ing the adjustment of European relations, other facts have arisen which go to show the growth of a strong public opinion adverse to schemes of sensational reform at home and dangerous entanglement abroad. Witness the results of the late elections in Roumania, which gave an increased majority to the Conservatives, notwithstanding the united opposition of the Liberal factions. Witness also the results of the trial at Sofia, of Madame Karaveloff and her associates, who were tried for treason in connection with the prison charges against M. Stambouloff. Although the defendants were acquitted on M. CHADOURNE. technical grounds, the result of the trial was to clear M. Stambouloff of the odious charges of cruelty laid against him, which, had they been substantiated, must have led to his retirement, and to consequent endangering of the recently acquired stability of Bulgaria. On the other hand, it should be noted that the relations between Bulgaria and Servia, are somewhat strained at present, owing to the refusal of the latter to expel from her territory certain Bulgarian revolutionists who have taken refuge there; and the assassination of Dr. Vulcovitch, the Bulgarian agent at Constantinople, on February 24, which was at first attributed to Servian, but later, and with better show of reason, to Russian intrigue, is not calculated to lessen the tension between the authorities at Sofia and Belgrade. The Franco-Bulgarian Dispute. The war-cloud which hung over France and Bulgaria at the close of 1891, and which threatened, in fact, to disturb the general peace of Europe, was happily dispelled before the end of January, 1892. Had the Governments of Paris and Sofia persisted in enforcing their mutual claims, the Chadourne incident might have quickened into life the latent warlike germs which make their presence felt throughout Europe on occasion of every incident affecting the status of the Balkan Provinces. 66 M. Chadourne, a French journalist in Bulgaria (see Vol. I., p. 488), taking his tone from the pro-Russian, and therefore anti-Bulgarian, press, had made himself offensive to the Government of M. Stambouloff, and had been expelled. His expulsion France resented on the plea that it was a violation of the Capitulations," or the diplomatic arrangements with the Porte, whereby it was claimed that M. Chadourne, being a foreign resident in Bulgaria (which is under the suzerainty of the Porte), should not have been expelled by the Bulgarian authorities, except through the intervention of the French Consul. This interpretation of the "Capitulations," France accompanied with a demand that the decree of expulsion should be revoked, and a guarantee given against a similar recurrence. Bulgaria, in reply, pointed out that the "intolerable" conduct of M. Chadourne had been brought to the knowledge of M. Lanel, the French Chargé d'Affaires, as early as November last, at which time notice was also given of the intention of the Bulgarian Government to expel him if he continued in his objectionable course. Precedents were also cited to show that such incidents were not uncommon; and that, on a former occasion, France had submitted, without protestation, to the direct expulsion of two of her subjects from Bulgaria. The Bulgarian authorities refused to accept such an interpretation of the "Capitulations" as would deprive them of the right of controlling directly and absolutely the actions of foreigners who interfered in the internal politics GENERAL EUROPEAN POLITICS. of their country. They therefore refused to remove the restrictions upon the return of M. Chadourne. Upon receipt of this reply, France abruptly severed her diplomatic relations with Bulgaria. This action on the part of France has been variously regarded, but generally as an attempt to strengthen the ties of the Franco-Russian entente. It soon appeared, however, that the ardor of those who may have imagined that entente to be the sole arbiter of European peace or war, was misplaced; and that the real masters of the situation in the Balkans are also those who control the balance of power throughout Europe. The Russian press, with a clear insight into the intricacies of the international problems involved in an opening up of the Eastern question at the present time, refused even to countenance the action of the French authorities. The Sultan, also, to whom, as Suzerain, France had appealed, declined to insist on an acceptance by Bulgaria of the French demands. Nothing, therefore, remained but for the Governments of M. Ribot and M. Stambouloff to come to a compromise; and this amicable solution of the question was finally reached through the instrumentality of the Porte. A note acceptable to Bulgaria was drawn up, which the Porte addressed to France, in order to settle the unfortunate dispute. In this note, Bulgaria expresses regret for having issued the decree of expulsion against M. Chadourne, and for not having formally advised the French agent at Sofia of the intended banishment, and under takes that notice in similar cases shall in future be sent, but on condition that Bulgaria shall still have the right to expel offending foreigners if they will not leave after due notice. To this note France replied January 21, to the effect, that, while unable to accept the view taken by the Porte concerning the question of principle laid down therein, the French Government, nevertheless, looked upon the incident as closed. An enforcement of the French claims under the "Capitulations" was not insisted upon; and Bulgaria still maintains her right 15 to control the actions of those who meddle offensively with her own internal affairs. The Vatican and the Powers. Nothing has arisen affecting the general European situation, which transcends in importance the recent revelations of the attitude of the Holy See toward the various Powers. On more than one occasion, His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII., has shown a desire to bring warring factions into harmony, and to adapt the teachings of the Church of Rome to the changing and growing needs of the time arising out of changing political and social conditions. This is the spirit breathing in his long encyclical letter of February 16 last, intended especially for the use of the French Bishops; and in that letter, the general features of the policy of the Vatican toward the various Governments of the world, are clearly outlined. Not that that policy has undergone a radical change-it is now only more clearly defined. During many centuries, it has been the traditional policy of the Holy See to consider Governments as mere expressions of popular will, subject to transition and change, while the great body of the people remain permanently with the Church. As evidence of this, may be cited the recognition accorded to republican forms of government in the Old, as well as in the New World. And in his recent encyclical letter, Pope Leo says: "There have been many governments in France during this century, and each has ical, and Republican. Each of these is good had its distinctive form-Imperial, Monarch so long only as it makes for the common wellbeing; and one form may be good at one time, and another at another. Catholics, like all citizens, have a perfect right to prefer one form to another, as none of these forms in itself is opposed to Christian teaching. No governmental form is definitive, and a new form of government may be needful to satisfy new wants and conditions. When a thereof is not only permitted, but requested, new government is founded, acceptance and even demanded by the necessities of the social welfare. That must be done, inasmuch as insurrection provokes hatred between citizens, incites civil wars, and may push the nations back into the chaos of anarchy. Thus is explained the wisdom of the Church in maintaining its relations with the numerous governments which have succeeded each other in France within less than a century." His Holiness even goes so far as to acknowledge that the reduction of the Church to the common law status which it has in certain countries, though possessing serious inconveniences, may nevertheless have some advantages. In these declarations, which, it will be noted, do not commit the Vatican to the exclusive support of any one particular form of government, Pope Leo has, of course, disappointed the hopes of those Royalists who profess to see in monarchy alone the highest type of political organization. When it was announced, in connection with the political crisis of February last in France, that the policy of the Holy See was one of support to the Republican-Conservative party, and of opposition to Radicalism, the representatives, at the Vatican, of Austria, Germany, Spain, and Portugal, in alarm, requested an explanation of what they seemed to regard as an abandonment by the Pope of his monarchical policy. In reply, they learned that His Holiness was not more in favor of republics than of monarchies, as might have been seen from his encyclical to the French. Bishops, or from an examination of the traditional policy of the Vatican. All efforts, however, toward a restoration of official relations between. the Vatican and the Italian Monarchy have hitherto failed. Toward this GENERAL EUROPEAN POLITICS. end, the Emperor of Austria has lately bent his energies. His object, of course, is mainly political-to prevent an alliance between the Vatican and France, to check the radical movement in Italy, and thus increase the stability of the Italian Monarchy, and to secure for the Triple Alliance the support of the Catholic world. Francis Joseph desires Italy to adopt a more friendly attitude toward the Vatican, and to end the persecution of the Catholics. Italy has signified her willingness for a rapprochement with the Vatican, but, as a step to this, insists that the Pope first allow the participation of Catholics in the Italian parliamentary elections. The friendly efforts of the Austrian Emperor, have proved unavailing. The Pope, it is announced, will maintain his attitude of reserve unless Rome be first restored to the Holy See; and that condition, King Humbert answers, cannot be granted except at the cost of a revolution in Italy. This impossibility, at present, of a radical change in the relations of the Vatican and the Quirinal, is not due, it will be noticed, to any anti-monarchical views of Pope Leo, but to the special condition in which the Holy See has been placed since it lost Rome. The German Government, it is said, is endeavoring to effect a closer relationship with the Vatican. This end, it is hoped, will be promoted by the recent appointment of Cardinal Ledochowski to succeed Cardinal Simeoni as Prefect of the Congregation de Propaganda Fide. The Cardinal is one of the most bitter adversaries of Bismarck; and efforts are now being made, it is reported, to get him to accept the policy of the Emperor. The latter's recent withdrawal from the position he had taken in regard to the proposed Education Bill, is not likely to improve his relations with the Catholic hierarchy; but the full effects of his action have not yet manifested themselves. Interesting as is the general question of the relations of the Vatican, it is in France particularly, that, during the first three months of 1892, the interest has centred. The ecclesiastical troubles in France have been develop VOL. II.-2. 17 ing ever since the adoption of the legislation proposed some years ago by M. Jules Ferry, expelling certain religious orders from the country. After a vigorous enforcement for a time, the matter was allowed to drop; and, it appears, the expelled monks have, to a certain extent, been allowed to return without opposition, and even to re-establish some of their institutions. To this cause is due much of the opposition to the Government on the part of the anti-Clerical Radicals. The Pantheon incident of October 2, 1891, and subsequent events, the bearings of which are fully outlined in the last number of Current History (see Vol. I., p. 486), afforded the Radicals an opportunity of attack upon the Government, of which they were not slow to take advantage. The Pope ordered the temporary discontinuance of pilgrimages, while the Paris Government forbade the French Bishops to go to Rome without its permission. The Archbishop of Aix, Mgr. GoutheSoulard, on disobeying the Government injunction, was fined. The Archbishop of Carcassonne subsequently did the same thing, and was deprived of his stipend for the period of his absence from his See. This roused the ire of the Clerical party, who claimed that the lay power was crushing out religious freedom. Pope Leo threw in his influence as a conciliator, knowing that a persistent ecclesiastical quarrel would sharpen the weapons of the French Radicals, who had urged the Government to abrogate the Concordat of 1801, and had proposed in the Chamber a complete separation of Church and State. Accordingly, at an interview with the French Ambassador to the Vatican on January 4, Leo XIII. arrived at a complete understanding as to the future mutual policy of the Vatican and France. The Government was to maintain the constitutional status of the Roman Church in France, and was to discountenance the opposition which the Bishops had displayed. The episcopal letters approving of the conduct of the Archbishop of Aix, were suppressed, as were also the electoral catechisms published in a few dioceses, containing political exhortations on the part of the clergy, which His Holiness declared to be a distinct encroachment on the provinces of the civil power. Notwithstanding these instructions from the Vatican, the opposition of the French Bishops continued; and it was largely their suspected sympathy with the Royalist party, that spurred on the Radicals to the step which resulted in the overthrow of the Cabinet. In this connection, may be traced the influence of the politico-religious association known as the "Union de la France Chrétienne," the M. CLÉMENCEAU. moving spirit of which is the Comte de Paris, and the object of which is to identify the interests of the Church and the Monarchical party. Cardinal Richard, Archbishop of Paris, Metropolitan and Primate of France, had been induced to give to this association his approval. The influence of the "Union" has been the cause of much of the warfare lately carried on by the clergy against the Administration. Determined to prevent the serious consequences which were threatened to the status of the Church, Leo XIII., toward the end of January, addressed a brief to the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, instructing the French clergy to cease all opposition to the Republic, and to follow to the utmost the Pope's policy of conciliation. Strangely enough, Cardinal Richard refused to allow the Papal brief to be read in the churches, replying that he did not consider it opportune to do so at the present time; and, in conjunction with the Archbishops of Toulouse, Rheims, Lyons, and St. Malo, he issued a statement complaining that the State had become practically atheistic-among other things, that the liberty of the clergy was being curtailed in many ways, that educational and charitable institutions had been secularized, that the marriage of faithless priests was permitted, and divorce introduced. The document closed by exhorting Catholics to firmly resist the encroachments of the secular power on the spiritual domain. To this joint declaration, the majority of the French Bishops gave their adherence. Aroused by this act of disobedience, Pope Leo caused his Nuncio at Paris to distribute copies of his letter to the Bishops, and to acquaint the French public with the facts. Realizing this to be a blow at the Monarchy in France, the Comte de Paris has retrenched his expenditures in connection with the propagation of the work of the "Union de la France Chrétienne." The Pope followed up his previous instructions to the French clergy, by the encyclical letter dated February 16, of which we have already given. the main features. For this letter, President Carnot tendered his thanks, promising that he and his Government would second the Pontiff's efforts toward religious tranquillity. To Had this encyclical been received a few days earlier than it was, it might have averted the union of the Clericals and the Radicals in the Chamber, which, on February 18, caused the fall of the DeFreycinet Cabinet. please the Radicals, the Government had brought in a bill reviving and making more rigid the ordinances against the religious Associations, and reasserting the just authority of the State over all classes of citizens. This bill offended the Clericals by going, as they thought, too far. It did not meet all the desires of the Radicals, who suspected that the Government would not vigorously enforce it. Accordingly, as a reply to the attitude of the French Bishops, M. Hubbard demanded urgency, i. e., made a mo |