The Evening Star SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2672, 9 September 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1871.

Although matters in France do not seem to have settled down into permanent shape, so far as the government is concerned, there does not appear much reason to apprehend much further international trouble. The only paragraph calculated to create apprehension, is that in which M. Thiers is reported to be prepared to advocate a resumption of territorial power by the Pope ; but he is careful, apparently, to add to his expression of zeal, that he will not compromise France : which is equivalent to saying that no effort will be made to restore the papal dominions by force. There is certainly no knowing to what lengths men or nations will go when fanaticism urges them forward ; but these are not the days when Peter the Hermit or Godfrey de Bouillon can divest men of common sense. We do not think that now a-days any intelligent person considers spiritual teaching and temporal jurisdiction should be combined, if either is to fulfil its mission. Beyond a protest which will go for what it is worth, nothing will be done—unless it is proposed to locate His Holiness in France itself, or one of its dependencies. But force will baldly suit the present temper of Europe, where they are evidently sick enough of warfare for a time. Amongst the items of English news, is a paragraph giving the intelligence that notwithstanding the opposition of the House of Lords, the system of purchase of commissions in the army has been abolished with the consent of the Queen. This is one of the rare instances in which the opinion of the Upper House has been rendered powerless to prevent useful legislation, by the joint action of the Crown and the House of Commons. A generation has grown up since the last occurrence of this kind, and it will therefore interest our readers if we point out the practice of Parliament in such cases. We are indebted to Professor Hearn’s work on “ The Governmentjof England” for the following clear statement on the subject : A Ministry requires for the efficient discharge of its duties the support of Parliament. Since parliament consists of two parts, and since questions of administration do not, like questions of legislation, admit of compromise or delay, if there be a difference between these parts respecting the conduct of any Ministry, some means of speedily deciding that difference must be found. Accordingly, the rule is that when the opinions of the two Houses are divided, the opinion ; of the House of Commons prevails. But! as the existence of such a difference is not to be presumed, an adverse vote of the House of Lords must so weaken a Ministry, both at home and in the estimation of foreign powers, that nothing hut the unequivocal expression of the continued confidence of the House of Commons can restore it to its position. Before the passing of the Reform Bill, in 1832, there appear only to have been two recorded instances of difference between the two Houses, both of which were in Queen Anne’s reign. One was caused by an attempt on the part of the House of Commons to prevent the Peers from enquiring into certain alleged plots between persons in Scotland and the Courts of France and St. Germains. The other case was in 1710, when the Executive ,qf the day disregarded a resolution of the House of Lords, “ declaring certains terms u which that House deemed essential “ to a# honorable peace.” The three cases since the Reform Bill of 1832, pre-

vious to that of which newshas just been received, are—First in 1833, when the Government were censured for permitting a military force to be raised in England to assist Don Pedro, then at war against Don Miguel in Portugal. On the motion of the Duke of Wellington, an address to the King was carried praying him to give such directions as were necessary to enforce the observance of neutrality by his subjects.. Lord Grey, then Prime Minister, accepted that as a vote of censure ; but in the Commons the Ministry declared their intention to abide by their policy. The second instance occurred in 1839, when the House of Lords resolved to appoint a committee to inquire into the administration of Irish affairs by the Marquis of Normanby. The Ministry looked upon that as a direct censure upon their Irish polic} r . The third instance was in 1850, when Lord John Russell was Prime Minister, and Lord Palmerston Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The difference arose in consequence of some serious complications with Foreign Powers about enforcing the claims of two British subjects against the Government of Greece. On the motion of the Earl of Derby , the Lords by resolution affirmed both a general principle of international law, and conveyed a censu re on the Government. Lord Palmerston tendered his resignation, which the Prime Minister refused to accept, stating the Government dissented from the rule laid down by the Lords. It will be seen that the present case differs from the others through being a purely domestic question. Whether Mr Gladstone has thought it necessary to ask for a vote of the House of Commons approving the course taken, we are not informed. It is the custom to do so, for “ the “ remedy which the Constitution provides” is, that “It permits the “ censure of the House of Lords “to be overruled by the express “ approval of the House of Commons.” The previous instances were censures on acts of administration : that carried b/- the Duke of Richmond—on the abolition of the purchase system in the army —is really a censure on the Commons as well as the Government } but not being upon an administrative so much as a legislative question, the usual course may not be adopted in the House of Commons. The news by Suez in other respects is gratifyingly tame, and points to increasing demand for the raw materials that can be so abundantly supplied by the Colonies.