London Legal Letter. of Assembly of that State, " for striking the sum of 100,000 pounds in bills of credit for the present support of the army, and for establishing a fund for the certain redemp tion of the same," and a certain other act "for the better support of public credit by an immediate sale of the lands therein men tioned and fully securing the purchasers thereof in their titles." So that Alexander Carlyle was an active patriot and had firm faith in the new government, a wealthy and influential citizen and proud of his family name and lineage, nor at all unhappy dwel ling in the home of Democracy, a resi dence that subsequently would have been a great bugbear to his distinguished rela tive. While the relationship between this Alex ander Carlyle and the great man of letters is assumed, it is not susceptible of actual proof. The Christian names of Thomas Carlyle's family and those of Alexander's are the same, the two men had the same birthplace, and the self-respect with which the Philadclphian announces his identity, and the pride with which he provides for the perpetuity of his family name, to some people sound not a little unlike the far-off echo of Teufelsdrockh's author, nor is there wanting room
453
for Alexander on the Gracie sketch in Scot land. Through the kindness of Professor C. E.Norton of Harvard, to whom innumerable lovers of Carlyle are indebted for a careful and intelligent editing of his correspondence, the writer was put in communication with Mr. Alexander of Edinburgh, a nephew of Thomas Carlyle, who found the place on the family tree in all probability belonging to the Philadelphia tanner and high constable, thinking he was actually a collateral relative to his uncle, but being unable to establish it as a positive fact The New World has been the home of several scions of the Carlyle stock including one of Thomas's brothers, nor has this con tinent been less hospitable to the writings of that celebrated litterateur than to h is relatives. The American public were in advance of his English readers in the warmth and prompti tude of their welcome to his books, and fur nished him with substantial pecuniary aid when it was sorely needed. While inter national marriages, the forces of modern so ciety and the improvements of civilized life daily cement us closer to Britain, it is pleas ant knowledge that we can include in the roll of our fellow citizens one of kin to her •most notable modern man.
LONDON LEGAL LETTER. LONDON, Sept. 5, 1897. WITHOUT doubt, the most important result oí the legislation of the Parliament which has just adjourned for its annual grouse-shooting, at least so far as those who practice law are concerned, is the Employers Liability Act. It does not go into operation for nearly a year and cannot, therefore, work any immediate change in practice, but in a number of respects it differs fundamentally from the existing law. The Act of 1897, though it does not expressly repeal the Act of 1880, nor abrogate the common law, will, when it comes into operation next July, practically supersede both, so far as certain trades, which are specifically enumerated, are concerned. It so alters, both in precept and principle, the common law fictions of the employer's liability, of contributory negligence and of common employment, that their best friends, if they have any friends at all, will not be able to recognize them. Of
all these fictions, that of the doctrine of common employ ment is the least excusable and the most irrational, and anything which tends to get rid of it ought to be hailed with joy by the large class of lawyers in America who have to do with the ever increasing volume of litigation growing out of actions for damages for personal injuries. It may not be remembered that this doctrine was laid down for the lirst time in this country sixty years ago in the now famous case of Priestly v. Fowler. Fowler, a butcher, sent Priestly, one of his workmen, to deliver goods in a van. The van, which was overloaded by other workmen of Fowler, broke down, and Priestly fractured his thigh. The jury awarded him, for this, a hundred pounds, a sum which in these modern days of ever increasing awards by American juries, must appear contemptible to those lawyers who take such cases on contingent fees and who have to divide and divide again with the agents to whom they are
