down the arms they had taken up in a cause which is neither that of the Pope nor of the Church, nor of nationality and liberty, but only that of the Czar of St. Petersburg, and of the schism of PHOTIUS.

In presence of the immense danger with which Russia, allied to the Revolution, menaces the Church and the whole world, it is the duty of all Catholics to gather around the chair of truth and to oppose by all the means in their power the Muscovite and schismatic movement, falsely termed Slavonian.

Views of the Legitimist Party.

THE two following letters have been published in the legitimist journals under the signature of A. de SAINT CHERON. Their intrinsic value is thus immensely enhanced, and their appearance is rendered an event of importance. For M. de SAINT CHERON represents the views of no less a person than the Count de CHAMBORD. What he writes is reproduced by some seventy journals in France, as well as by several others all over the Continent.

It may be supposed that the views of the Count de CHAMBORD are not of importance; which is quite true when those views are erroneous; that is, when they resemble the views of every one else. On the other hand, that he should hold that which is true on the great subjects on which the life of a nation depends, is a great event. A country may be saved, says Sir W. TEMPLE, by a single man, when he is right and the rest of the nation are wrong. How much more, then, by one born to royal station, in a country and at a time when all are at sea drifting with the current of events and opinions.

If the Royalist party should really adopt as their programme the restoration of the traditions of law and administration, they will undoubtedly restore the Monarchy and save France.

THE TRIBUNAL FOR WAR.

(From the "Décentralisation de Lyon.")

Paris, August 3. The European Courts, by ratifying the crimes committed against the Jus Gentium at the time of the famous Treaty of Vienna of 1815, have created most formidable complications for Europe; and the substitution of International Law for the ancient Law of Nations is the source of the present social chaos, and of the interminable wars which threaten to make the world a mass of ruins.

The pretended International Law or modern right has been established to facilitate the hidden work of a small number of adepts as against the general welfare; these are diplomatic agents who, instead of simplifying transactions, only complicate them, and who, deeply interested in the success of their secret plans, only publish as much of their diplomatic reports as is necessary to mislead the public, and apparently legitimise their conduct.

Modern diplomacy is nothing but that; it is thief against thief, each seeking mutually to hoodwink the other by more or less clever combinations, without ever considering the real interests of the nations, or the means of obtaining social harmony between the different classes of the State.

One may safely declare, as an experienced English diplomatist, Mr. URQUIART, has put it, that permanent embassies have greatly contributed to this plainly revolutionary end.

Once international intercourse is placed on that footing, the mere caprice of a Minister or an Ambassador is sufficient to cause interminable wars, whose justice or injustice has been neither previously discussed nor established.

The neglect of this principle, which is elementary in the affairs of private individuals, but which has been entirely laid aside when nations are concerned, has as immediate consequence unjust wars, which become as it were permanent; formidable armaments, crushing taxes, disorder in the finances of the State, continually increasing taxes; commerce disturbed and diminished; the sources of revenue thus destroyed, the workman pushed into the Internationale by the diminution of his honest means of existence; suspicion and hatred established between the different classes of society, and, finally, the destruction of society itself by the absence of a tribunal to judge the case of war.

Who would believe it if he did not see before his eyes the terrible results?

Ancient Rome had its admirable institution of the Fecial College, which judged whether a war was just and legitimate, and drew up a declaration of causes, and it thus prevented the popular passion from prevailing over right and reason. This tribunal, while fostering in the people respect for the Law, preserved it from those catastrophes froin which it is the first to suffer.

The Church in its wisdom had formerly established a similar law, which was the basis of good understanding between the Christian States, and she had thus assured that social harmony which is the safety of nations.

From these premises may be deduced the importance for France of the re-establishment of a Tribunal to judge of cases of war, according to the ancient Law of Nations. If that be true, which the English working men declared, in a remarkable meeting under the presidency of Duke PASQUIER in 1871, in which they spoke on these important matters, viz., that all nations suffer on account of the distress of one of the first nations of the world, France, surely we cannot begin too soon to consider this important question, or work too hard to bring it to a successful solution.

That the safety of France depends upon it cannot be denied. Those men who really have at heart the interests of their country must study this problem and resolve it.

So work then for GOD and for France!

THE TWO MARITIME LEAGUES OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE.

(From the "Décentralisation de Lyon.")

Paris, September 7.

Europe will never know what dangers she has escaped, thanks to the penetrating sagacity and prudent counsels of Mr. URQUHART.

The activity of this far-seeing politician, in trying to bring England and France to recover their maritime power, by the abrogation of the fatal Treaty of Paris, which took from them, among other precious rights, that of seizure on sea in time of war, is little known. Towards this end, and by means of his powerful initiation, a Maritime League has been formed in England and another in France. The unity of interests of these two bodies will escape no one.

In the last sitting of the League for the resumption of England's Maritime Rights, a sitting at which were present Lord DENBIGII, Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE, M.P., Mr. COLLET, and several other remarkable people, the President, Mr. ROLLAND, gave an account of the interview he had, at Paris, with M. LE PLAY and several other notabilities, the result of which was the formation of a French League to second the English one in obtaining the abrogation of the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the resumption of their naval rights by the two Maritime Powers.

Admiral JURIEN DE LA GRAVIÈRE is talked of as the future President of this League, which will be joined, we hear, by several members of Assembly.

The importance of this League has made it to be felt that the naval forces of the two Powers combined could counterbalance the military strength of Prussia and Russia, naturally united by their encroaching policy, to the detriment of the feeble; and in case of a Continental war this Power would be an efficient security for the independence of the small States.

We consider this unity of purpose in forming a mutual League as a sign of good augury, and we pray that the Cabinets of England and France may strongly support the noble project of Mr. URQUHART, and may carry it out in a manner agreeable to the interests of the two countries.

The "Popish Plot" and Mr. Gladstone. THIS is not the first time that England has gone mad. It may be worth while, therefore, to recall to people the former most remarkable occasion. Any one who has read English history must have heard of the Popish Plot, and of TITUS OATES the informer.

66

On the 13th of August, 1670, one KIRBY, a chemist, accosted the King (CHARLES II.), as he was walking in the Park, and said, "Sir, keep within the company; your enemies have a design against your life, and you may be shot in this very walk." This person, when questioned, produced a Dr. TONGE, a clergyman, who said that two persons, GROVE and PICKERING, were engaged to murder the King, and Sir GEORGE WAKEMAN, the Queen's physician, to poison

him. Letters were then produced, directed to one BEDINGFIELD, a Jesuit confessor to the Duke of YORK, and said to be written by other Jesuits. The information was finally traced to TITUS OATES, an abandoned miscreant, obscure, illiterate, vulgar, and indigent; he had been once indicted for perjury, and was afterwards chaplain on board a man-of-war; he then professed himself a Roman Catholic, and obtained admittance into the Seminary of St. Omers. On the testimony of this person and one or two others, all England, except the victims, were convinced of the existence of a gigantic conspiracy on the part of the Catholics, and hundreds of innocent persons, after going through the form of a trial, were condemned to death. "Even "the better sort of people were infected with the vulgar prejudice, "and such was the general conviction of Popish guilt, that no person, "with any regard to personal safety, could express the least doubt con"cerning the information of OATES, or the murder of GODFREY.” This man OATES was then taken up by the political leaders, the Parliament voted an address for a solemn fast, that all Papists should be ordered out of London, and recommended OATES to the King, who was lodged in Whitehall, and given a pension of 2001. a year. Then, subsequently, it was found out that all this was founded on perjury and forgery, the principal author of it, OATES, was flogged through London at the tail of a cart.

Here is a whole tissue of falsehoods of an atrocious character, even firmly believed by the mass of the people, against their own fellowcitizens. It is not, therefore, so difficult to understand, that any amount of horrors should be believed of men belonging to a foreign race and a strange creed, and living very far away. But But it should at least make any reasonable man hesitate in joining a popular outcry of such a nature.

Popular Frenzy in England insuring the Triumph of Russia

If we have devoted nearly the whole of this number to the subject of the atrocities alleged to have been committed by the Turks in Bulgaria, it is not that we hold the accusation to be one that really deserves a serious refutation. It might be disposed of in one sentence uttered by a French officer, "They are Turks, and therefore they "could not have done any one of these things."

In presenting the mass of evidence which we have done, we have had in view the little handful of men who have been heroically opposing the madness of the people, and have been doing so with blunted weapons, which makes their courage only the more remarkable. The letters and speeches which we here reproduce, are only specimens chosen out of a great number, and we have been quite unable to give even an idea of the various attempts made in each place to stem the tide, or at least to enter a protest against it. Those who have written and spoken on the subject were qualified for it by a long study of the Goldsmith's History.

action of Russia, of the part played therein by their own Government, and of the strength and position of the Ottoman Empire.* All these qualifications to deal with the subject have been brought to bear. But on one point all have been wanting, and therefore we say they have fought with blunted weapons. All have thought it necessary to admit that excesses have been committed by the Turks. They have been afraid to believe it possible that under the circumstances of provocation of which they are so well aware, none of those acts of cruelty and unnecessary bloodshed, to which we are accustomed in Europe, should have taken place. This is not surprising. They do not know the Turks for themselves. They have not lived amongst a people where atheism is unknown, where hospitality is still a sacred rite, where the child kisses the parent's hand, and the son does not sit down before his mother, where all men practise the duty of politeness, one towards the other. The Committees, however, will now perceive that the evidence which is here offered goes to that extent, and must be so accepted if it be worthy of credit at all.

What we assert is, that there were no "atrocities" whatever committed by the Turks, whether Bashi-Bazouks or regular soldiers, or by whatever name you choose to call them. That is to say, that there were no massacres, but only persons killed in resisting the troops; no burning of villages, except as a part of the military operations; no violation, no mutilation-a thing most abhorrent to the Mussulman character, and utterly forbidden by their religion.

Sufficient attention has not been paid to the fact that nothing was said about atrocities, except as committed by the insurgents, until nearly two months after all was over. The rising took place in the beginning of May. At the time of the publication of our last number (5th of July), the horrors which have since caused all this excitement, had not been discovered.† An allusion to the event will be found at p. 159 of that number in this passage:-"These preparations (those of Servia) "are for the present rendered unavailable by the prompt putting down "of the Bulgarian Insurrection, which was intended to prepare the way "for a Servian invasion. It has turned exactly the other way, as it was the news of the outrage committed by the organised band of foreign "adventurers, round which were grouped the robbers and outlaws of the "Balkan, by whom the insurrection was begun, which gave the immediate impulse to the popular demonstrations of Constanti"nople."

66

These remarks were founded on private letters, by which the writer of this article was first aware that an insurrection had taken place, * A series of admirable articles in Vanity Fair it has been impossible to include.

said:

A private letter, dated Adrianople, May 4, appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette, which

"It appears that a large number of armed insurgents, composed of mixed nationalities, and many among them Servians, crossed the Balkan, and advancing to a village called Otlok-keni, killed the Mudir, and committed all sorts of atrocities. On their way they forced the peasants to join them, and, several of them refusing, their homes were burned to the ground. Some Bulgarians were murdered for not taking up arms against the Turks. The Russian Vice-Consul at Philippopoli has been known for a long time to have almost openly excited the population in and about Tatar-Bazardjik to rise, and many Russsian emissaries have been exciting the Bulgarians.