Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-06-22
A CONTRIBUTION QUESTION I'm
ENGLAND.

Welast week republished an article
of the Times newspaper for the pur-
pose of again calling attention to
the different modes of arguing con-
stitutional questions in England and
in the United States, the difference
being grounded upon the fact that
the Constitution in this country is a |
written document, but in England a
matter of usage and precedent which |
has grown up amid a struggle of
centuries between prerOgative and
the national will. The present arti-
Gle was intended to apper in the
same paper, but was crowded outby |
an excess of local matter.
The question before Parlia-
ment was whether the action
of the Government in bringing
troops from the Indian army to
the prospective seat of war without
previously consulting Parliament
was constitutional. We are not
much concerned with that question
in this country, and it is not upon
that that we propose entering; our
purpose is to contrast the free, broad
treatment of Unconstitutional questions
in England with the wire-drawn
pettifogging arguing upon them in
this country. As was fitting, the
question was first argued by lawyers
in both Houses, by Lord SelbOrne,
an ex Lord Chancellor, and Lord
Cairns, the present Lord Chancellor,
IN the House of Lords, who discussed
the few words in the bill of rights
which relate to the question and
precedent after precedent for about
two hours apiece; and the same
process was repeated in the House
of Commons between the Attorney
General for the Government and
Sir Henry James for the Opposition
without eliciting much interest on
either side. The real contest took
place when the lawyers had done
and the statesmen took the matter
up; Lord Granville and the
Cuke of Argyle for the OPP
position and Lords BeacOnstield
and Salisbury for the Govern
ment. The argument became now
a matter of principle rather than
precedent; the few words in the
bill of rights were shown to be in
applicable, and the spirit of the
British Constitution was shown to
be the one thing to be determined
not the letter, for there is no letter. .
On the part of the Opposition it
was shown that the introduction OF
troops into the kingdom without
the concurrence of Parliament had
ALWAYS been resOlutely contested and
for centuries forbidden; that Charles
the First had threatened the inter
ventiOn of Spanish troops in the
struggle between himself and his
Parliament; that James the Second
had made arrangements with the
French King for foreign aid in the
establishment of POpery, and
both of these had been resisted with
n vehemence that terminated in
revolution, and that even William
the Third was not allowed to retain
in England the Dutch troops with
which he had aided the English in
expelling the hated Stewards, nor
the HanOverian Georges to land
troops from Hanover upon the
British Isles; that therefore the
present Parliament was bound to
carry out the stern principles OF its
predecessors and forbid the intro
duction of troops from India which
are wholly independent of parlia-
mentary control into the heart OF
Europe. Thus the Opposition ar
gued. The Government speakers
admitted the continued jealousy OF
Parliament and people as regards
the admission of troops not under
parliamentary control upon British
soil, and not only admitted but ap-
plauded it, but went on to show that
all this general repugnance as
well as the provisions Of the
bill of rights applied to the admis
sion of such troops to the British
Isles alone and not to any Other
part of the empire; that the posting
seven thousand troops at Malta, I
mere fortified outpost of the empire
infringed on neither the letter of thu
bill Of rights nor the spirit of thu
Constitution, for to understand thu
spirit of these prohibitions we mus
consider their motives. The pur
pose of such parliamentary restrlc
tions was to erect a barrier agains
controlling Parliament by the pres
ence of military bodies under TIT
sole management of the Crown
for England had witnessed and no
forgotten, though it was centurie
ago, scenes very similar to thOst
which we, alas, have seen within
the last ten years. We have seen
Captain De Tobriand, of the UniteC
States Army, with a file of Fedora
soldiers, eXpel an elected State Leg
islature to make room for one non
elected. We have seen Grant sum
mon regiment after regiment o
artillery to point their guns on tn
National Capitol to overawe the OPP
position to a uSurping President
England has not seen such a thin,
since the days of Cromwell, but sh
does not forget. She will not ALLOW
of troops not under her control with
in hearing of her Legislative halls
But such being the motive ant
spirit of the prohibitions alleged b.
the Opposition speakers, those OIL
the Governments benches went o.
tosbow that the use Of Indian troop
in a European waI waged on tn
confines of Asia could never be ope
+o the objections, could never b