THE TABLET A W eekly Newspaper and Review.

DUM VOBIS G R A TU LAM U R , AN IM O S ET IAM ADDIMUS U T IN INCCEPTIS V E S TR IS CO N S T AN T E R M AN EA T IS .

From the Brief oj His Holiness to T he T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.

Voi. 40. No. 1682. L o n d o n , J u l y 6 , 1872.

P r ic e sd. B y P o st s%d*

[R e g i s t e r e d a t t h e G e n e r a l P ost O f f ic e a s a N ew s pa p e r .

C h r o n ic l e o f t h e W e e k : The

Page.

End o f the Indirect Claims.— A Possible Explanation of Them.-The Ballot Bill.— The “ Convents” and 'Scotch Education Bills — Mr. Justice Keogh.—The “ Fortnightly” •on the Galway Judgment.— The Case of Mr. O ’Keefe.— The French Financial Debates.— The Impending Conflict.— Secession from the “ Debats.” — The Franco-German T reaty.— Catholic Feeling in Germany.— Expulsion of the Teaching Orders at Geneva.— Catholic A ction in Italy.—The Crisis in Spain. —The Spanish “ Commune.”— Dr. Livingstone’s Discoveries

C O N T

j L f.a d er s :

. . . P a£e

Mgr. Capel’s Lectures’ on Ritualism 5 The Franco-German Evacuation

Treaty . . . . . 5 I “ Dangerous to Faith and Morals.” 6

Dollingerand the Johannite Church 8 |T h e A n glican M o v em en t .— Mgr.

Capel on the Tendencies of the Bennett Judgment . . . 9 | R e v ie w s :

Henri Perreyve . . . . to The Last Days o f Pere Gratry . 11 The Month . . . . . 1 1 | S h o r t N o t i c e s : The Virtues o f

Mary, Mother of God.— Wilfulness and its Consequences.— The Life of S. Jane Frances Fremyot de Chantal.— Colonial Handbooks. --Indulgences, &c . — God’s Safe Way of Obedience . . . 1 2

THE END OF THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

C H R O N I C L E O F T H E W E E K .

JUST before the publication of our last

issue, Lord Granville and Mr. Gladstone were able to make the welcome announcement that the Indirect Claims

were removed from the field of arbitration, that the English summary of arguments had been put in, and that the work of the arbitrators would now commence in earnest. The mode by which the objectionable claims were disposed of was one which we have all along ‘maintained offered the most hopeful prospect of getting out o f the difficulty. We were, we believe, alone in making the suggestion that our refusal to admit these claims should be communicated to the Arbitrators, in order that they might have a chance of excluding them, as they would almost certainly be inclined to do. And we repeated in two successive articles during the month of March last our conviction that “ we might obtain such a decision “ without submitting a point which we had ourselves irrevo-

ENTS.

C orrespondence :

Page,

Higher Catholic Education . . 1 Germany and the Conclave . . 1 The Shrine o f S. Francis of Sales

at Annecy . . - . . 1 Celtic MSS. in the Vatican . Preparation for Competition . Bedford and Brighton . The Aldershot Mission . The Grays, Kent P a r l ia m e n t a r y S ummary . R ome :

Letter from Rome . Allocution to Deputations from all

D io ce san N ews :

Page.

Westminster ..... 18 Southwark . . . . . 1 9 Hexham and Newcastle. . . 19 L i v e r p o o l ................................. 19 I r e lan d :

Letter from our Dublin Corre­

spondent . . . . . 1 9 The Parish Priest of Callan . . 20 F oreign N ew s : Germany . . 20 M em o randa :

Religious. Lord Shaftesbury and

Italy . ..................................... Reply of His Holiness to the Pon­

tifical “ Reduci” The Pope’s Reply to the German

the Athanasian Creed.— Literary. Fine Arts and Music.— Political. L e g a l .................................2t

Deputation . . , . 1 8 1 G en e r a l N ews

with their interpretation of the Treaty ; and, being informed of the statement made by the agent of the United States, and assuming that the Arbitrators would now declare that the claims are henceforth wholly excluded from their consideration, and would embody such declaration in their protocol of the day’s proceedings, they instructed their agent to withdraw the application for adjournment, and to ask leave to deliver the printed argument. The American agent having first stated that he had no objection to make on either head, the Court immediately made the desired declaration, directed the Secretary to embody it in the protocol, and assented to Lord Tenterden’s two requests for leave to withdraw his application for a prolonged adjournment, and to put in the printed argument, copies of which in duplicate he accordingly presented to each member of the Court and to the American agent. Before the Court separated— to meet again on the 15 th inst.— Count Sclopis made a speech congratulating his colleagues on the removal of the obstacles to arbitration, and on the prospects of the principle involved in it, diplomatically quoting both Mr. Gladstone and General Washington.

■“ cably judged j ” that the best way of doing so would be by •“ a protest accompanying our counter-case and that “ the 41 exclusion of the claims by the Court itself” “ would satisfy “ the Americans, who insist on the competence of the tribu“ nal.” It was objected that this was in effect a reference to the Arbitrators for decision on a point on which we did not acknowledge their competence ; but the event has proved that we were right, and the Court, instead of deciding upon a point submitted by us, has simply taken advantage of our objection to express an extra-judicial opinion on the inadmissibility of the claims, “ even if there were no disagreement “ (between the parties) as to the competency of the tribunal 41 to decide thereon.” At the meeting on the 19th Count Sclopis stated on behalf of the Arbitrators that they had arrived “ individually and collectively ” at this opinion on grounds of “ international law applicable to such cases," carefully specifying the particular categories of claims excluded, so that the pronouncement is not open to the charge o f vagueness which was brought against the Senate’s version o f the supplemental article. This declaration having been communicated to the American Government, Mr. Bancroft Davis stated at the meeting on the 25th, that it had been “ accepted by the President as determinative of the judgment J °n the important question of public law involved ; and that

‘ he was authorized to say that, consequently, the above-mcn-

tioned claims would not be further insisted upon before the <( tribunal by the United States, and might be excluded

from all consideration in any award that might be made.” Dn the 27th, Lord Tenterden communicated the answer of thr» T?---- 1• 1 — . - - 1..., 1 c iu c iu cn communicated tne answer of • C —ughsh Government, which was that they found nothing

he declaration made by the Arbitrators, as recorded in tne nrotn™i . ---- . • . - 1 - - ’ the Protocol, to

Series, which they could not assent consistently Vol. VIII. No. 191.

We do not doubt that the Americans are

explanation H st as glad as we are to be delivered from this

o r them . weary controversy, but their persistent refusal to

adopt any other of the modes of retreat offered

to them, and their prompt satisfaction with this, tempts one to ask whether, if it be true that no other judgment on these claims was ever expected by them, there was not a certain amount of finessing in Mr. Fish’s diplomacy ; and whether it might not have occurred to them that an adverse decision on what they did not want might possibly tend to reconcile other people to the idea of a favourable decision on the rest. The Arbitrators of course would not permit themselves to be influenced by any such consideration, but some of the American papers begin to talk with confidence of a majority in their favour on the Direct Claims, and it is just possible that some such impression may have been at the bottom of the persistency of their Government in waiting for a declaration from the tribunal before it conceded the point.

In accordance with Mr. Gladstone’s statement

'n llm'i\LL0T on Thursday, the Government moved and

carried on Friday and Monday the rejection of all those of the Lords’ amendments, which tended to make secrecy of voting optional. Mr. Disraeli’s argument in favour of the amendments was that, as 20 per cent, of the population cannot sign their names on being married, the Lords had only extended to all voters the privilege which the Commons had conferred on one-fifth of the constituencies. But Mr. Gladstone replied that the suffrage did not go down as low as marriage, and that it by no means followed that 20 per cent of the electors could not sign their names. 1 he principal amendment, omitting the words making secrecy com-