The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-06-12 00:00:00

THE LORDS AND THE IRISH
CHURCH BILL.

A meeting of members of the Upper House-140 in
number—was held at the Duke of Marlborough's re-
sidence in London, on Saturday, to consider the
course to be taken by the Lords as to the Irish Church
Bill It was almost exclusively a meeting of lay
Peers, and ihe large majority were strongly in favour
if throwing cit the bill on the second reading. This
course wan vigoromly supported by Lord Derby. Lord
Cairns, Lori Harrowhy who will very probably move
the amendment in the House lif Lordel. the Dukes of
Marlborough and ltdtland, Lords ELlentiorough, Ban-
don, and Hetlesslale, and the main strength of the
i:onservative party. Tails mode of proceeding is advo-
cated most stron2ly by Lord Derby. A great many
Irish Peers—one, it is understood, a Roman i !atholic--
were present, and spoke strongly against the bill
Lord Carnar von and Lord Stanhope were in favour of
allowing the bill to be read a second time, and then
proposing material amendments, and were followed in
this I pinion principally by younger members of the
House. Lord Salisbury seems td be as yet undecided
as ti which course is the brat to pursue. Throughout
the meeting there was the strongest feeling that the
fill must be rejected, or altered in sortie essential
p Ants ; and there was a desire at least equally string
to ascertain, in the course of the next few lays, the
real sentiment of the whole nation on the subject.
Subjoined is a list of the Peers present
The Archbishop of Dublin, the Date of Aliercorn, the Earl
Of Harrowby, E trl of Atiergavenny. Earl anrherst, Earl
Bandon, Viscount Bangor, Lord Bateman, Marquis of Bath,
t.at I Bra burst, E tri Beam:hemp, Duke of Beautort, Lord
bear., Bish it of Oh ~tester, Lori Niamey. Lord Bolton,
Earl of Bradford Marquia of Bristol, Eat' Brownlow, Duke
Bitalerich, Doke of Buckingham, Earl carlogan, Lord
Cairns. Earl Carnarvon. lurd Cast tearable, Lord Cuelrosforri,
toed t hurston, Earl Clerical" yr, Lord Colchester, Lord Col.
vale, Lord Marina, Earl Coventry, Earl Courtown, Lord
Crofton, Earl Darnley, Eiti I Dartmouth. Lort de Lisle, Earl
Denbigh, Lord Denman, Earl Derby, Lord de its, Lord
de saumarez. Viscount de Vesci, Earl Devon. Lard Digtry,
Marquis of Downs tire, Marquis of Drogheda, Eirl Du-,more,
Lord Dimboyne, Lori Dransany, L int Eg-trton, Earl Egre.
mord, Earl Eldon, Lord Elobinstone, Earl of Enniskillen,
Viscount Exmouth, Lord Faversham, Earl Fitzwillitun,
Lord Galway, Viscount Gough, Viscount Gormandown, the
Earl of Haddingtati, Viscount Harding°, Earl liardwicke,
Earl Harewood, Earl of Harrington Viscount Hawartran,
Lord Headley, Lord Henniker, V escount Hereford, Lord
Heytethury, Earl Home, Karl of Huntingdon, Lord Hylton,
Lord Kesteven, Lord Kilmaine, Earl of Kingston, Earl
Lauderdale, Earl Leitrim Earl Levin and Melville, Earl of
Limerick, E trl if Lortgford, Kin iii L ounlale, Earl of Lucan,
Lord Lytton, En i Niaccletield, Earl of Malmsabu. y, Duke
of Munich sten, Earl Manners, Duke of Marlborough, Viscount
Melville, Voicoutd Middleton. Earl Nelson, Lord Northwick,
Lord Ormathwaite, Lord O'Neill, Marq.ds of Ormonde,
bunt Pero hyn, firehop of Peterborough, tot Portarlirtitton,
Lord Baden, 1.41,1 Ravensworth, Lord Iterlesdale, Duke of
Rathro•ord, ti rd Rivera, Earl of Romney, Earl of Rome, Doke
of Rutland, Lord it L-erniards, Marquis of Salisbury, Lord
Saltoun, Earl of Sandwich, Lord Scarsdale, Earl of Selkirk,
Viacomit Sidmouth, Lord Sinclair, Lord Skelmersdale,
Eti I Stanhope, L-1-1 Sutles, EaH of Stratihroke, Lord
Stratintair n, Earl of Tankerville, Viscount I empleto wn,
Lord Thurlow, Lord Tredegar, Earl Verulam, Lord Waking-
ham, Earl of Warwick, Duke of Wellington, Marquis of
Westmeath, Earl of Wilton, Marquis of Winchester, Lord
Wyliturd,
The representatives of the Press were not admitted
to the meeting; but the following version has been
furnished (by a friendly hand) to the John Bull.—
Lord Cairns addressed the meeting at considerable length,
urging tint the best course would, under all the dream.
stances, has to reject the bill on the second reading. The
leaders of the party were most anxious riot to fetterthe Jude-
merit of the Peers, but lie thmight the Earl of Harrowby was
the best Pier to take the initiative from his independent
positron, arid that he deserved the support of the party. The
NI atolls rtf Salisbury spoke in opposition to this course, as
did the Earl t.l carnarvoir, but it was generally thought
that, under the very fair and hont-st cloak of a desire for the
interests of the Irish Church, the interests of their order
were hot overlooked by those Peers, orb) Earl Stanhope. The
Earl of Derby spoae must eloquently and warmly iu favour
ot the rejection of the bill. Tire Earl of Derhigh, a Roman
Cattail*, peer, enure declared kis intention of voting for the
hill ; besides the two noble lords previously nientioned it IS
thought that the Earl n f Limerick and Earl Nelson, from
their desire fir a free r 'hurch, will abstain fronr voting, and
the former will probably vote for the bill. The Duke of Ra-
ised and others warmly advocated resistance to the WI.
The torte of the meeting was most firm, and the unwilling-
ness ti hear arty but men of great mark against Lord Cairn's
advice very It ermined. As became such a meeting no allu-
•ions was roatle to the hangman used out of doors. No for-
mal retatlntions were come to, the independent judgment of
each l'eer being carefully guarded ; hut the result will be
that the whole strength of the Opposition will he brought
to bear against the bill, the rejection of which will he
moved by the Earl of klarrowby. The majority will probably
re id.

SAWw

The Timm has the following leaderon the meeting
The policy of desperation has prevailed. The implacable
Rao ical who feat ed that the rumour to which we reluctantly
gave currency on Friday was "too good to he true" may be
re-assured, for the C. wiervative Peers have determined at all
hezarde to reject the Irian Church Bill on the second reading.
;t must not, indeed, be supposed that all the Lords present
at -eitunlay's ineetin.i approved this act of (Brea hostility to
public opinion. A few, and those not of the lewest rank in
argumentative power, not the least remarkable for their
appreciation oh the force of historic precedents, not wholly
undistinguished for their knoe ledge of constitutional prin-
ciples, inferior to none in their fidelity to Conservative tradi-
tion., strove in vain againsttheir fellows. Lord Salisbury, Lord
Stanhope, Lied Caruarvon, attempted to dissuade the meet-
ing from the course upon which the m ijority was bent. Their
remon-trances acre useless. One or two other Peers strug-
gled to get a hearing on the same side, but the meeting
refused to listen to them. Lord Derby, in strict accordance
with every act of toe career, whether as a fiery Liberal, a
Conservative, a Protectionist, or as the stemnaer of the tide
of Dernocrati, flung himself into the breach hi support of the
policy of Allot Nothing. Ile spoke to no unwilling hearers,
and when Lord Cairns, casting oft the reticence which alarmed
his Blends at Dublin, eho wed that he had braced himself up to
proclaim war ii Dutra nor, the question wan decided. A majority
exceeding a hundred declared in favour of the rejection of the
bill
We are, then, on the eve of x crisis. Nothing since the
throes which preceded the passing of the Reforiu Bill can lie
compared with the ccusequences which must attend the
threatened conduct of the Conservative Peers. Of the result
of the etrug.ile there can be no doubt. The policy of the
Irish Church Bill, approved by the three Kingdoms, jimntiy
and severally, after matore deliberation and a direct refer-
ence of the question to the nation, can't be defeated. pie
bill will page, with no material alteration in its provisions,
tadore the end of the present year. The Lords may succeed
In the fleet instance, but, if they do, they will be compelled to
undergo the mortification of accepting on a second tender
Die measure they rejected at ilrat. It may be thought the
bats ol character anti of power involved in this pr spect Is a
matter le which they are chiefly, if not exclusively concerned.
But there are other results of their act-on which touch
us all. They put in jeopardy not only themselves
and their ptivileges, but the peace of cur great towns,
anti the maintenance of law and order in the country.
Above all. toey do their best to provoke an outuurst ot pas-
sionate violence in the unhappy couetry the vast majority of
WhOse inhatiltants they propose to outrage by a contemp,tious
disregard et their wishes. We know it will be said that we
invite violence in Ireland. Those whose injustice excites pas-
sionate resentment attect always to believe that the comments
of others upon their acts, and not the acts themselves, are the
causes of the outrages which ensue. We invite no violence
in Ireland or elsewhere. The fact we would impress on
those who have influence with the population of Ireland is,
that the uatlon is strong enough to work its own will within
the strictest limits of the law. But while we trust that any-
thing tending in, the slightest degree to a breach of the peace
wilt be oistantly suppreesed, we must yet protest that the
Conservative Peers who, by their resolutioit to oppose the
second reading of the Walt Church Bill, put their will in
oppositi to the will of the nation will be held reapoowble
if any atisclisel should flow from this assertion of autocratic
power.
We desire to do no injustice to the mass of Conservative
Peers beut on throwibg out the Irish Church Bill. The im-
poriance id the crisis allows no loose language and as we
have never hitherto impugned the motives of those who op.
ruale tire bill, we shall not do so Dow If we except one here
and titers whose re.kless temperament is incapat de of serious
Mats, we must allow that the rest are liWa1)11,1 by coescien-
tious motive-. But their conscimitiotsness itself is vitiated
by erior. They are onscientions ju-t as George 111. was
conscientious, or the First Niary ocher husband. We have
the power "—thin is the course ot their reasouing—" we have
the power to pri.vont a gnu-at wrong, and teaser bound to ex-
ercise it. It is true that what w e call a great wrong the ma-
jority. of imr countrymen call an act of supreme justice, but
we have the power of enforcing Orin them our own convic-
tioue, ad we must act on our ovt a convictione" There is a
double fallacy in this reasoning, polithal and ethical, and both
errorehave their root in a spirited Mot diliate self-assertionrea
t using to recognirethe rights of others or the limits of thole
own power The Lords are tunjustified, viewing time question
on abatract grounds of morality, in enforcing their Views upon
a nation whisk rejects [nem, however well they may be per-
suaded of their tiuth. But all doubt as to the conduct tney
ought to pursue should he removed when it is added that they
nave not the power to withstand the will of the nation. They
possess their control over public affairs on the condition that
they isiw to the judgment of the people when fairly expressed.
As Lord Salisbury acknowledged last year in the debate
on the Suspentiory Bill, the Peers cannot refuse to
defer to the national will when clearly expressed on
a definite ia,the, and lord Salisbury, in perfect agrees
meet with Itui derlaralion, is prepare-I this year to allow
the Irish Church Bii to pass. Lord Derby made a similar
statement to elve m.nths since in scarcely less di tinct terms,
and we wall ci see how he reconciles his ad vice ;tow with his
deolat nth,,nn then. As to the majority of the Opposition, we
can draw no other conclusion than that they have resolved
to intrench themselves in their own opinions and rely upon
thole fancied power, 151 disdain of couseteleucee to them-

selves or to the nation. [hey will he rudely awakened from
their delusion. It cannot be doubtful which will succeed in
the contest between themselves and the nation; and, indeed,
the only question is, not whether the power they think they
possess shall be proved to be non-existent, but whether in the
proof the power they can exercise, and might, were they wise,
continue to exercise, will not be so irreparably broken as to
also out of existence.

What are the practical steps necessary to secure the supre-
macy of the national decision? It may be thought the resolu-
tion taken by the Conservative Peers on Saturday will not
necessarily be followed by the rejection of the bill, and there
Is, of course, a possibility that a sufficient number will fol-
low Lord Salisbury to give the Ministry the victory. But
we cannot pretend that this is probable. The dissidents on
Saturday were • very small fraction of the whole and it
most be observed that few of the Conservatives who dis-
approve the policy of blind and ungovernable resistance will
feel compelled to mark their disapprobation of it by voting
for the bill. They will not vote at all. Their absence
will diminish the ranks of the Opposition, but will not add
to the ranks of the Ministry. We must be prepared, '
then, for the rejection of the bill. It is wise to be
re ely to meet this issue What must follow? Nothing
more serbus than an august in London. The business of the
session must be immediately wound up. 8.1. d Parliament
prim guru, to meet again after • short interval of rest. We
shall see the bill introduced in the new Session without a
tittle of change, and brought up to the Lords precisely in the
from it will he presented nest mesh for its second reading.
It will depend upon the Loma themselves what steps will by
that time have hem, taken to Insure its succes, But that the
bill must pass then is certain. There is no ,thir alternative
The nation has m °flounced upon the question. The Mouse
of Commons reflects its opinions, and neither the nation nor
the House of Commons will recede from the policy they have
deliberately approved and supported. Pent week the Lords
will be asked to allow that policy to prevail. If they defer to
the will of the people, ft will be well. If they stubbornly
' atc! Pllecessfully resist, the successful majority will be over-
riled two mouths later.

In a leader, on Tuesday, The Times says :
•• A majority of eighty against the bill." This was what we
were promised yesterday morning, an if the Peers who
cheered on Lord Derby Saturday had proved steadfast, it
Lord Derby himself had not awoke to the reflection that the
old maineuvre of chareing into the midst of the enemy: to be
c impelled to surrender at discretion, has been repeated too
if ten to be excused on the ground if youthful recklessness, 1
the threat might have prevailed. But as the Ii ore wore on '
and the day w,oisd, the resolution. or what had been thought
to be the resolution, of the Opposition began to melt away.
It was found that the minority of reason was more powerful
to numbers than any had suspected. First one, then another
rebelled. In the afternoon sitting of the Lards yeAerday a
member of the late Ministry took occashin in the most pointed
manlier possible to disavow all approval of the policy of biind
resistance. Lord Devon, in presenting a petition from the
clergy of Exeter against the bill, added that it would be dies
ingenuous on his part if he did not explain that he could not
agree with the prayer of the petition. He desired to amend
the measure, but he said, "1 ani firmly convinced that it
would he a matter of very serious public misfortune if your
Lordships should refuse to give a second reading to the bill."
Lord Devoti's courage encouraged many another Peer, and
the briet titling was scarcely over before it began to be said
that it would, perhaps, be better to allow the hill to be read
a second time by a innalimajority, and thus retain a power,
otherwise lost for over, of attempting to modify its provision*
in Committee.
We have no wish to triumph over the members of the
Opposition in the Upper House. The wisdom of their second
thoughts nmet go tar to efface the memory if the rashness
which beguiled them into an approval of the reckless
counsels submitted to them on Saturday. Every moment,
indeed, served to bring them some fresh proof of their error.
They became moreand more convinced they had placed them-
selves in direct opposition to the will of the majority of the
people for no other possible result than the humiliation of
their Order. An Incident, trivial is itself, which occurred
in the Douse of Commons last night faithfully represented
the resolution of that body. Mr. Gladstone entered the House
aleint half-past four, and was proceeding to take his place as
usual on the Treasury Bench But no sooner was he seen at
the domway than &cheer arose from the Ministerial side, which
. was caught up mid repeated, mot yet again repeated, till
some time after he had sat down. No answering cheer met
the challenge. Every man who joined in those cheers
testified his resolution to simport the Irbil Church Bill
against all opposition, and he knew that he was but expres-
Mug the sentiments of his constituents. The Conservative
nieniliere of the Commons are not deficient in courage, their
voices are by no means feeble, and if they bad believed the
policy which had been announced as the policy of their
allies In the House of Lords could succeed, they would have
shouted hack with defiant acclamation. The Conservatives
were silent. How could they be otherwise? They were well
aware that, with oue possible exception. the men who sat
on the front hooch before them disapproved the resolution
of Saturday and had been overruled in their opp °silica to
We trust the danger to the House of Peers is past. Perfect
confidence cannot, indeed, he felt in the stability of a body
whicn thought if ecting upon advice prompted in a mere
spirit of criminal lot y, and some time must elapse before
the character arid nalloence of the Upper House will be
thoroughly restored ; but we may well hope that the
danger it would have incurred is averted. Ihe experience
of the last two days has done something more than re-
affirm the old truth that is a direct issue the Lords
must afli-w the national will to prevail. It has shown
that on the questiim of the day compromise is impossible.
It is said that the moue:Milanese of this fact stimulated the
resolu ion of unconditional resistan,e, and it is certain that
the fact remains unaltered, tholigh the resolution may have
been abaadooed. The principle of the Irish Church Bill in-
volves all its distinctive details. They flow from it, and can-
not he altered without trenching upon the essence of the
question ; and it is impossible to allow this to be tampered
with. The policy of the bill was submitted to the country
in November, and the vote in its favour then given by the
constituencies of each of the Three Kingdoms. and by
the majority of the electors of each of the Three Kingdoms,
was m effect to ratify the scheme of the measure. We
do not know how anything short of suhmitting the whole
bill, clause by clause, to a popular vote could more folly
attest the sanction of the nation: and we believe that if this
hypothetical course were adopted, and every clause were
supported by overwhelming majorities, there would still
remain persons ready to affirm, as soon as the last clause was
passed, that the people had ill the interval changed their
minds about those which preceded it. The nation is not so
slack of purl o ran might be imagined from the example of
the Peers. .t has approved the hill as it left the House of
Common., mid as it has lets the noose of Commons the bill
mast practically be passed.