as it endured the unlawful acts of its supposed friends, the European Governments, and also those of Greece, until at length it called the latter to account, and so ended the affair. It proclaimed and enforced a blockade and proclaimed its intention of hanging by the neck as malefactors all foreigners caught in arms upon its own soil.

The execution of the foreigners at Santiago was as impolitic as it was unjust. Not being the enforcement of legal rights, it was inviting foreign. governments to interfere, and making it indeed impossible for them not to do something. But then what has to be done is not to imitate in Cuba the proceedings which we have adopted as our rule in China, Japan, and even in the Ottoman Empire (as in the bombardment of Jeddah), namely, to "send a combined British and American fleet to Santiago to bring them to their senses"; but to call on the Madrid Government to make reparation.

It may appear inconsistent with the view we take of the character of the European Governments that they should have all concurred in condemning the capture of the Virginius as illegal, and in advising the Madrid Government to deliver her up. There is, however, a very obvious reason for this, which accords perfectly with the theory of those Governments having a master. Spain and the United States are the only Powers free from the trammels of the Declaration of Paris. It has been stated that the Cuban merchants were prepared to fit out privateers, and that the American Navy is in the lowest state of degradation. War between them would therefore have shown in what consists Naval Power, and might have enabled France to make the discovery of what an idiot she has been in not using her powerful maritime force against an exclusively military enemy.

Progress of the Swiss Persecution.

WE had intended to continue at some length the narrative of the persecutions in Switzerland, so as to give people in England some idea of what may be done, because it is done, under the name of law and the appearance of liberty. But we find it impossible to give more than a small space to the subject in the present number; and having found an article on the subject in a Swiss protestant paper, we are so desirous to give extracts from it that our own remarks must be very brief.

The principal event that has occurred since our last publication has been the positive destitution of all the parish priests in the Bernese Jura, and also of those in the Canton of Geneva, and their places being filled up by others appointed by the civil authorities. In the Canton of Geneva there has been an election, that is to say the semblance of one, as may be seen by the insignificant numbers who voted, as compared to the Catholic population, the numbers being given by the report of the authorities themselves, who can say anything they please. In the Jura, even this could not be ventured on. There has been nothing there in the shape of an election; although there actually existed a former law made by the Canton of Berne by which that faculty was conceded to the Catholics, who had refused to avail themselves of it, as it had been devised by the Bernese Government as a means of separating them from their Bishop, in whom the nominations

*This proposal appeared in the Morning Post of December 6. The Daily News has had excellent articles on this subject.

had always rested, and which had been confirmed by the Treaty of reunion.

We would here observe, on the subject of election, that what is illegal and unjust is the civil power pretending to establish that system by its own authority. In some parishes of the ancient Swiss Cantons, it does exist, and has existed ab antiquo. A Catholic will tell you that it is a perfectly canonical mode of election in itself. But then it of course carries with it the condition that the person elected should be canonically eligible, just as when the nomination is made by a lay patron, or by the government. The appointment cannot be given to a person under any ecclesiastical disability, and he must be licensed by the Bishop. In this the Catholic Church demands nothing more than the Established Church in this country. It has been most justly remarked to us by a member of one of the Foreign Affairs Committees, that this harmony of popular election and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, now so grossly violated in Switzerland, is not peculiar to religious appointments. It is the same with legal ones. The Corporation of London appoint their own judges. The second judge, called the common sergeant, has or bad to go through a canvass like that of a parliamentary candidate. But nobody ever dreamed of electing a man who had not been called to the bar, or who had been disbarred.

It is evident that even in the case of dissenting bodies, no one could be elected to preach in a chapel who did not belong to the body of which the congregation formed a part. Still less could a congregation elect a man who had been put out of the sect to which they belonged. If they did so, that is to say, they would thereby separate themselves from the sect in question. Yet this is what has been done in Switzerland, not by popular election, but by prefects and their gendarmes. Every priest whom they appoint becomes canonically ineligible, by accepting the appointment without the Bishop's license, even if he were not so before. Consequently the only ones they have been able to find are individuals who were without employment on account of previous bad conduct, having been either openly condemned by their diocesan, or quietly dismissed. That is to say this new sect is founded by the refuse of the French dioceses!

To make way for these individuals, the legitimate Curé in each parish and his flock-that is, to say the whole body of parishioners-have been turned out of their church, and forced to find a place wherein to worship GOD in barns or private houses. The authorities pretend to allow them the exercise of their religion under those circumstances. But so far from leaving them tranquil even then, the papers are filled with instances of Curés imprisoned or fined under some pretence: as for having in sacerdotal babits baptised an infant or for exciting sedition against the civil authorities. Nor are such measures confined to the priests. In the parish of Delemont, the Conseil de Fabrique (resembling our vestry), have but just come out of prison, having been kept there for three weeks without trial on a charge of robbery! The pretence for which was that some of the sacred utensils had been withdrawn from the church when the parishioners were excluded from it; which had in effect been done, because they were not the property of the parish, but had been lent to the Curé by some private individuals.

Persons have also been fined and imprisoned for not having saluted the schismatic Curés.

All this passes in a republic, where every one votes about everything, which may show us that it is not "universal suffrage," or any other form of government, that ensures either freedom or well-being, but the sense of

G

Law in the breast of each man, which can only exist where it has a sanction, not drawn from the caprices of men, but derived from the will of the Creator, written by Him in the heart of man before it was written on tables of stone, or consigned in any human constitution, which can only have value in so far as it conforms to the principle of natural justice.

The following is taken from the review of the past year in the
GAZETTE DE LAUSANNE, December 31, 1873.

"In ecclesiastical matters we have had the expulsion of Monseigneur MERMILLOD, and the sending away of the Nuncio. The last is insignificant in comparison to the first. The Federal Council had a right to suppress the Nunciature, and the provocation to do so cannot be denied. As to the conditional banishment of Monseigneur HEBRON, it is quite another thing; all the applause of the 19th century cannot persuade us, any more than the examples of the 16th, that the expulsion of a Swiss citizen by the administration, because of an act, which the Government chooses to forbid, but which is not a crime by the law, does not constitute a precedent which may have incalculably dangerous results. For by being suffered once, it becomes much more easy to repeat it a second time, which will undoubtedly happen, judging by the spirit that prevails. It would not be a very grave attack upon religious liberty to give to parishioners the election of their Curé even if the proceeding is not quite canonical. In fact, if the majority do not obey Rome, so much the better, while, with a submissive population, Rome would easily find some way of carrying its will into effect. But that which is much more serious is the incompatibility of the oath required from the priests, with their obligations to the Church. This renders the right of nomination a pure illusion for the Roman Catholics, whose Church was formerly the official one. At present the official Church is another one, separate from Rome. The result may be excellent, but the process by which it is to be obtained is certainly less liberal than despotic. "At Berne and in the other Cantons forming the bishopric of Bâle, it is still worse. Monseigneur GASPARD notoriously usurped functions, in connivance with Rome, to which he had no right. Monseigneur LACHAT had done nothing of the kind. When he refused the sacraments to a paleo-Catholic Curé, he only fulfilled a duty obligatory on him while he remained in communion with Rome. To discharge him for that act, to dismiss Curés who persevered in their obedience, was to separate from Rome the Catholic districts of the new Canton, it was to impose the Reformation by the civil power; or it was what comes to the same thing, to become the judge between two Catholicisms, of which one only, that of the Vatican, was represented in the country. . . . It was not to conform to the existing law, and the judgment of the tribunal of Berne, ordering the dismissal of the clergy of the Jura, will remain a monument of justice made subservient to a purpose, which can be hardly surpassed. Under such circumstances to forbid to the people the use of their churches, to refuse to the Catholic communes the use of their own school-houses for the exercise of their ancient worship, is not as yet a very severe religious persecution, but it is the beginning of religious persecution."

ALLEGED PURCHASE OF A NEWSPAPER.-The purchase of the New Free Press, of Vienna, for the moderate sum of four millions and a half (francs), by the Berlin banker BLEICHROEDER), is making a great sensation in Austria. This sale coinciding with the presence of M. DE BISMARCK, it is insinuated that the Prince-Chancellor is the real purchaser of the Jewish journal, which for several years has served his political purposes. M. DE BISMARCK attaches to the press an enormous importance; you know that the funds which he dispenses to maintain his journals amount to fabulous sums.--Gazette de Lausanne.

England can resist Russia in Central Asia only by Cruisers.

ABOUT nine months ago the Foreign Affairs Committees of Yorkshire and Lancashire, assembled in Conference at Bingley and Manchester respectively, addressed the following

SHOWETH,

PETITION TO PARLIAMENT,

That England has never been able to defend herself against her enemies, except by having the means of attacking them at sea.

That in her contests with Maritime States she maintained her superiority by attacking their commerce, seizing their goods wherever she found them at sea, whether in their own ships, or in those of neutrals.

That the object of the French, Spaniards, and other Maritime Nations in maintaining their ships of war, was the protection of their merchant vessels, and that, when their ships of war had been captured or destroyed by those of Eugland, their commerce was at her mercy, since, in neutral vessels, that commerce was entirely unprotected.

That in 1801, Russia having gone to war with England, was brought in a few months to sue for peace by the simple operation of our cruisers seizing Russian property wherever they found it on the high seas.

That, on the contrary, in 1854, the so-called Declaration of War against Russia having been accompanied by an anonymous paper in the London Gazette, erroneously supposed to be an Order in Council, which announced that enemies' goods would not be seized in neutral vessels, the Russian trade, not only with the Continent of Europe, but with England herself, was carried on without interruption; and the fleets of Russia, not being wanted for the defence of her commerce, remained at her disposal uninjured by those of England.

That at the Peace of 1856 the pretended Order in Council was followed up by an unauthorised declaration known as the Declaration of Paris, by which it was declared that Privateering was abolished, and that the neutral flag covers enemies' goods.

That by the Treaty of Paris in 1856, Russia obtained, under pretence of being coerced into it, the "Neutralisation of the Black Sea."

That under this article the ships of war, both of Russia and Turkey, were forbidden to navigate the Black Sea; that, Turkey being thus held down, Russia armed her merchantmen, seized all ships trading to Circassia (sending their crews to Siberia), and thus, by creating a famine, compelled the Circassians to quit their country; thus breaking down a barrier alike between Russia and Turkey, and between Russia and the British possessions in the East Indies.

That when this was accomplished and Russia's interest in the "Neutralisation of the Black Sea" had ceased, she refused to be any longer bound by the Treaty of Paris, and persuaded the parties to it to sign a new Treaty, which she may be expected to violate openly or secretly, as before, whenever it may suit her to do so.

That in the recent War between Prussia and France, the rules of the Declaration of Paris were observed by France, and that the consequence was that her navy was utterly useless in the war.

That under the same conditions England would be far more helpless than France, because England is not a military Power, and must utterly collapse should she cease to be a naval Power.

That, in the Treaty signed at Washington, on the 8th of May, 1871, three Rules, alleged to be new, are laid down respecting the duties of Neutrals.

That these Rules are so vague that they must require a fresh interpretation in every case, which will give rise to Congresses, like that recently held at Geneva, where the fate of this country will be decided by Foreign Diplomatists, and not according to the Law of Nations.

That your Petitioners have heard, and fear it may be true, that Austria and Prussia, who are not Maritime Powers, are disposed to give their adhesion to the so-called

New Rules, on condition that all property at sea shall be exempt from capture, even if on board an enemy's vessel.

That this measure would give the final blow to the power of England, who would thenceforth be unable to defend her own shores from an invader, and must, at any rate, submit to the loss of India and the dismemberment of her Empire.

That your Petitioners attribute to the chronic fear excited by their consciousness of the character and consequences of the Declaration of Paris, the circumstance that the British Government is anxious to arrive at an identity of view with Russia as regards the foreign policy of this country in general, and particularly as regards Central Asia.

That Russia's military strength is not such as to justify alarm on our part, that her naval forces are contemptible as compared with ours, that her finances suffer under a permanent deficit, while ours exhibit an annual surplus, that when we borrow, we do it at home, while Russia's loans are negotiated only in foreign markets.

That England's danger from Russia exists, therefore, only because she seeks Russia's friendship, and follows her counsels.

That the safety of this country can be secured only by reversing the policy of recent years, by renouncing all intercourse with a State which acknowledges itself bound by no Treaty however solemnly sworn to, and by accepting as Allies only those States which are not engaged in schemes for the subversion of the peace of the world, and for the subjugation of the human race.

That the Declaration of Paris is the unauthorised declaration of Lord CLARENDON and Lord CowLEY; that as it was unauthorised by Her Majesty the QUEEN, so it has never been ratified by Her. That it has never been sanctioned by Parliament, and is contrary to the immutable Law of Nations, which forbids a nation to be a party to its own destruction.

Your Petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will address Her Majesty the QUEEN, praying Her to cease all intercourse with Russia, and to declare by an Order in Council that she is not, and never has been, bound by the Declaration of Paris.

And your Petitioners will ever pray.

PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRIA UNDER THE AUERSBERG MINISTRY.It was the eve of the Easter holidays (1872). The honourable Members could no longer be detained at Vienna; every train carried some of them away; nevertheless it was absolutely necessary to come to an important vote before the adjournment. The vote in question was for an increase of the effective force of the cavalry, to which the Government attached the greatest importance. The President of the Reichsrath, having learned that the Deputies from the more distant provinces intended to set out in a body the next day, caused the Members to be summoned at their houses for a night sitting; he gave notice to the Ministers, and was quite proud of his stratagem; the more so as in consequence of the numerous desertions there remained of the Chamber only the regulation number. But towards evening about twenty of the Deputies rushed to the President's house protesting that a night sitting was impossible, since they had a prior engagement at the Opera, for places at which they had paid in cash, and that they had no idea of giving up their amusement. The President, while recognising the justice of their plea, was in despair. What was to be done? At last, after a thousand propositions, they came to an agreement, that the night sitting should not take place; that the dilettanti Deputies should to the theatre; but they had to promise upon their honour to postpone their departure till the evening of the next day, and to assist at the morning sitting. The supply was voted (Offenbach's music having put the Deputies in good humour), the squadrons were doubled, and the temporary chief of the Ministry of War was appointed Secretary of State.

go

Printed and published by C. D. COLLET, at 22, East Temple Chambers, Fleet-street, London, and may be had of all booksellers and newsvendors.