

Religious

Literary ....

Statistics

Weather

Fine Arts

236 Miscellaneous

. 23s

. 238

. 24?

.242

'243

• 244.

. 244.

• 244

• 244

• 245

. 245

CHRONICLE OF THE W EEK.

TILE BILL. CAPRICIOUS EVICTIONS. T

HE Irish Land Bill is as much as and, more than was expected, though not all that has been asked for. Practical men, however, must be content with what is feasible under circumstances, and not argue that half a loaf is less than no bread. The Bill, so far as can be seen at present, has a fair chance of passing into law, though open to large modifications and improvements. It appears to be on the whole acceptable to Irish Members, and at a meeting held on Thursday a number of them came to an agreement in favour o f the general scope of the measure. We incline to believe that, after mature consideration, the people of Ireland will take the same view, although our Dublin correspondent has -expressed a contrary opinion. Fixity of tenure in the sense in which we explained this term on September 1 8, 1869, viz., as including— (1) leases for long terms or equivalents of such leases; (2) abolition of landlords’ power of arbitrary eviction, and (3) restriction of landlords’ right of raising rents to cases of increased value (not due to tenants’ improvements) shown by public valuation— is in great measure provided for. The great grievance, as Mr. McCarthy in his able book on I r i s h L a n d Questions tells us, is that threefourths of the tenants in Ireland are tenants at will and subject to capricious evictions. The whole of this position is revolutionized by the Bill before us. No letting at will, or ■ tenancies for less than from year to year will in future be legal. This detestable system of cruel evictions has received a blow in the way of fine upon the landlord and of compensation to the tenant, which will we suspect prove to be its extinction. Evictions, except in cases of non-payment o f rent, will become very costly amusements. For instance, a landlord who shall take it into his head to throw a dozen farms, of the annual Value of say each, into one or two farms, will have to pay for his theory in the following expensive manner. He will have to pay each such tenant evicted after a full year’s notice, 1, Full compensation in respect •of all improvements made by the tenant or his predecessors in way of buildings, reclamation of waste, and cultivation of the so i l ; 2, Compensation for loss sustained by deprivation of his holding to the amount of £ 7 0 , i .e ., seven years’ rent, for each holding valued at ^ i o a year, which in the instance contemplated would come up to ^ 8 4 0 , under this second heading alone. Each holding under ^ 5 0 value per annum might obtain ,-£250 compensation for deprivation o f holding, and so on according to a scale. Moreover, all contracts depriving the tenant of his statutable claim to compensation shall be void ; and the right of compensation is made retrospective. These provisions appear to us to give an effectual quietus to the barbarous system of capricious evictions.

N ew Ser ie s . No. 67.

The Archbishop of Algiers had no sooner s e l f -con- xeft Rome for Paris, than the correspondents of tradiction. English and other papers declared that he had been charged with a mission from the Pope to the Emperor, about the definition of infallibility. The Archbishop then wrote to the Paris M on iteu r, stating that his journey had reference to the affairs of his diocese alone, and that he had received perfect satisfaction from the Government. After this the correspondents continued to affirm that it was “notorious” that the Archbishop’s mission respecting the Definition had utterly failed, and that the Government of the Tuileries persisted in its strenuous opposition. The next version of the story is the direct opposite. The Centre Gauche, a new semi-Ministerial organ, asserted a few days ago that the Archbishop of Algiers had taken back a message from the Government to the French Bishops who are hostile to the Definition, recommending them to give up their opposition, with invidious references to the Bishop of Orleans which we prefer not to reproduce. We have next an article in the Times, asserting with an air of authority and inspiration that a strong despatch had been sent from Paris to M. de Banneville, with a view of impressing on Cardinal Antonelli the terrible consequences which would result from the Definition. At the same time two Vienna papers came out with the story that an identical note had been prepared by the French and other Governments “ to express their uneasiness respecting the political inconvenience which the proclamation of the dogma might cause.” To this the jC onstitu tion nel replies as follows: “ When we see the French Government cited as one of those who have adopted this measure, it is enough to prevent our giving any credence to the statement. No new fact whatever has occurred which could induce the Governments of Europe to throw off the reserve which they have resolved to maintain towards the Council.” After a comparison of all these contradictory statements, which destroy one another, the residuum is positively n il.

There exists a small party of liberalistic Ca-

tactics of a tholics amongst 11s, whose one endeavour seems to be to disparage those Catholic truths which are most fatal to their own policy. The tendency of that policy is latitudinarian and rationalistic. They have the ear of certain correspondents to the public press in Rome and elsewhere, and they have endeavoured to create division even among Bishops. Only the other day they put up the Telegraph to announce a “ schism ” between the Archbishop and his Suffragans, occasioned by the former being Roman, and the latter not Roman but English, in their ecclesiastical views. It has been cunningly reported, and has come to us from more than one source, which until this present moment we have not condescended even to notice, that the English Bishops are not only divided but are opposed to the dogma of Infallibility. The names of Bishops Ullathorne and Amherst, among others, have been falsely circulated;

£ 4

N E

W S

b a i t

: