THE TABLET
A Weekly Newspaper and Review.
D u m VOBIS G R A TU LAM U R , AN IM O S ETIAM ADDIMÜS UT IN INCCEPTIS V E STR IS CONSTANTER M ANEATIS.
From the Brief oj His Holiness to T he T ablet, June 4, 1870.
Vol. 42. No. 1735. London, July J2, 1873.
price sa by post ¡h*.
[R eg is tered a t th e G e n e r a l P ost O f f ic e a s a N ew s pa p e r .
Page
C h r o n i c l e o f t h e W e e k : The
Judicature Bill.— Criminal Appeals. — The Law of Conspiracy.— The Burials Bill.— International Arbitration.— Public Business.— Abolition o f Appeals—A Question of Privilege.— Business at Versailles, and the Budget.—The Shah in France.— Anarchy in Spain.— The Crowns of France and Spain.— The Duty of France to the Bernese Jura.— Catholics and Persecutors in Switzerland.— Church and State in Hungary.— The Dutch and German Schisms. — “ State Catholics” in Germany.— The Official Persecution.— The Central Africa Lakes . . . . 3 3
L e a d e r s :
CONTENTS.
. Page
IC orrespondence :
Page
The Eastern Question . . 37 The Irish Political Situation . . 37 The Catholic Will Case . . . 3 8 The Pilgrimage to Paray-le-Monial 39 O ur P r o t e s t a n t C o n tem po r ar ie s :
1'he Lady Margaret Professorship. 45 Catholic Burdens, and how they may be Relieved . . - 4 5 To Householders and Lodger
Voters . . . . . 4 6 “ St. Joseph : His Life and Cha
The Newdegate Mania— Spiritual Coercion.-Lord Sandon’s Question. —A Day at Canterbury . . 39 R e v ie w s :
A Hundred Meditations on the
Love of God . . . . 4 0 Never Again . . . . 4 1 Persia During the Famine . . 43 S h ort N o t ic e s : The Contem
porary Review.—The Magazines for J u l y ....................................43
racter” ........................................46 F. Ballerini and St. Alphonsus . 46 The Music at St. Philip’s, Arundel 46 Gregorian Music . . . . 4 6 The Sisters of Charity, West
minster . . . . . 4 6
PAkLIAMENTARY SUMMARY . . 46
R o m e ............................................... 49
Peter’s Pence.................................. 49
D io ce san N ew s :
Indiction of the Fourth Provincial
Council o f Westminster Westminster . Southwark Birmingham . Clifton Hexham and Newcastle Plymouth . . . I r e l a n d :
Page
Letter from our Dublin Corre
spondent .................................... F oreign N ews :
France ..... M em o randa :
5r 51
R e l i g i o u s ....................................52 Legal ....................................52 G en e r a l N ews . . . . 5 5
CHRONICLE OF THE WEEK.
'H E Judicature Bill is dragging itself
THE JUDICATURE
BILL. T
through Committee at a moderate pace, and there is still reason to hope that the main features of the scheme will become law before the close of the session. It was never seriously ■ opposed in the Lords, and even Mr. Disraeli, though be recommended the Government to withdraw the Bill and reintroduce it next year, expressed his approval of the principle of the measure, in so far, thjjt is, as it constituted a single Court of Primary Enquiry, and a single Court of Conclusive Appeal. But the flaw which he found in the Bill was this, that, after the creation of one Court of Final Appeal for the three kingdoms, the intermediate appeals would be still left in existence in Scotland and Ireland, though not in England : no doubt an inconsistency, but one which would probably be better remedied by restoring the intermediate appeal in England than by abolishing it in the sister countries. It would be unreasonable and indeed impossible to exact that -all appeals whatsoever should be carried from Edinburgh or Dublin to London, almost as absurd as it would be to enact that there should be no intermediate Courts of Appeal in the colonies. This is the common sense view of the matter, .and in this instance it is fortunately the one taken by the Times. The question is not whether new kinds of appeals •shall be brought to England from Ireland, Scotland, or the •colonies, but whether those which are brought there shall be decided by the House of Lords and the Privy Council, •or by the new Supreme Court. On the same evening last week the House decided to abolish the rule according to which all the Common Law Judges are made Serjeantsat-Law on their appointment, so that from the new Judges we shall hear no more of Brother Ballantine, or Brother Parry. Another proposal of the Solicitor-General the House determined to think twice about; it was that no ex-Lord Chancellor should be entitled to his pension till he has served ten years as Chancellor or fifteen years as a judge, the effect of which -would, in most cases, be to compel the service of ex-Chancellors in the Appeal Court. On Monday Mr. Vernon Harcourt tried to take away from the Judges, and to vest in Government, the right of fixing the vacations, but the Attorney-General objected that this would effect nothing, as the Government would always consult the Lord Chancellor, who represented the Judges; besides being a slight on the Judges, who might be trusted not to make the vacations longer than was necessary. If Mr. Harcourt’s object was that law and equity should be always obtainable during the vacations, he agreed with him as to the necessity of providing for it, but i f he meant that the Courts were to sit during the vacation
N ew_Series. V o l , X. No. 244.
as during term time, only with relays of judges, he was entirely opposed to him, and with reason. No one ever yet worked well without rest, and no one ever will, and for this reason vacations are a universally recognized necessity. On this understanding, that the Attorney-General would provide for the hearing during vacation in London or Middlesex of any cause which might be urgent, Mr. Harcourt withdrew his amendment. An amendment of Mr. Watkin Williams to exclude questions of law as distinguished from fact from the Circuit Courts, was met by an explanation from the Attorney-General that it was not intended that there should be sittings in banc in the country, but that the single judge should be clothed with the power of the whole Court as regards questions of law subject to appeal. A proposal of Mr. Cross’s to extend to Lancashire the same right of continuous sttings given to Middlesex and Westminster was withdrawn at the request of the Attorney-General, on the ground that the Judicature Commission was opposed to Provincial Courts; but Sir John Coleridge reminded the House that he was personally in favour of them. Mr. Cecil Raikes then attempted, as the Chancery division of the High Court was made the first division when the Lord Chancellor was put into it, on account of his precedence over the Lord Chief Justice, to restore the Queen’s Bench division to the first place, now that the Lord Chancellor is restricted to the Court of Appeal, but he was defeated by 48 votes to 13: and a proposal of Mr. Lewis’s, supported by Sir R. Baggallay, to abolish the old designations of the Courts, and substitute “ first, second, third divisions,” and so on, w'as lost by 55 to 20. Mr. Osborne Morgan complained bitterly that he had been “ jockeyed” by the Attorney-General when he withdrew his amendment on the assurance that three more Judges not from the Common Law Bar would be appointed, and that “ if any dove had “ ever been outwitted by a serpent, he was that dove.” The Attorney-General replied with some warmth that he had never said those Judges were to be taken from the Equity Bar, and if one were to be an Irishman and one a Scotchman it was not his fault, but was owing to the adoption of Mr. Bouverie’s amendment proposed without any coneert with the Government.
In the morning sitting on Tuesday, the ques-
c r im i n a l t;on about the transfer of Bankruptcy cases from
Chancery to the Exchequer was postponed according to agreement, and so was Mr. Harcourt’s more important proposal to open the Court of Appeal to criminal cases, the Attorney-General promising to consider the matter before it came up on the Report. It is the often expressed dislike to the revision of sentences by the Home Secretary which dictates this demand for a Court of Criminal Appeal; but there is one danger which we hope will be provided against if anytning is done in this direction. It is
