The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-15 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1ti69.;

The spectacle presented to view last evening by I
the House of Lords was certainly magnificent.
Densely thronged in every part, that hall of the Up-
per branch of the Imperial Legislature was—as the
noble Earl, the leader of it, took ocoasion to observe
towards the close of his opening address. " Crowded
with the representatives of wealth—of great social
position, and of eminent services rendered in public
and private life : the precincts of the chamber
crowded with Privy Councilloro, with members of
the other House, with the representatives of crowned
heads and great republics—the very galleries,"s re-
marked Lord GRANVILLE (with an allusion, a one
might say almost gracefully, certainly graciously
unparliamentaty) " the very galleries adorned with
a portion of the human race not altogether without
influence on public opinion." And as the Leader of the
flouse hesitated not to add—" A more magnificent
platform never, perhaps, was erected in this
world on which men by their wisdom, their
eloquence, and their knowledge could influence the
opinions cf their fellowmen." Earl GRANVILLE, ob-
serve ! speaking of his Peers, and speaking to his
Peers alluded to their influencing the opinions of their
fellowmen "by their wisdom, their eloquence
and their knowledge." Giving precedence, in
this enumeration, to the w:slom of the Lords as
compared with their eloquence an 1 with their know-
ledge. By a singularly infelicitous discourtesy on
the part of one of the most distinguished members
of the present Cabinet, of one of the most illustrious
of the Ministerial colleagues of Lord GILtNVILLE,
that quality, that endowment, that gift of wisdom is
curtly described to be the very one in regard to which
their Lordshirs display—it is Mr. BRIGHT, of course,
who says this—a glaringly manifest deficiency. The

assertion is, to say the least of it, discourteous on the
part of any one so eminently placed as a leading
Minister of the CROWN, as a responsible member
of the Cabinet, a 3 one of the sworn—no, we
must say, of course, exceptionally in Mr.
BRIGHT'S instonce, as one of the affirmed
—Privy Counsellors of the SOVEREIGN. The occa-
sion of this gratuitous rudeness on the, part of Mr.
BRIGHT is singularly malapropos. Lord GRAN-
VILLE, as he himself remarked last evening to the
House of Lords, has but just now been earnestly
entreated in his bearing towards the House of Lords,
to be " conciliatory." Precisely at the same junctare,
Lord GRANVILLE'S colleague goes out of his way to
be—instead of that—signally and flagrantly insolent.
To do this, as we have said, he goes out of his way,
and he does so in a manner the most cool and deli-
berate. He writes a Letter to the Secretary of
the Birmingham Liberal Association, in the second
paragraph, in the second sentence of which he says,
with inimitable impertinence—be a leading member
of thk. House of Commons, he a leading member of the
GLADSTONE Government—" The Lords are not very
wise, but there is sometimes profit to the people in their
unwisdom." Now, in a discourtesy like that, there is
something partaking of the character of the lowest
type of American candour, as betrayed not infre-
quently among the occupants of the back benches of
the Congress at Washington. A point blank ass.r-
tion of that sweeping and comprehensive kind,
directed against the whole body of au as-
sembly as unquestionably august, and as
undeniably ancient and (as the phrase is) time-
honourei as the Musa of Lords, gives evidence of
an arrogance on the part of any speaker or writer
indulging in such words, such as entitles him, no
matter what his position, no matter what his indi-
vidual capacity, no matter what his indubitable consci-
entiousness, to anything but our respect. An assertion
to the effect, " The Lords are not very wise, but
there is sometimes profit to the people even in their
unwisdotn," is one in every way just as paltry, just
as absurd, and (there is really no other term for it)
just as vulgarly arrogant as that uttered by a Liberal
(liberal, save the mark !) to the effect that the " stupid"
party was the party of the Conservatives. "0 Liberty,"
exclaimed Madame ROLAND, when standing at the
foot of the scaffold, " What crimes are done in thy
name !" 0, Liberalism —it might just as

appositely, often and often of late years, be
exclaimed how many a betise, how many a
narrow-minded, how many an illiberal proCeeding is
done in thy name—insomuch that we, as Liberals, some-
times read our own party designation almost as though
it were applied to us all ironically. " The Lords
are not very wise," says Mr. BRIGHT in his twofold
capacity as a member of the House of Com-
mons and as a Cabinet Minister, addressing
his remarks, as we have seen, to the Sec-
retary of the Birmingham Association " The
Lords are not very wise, but there is sometimes
profit to the people even in their unwisdom." The
Tribune of the People turned Privy Councillor,
thereupon reads to the " stupid" Tories—indeed,
it must be said, to the Lords in their
aggregate " unwisdom"—a pretty sharp lesson,
couched in the severest language of reproof and
comprehensibly enough, even, we are left to presume,
by " stupid" Tories and "unwise" Lords, filled (in
every sinister sentence of it) with only half-bidden
threats. "It is possible," says one of these rhetorical
brickbats, " that a good many people may ask what
is the special value of a Constitution which gives a
majority of 100 in one house for a given policy, and a
majority of 100 in another house against it." Another
of these, as we may otherwise call them, taps on the
thick head of the House of Lords, as wilta bludgeon,
is th's—" It may be asked also," quoth Mr. BRIGHT,
quite as significantly " why the Crown, through its
Ministers in the House of Commons, should be found
in harmony with the nation, whilst the Lot dsare gene-
rally In dir.0k...rr.e;;,,,,,. to ;i nut_ as if this were
not( nrugh, tl c great self-a ppointe 1 arch-arraigner of
the Lords go( s on to aivi,e their Lordships—through
the Secretary of the a rminghatn Liberal As3oeiation
by the way—in the same tone of contemptuous and
arrogant impertinence, that" Instead of doing a little
childish tinkering about Life Peerages it would be
well if the Peers cool] bring themselves on a line
with the necessities of our day. In harmony with
the nation," adds Mr. BRIGHT very authoritatively,
" they may go on for a long time ; but throw-
ing themselves athwart its course, they may
meet with accidents not p!easant for them to
think of." Significant enough—all that—surely !
But, then, as the old proverb has it, " a nod is as
good as a wink to a blind horse 1" And the Lords
are—as Mr. BRIGHT and all such ultra-Liberals
assert—so blind, so stupid in their unwisdom—
that it seems hardly worth the trouble
nodding and winking
at them vicariously through
the Secretary of the Birmingham Liberal
Association. Nevertheless, it has its value—
this extraordinary letter of Mr. BRIGHT'S—as the last
specimen, we presume, of the conciliatory policy
adopted towards the leaders of the Opposition and
towards the majority in the House of Lords by the
more I neral members of her MAJESTY'S present Go-
vernment.

-WHILE the Government have adopted the fortiter
in re with regard to the Irish Church, they are skew-
ing the suariter in. modo with regard to the Endowed
Schools Bill. Mr. FORSTER, who was supposed to
be the least malleable member of the Government,
has carried concession quite as far as is consistent
with the fundamental principles of the reform
whereof he is the propounder ; perhaps a little
farther. It is to be regretted, for instance, that he
should have so far yielded to the old -fashioned preju-
dices of old-fashioned people as to make the
rearrangement of the doles and other similar
demoralising charities dependent upon the will of
the trustees. Anyone who knows the kind of per-
sons who hold that office in the small country towns
of England will have very little hope of any initia-
tory movement from them. Doles are to a certain
extent a substitute for the poor rates, and it is too
much to expect of human nature that the rate-
payer should voluntarily increase his contribu-
tion towards the maintenance of Widow Smi-rn
in order that Orphan SMITH may receive a
proper education. So far as these bequests are con-
cerned, there is little hope that the education of our
' lower classes will benefit by the organic reform
which is now being originated. There are other
portions of Mr. FORSTER'S bill, or rather of that
half bill which is all that he seeks to pass this
session, which are as open to favourable, as the point
above mentioned is to unfavourable, criticism. For
instance, there is no reason to object to
the concession whereby the trustees of edu-
cational endowments worth more than £l,OOO
a year shall be permitted to draw up a new scheme
for the application of the funds. It is one thing to
say that there shall be a new scheme, and that the
trustees shall have the right of propounding it, sub-
, ject to the approval of the Charity Commissioners;
it is another thing, as in the case of the doles,
to permit the trustees to say if there shall be
any new scheme at all. Moreover, as a
rule, there is none of the inducement to retain an
inefficient arrangement with regard to schools that
there is with regard to doles. No one profits by the
first ; as we have seen, a good many persons may
profit by the second. There is another decided im-
provement of the same kind. As the bill originally
stood it was left to deans and chapters to apply por-
tions of the cathedral revenues to the improvement of
cathedral schools. It is scarcely to be expected that
cathedral dignitariez would show themselves very
a,eutausiastic in this ;Utter) laid 50 it has been wisely

determined to give the initiative to the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners. A third manifest improvement is
the better provision of schools for girls. Hitherto
the gentle and Greekless gender has been shame-
fully overlooked. There is many an instance in
which endowments have been left for the education
of boys and girls, and yet not a single girl is now pro—
vided for. This is the case even though the funds are
so large that they are, as at Berkhampstead, in Hert-
fordshire, used to bribe parents to send their sons
to school.

But after all, the most important portion of the
Education Reform is postponed. The appointment
of a central body, the examination of schoolmasters,
the arrangement of schools into the three proposed
grades upon a general plan—these, the bolder
features of the recommendations made by the
Royal Commissioners, are deferred until next
year, if not to the Greek Kalends. And yet a
scheme of reform which does not include these changes
will scarcelybe worth the having. They are essentially
the constructive portions of the main scheme, and
it loses the greater portion of its value and efficacy
without them. No system of education can be other-
wise than seriously defective so long as anybody is
allowed to turn educator without proof of fitness.
The revelations made before the Royal Commis-
sioners shew how large is the number of grossly-
incompetent persons in the profession, and there can
be no great improvement in the quality of instruction
until such men are forbidden to be teachers. Then,
again, at present there are often schools largely
endowed in two closely contiguous towns, while be-
yond them is a large district absolutely destitute of
any such provision. This defect ought to be
remedied, and must be before we can greatly con-
gratulate ourselves upon what has been done. Mr.
FORSTER seems to have adopted the motto, " Hasten
slowly," hoping to disarm opposition by taking one
step at a time. This may be prudent, but prudence
sometimes involves ixuatience on the part of those
who have very little respect for stupid adherence to
antiquated abuses

FROM our New York telegrams our readers will
have learned that the Republicans have had it in
contemplation to take party issue at the next elec-
tion on the Alabama question. Some of the
leaders proposed that the Republican " platform "
should -be based upon Mr. SUMNER'S demands.
It is yet uncertain whether this idea first originated
with Mr. SUMNER himself, who is said to have been
greatly disappointed at the refusal of General GRANT
to take his famous effusion as the groundwork of
Mr. MOTLEY'S instructions; but the more moderate
men of the party have speedily seen the folly of
such a procedure, and the scheme has been abandoned.
Its adoption would, in all probability, have destroyed
the ascendancy which the Republicans now possess.
To employ a great national dispute, involving a
question of peace or war, for party purposes
must surely have improved the position
of the Democrats, who have already announced their
intention of falling back upon the policy of peace
and conciliation. Mr. SUMNER'S speech, taken as
the programme of the dominant party, must
inevitably have led to war. It would have
bound the Republicans to insist upon re-
paration
for our " premature " recognition of
belligerency, for it was upon this head and front
of England's offending that Mr. SUMNER chiefly 1,
founded his claim. The injury inflicted by the
Alabama was trifling compared with the disastrous
effects of our unfriendliness as a nation. And yet it
now transpires that even the highest American
authorities are of opinion that no demands based
upon the QUEEN'S Proclamation of Neutrality can
be substantiated. Dr. WOOLSEY, one of the
leading exponents of international law in
the United States, fully believes that damages
can be exacted for the depredations of the
Confederate cruisers, but he decides that
Mr. SUMNER'S theory of demands founded
on the recognition arc wholly untenable. It
appears, too, that President GRANT'S Government
has been looking into the subject, with precisely the
same result. On the 21st of June, 1801,
Mr. ADAMS informed Mr. SEWARD that a desire
to be perfectly neutral had inspired the
Proclamation, and the latter, in reply, whilst
regretting alas the bdlligerency of the South had
thus been admitted, virtually acknowledged that it
furnished no special cause for trouble. Other procla-
mations of the kind followed, and were passed over in
silence. If they were not coniplaiziedof then, the PRE-
SIDENT'S advisers, we are informed, cannot conceive
how one of them is to be made the foundation of
huge demands eight years afterwards. We have
probably heard the last of this claim. It was solely
on its account that the unfortunate treaty of Mr.
JOHNSON was rejected, and it appears, after all, that
the Americans will be constrained to accept similar
terms.

SIR MORTON PETO AND THE NATIONAL
BANK.

An application was made at the Court of Bankruptcy
on Monday to Mr. Commissioner Winslow for leave to
prove against the separate estate of Sir Morton Peto,
Bart., for £150,000. The claim was made on behalf of the
National Bank, and a question arose as to whether it

ought to be admitted against the joint estate of Peto,
Betts, and Crampton, or against the separate estate of Sir
S. M. Peto, and it was also contended that the proof was
not in proper form. After hearing Mr. Bagley on behalf
of the National Bank, and Mr. Mayard for the assignees,
his honour decided that the bank was entitled to prove
against the separate estate of Sir S. M. Peto, and admitted
the proof accordingly.