400 



GEEAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



were instituted on the subject at the first sit- 

 ting of the House of Commons after the recess, 

 May 6th. The Marquis of Hartington asked for 

 information about the progress of the negotia- 

 tions, and whether a Congress would or would 

 not be assembled ; also, why the decision of the 

 Government to move native troops from India 

 to Malta had not been communicated to the 

 House previous to its rising. The Chancellor 

 of the Exchequer replied that active negotia- 

 tions were in progress, but that it would not 

 be for the public service to hold any general 

 discussion on them at that time ; and that the 

 dispatch of a certain number of Indian troops 

 to Malta had been decided upon some time be- 

 fore, but it had not been thought necessary, 

 nor was it according to practice, to communi- 

 cate it to Parliament. A supplementary esti- 

 mate for the cost of the movement would be 

 laid before the House, and that would afford a 

 favorable opportunity for discussing the sub- 

 ject. A fuller explanation of the transaction 



BRIGHTON. 



was insisted upon in the course of the discus- 

 sion, when the Chancellor said that the mea- 

 sure " was neither more nor less than a direc- 

 tion given by her Majesty for the moving of a 

 portion of her forces from one part of her em- 

 pire to another." It was subject to the finan- 

 cial control of Parliament, but it was an order 

 strictly within the constitutional prerogative 

 of the Crown. Prematurely to have disclosed 

 this movement when it was decided upon 

 would have interfered with the arrangements 

 necessary to be made in India. On the 9th, on 

 a motion for the third reading of the budget 

 bill, an adjournment was moved for and sup- 

 ported by the Liberals, on the ground that the 

 budget had so far been discussed in ignorance 

 of the additional charges which the Govern- 

 ment was about to cast upon the country; 

 now, a considerable additional expense would 

 be involved in the dispatch of Indian troops to 



Malta, and it was desirable that ample time 

 should be allowed for the discussion of the 

 subject. The motion was lost, but was carried 

 on being repeated. The discussion was con- 

 tinued in the adjourned debate on the budget 

 bill, May 13th, when the Chancellor of the Ex- 

 chequer defended himself against the charge 

 of concealing the movement from Parliament 

 by saying that it was not in his power to men- 

 tion the subject in his budget speech, because 

 it was only four days before that it had been 

 decided on by the Cabinet, and not until a 

 week after that the first order was sent to In- 

 dia sanctioning expenditure. Moreover, the 

 Government did not consider themselves obli- 

 gated to communicate the measure, and deemed 

 secrecy expedient. The action of the Govern- 

 ment was made a special order on the 20th, 

 when Lord Hartington moved "that, by the 

 Constitution of this realm, no forces may be 

 raised or kept by the Crown in time of peace, 

 without the consent of Parliament, within any 

 part of the dominions 

 of the Crown, excepting 

 only such forces as may 

 be actually serving with- 

 in her Majesty's In- 

 dian possessions." Sir 

 Michael Hicks - Beach, 

 moving an amendment 

 in favor of the Govern- 

 ment, said that the doc- 

 trine laid down in Lord 

 Hartington's resolutions 

 had been repeatedly de- 

 parted from in special 

 circumstances, and the 

 House had sanctioned 

 the declaration that 

 this was an emergency 

 where the Government 

 was resolved, if possi- 

 ble, to employ Indian 

 troops. It was doubt- 

 ful whether practical 

 measures would not in- 

 terfere with the execution of the resolution. 

 The step was taken to counteract the influence 

 of those who were endeavoring to depreciate 

 the valor and loyalty of the people, and to 

 show the world that we have a united empire. 

 If the Ministry was not to be displaced, it 

 should be supported against petty cavils, cease- 

 less misrepresentation, and vulgar personali- 

 ties. The debate was confined entirely to the 

 constitutional aspect of the question. The di- 

 vision resulted, May 23d, in the rejection of 

 the resolution of the Marquis of Hartington by 

 a vote of 347 to 226. The amendment of Sir 

 Michael Hicks-Beach was then adopted with- 

 out a division. The debate of the same ques- 

 tion^in the House of Lords was also confined 

 to the constitutional point, and resulted like- 

 wise in favor of the Government. On Monday, 

 May 28th, Lord Hartington, after explaining 

 that he would offer no further opposition to 



