The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-05-23 00:00:00

true obstacle to the success of his pacific policy
'is to be found, if 'he totild lint impress the
French Government with the expediency of
discentlnuing its incessant: preparations for
war, and its restless and 'ubiquitous intrigues
againat the security and independence of its
:neighbours,---if he could induce Napoleon 111.
s•
-to leave off meddling in the affairs of other coun-
tries;.anil ib abstain:from all appearance of a
desire to remove existing territorial landmarks—
he would render an incalculable service to France,
England, and •Europ.es-and he VVottld-licYcr hate
occasion again tb aerkeate the. sinister influences
which threaten to spoil his own best and greatest
work." There is, no doubt, a great deal of truth
in all this, --But this very truth only shows-the
folly of Ministers employing a min like Mr
Cobden in any such diplomatic work with one so
subtle as Louis Napoleon.
The accounts from Sicily continue to be most
conflicting. Those from Naples, of the last two
or three days, have represented the Garibaldians
to have been completely routed by the royal
troops; but now we have a telegram to a totally
opposite effect, announcing that the Neapolitan
army has been totally defeated by the forces of
Garibaldi, near Palermo.

Whatever hope there might seem to have been
when Lord Elgin left England for China, a week
or two since, that we might after all succeed in
avoiding a war with that country, accounts have
now, it appears, been received which must put an
end to all such eXpectition; The Chinese Govern=
merit, it is stated; has refused the ultimatuni of
the Allies, and ordered a blockade of the northern
ports with the exception of Shanghai. There is
nothing for it, therefore, but to inflict upon them,
such a castigation as will convince their Govern-
ment of the folly of treating as " barbarians" two
such powers as France and England.

The intelligence just received from India re_
presents Mr. James Wilson to be carrying things
With a high hand, under the conviction, no doubt,
that he -Would be well supported by the Home
Government. He has denounced in the Legisla-
tive Council, it appears,the act of Sir C. Trevelyan,
Governor of Madras; as one of wanton mischief,
—consoling himself, however, with the assurance
that "the Government had taken such steps as
were due to the public interests and their own
position to obviate it."
Lord Palmerston's organ, the Horning Pose, is
'constrained to admit that the decision of the House
of Lords, on the Paper Duty Repeal Bill, was
based on an honest conviction of the inipolicy of
the measure. " The majority of eighty-nine," it
is observed, " comprised so many peers who were
the habitual supporters of the Government as to
take off from the vote all suspicion of its having
been a mere party move,"—and that therefore
"the Cabinet will accept the decision of the
House of Lords, and retain the tax as it at pre-
sent exists." The Morning Herald: maintains
that "in urging the Peers of England to saVe
the House of Commons from the consequences of
hasty and improvident legislation, Lord Derby
only did what was to be expected of the leader
of the great Conservative party, and the splendid
.triumph he achieved was the fitting reward of
great exertions in a noble cause." The anxious
question, however, is how it will affect the stability
of the Ministry. According to Mr. Bright's paper,
the Morning Sfar," the Government are perfectly
resolved to appeal to the Commons and -the coun-
try'in consequence of the success of Lord Mont-
eagle's motion." The opinion of the Thnes—that
"it cannot be considered the House of Lords" has
refused to repeal the duty on paper ; it has only
declined to do so under existing circumstances,
and at the cost of that income which is already so
burdened, and withal so enduring"—does not
lessen, by any means, the blow it -inflicts upon
kinisters, who had determined upon the repeal.
How it will'really affect them, however, remains
to be seen.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS VERSUS THE

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

No one can read, attentively and unprejudicedly,
the debate in the House of Lords on Monday
night. without feeling that that estate of the realm
has given the country renewed cause of thank_
fulness for the existence of such a House as a
branch of the Imperial Parliament. Co-ordinately
with the House of Commons it is the duty of the
House of Lords to debate and decide upon mat-
ters touching the commonwealth, and especially
the making and correcting of laws. And this
duty has been discharged, on the present occasion,
with a firmness and fidelity well entitling it, we
say, to the reverence and gratitude of the nation.
It was in no spirit of disrespect to the House of
Commons, as the representative assembly of the
people, that it was proposed to the Peers to call
in question a measure which it had- passed and
sent up for their consideration, and, if they ap-
proved of it, for their concurrence. It was not as
a party proceeding, by any means, that it was
done; for although the proposition to question,
and to oppose, the ministerial measure at once ob-
tained the consistent and conscientious acquies-
cence of the Opposition, it originated with one
who has been among the constant supporters of
the present Ministers.' The object in view was
not, from the first, in any wise a party one It
was to save the House of Commons from the c on-
sequences of its own indiscretion—au indiscretion
of which, there is every reason to believe, a
majority of that House had begun to be sensible,
as very nearly a majority, indeed, had at last had
the candour and the public spirit, by their votes,
to declare ; but which official obligations on: the
one hand, and party ties on the other, had "pre-
vented being so acknowledged to quite the extent
that was requisite to give the feeling a decisively
practical effect. But the case was only on this
account one in which the Hou3e of Lords was all
the more imperatively called upon to interpose its
influence•and its authority. None but radicals
and revolutionists—and they who, for sinister
objects, make common cause, on such occasions,
with radicals and revolutionists—could ever, one
would think, for a moment dispute the right,
nay the duty, of the House of Lords so to inter-
fere. There is, in fact, quite as great an obliga-
tion oir that House, as on- the other—greater,
indeed, if possible, as being the higher and
soberer of the two—to keep a watchful eye over
the interests of the kingdom ; and while main-
taining its own independence therein, to contri-
bute to the preservation of the liberties of the
people. The public interests may be as seriously
involved in, and as directly. imperilled by, ques-
tions of taxation as anything else ; and because
it happens to be a subject of this kind to which
the attention of the Peers is called, and upon
which they are required to legislate, they are
not on that account to shirk the responsibility
that is imposed upon them, as a branch of the
Legislature, *by any such pretext as that of its
being a matter belonging exclusively, or more
especially, to the Commons. Legislation is the
business of both Houses alike. And no matter
what is the subject to be legislated upon, both
must not only discuss it, but both must acquiesce
in it, or the legislative process would be incom-
plete, and the issue invalid. In the case now re-
ferred to, as in all cases where measures originate

in the House of Commons, a Bill was sent to the
Lords for them to deal with as in their wisdom

they thought best.

If it were a Bill which the

Commons had the exclusive right of: deciding

upon, and their . decision was not to be meddled

with, or questioned, why ever submit it to the

House of Lords,—why not the Commons dial
with such matter by resolution, and avoid the

idle ceremony of sending it to the House of

Lords at all
tut this preliminary point has now been so