London, July 16

One of the most curious of English parliamentary devices is the count out. What is the count out? If less than 40 members are present in the Lower House, they do not form a quorum, that is, an assembly competent to adopt resolutions. If a motion is introduced by an independent parliamentarian, which is equally irksome to both oligarchical factions, the Ins and the Outs (those in office and those in opposition), they then come to an agreement that on the day of the debate parliamentarians from both sides will gradually slip off, alias absent themselves. When the emptying of the benches has: reached the necessary maximum, the government whip,‘ that is, the parliamentarian entrusted with party discipline by the ministry of the day, then tips the wink to a brother previously chosen for this purpose. The brother parliamentarian gets up and quite nonchalantly requests the chairman to have the house counted. The counting takes place and, behold, it is discovered that there are less than 40 members assembled. Herewith the proceedings come to an end. The obnoxious motion is got rid of without the government party or the opposition party having put itself in the awkward and compromising position of | being obliged to vote it down.

At yesterday’s sitting the count out was brought up in an interesting manner. Lord R. Montagu had given notice of a motion for that day which dealt with the communication of new diplomatic documents on intervention in Mexico. He began his

“Last Saturday the latest Blue Book on Mexico was presented to the House, which therefore ought to be in a position to debate the Mexican question. I know that Government and Opposition have agreed to dispose of my motion by means of a count out. I expect that the House, conscious of its duty, will not tolerate such a manoeuvre in so important a matter.”

But Lord R. Montagu had reckoned without his host. After he himself had spoken, Layard had replied to him on behalf of the government and Fitzgerald had delivered himself of some official chatter on behalf of the Tories, Kinglake (a Liberal member) rose. The exordium of his speech concluded with the following words: “The whole series of negotiations disclosed by the papers presented is a striking illustration of the way in which the French government uses its relations with this country as a means to prop the Imperial throne.

“It is of decisive moment to the French government to divert the attention of the French people from affairs at home by causing it to be seen that the French government is engaged in great transactions abroad, and it is still more important for it to show that it is engaging in them in concert with one of the great respectable powers.”

Hardly had Kinglake uttered these words when an “honourable”’ member of the House moved that the House be “counted.” And behold! The House had dwindled to just 33 members. Lord Montagu’ motion had been killed by the same count out against which he had protested at the beginning of the debate.

Apart from Kinglake’s interrupted speech, only that of Lord Montagu was of any material interest. Lord R. Montagu’s speech contains the following important analysis of the facts of the case: “Sir Charles Wyke had concluded a treaty with Mexico. Out of servility to Louis Bonaparte, this treaty was not ratified by Lord John Russell. Sir Charles Wyke concluded the said treaty after France, through her connection with Almonte, the leader of the reactionary party, had entered upon a path that abrogated the joint

Convention, conclue a Londres, le 31 octobre 1861, entre l’Espagne, la France et la

Suppressed Debate on Mexico and Alliance with France 995 contest England’s right to act in isolation, but disapproved of the Anglo-Mexican treaty concluded by Sir Charles Wyke. Thereupon Russell ordered Wyke to withhold the ratification of the treaty.”

England, added Lord Montagu, lends her influence to enforce the fraudulent claims on the Mexican Treasury with which Morny “and perhaps persons of higher standing in France” have provided themselves per medium of the Swiss bourse-swindler Jecker.

“The whole Mexican business,” he continued, ‘was launched without the foreknowledge of Parliament. The first extra-Parliamentary war was waged in 1857.235 Palmerston defended that on the ground that it was an Asiatic war.2 The same principle is now being applied to America. It will ultimately be applied to Europe. The Parliamentary system thus becomes a mere farce, for, in losing control over wars, the people’s representatives lose control over their purse.”

Lord Montagu wound up with the words: “I accuse the Ministry of having made us accomplices in the murder of liberty in France and of enabling that unscrupulous adventurer to plant despotism in a foreign country. It ties our future to that of one doomed to the abhorrence of man and the vengeance of Heaven.”