THE TABLET. A Weekly N ew spaper a n d R eview .

DDM VOBIS GRATOLAMOR, ANIMOS KTIAM ADDIMOS OT IN INCCEPTIS VESTRIS CONSTANTER MANEAT1

From, the B r ie r o j H i s H o lin e s s P iu s I X . to The Tablet, J u n e 4, 1870.

V o l . 84. No. 2830. L ondon, A ugust 4, 1894.

P r ic e 5d. b y P o st sJ¿d.

[R eg is tered a t t h e G e n e r a l P ost O f f i c e a s a N ew spaper

'C rgnicle of t h e W e e k : „ Imperial Parliament: The Evicted

Tenants Bill — The Lords and M o n e y B i l l s — Closuring of Evicted Tenants Bill — Decision • -of the Unionists — The Royal | Assent— China and Japan—The

Japanese Defence— Extraordinary -Situation in Newfoundland— Pub­

lic Health Congress— British Ship Plundered by Moors— Imperial British East Africa Company— The Dinner to Sir William Harcourt— The Money Market . . 157 ■Leaders :

Mr. Gladstone on Heresy and

Schism .. . . . . 161 Dr. Barnardo on his Defence . . 162 The Latest Italian Outrage on

Religion . . . . .. . . 163 The Story of the Margate Mission 164 T he Pope and the Restoration of

St. Francesco’s ......................... 165 'N o t e s ..................................................... 165

R e v iew s :

CONTENTS. Page

Page

The H ymalayas . . . . . . 1 6 7 South Africa .. . . . . 168 Character in the Face . . . . 169 A Liturgical Commentary on the

Psalms . . . . . . . . 169 The Ban of Maplethorpe.. . . 170 “ The Great West ” . . . . 170 Books of the Week . . . . 170 Archbishop Satolli and the Liquor

Traffic . . . . . . . . 171 C orrespondence :

Rome :—(From Our Own Corre­

spondent).. . . . . . . 173 News from Ireland .. . . . . 174 L e t t e r s to t h e E ditor :

The St. Vincent de Paul Society . . 176 Catholic Social Union . . . . 178 Presentation to Sir Tohn Austin,

Bart., M .P . . . . . . . 1 7 9 Stonyhurst Centenary. — C lo s in g

Day .. . . . . . . . . 180 The Press on Dr. Barnardo . . 181 N ew s from t h e D io c e s e s :

Westminster . . . . — 183 Clifton . . . . . . . . 183 Hexham and Newcastle . . . . 183 Newport and Menevia . . . . 184 Salford .................................... 184 Shrewsbury.................................... 184 Glasgow . . .. . . . . 134

Pas *

The Inverted Image on the Retina 175 The School Board and Guardians

Elections . . . . .. . . 176 St. Cuthbert’s Ancient Shrine . . 176 St. Anselm’s Society . . . . 176 St. Constance .. . . . . 1 7 6 The Greek Church . . . . 1 7 6 Coldham Hall . . . . . . 1 7 6 Count Reventera Salendra .. 275 '

SU PPLEM EN T . N ews from t h e S chools :

Exhibition Day at Downside .. 189 The Buckfast School Contest . . 190 Great Academies, M o u n t St.

Mary’s College, Chesterfield .. 190 Convent o f Mercy, Abingdon,

Berks . . . . . . . . 190 Prior Park College . . .. 191

N ews from t h e S chools (Con­

tinued) : College of Mary Immaculate,

Plymouth . . . . .. .. 191 St. George’s College, Woburn

Page

Park, Weybridge . . .. 191 Wimbledon College . . . . 191 Dominican College, Hinckley .. 192 St. Augustine’s, Ramsgate .. 192 Convent of the Visitation, Rose-

lands, Walmer . . .. . . 192 New Priory School, Kilburn . . 192 Stonyhurst Philosophy Defensión 192 St. Abysms’ College, Highgate.. 192 Willesden Boarding "chool .. 192 St. Mary’s College, Woolhampton 193 Convent of the Holy Child . . 193 The Barnet Schools .. .. 193 Science and Art Teaching . . 193 Warned Schools . . .. .. 193 Anglicans and National Educi-

tion . . .. .. .. 193 Education in Our Villages . . 103 Speech Day at Beaumont .. 194

Rejected M S . cannot be returned unless accompanied w ith address and postage.

CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.

t e n a n t s b i l l .

THE House went into Com­

mittee on this Bill on Thursf 7 *eek after the Speaker had ruled out of order a proposed

*«instruction ” by Mr. D. Barton empowering the Committee to divide the Bill into two, and in the first place to report the portion relating to lands of which the landlord remained in occupation. The discussion of amendments to Clause i was then proceeded with, and there were several divisions. T h e first and second sub-sections provided that where the tenancy of a holding in Ireland had been determined since j May i , 1879, the former tenant might, within one year, : petition the arbitrators to reinstate him as tenant; that if | the landlord was in occupation of the holding, and there 1 •was a p r im a f a d e case for reinstatement, “ owing to the •circumstances of the district or the circumstances under ■ which the eviction took place, or some other cause appearing to them sufficient,” the arbitrators might make a conditional order, and that unless the landlord within a prescribed time showed cause against the order, the arbitrators •should make it absolute. An amendment by Mr. Hanbury to confine the clause to tenants actually expelled from their holdings was defeated by a majority of 54, and another by Mr. Brodrick to limit it to tenancies not exceeding £ $ 0 rateable value was negatived by 65. A discussion which lasted two hours ensued on an amendment by Mr. Hanbury to exclude from the purview of the Bill holdings where there had been more than one eviction. It was terminated by the Closure, which was carried by a majority of 68, and the amendment was then rejected by 76. On a subsequent amendment, a statement by the Solicitor-General that “ the intention and purposes of the Bill are that it may, if the tribunal thinks fit, embrace every case of a tenancy to a holding in Ireland which has been determined since May 1, 1879,” led Mr. Chamberlain to move to report progress, on the ground that the Bill went beyond the order of leave. A somewhat excited discussion ensued, and in the end the motion was withdrawn.

N e w S e r i e s . V o l / LII., No 2,139.

On Monday a discussion arose unex- t h e l o r d s pectedly in the House of Lords, on the m o n e y b i l l s , occasion of the motion for the Third Read­

ing of the Finance Bill. It was confined to Lord Salisbury, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Ashbourne, and was suggested by a remark made hy the Lord Chancellor in his speech last week, that a Committee of the Privy Council had expressed an opinion, while giving judgment in a colonial case, that the House of Lords had no Constitutional power to amend money Bills. Lord Salisbury said he had not been in his place when the Lord Chancellor made the remark in question, but if the Committee had so decided he believed they were wrong. Their decision, however, was not binding on the House of Lords, but that they should have dealt with such a subject at all appeared to him to be an extreme exercise of their power. To decide on matters in conflict between the two Houses was not within their jurisdiction. He, therefore, had to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he would produce the judgment to which he had referred. It was perfectly obvious that the House of Lords had not for many years past interfered by amendment in the finances of the year, and the reason was that it could not change the Executive Government; and to reject a Finance Bill and to leave the Executive Government unchanged was to create a dead-lock from which there was no escape. He did not, therefore, in the least degree dispute the wisdom of the accepted practice that the House should not interfere in the finances of the year. At the same time, he considered it very important, in view of the changes that had come over the constitution and the proceedings and authority of the House of Commons, that their lordships should rigidly adhere to their legal powers, whatever they might be. He then pointed out the distinction between the legal and the moral power of the House of Commons, the former of which was complete if exercised by a majority of a single vote only, while the latter depended on the strength of the public opinion behind it. He selected eight Liberal constituencies, the majorities of the whole of which combined were so small that if a hundred and fifty men had voted the other way, the majority in the House of Commons would have been changed. Therefore, the moral authority of the House on this Bill was merely the moral authority to be attached to a hundred and fifty householders and lodgers in the constituencies, who were no better than a hundred and fifty Peers. The Bill had accordingly passed by a moral authority of the very weakest kind. On that ground he attached very great importance to the preservation intact of the legal prerogatives and rights of the House