Year: 1878

/ or Commons was opened with al


the formality which was to be de


sired on such an occasion. LORD


Harrington, as usual displayed what


is one of the most valuable capaci


ties in party leader-that of stating


a moderate case forcibly. He com.


menced by again putting aside, as


beyond the scope of his argument,


the general policy of the Govern


ment in employing the Indian


right to challenge that policy on


some future occasion, but he would


not run the risk of weakening their


hands while delicate negotiations


were in progress. The importance,


and, on the whole, the favorable


promise of these negotiations may


be gathered from the kilograms we


publish this morning from our cor


respondents both at Vienna and st.


Petersburg. There appears reason


to believe that the Russian Govern


ment is prepared to admit consider


able notifications i'm the Treaty of


San Stefano, and that there is con-


sequently, to say the least, good


eAOdAAo AOA AAAeAN NiiN lNt't


tereSts of this country and of the


non-Slavic populations of the Otto


man Empire may be maintained


without the terrible instrumentality


of war. AT the moment when such


negotiations are approaching their


most critical moment, a leader of


the Opposition who is animated by


Lord Hartington's sense Of respon-


sibility would naturally abstain


from any criticism of the general


policy of the Government. He


leaves them to act on their own
sense of duty, and he reserves the


right to criticize, and, if necessary,


to censure their conduct until the


time when he can do 50 without


weakening their power to act on


behalf of the nation. Meanwhile,


he is content to raise a question Of


pure constitutional right. 1t may


have been necessary or prudent for
the Government to call upon our


native troops in India to cooperate


in maintaining the general policy of
our empire, but it may not the less


be their duty to ask the consent of
Parliament prior to the adoption of
any such measure. 1t is to the latter
point, and to the latter point alone,
that Lord Harrington addressed his
argument. He reiterated again and
again the assurance that he was not
going beyond this contention. He
wished it, for instance, to be clearly
that he was not saying
that the numbers of the regular
army were to be limited to the exact
mentioned in the preamble
to the Mutiny Act. What he said
is "that such number cannot be ex-
ceded except with the consent of
Parliament, and that the consent of
must be obtained, If not
by a supplementary statute, at all
events by a supplementary vote"
This alone was the point he raised f;
and in this restriction of his argu-
ment consisted, as it appears to us,
at once his strength and his weak
ness.


Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, on the |
part of the Government, met the
motion with an amendment which,
as Lord Harrington truly urged,
shifted the point at issue. His
admits the constitu-
tional control Of Parliament over
the raising and employing of the
forces of the Crown, but |
alleges that this is fully secured by |
the provisions of the law and by |
the undoubted power of the House /
of Commons to grant or refuse sup
plies, and declares it to be ineXpe- |
dient to affirm any resolution tend
ing to weaken the hands of the |
Government in the present state of
foreign affairs. Lord Harrington
commented severely upon this |
as tending to raise the |
very question he had himself en-
deavOred to avoid respecting the |
general policy of the Government. |
But, in point of fact, the whole !
question at issue between himself |
and the Government was whether |
or not this issue could be avoided.
1t was patriotic and constitutional, !
and exhibited a laudable absence Of |
to eliminate from a
great party discussion at this mo-
ment everything which might re-
fleet on the general course pursued |
by the Government. 1t is admira- |
bic, it may be even magnificent; !,
but it is not Parliamentary warfare. |
Lord HartingtOn's allies in the |
House of Lords, feeling themselves
by the same admirable
did not think it eXpedient
to make even the pretense of a di-
rect assault, but cOntented them
selves with a sort of reconnaissance


IN force. Lord Harrington, as he
stated last week, intends to deliver
his assault; but it would seem as
though he would not be able to do
more than call the attention of his
to their own weak points
being able to assert any
effectual superiority over them. 1t
could not but be felt that the argu-
nent of the Opposition was through
)ut conducted on as imaginary basis
Is the movements of an army corps


N a review. Lord Hartington's
motion was that, "by the Constitu-
ion of this realm, no forces may be
'aised or kept by the Queen in time
If peace, without the consent of
Parliament, within any part of the
DOllllllOilO VI lilC kIONll, tACCplluE
)nly such forces as may be actually
serving within Her Majesty's Indian
possessions" 1t is always matter
If the greatest difficulty to express
n half a dozen lines a constitutional
Dr legal principle in such a manner
Is to be open to no exceptions, and
both Sir Michael Hicks-B Beach, in
he House of Commons, and the
Lord Chancellor, In the House of
Lords, may have pointed out certain
laws or inaccuracies in Lord Hart
ngton's resolution. But the very
erms of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's
are sufficient to show
hat the Government are not pre-
pared to meet Lord Hartington's
statement with a direct negative.
As a matter of strict constitutional
light, and as a matter of practice in


ime of peace, no one doubts that
he Crown is precluded from raising
Jr employing within the dominions
IF the Crown forces for which the
consent of Parliament has not been
obtained. If the Government had
the Indian troops to
Malta or to Alden or to Gibraltar i'm
ordinary times, they would have
committed fragrant Offense against
constitutional propriety unless they
lad previously obtained the consent
If the Houses of Parliament. So
-, fLayafora "a tho q hetf ro Of aongff