Punch (74.1878)

23 i PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [May 25, 1878.

PUNCH'S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

Monday, May 13.—The Lords came back from their holiday in
the country to their holiday in the House.

Lord Selborne is going to raise the Constitutional question of
the employment of Indian troops out of India without consent of
Parliament.

Et apres ?

(Commons.)—Sir H. James asked his question, " Will the troops
moved from India hring up the forces employed above the number
authorised by Parliament ? "—and got his answer, " They will."

JSt apres f

Next Monday the Marquis of Habtington means to raise the
Constitutional question, " Is the Bill of Rights still in force ? "
Et apres ?

In the mean time, by way of rehearsal, on Third Reading of the
Budget Bill, the question was trotted out by Mr. H. Vivian, who
contended, in a smart speech, in which he did not mince his words,
that " Government had not only cast a slight upon Parliament,
but had behaved in a highly unconstitutional manner."

The Chancellob of the Exchequeb explained, at the length

which indicated a bad case, how it was that Parliament had not
heard a whisper of what the Government intended. On the 27th
the Cabinet decided "on principle" to move Indian troops to a
Mediterranean garrison. On the 28th Lord Debbt resigned. On
the 4th of April came the Budget. Not till the 12th did the India
Office send authority to the Viceroy to move the troops to Malta;
not till the 16th were the necessary orders given in India. " How
could I move an estimate for the cost of movements still in nubibusf "

All very well, Sir Staeeoed. But the House was still sitting
when the movement was determined on, and heard nothing of it.

Mr. Dodson thought the Government had jockeyed Parliament.

Mr. Arthxte Mixes thought they had done quite the right thing.

Mr. Mitchell Heney protested against this fashion of astonishing
Europe behind the back of Parliament.

Mr. Rylands did not see, if this sort of thing might be done, what
protection we had from the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Pease protested against the way the House had been treated
bv the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So did Mr. E. Jenkins,
Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. Laing.