j j q p a T 3 y n p
A -AJL A JO JL»^ iL^ A i
^4 W eek ly N ew sp aper a n d R e v ie w .
DOM VOBIS GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS OT IN INCCEPTIS VRSTRIS CONSTANTER MANRATIS.
Arc»»* the Brief of His Holiness Pius IX. to T he T ablet, June 4, 1870.
V o l . 8 8 . N o . 2 9 3 1 .
L o n d o n , J u l y i r , 18 9 6 .
P r ic e sd . b y P o s t s3£d
[R e g is t e r ed a t t h e G e n e r a l P o st O f f i c e a s a N ew s pa p e r
«Chronicle o p t h e W e e k !
Page
Imperial P a r l i a m e n t : The Jameson Trial — The Scotch Rating Bill— The Uganda Railway — Coal Mines Regulation Bill— Dropping of the Irish Ed uca"iîon Bill—The Question of Crete — Teaching University for London — Londonderry Improvement Bill — The Payment o f Indian Troops — T.ea and Talk— The Honourable Artillery Company of Boston— 'Dervish Correspondence — The Chicago C o n v e n t i o n — The "Triumph of the Silver Party — The Arctic Siberian Rivers—Yale at Henley— Irish Railways . . 41 ILraders :
The Silver Question in America 45 The German Civil Code^.. ^ . 46 The Eastern Churches in Union
With the Holy See . . . . 47 The Belgian Elections . . . . 48 | N o t e s . . . . — -- 49
C 0 N T
R eview s :
_ Page
History of Christian Doctrine 50 Admiral o f the Fleet Sir Geoffrey
Hornby . . . . . . ..51 Weir of Hermiston . . . . 52 The Harvest . . . . . . 52 Miss Armstrong’s and Other Cir
cumstances . . . . ..52 The Life of Blessed Thomas
More . . . . . . •• 53 Grey Mantle and Gold Fringe . . 53 Two Women and a Man . . . . 53 Books of the Week . . .. 53 The Pope's Encyclical . . . . 54 Cardinal Vaughan on Popular Edu
cation and Religious Liberty . . 55 C orrespondence :
Rome :— (From Our Own Corre
spondent) . . . . ... — 57 News from Ireland •• — — 59 News From France . . .\ 60 Blessed Idesbaldus . . . . 61 L e t t e r s t o t h e E d it or :
English Freemasonrv and Educa
tion . . .. . . . . . . 61
ENTS.
L e t t e r s t o t h e E d it or (Con
tinued : Bishop Barlow and Anglican
Page
Ordinations . . . . ..62 The Manitoba Schools Question 63 Confe.-eHce of Catholic Colleges,
May, 1896 . . . . -.63 Mr. Geo. Russell’s Attack on the
Church . . . . .. ..63 The Canadian Elections . . . . 63 The Patriarchs of Alexandria . . 64 Catholic Board Schools . . . . 64 The Baptism of St. Eihelbert . . 64 Mile-End New Schools . . . . 64 Opening o f a New Church at .Wood
ford .................................... ..64 Last Days and Hours of Simon Lord
Lovat . . . . . . ..65 Cardinal Vaughan and Lord Halifax 66 Our Sailors in Rome . . . . . . 67 F rom E v e r yw h e r e ........................... 68 M a r r ia g e . . . . . ..70 Social a n d P o l it i c a l . . . . 70
SU PPLEM EN T . N ew s from t h e S ch o o l s :
Expenditure of the L o n d o n
Page
School Board . . . •• 73 Mr. Athelstan Riley and the Rate 73 The Bishop of St. Asaph’s Edu
cational Proposals .. . . 73 The Lesson of the Abandoned
B i l l . . . . ; . . . . . 7+ Notre Dame Training College,
Glasgow . . .. . .
Prize Day at St. Joseph's College,
. 74
Dumfries . . . . . . ..75 The Convent at Willesden . . 75 Parliamentary Intelligence . . 76 N ews from t h e D io ceses : Westminster ..............................76
Southwark . . „........................76 Birmingham..........................................76 Clifton . . . . . . ..77 Salford . . . . . . ..77 Newport ......................................... 78 Glasgow . . . . . . ..78 The Stonyhurst Dinner . . . . 78
Rejected MS. cannot be returned unless accompanied with address and postage.
CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.
----------- ♦ ----------
IN the House of Lords, in answer to a question put by Lord Herschell in regard to the determination of any points of law by a majority of the three judges sitting at the trial at bar of Dr. Jameson and his companions, the Lord Chancellor explained that the trial at bar had been asked for by the Attorney-General, who bore the full weight of responsibility ■ in the matter. His lordship continued : “ I cannot concur in the suggestion that this is not a proper case for trial at bar. I think it is eminently one for trial at bar. That is one of the most important forms of trial known to our jurisprudence. There are three judges to preside over i t ; but there might be more. Trial at bar is a somewhat technical phrase. It is a trial by the Court of Queen’s Bench. The whole Court is trying it, and instead o f having it tried by a single judge, and having reference afterwards to the Court, the whole Court is, by the hypothesis, sitting in trial. But, whatever be the number— whether three or more— if it is in the Queen’s Bench, there is no power of reserving a case for the Court for Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved. That cannot be done ; and so it has been decided.” A legal correspondent of the Press Association states that, according to the best legal writers on the subject o f trial at bar, and according to precedent, Lord Herschell appears to have no ground for the declaration that he made. H e quotes three precedents, extending over two centuries and a half, which show that the various points o f law arising in the Jameson trial may, if need be, be reviewed even after trial at bar, and which dispose abso
lutely of Lord Herschell’s difficulty as to the propriety of the procedure proposed by the Crown.
In the House of Commons the Lord
— t h e s c o t c h Advocate rose to move for leave to bring in s a t i n g b i l l , a Bill which should do for Scotland what the
English Rating Bill was to do for England—
redress the inequality arising between personalty and realty in the matter of local taxation. Owing to the method of rating in Scotland the English system could not be applied, and so Ihe Government was driven to the principle of
N e w S e r i e s , Vol. LVI., No. 2,240.
the equivalent grant. The annual amount available for Scotland, in the well-known proportion of n to 80, was ^£214,500, and the Government proposed to apply the greater part of this sum in relief of agricultural rates. The relief would, however, be applied not directly to the rates, as in the English Bill, but to the valuation on which the rate was levied. It would apply to the occupiers alone, and would not touch the owners’ rate, so that he hoped no more would be heard about “ the dole to the landlord.” It was also proposed to abolish the vexatious Burgh Land Tax, at a cost of ¿£7,000 a year, and, in so doing, save the expense o f collection. It was also proposed to set aside ¿£15,000 a year for the Highland counties to form the nucleus of a fund for the establishment o f a Congested Districts Board. The motion was agreed to, a warm contest beiDg threatened for the second reading.
Though the whole policy of establishing
— t h e u g a n d a a Protectorate over the territories of K ing r a i l w a y . Mwanga has been sifted and approved by the House, and the connection of those territories with the coast has been regarded as a necessary and important detail in the scheme, the Resolution sanctioning the expenditure of three millions for the construction o f the railway from Mombasa to the Victoria Nyanza through the Protectorates of Zanzibar, British East Africa, and Uganda was encountered by an Opposition of seventyfive members, led by Sir Charles D ilkeand Mr. Labouchere. Sir Charles Dilke contended that the construction o f the line was a defiance of natural causes ; it was one o f those attempts to artificially divert trade routes which had never been successful in the history o f the world, and, whatever might be the military necessities for such a route, it would always be a commercial failure. Mr. Labouchere followed this up by estimating that the railway would cost the country between forty and fifty thousand pounds a year, for it “ started from nowhere— no one wanted to leave by it, and went nowhere— no one wanted to come back by it.” The stock objections against the scheme were further eked out by references to the massacre of a caravan by the Masai in the region to be traversed by the line, by assertions regarding the unhealthy nature o f the climate of the intervening plateau, and by inferences drawn from the conflicting estimates that had been made o f the probable cost. Mr. Curzon’s task of reply was not difficult. It was too late in the day to discuss the principle of the Uganda railway, which had been decided by the House under the late Administration, and approved by the same under the pre-
