A W eekly N ew spaper a n d R ev iew .
DOM VOBIS G R A T U L A M Ü R , ANIM OS K T 1AM A O D 1M 0 S OT IN IN CO tP T IS V B S T R 1S CONbTANTJiX M A N K A T 1S .
fr om the B r i e f oj H is Holiness P iu s IX . to T h e T a b l e t , June i S jo .
V ol. 89. No. 2959. L o n d o n , J a n u a r \ 2^» ^ ^ 9 7 ’
pricesd. byposTsj^d
[R e g i s t e r e d a t t h e G e n e r a l P o s t O f f i c e a s a N ew s p a p e r
C hronicle of th e Week i
Page
Imperial Parliament: The Address in the Lords— In the Commons— Sir William Harcourt and Education— Reply of the Leader of the House — Post-Office Reforms — The American Mails— Mr. Morley a t Dundee— The New Liberal Leader in the Lords—The Dynamite Case— The Dupleix Bi-Centenary-M r. McKinley’s Secretary o f State— A Perpetual Curate and His Churchyard — The Indian Famine—The Education Bill . . 117 L e a d e r s :
The Situation in West Africa . . 121 M a n i t o b a : “ A u d i A l t e r a m
P a r t e m " .................................... 122 T h e Origin o f M an . . . . . . 123 “ The Church Times ” on Con
tinuity .................................... 124 N otes . . . . ... -- . . 126
C O N T E N T S .
R eviews :
Page
The Problems o f Democracy . . 127 History o f the Church of England 128 Passing Shadows . . . . . . 128 The Black Mass . . . . . . 129 Father Finn’s Stories .. . . 129 Catholic Truth Society’s Publica
tions . . . . . . . . 129 Books of the W e e k . . . . . . 1 3 0 Catholic Reunion at Birmingham.. 130 Irish T a x a t i o n and Education
Expenditure....................................... 131 For Houseless N u n s ............................131 C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :
Rome :— (From Our Own Corre-
spondent) . . . . ~ — 133 News From Ireland — — 134 News From France . . . . 136 L e t t e r s t o t h e E d it o r :
The Preface to the Edwardine
Ordinal, And Validity o f Intention . . _ . . .- _ . . 1 3 7 The “ Propagation De La F o i ” . . 138 The Government and Unneces
sary Schools ........................... 138
L e t t e r s t o t h e E d it o r (Con
Page
tinued : Diana Vaughan . . .. . . 138 An Appeal for Catholic Books . . 139 Evolution and Dogma . . . . 139 The Oath of the Anglican Bishops 139 Preaching in Mixed Wards of
Workhouses and Infirmaries . . 140 The Bishop of Chester and the
Catholic Alliance . . . . . . 140 Father Bernard’s Vaughan’s Reply
to the Archbi.-.hop o f York’s “ Pastoral” . . The Queen’s Speech The Lord Chief Justice on Educa
tion . . .... Catholic Reunion in Nottingham The Late Father Mulvany .. S o c ia l a n d P o l it i c a l
SU P P L EM E N T . N ew s from "•h e S c h o o l s :
Mr. Balfour’s Announcement: A
Crushing Blow . . . . . . 149
N ew s from t h e Schools (Con
tinued): The Story of Education Unsatis
Page
factory . . .. .. . . 149 The Cardinal and the Bishop of
Chester . . . . . . . . 149 St. George’s Cathedral Schools,
Southwark The School Board Question at
Castleton .. N ew s from t h e D io c e se s : Westminster
Southwark Clifton ......................... Northampton P lym outh.................... Salford
150 150 15t 151 152 152 152 152
Newport . . . . . . . . 153 The Vicariate St. Andrews and Edinburgh The Late Bishop of Shrewsbury . Catholic Evidence Lectures _ .. Oxford and Cambridge Universities’
Lecture Fund .........................
153 153 153 154
Rejected MS. cannot be returned unless accompanied with address
and postage.
CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.
IM P E R IA L PA R L IA M E N T :
T H E ADDRESS IN TH E LORDS.
A R L IA M E N T was opened
on Tuesday by Commission. The Queen’s Speech, “ in her Majesty’s own words,” which will
be found in another column, was read by the Lord Chancellor with the usual formalities. There was a good muster of lords, temporal and spiritual, especially of the latter, and the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge occupied seats on the cross benches. The Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, was moved by the Marquis of Bath, and seconded by Lord Kenyon, after which, in accordance with the unwritten law of Parliament, Lord Kimberley, as leader of the Opposition, rose to comment upon the substance of the Royal Message. He met with a cordial reception from all parts of the House. Before entering upon a review of the announcements made in the Speech, he expressed regret at the resignation of Lord Rosebery and the death of the late Archbishop of Canterbury. He next paid the usual compliments to the mover and seconder of the Address, and alluded, in befitting terms, to the long reign and the personal qualities of her Majesty. Turning to foreign affairs, he acknowledged that there could be but one opinion as to the welcome which should be extended to the Treaty of Arbitratian with America, which would not only be a gain to the two great countries concerned, but an example to the whole civilized world. Armenia was a difficult question, but he could not refrain from complaining of the little information vouchsafed by the Government. What he wanted to know was what the results o f the consideration of the Powers were, and what was the present position of the negotiations. Why was the Treaty of Paris brought into prominence rather than the later Treaty of Berlin? The policy of postponing the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, though not without some justification, had failed. Meanwhile, he welcomed Lord Salisbury’s declaration that antagonism to Russia in the matter was an antiquated policy, and he promised the support of the Opposition in any safe measures entered upon by the Government. Crossing to Dongola, Lord Kimberley pressed for information as to the Government policy in the Soudan. The conquest of the Soudan could only be accomplished at England’s expense, and the
New Series. Voi.. LV II.. No. 2,268.
country could not be evacuated till the Egyptians were firmly established there. In his reply, Lord Salisbury briefly referred to some of the imroductory topics touched by Lord Kimberley. As every road leads to Rome, so every debate ends in Armenia. The policy pursued in 1878 was not invented by Lord Beaconsfield, but was an inheritance from Lord Clarendon’s refusal, in 1851, of the proposals made by Nicholas I. for the defining o f the influence which the Great Powers should exert over the Turkish Empire. Lately, Russia was not prepared to go as far as England would have desired, and there England’s isolated responsibility in regard to Turkey disappeared. H e was convinced that unless essential reforms were made, the doom of the Turkish Empire could not long be postponed. H e was sorry he could not give more information in regard to the Egyptian campaign, because that would be to the advantage of others, whom he did not wish to know it, and especially the Khalifa. Dongola was occupied as being on the highway to Khartoum, which was the objective of the Government’s policy in that quarter. The Treaty with America would not remove every risk of war, but would go a long way towards i t ; it would be a bulwark of defence for Ministers against the Jingoes of both nations, and might, perhaps, do something to ease the nations of the ruinous necessity of keeping up continually increasing armaments.
The Address in the Commons was moved — i n by Viscount Folkestone and seconded by t h e c o m m o n s . Mr. Lyttelton. Sir William Harcourt then
spoke at great length upon the matters men
tioned in the Queen’s Speech, much to the same effect as Lord Kimberley. The Arbitration Treaty was a matter on which the Government might be allowed unstinted praise, but some credit was due to Mr. Cremer. The South African Committee had two main objects, the restoration of good feeling and the vindication of the good faith of this country. Then he wanted to know the Government’s “ real aim and en d ” in their Egyptian policy, and why the representations addressed by England to the Porte had been unavailing. Europe, it is said, was paralysed by the action of Russia, but there had been a time when Russia was prepared to act and England would not allow her. He then criticized the policy of 1878, and wanted to know whether the Government stood by it. Sir William’s next topic was the Financial Relations Commission and Mr. Balfour’s speech at Manchester. He maintained that indirect taxation pressed most heavily on those least able to bear it, and in Ireland three-fourths o f the taxation was indirect.
