THE TABLET.

A Weekly Newspaper and Review.

DOM VCBIS GRATULAMÜR, ANIMOS STIAM ADDIMUS OT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTBR MANEAT1S.

From the B r ie f oj H is Holiness P iu s IX . to T h e T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.

V ol. 83. No. 2804. L o n d o n , F e b r u a r y 3, 1894. P r ic e sd . b y P o s t 5$¿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 ic e a s a N ew spaper

♦ Ch ronicle of t h e W e e k :

Imperial Parliament : The House •o f Peers— The Government’s Contention — Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham— News from Russia •and Bulgaria—The French Chamber and the Socialists— Death of "Sir Gerald Portal—Women’s Suf­

Page frage — Affairs in Brazil — The New Difficulties in Egypt—Mr. 'Campbell-Bannerman in Scotland — The Report of Mr. Gladstone’s Resignation—The Channel Tunnel—The Money Market . . 157 ^Leaders :

Joan of Arc and the Holy See .. 161 Will Scotland Come ? . . . . 162 Old Masters at the Royal Aca­

demy . . . . .. 163

C O N T

L ea d e r s (continued) :

The “ Higher Criticism ” and the

Deluge . . . . . . . . 164 Canon Browne and the Apostles

Page o f England . . . . . . 166 N o t e s . . . . «. . . . . 167 R ev iew s :

The Great Pestilence . . . . 168 Earlscourt . . .. .. . . 169 A Volume of Travel ... . . 169 Lady William . . . . . . 170 Madame de Lignac . . . . 170 The Immuring of Nuns . . . . 171 C orrespondence :

Rome :— (From Our Own Corre­

spondent) . . . . . . . . 173 News from Ireland . . . . . . 174

ENTS. L e t t e r s to t h e E d itor :

Affairs in Italy . . . . . . 175 English Cardinals . . . . . . 176 The Social Difficulty .. . . 176 Cottas and “ Yorkshireman ” . . 177 A Deserving Case . . . . . . 177 Septuagésima . . . . . . 177 The Immuring of Nuns .. . . 177 The Assyrian Christians of Persia 178 The Inspiration of Scripture . . 178 The Jesuits at Bombay . . . . 178 Through Darkest Lahore . . . . 179 An Interview with Dr. Barnardo . . 180 A Relic of the Christian Persecu­

tions .. . . . . . . 181 Lays of the Currency ..• .. 181 The “ Rescued N u n ” . . . . 181 The Great Mission.— Lent, 1894 . . 182

The Wedding of Mr. R. Trappes-

Lomax and Miss Fitzherbert . . 183 Social an d P o l it ic a l . . . . 1 8 5

SU PPLEM EN T . N ew s from t h e Schools :

The Religious Instruction Con­

troversy .. . . . . . . 189 Modern Education . . . . . . 192 Catholics and the London School

Page

Board . . . . . . ^ . . 193 Catholic Collegiate Institute,

Manchester (Xaverian Brothers) 193 The Old Georgians’ Association 193 N ews from t h e D io c e s e s :

Westminster . . . . . . 193 S o u th w a rk ......................... . . 194 P l y m o u t h .................................... 194 Salford . . . . . . . . 182 Portsmouth . . . . . . . . 182

***** Rejected M S . ca?inot be re tu rn ed unless accompanied w ith address a n d postage.

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

---------- ♦ ----------

ON Monday the Lords sat to consider the Commons’ reasons for disagreeing with the Lords’ amendments to the Em­

ployers’ Liability Bill. The Marquis of Ripon, acting as Leader of the House, moved that the House did not insist on Lord Dudley’s altered amendment, aimed at permitting contracting out under certain conditions. The Marquis of Salisbury, speaking for the Opposition as the advocates of j the freedom of the individual and of contract, characterized ’the Government proposals as offers which the Opposition •could only steadily and permanently resist. Lord Stanmore said there was one plain suggestion he desired to make, and that was, that if the Government wished to obtain the support of those who were not disinclined to support them, indeed who wished to do so, they should explain far more fully and far more plainly than they had yet done the necessity for provisions which admittedly interfered with the unrestricted rights of action and contract. When his noble friend in charge of the Bill sat on the Liberal benches in the House of Commons, it used to be a universally admitted article of the Liberal faith that any interference with freedom of contract or restriction upon it was in itself an evil. Therefore, if it became a question between the destruction of contracts and the maintenance of the amendment of Lord Dudley, he felt bound to support the noble Earl’s amendment, but at the same time he could assure the Government that any argument which they might adduce would not only be listened to with respectful attention, but also with a sincere desire to be convinced. Lord Farrer said it would be a great disappointment to the supporters •and advocates of this Bill if contracting out were entirely abolished. It had been assumed by Mr. John Burns and the Lord Chancellor, in the course of their arguments, that if contracting out were never allowed, every workman who was injured by the negligence of his fellow workmen would have a special right of action, and would be enabled to enforce the claim, with the result that the employer would have a very strong motive for preventing accidents arising

New Serizs, Vol. LI,, No. 2,113,

from negligence. That was the strongest argument for the Bill, but he did not think that such would be the condition of things at all, as if contracting out were abolished the result would be to drive every employer into insurance with an outside Employers’ Liability Company, which existed for the purpose of making a profit out of insurance, and which undertook to indemnify employers against the claims of the employed. One stipulation which was always made by an Insurance Company wras that the conduct of the defence of any action brought under the Act against the employer should be left to the Company. It wmuld be the duty and the interest of the Company to oppose every claim to the utmost, and at the same time the employer would be relieved of the motive which he would otherwise have had to prevent accidents. The Board of Trade had endeavoured by imposing liabilities to prevent accidents to ships ; but they had been foiled by insurance, and he was convinced, after what had occurred in reference to shipowners’ liabilities, that if Parliament imposed the liability suggested by the Government it would be met in a similar w’ay. He was of opinion, however, that if there was to be insurance, it was infinitely preferable that it should be like that adopted by the London and North-Western Railway Company, and not an insurance with an outside Company.

With regard first to Lord Dudley’s amendg o v e r n m e n t ’ s ment>the Marquis of Ripon had on a former c o n t e n t io n , occasion pointed out that the amendment of the noble Earl would in the first place imperil the effect of the Bill, and in the second place he took exception to the form of that amendment. He did not now think the Amendment would be in any way improved by the alteration his noble friend proposed to make in it. The real argument brought against the proposal in the Government measure was that the Bill, if not amended, would have the effect of preventing the existence of these insurance arrangements. On this point he joined issue. As he had already stated, there was no desire or intention on the part of her Majesty’s Government, and there was no provision in the Bill, to prevent the formation and continuance of these insurance arrangements. There were two kinds of such institutions. There were the great institutions attached to certain large companies, such as the London and NorthWestern Railway Company and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, and there might be, and would be if the amendment remained in the Bill, another class of insurance companies, such as small insurance institutions, got up between employer and employed, and called forth under the Clause. With regard to the smaller and