THE TABLET
A Weekly Newspaper and Review,
WITH SUPPLEMENT.
Voi. 35. No. 1562. London, March 19, 1870.
P rice 5d. Stamped 6d.
[R egistered for Transmission Abroad.
C hronicle of the Week : The
Embassy to the Council— The Bishop of Orleans—Mgr Capel and the Press—The Bishop of Southwark — Dr. Newman and the x‘ Standard ” — Our Educational Claim—The Ballot—The Colonial Despatches—Crime in Ireland—The Monaghan Shrievalty—Card. Cullen and the Fenians — O’Donovan Rossa—Land in Scotland— Protection of Ideas—The Spanish Duel—Austrian SchoolBooks — The Bombay and the Oneida—&c., &c............................... 349 L eaders :
The Count de Montalembert . 353 Irish Measures .... 354 The Education Debate . . . 354
C O N T L eaders (continued) :
Peter’s Pence.—Lent at Gibraltar and Money in France . . 355 The Anglican Movement :
S. George’s, Hanover-square . 556 R eviews :
Geology and Revelation . . 357 Memoirs of the Marquise de Montagu ..... 358 What Her Face Said . . . 360 Short Notices : The Contempo
rary Review — Blackwood --The Byrnes of Glengoulah—Debrett’s House of Commons, and the Ju dicial Bench—Streeter’s Catalogue of Jewellery — The Miracle at L i è g e .............................................. 360
E N T S . Correspondence :
Monsignor Capel and the “ Satur
day Review ” . . . . 3 6 1 Parliamentary Summary . . 361
L etters from R ome ; The Revo
lution— Justice in Italy—Local Chronicle—The Pope’s Visit to the English College • 364 Diocesan News : Westminster . • 365
Southwark
. 366
Newport and Menevia .
. 366
Scotland — Northern District ; Western District . 366
B ritish and I rish News
Great Britain .... 366 Ireland ...... 367 F oreign News:
Russia ; The Question of the
Petition—Socialism—Liberty to Travel—The Council. . . 368 Spain : The Fatal Duel. . . 368 Memoranda:
Religious : The Indispensable and
Elementary Faith of a Catholic. 369 Educational ..... 370 S c i e n t i f i c ....................................... 370 Fine Arts..... 370 Weather................................................. 371 Miscellaneous . . . 3 7 1
THE EMBASSY
TO THE COUNCIL. F
CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.
HE P resse informs us that the post of Ambassador from the French Government to the Council has been offered to the Prince de la Tour d’Auvergne, and, after some hesitation, refused. As to the Duke de Broglie, it is reported that, private affairs prevent his leaving Paris, and that the Ministry have fixed on M. de Corcelles, who is known to the Pope, and accompanied his Holiness on his return from Gaëta to Rome. Later information, however, seems to render it doubtful whether any Extraordinary Ambassador will be sent. The F rançais confirms what we said last week as to the true bearing of Count Daru’s despatch. “ Certain journals,” it says, “ have singularly distorted its meaning. There is in it no question whatever of the dogma of infallibility. It was written with sole reference to a schema which appeared to the Government to affect the relations between Church and State. It was then alone that it requested to be heard in the Council.” The following passage also is worth noting, as the F ra n ça is is now supposed to have a semi-official character. “ Several journals,” continues this paper, “ have mixed up with these negotiations the question of "the recall of the troops. This is another mistake. Our troops are at Civita Vecchia fora purpose which is altogether political, and to defend the right of nations. The purely religious questions raised by the deliberations of the Council belong to quite another order of ideas. The two things must be kept distinct, and we do not doubt that our troops will remain at Civita Vecchia as long as their presence is necessary to secure the object for which they were sent there.” We have here another disavowal, as the Univers justly remarks, of the version of M. Daru’s letters which was published in the 'i imes.
THE BISHOP OF ORLEANS.
Mgr Dupanloup has published a reply to the Archbishop of Malines, which is principally concerned with a recapitulation of the reasons for which, in the opinion of the writer, the Pope would do well to prevent a decision on the question of Infallibility. The pamphlet was of course written before it was known that the matter had actually come on for discussion, and it has' consequently lost a good deal of its direct interest. The Bishop of Orleans most carefully guards against the supposition that either his “ Observations ” or his present letter are at all directed against the doctrine itself. It is the effect of the definition on certain classes and certain minds which he so much dreads. To this objection no answer can be more appropriate than that furnished by Mgr Mermillod in his recent Pastoral. “ Doubtless,” he says, “ there are among us men who, impressed with the softness of this our age, and anxious about the intellectual weakness and religious ignorance of the modern world, are for acting with extreme reserve ; they think it
New Series. No. 71.
inopportune to tell all the truth, and believe that they thus best serve souls unable to bear it in its completeness. . . . Some pretend that by an unseasonable promulgation, we shall frighten away those of our separated brethren who may be disposed to enter the Church. But the exact contrary has taken place in all great conversions. It is not by theological subtleties but by faith that they are led. When the light has once enlightened them they submit to the Church, such as Christ has made it.” Mgr Mermillod quotes a well-known and respected writer in the Correspon d an t— M. Foisset, the friend and biographer of P. Lacordaire, to the same effect. “ The Gallicans,” he writes, “ flatter themselves with the thought that if Rome was Gallican the Protestants would return to her in crowds. It is, on the contrary, a matter of constant experience that Protestants who are converted do not stop half-way— Stolberg, F. Schlegel, Werner, von Haller, Phillips, Hurter, and many others are a remarkable proof of this.” The facts on the other side, in our day, are the exceptions.
Mgr Capel has written a letter to tl. Times, which we print elsewhere, in which he justly press. 1 emonsticites with the ^citw'ilciy R cvm v on one of the characteristic contributions— bitter, inaccurate, and presumptuous— of the gentleman who does its weekly theology. It is not my fault, this person assures the Times, but that of the S tandard, whose account I copied. Ecce iterum C r isp in u s ! Once more we find this journal, of which the Conservatism does not include any respect for veracity, at least where Catholics are concerned, sowing tares, which the Saturday Reviewer mistakes for wholesome grain, binds up in a sheaf, and carries away under his arm, probably to make an economical meal at his own lodgings. We are glad to contrast these two journals with a younger member of the newspaper family, who gives them both an example of candour and good sense. “ What Mgr Capel says about the logical consequence of Papal Infallibility,” observes the Echo of last Tuesday, commenting on his letter, “ is what we have always maintained. If the Church be an organic body possessing infallibility, that infallibility must reside in the Head. But if this be so, it is surely of the utmost importance that it should be declared by authority, and not left a matter of implicit belief.” As long as we enjoy the advantage of reading such journals as the D a ily News, the Spectator and the E cho, which, while combating Catholic dogmas, do not think it necessary to violate truth, probability, and common sense, in order to resist them more effectually, we cannot say with any justice that the English Press recognizes no other types of justice, prudence, and truthfulness than the Times and the Saturday Review.
Our readers will be pleased to hear that the bishop of Bishop 0f Southwark is again not only out of soumvAR . cjanger> ku(. af,]e t0 ¿ rive out and even to attend to business. Some diys ago he was honoured- by a
1-3 P f • ¡ j | j p g y g !
