T H E T A B L E T
A Weekly Newspaper and Review.
DOM VOBIS~GRATULAMUR, ANIMOS ETIAM ADDIMUS ÜT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEAT.S.
From the Brief of His Holiness Pius IX . to The Tablet, June 4, i i f o .
V°L. 93. jSTo. 3077.
L ondon, A pril 29, 1899.
P r ic k s d ., b y p0ST 5%
[ 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 .
PaS'
bery jn P .J - lament : Secret Bri^ u catirn n-ness^ ' Thc Board of 'Tue ‘dav ''I, r 0ldA«e Pensions A Scotch^ w-ltn thf Commons— the SulSn * ‘ gAht7; God Damn •Dent fnra w A, . Gfeat ImproveStatlpi°Drfl.N 2.tkh' ng - A Secret ^More t f r Dreyfus Case ~Xhe r accinatl0ns Ulan Ever V v ~ T k n'2 cStion of CanterCheap L ' ?°,ldIcl1 S itu a t io n A»encansPer a TelegraPhy —The The Late EmaPtUr'r palumpit— ^dle Empress of Austria . . 6 3 7
:
of Salisbury and Con- _____ tn the Catholic Church 641
CONTENTS
L e a d e r s (Continued):
Page
Lord Russell’s Bill . . . . 643 Europe and Africa . . •. • • 644 The New G a l l e r y ......................... 645 N otes — — — — 646
R ev ie w s :
Clerical S t u d i e s .....................648 One Poor S c r u p le .....................649 Irish Holidays ............................651 Life of Cardinal York . . . . 651 Reason and F a i t h .....................651 C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :
Rome (From Our Own Corre
spondent) . . — — — 653 News from Ireland — — 654 News from France.....................655 1
L e t t e r s t o t h e E d i t o r :
Indulgences and the Litany of
Page
Loreto ......................... • • 656 The Interpretation of Documents 656 The One-Man Manager . . . . 657 A Plea for a Great Cause.. . . 957 The Dreyfus C a s e ......................... 657 “ The Dublin Review " . . . . 658 The Catholic Truth Society . . 659 The Ritual Controversy . . . . 662 Irish University F.ducation.. . . 664 The Archbishop of New Orleans and the Pallium . . . . . . . . 664 Books of the Week . . . . . . 664 F rom E v e r yw h e r e . . ... 666 M a r r ia g e ........................................ 666 S o c ia l a n d P o l i t i c a l . . « 6 6 6
SUPPLEMENT. Pag N ew s from t h e S chools :
The G o v e rn m e n t and Pupil
Teachers . . . . . . 669 Educational Statistics . . . . 669 The Special Aid Grant and the
Recent C ir c u la r .........................670 The Study of English . . . . 670 Women Teachers . . . . . . 670 St. Charles’ College, North K en
sington . . . . •• •• 670 St. Mary’s Schools, Glasgow . . 670 N ew s from t h e D io ceses : Westminster . . . .
Southwark •• ~ Leeds ......................... Shrew sbury......................... Glasgow . . . • _• The Kaiser and the Benedictines The Pope and Lord Brampton
671 671 671 672 672 672 675
Rejected MS. cannot be returned unless acco?npanied with address and postage.
C H R O N I C L E O F T H E W E E K .
-♦ ----------
S e R a l p a r l i a m e n t : KcRET b r i b e r y in
BUSINESS.
r j p ] H E Bill presented in the
House of Lords by the Lord Chief Justice on the subject of illicit secret commissions
|fs£ead a first time without a discussion. That the evil ih 1 Se secret commissions was serious and widespread lordship had no difficulty in showing from the several L*mPts which had already been made to deal with it, and ■ J; rePort of the Committee appointed by the London -oamber of Commerce. From the evidence thus brought _gether it was clear that secret commissions in various >Htis D d were increasingly prevalent in almost all trades and of ,LSS'ons- If was a practice injurious alike to the morality h “ e commercial community and to the profits of the trader, for the receiving of such commissions could but create a conflict in the mind of the receiver between ' ° wn self-interest and his duty to his employers. The •G lL . . . . __ _J (Ln.nf/v.n 1 Uv . u - i u i c i c a i rtIJU. I l i o v iu * - / ^ ------- 1------ J -------- --------
P°sed* tiliD§ was *n pts secrecy> anc? therefore^ he^projs _fi ice of .. ....... .. ... ..............._ ........ _ t°Sed to extend5 to private business the principle of the which has made the bribery of public servants a ‘m'ual offence, and to make all transactions of the kind 1 rUpt unless the contrary was proved. Any person would wa°l.e to relieve himself of all fear of punishment under [Qj " i f he took his commission openly and aboveboard, Hu with the consent of his principal. Inequitable and gal secret payments were dishonest, and amongst them i deluded secret payments to agents, advice paid for by iqj rJ°u to get a man to recommend his goods to another,
“ the practice of giving false receipts, which was held up ^Probation in the parable of the unjust steward. Against ¡eVp s c°nvicted of such practices Lord Russell proposes ¡a te Penalties, which compiise imprisonment with hard t°r any period not exceeding two years, a fine that am°unt to as much as five hundred pounds and the shoi cut of compensation. As to the way in which the Act be “ d ^ set in motion Lord Russell thought that it might the a ’Q totce. by private persons subject to the opinion of the j/Uo.rney-General or a judge who might, if they thought Ceeij ’cular case vexatious, be given a power to stay proUseig 1g-S- 0 f course such a drastic measure would be
Ss if public opinion were not behind it, but his lordship thought that there could be no question upon that point The practice of secret commissions had been described as a hydra-headed monster, from the tyranny of which business m e D , even whilst confessing that they were parties to it, begged to be delivered. The Lord Chancellor expressed his fullest sympathy with Lord Russell’s object, and his hearty approval of what his lordship had said. The great difficulty lay, of course, in the choice of the machinery by which the evil was to be put down. He would help on the measure in every way, and meanwhile he suggested that in order to avoid the encouragement of the blackmailer it would be best to put the enforcement of the Bill into the hands of the Attorney-General or some public official. I f the Lord Chief Justice succeeded in carrying out his object he would deserve the thanks not only of the House but of the whole country.
The main characteristic of the long
— t h e b o a r d d e b a t e which took place in the House of e d u c a t i o n b i l l . Lords on the second reading of the Board
’ of Education Bill was the general approval expressed in favour of the Government’s proposal. Naturally this approval was dashed with some cold criticism of the inadequacy of the measure, but the reply to that was at once easy and effective. The proposals put forward by the Government in 1896 for a comprehensive Education Bill had been rejected, and the whole question was now surrounded with so much difficulty that it was necessary to proceed cautiously and step by step. Lord Reay pointed out the benefits that would accrue from the freeing of the Education Department of the independent agencies that hampered its action. There would be no further centralizing of our educational system and no stereotyping of one form of education. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave the measure his heartiest support, but at the same time took occasion to call the attention of the Government to certain important points involved. It would be a mistake to suppose that the cause of religion would be promoted by providing for its absence and exclusion from our educational system. That was an idea of religious equality the erroneousness of which could not be too clearly stated or too constantly remembered. His Grace thought too that it would be better to leave endowed schools under the Charity Commissioners than hand them over to a political Department such as the new Board must be. On the matter of inspection his Grace advocated the extension of public inspection to private schools. The Marquis of Ripon thought that the Bill was sure to pass, as nobody seemed to oppose it, but
S a iu r c s , V o l . I . X I . , N o . 2 ,3 86.
