The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-20 00:00:00

T E SUN.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 18e0.
-
With a pleasure, to which all the hearts of all
our countrymen will respond most cordially, we
hear the cannon announcing the fact that her
MAJESTY has completed the twenty-third of her
reign! How can we but rejoice, when there
is not, we believe, a nation of Europe which
does not deem us as much favoured in our SOVE-
REIGN, as in the constitutional liberty through
which she is proud to govern us—proud that she
reigns over freemen. Even the denizens of the Great
Transatlantic Republic are pleased to speak of the
virtue of the Lady who rules over the other half
of their race which remains in the land of their
fatheir fathers. In their QUEEN all political parties,
all religious sects, all ranks and classes, find a bond
of union. In her desire to see them prosperous,
and happy, and to have justice administered
with the most rigid impartiality to rich and poor
alike, all have entire confidence. While the
nations and nationalities abroad are most of
them quaking with unwonted fears; while too
many of them are wishing they could shake
off their Sovereigns ; while other's are fretting
um der long denial of their liberties, all parts of
Great Britain, whatever their other differences, are
ag-re,%d in loyalty and love the SotiEItEIGN ; and no
music is sung at every festival so heartily, none
takan up so enthusiastically in every assembly of
Britons as the national air
GOD SAVE THE
QUEEN !"

The Lords cannot be charged this time with
departing from long established precedent.
They
have by a large majority—not so large, however,
Asa that of two years ago—decided that Church-
rates shall not be abolished; and this, it must
be
confessotl, is entirely in accordance with all their
precedents. It is not easy to call to mind a single
measure for civil, religions, or commercial liberty
which they' and their forefathers have not perse-
cuted and slain. And had not Liberty and Truth
an undying germ in them, were they not able to
awriTe the annual martyrdom of their legislatiTe

witnesses, and with an annually more vigorous
resurrection rise to confront their murderers afresh,
we should have at this time not have advanced beyond
the legislation of the STUARTs. All precedents in the

Upper House are in favour of rejecting every liberal
measure sent up by the Commons of England, till
the people and the Commons are worked up to a
temper, which it may be unsafe to trifle with
longer, or till some ingenious technicality puts
them in a false position. Then, and not till then,
do Jewish Emancipation Bills, Marriage Law Bills
and Church-rate Bills get through the House of
Lords. It has been the case with every measure of
Reform of every kind since the great Reform Bill ;
and as the nation will not trouble itself to go into
a passion over Church-rates, or Marriage Laws,
Reforms in these matters will be left till some acci-
dent, as in the case of the Jews Bill, brings their
lordships to reason.

The division last night may be considered, in one
sense, an advance, since, though the votes for aboli-
tion were less by five, those against it were fewer
by fifty-seven. The pairs amounted to thirty-six,
and altogether sixty-seven peers have thus re-
corded their votes against Church-rates. This is
something. For the Lords it may be regarded as a
special providence. Suppose that none had been
found to vote with the country, though the ques-
tion is not one of the highest moment, though, in
point of constitutional principle, it cannot be placed
parallel with that raised by the vote on repeal of
the paper duty, still, such a glaring and total
divergency of opinion from that of the people and
their representatives would have started some ugly
enquiries. A House without a member
of it in sympathy with opinion out of
doors, yet able to frustrate all the free action
of a great nation, would have been looked upon
with even more revolutionary thoughts than it now
awakens. Lord PALMERSTON very truly said of
the rulers of Naples and Rome, that they are the
real revolutionists, and that quiet could be looked
for only by getting rid of them. The moral is of
nearer application. Attacks on the House of Lords
by Mr. BRIGHT and others are complained of, but
the real attack is made by the Lords themselves.
By deserting their constitutional functions they
furnish the ammunition with which Mr. BRIGHT
loads his artillery. If ihstead of being content
merely to delay the legislation, when time for con-
sideration is needed, they refuse to allow the nation
to legislate for itself; if for ten, twenty, or thirty
years they obstruct and defeat the representatives
of the nation; if they persist in saying, not self-
government, but government by four hundred and
sixty irresponsible lords is the constitution of the
country-Aen let them not be surprised if people
everywhere begin to ask—what shall be done with
the Lords ?
While the Lords then have the best reason for
thanking Lord LYVEDEN and his sixty-six sup-
porters who serve them as a buffer against popular
indignation, let the Liberals also thank them as the
old Romans used to do their defeated generals, for
" not despairing of the fortunes of Religious
Liberty." Lord LYVEDEN spoke so moderately
yet conclusively, that in any assembly of business
men, not swayed by old prejudices or bigotry, he
could have hardly failed to carry his point. He
showed beyond dispute that the Church was worse
off with Church-rates than without them, and that
Dissenters, in point of fact, found in them their best
means of attack on the Establishment itself. Of this
we are quite confident. As old advocates of civil and
religious liberty, we may be allowed to know some-
thing of the sentiments of those-whose cause, under
various phases, we have so long pleaded. We
hear, what few noble lords do, their undisguised
opinions, and we well know that the most energetic
opponents of the Establishment principle do not, at
heart, wish for the abolition of Church-rates. They
feel that, being spurred on by others, they must be
zealous for the object—indeed they think it a good
one—but they all argue that to lose the fights of
the parish parliaments will be to lose their best plat-
form for agitation. They join earnestly, therefore,
and honestly, in attacking what they believe to be
bad; yet, as a matter of generalship in their greater
war, they are but too glad that the Lords do not
consent to parish peace. They have now the op-
portunity of fomenting annually an anti-state
Church squabble in every parish, and they well
know how to use it.
Well, the advocates of religious liberty have no
reason to be discouraged. They knew that they
would have the Lords against them session after
session for many years. They laid their account
exactly with what has happened. Every body
could have foretold the result of last nights
division, perhaps most of us would, had we
been sporting men, have betted that not above forty
at the very outside would have voted for Sir JoHN
TRELAWNY'S Bill. On the whole, the Lords
therefore have done better than was expected;
still the hope of the country for Church-rate Aboli-
tion, as for everything else at all liberal, lies in
itself not in its Lords—and masters. And weary
as is the work of petitioning, and of bringing in
bills session after session, there is at present no

other way.
The Lords, however, must take eare. The country
is wonderfully patient. ,It puts up with their
freaks and prejudices with admirable good humour.
It hears of an expected division like that of last night,
it laughs, says, yes, we knew of course it would be so,
we must at it again ; and it good-temperedly pre-
pares to enact the part of SISYPHUS next session.
But there may be a limit to this good nature. The
grave question of responsibility, being the very
essence of free and constitutional government, will
come up. Our Representatives, it will be said, are
directly responsible to us every few years ; the
Crown is responsible to us, through its Ministers ;
why should not the Lords be responsible also ?
Why should there be no means by which we can
deprive noble lords of a vote who know of no other
use for it than to refuse every liberal demand made
by our representatives ? Why should not our
Senate—even if it must consist of those who enjoy
titles of nobility—why should it not be elective ?
Why should not the nation decide which among noble
lords deserve to be intrusted with legislative powers ?
Such questions are the certain result of an irre-
sponsible house ailing on its irresponsibility.
Probably noble lords care little for our counsel,
but we beg to remind them, that in this day of
the universal diffusion of education, they have no
special claim to superior enlightenment, and capa-
city for the absolute rule to which the majority of
their number aspire. We are quite content to leave i
them their place and its privileges provided they
know how to use them with becoming deference 10 :he
supreme authority of the nation. Tradition, habit,
custom, indisposition to serious change, all make
Englishmen unwilling to alter what will work at
all passably. Why then do the Lords give way to
prejudices and an antiquated bigotry, when it only
serves to make the people at hirge ask the ques-
tion
i " What is the use of the Lords ?"

HOW GARIBALDI, having leaped into the saddle
at a bound, is now firmly gathering the reins up in
his " grasp of iron under a glove of silk," we are
now learning piecemeal. The_ prolongation of th•
armistice has been readily acceded to by him as
calculated to serve his purpose wonderfully. So