The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-18 00:00:00

f#C,A,

tnen OF VIM ",'2.I7PLIC :61711,NAL10.

The Times remarks that Zoe the sce,Ld time with= a
few weeks Mr. Bright's coliaguca La 3 had to disclaim
responsibility for his publicly expressed opinions. Let us
hope that it is fir the last time, for it is very plain that a
Government cannot afford the repetition of such scenes as
that of Thursday. It may be that Mr. Bright is not
quite sensible of the humiliation he has inflicted on his
colleagues ; but after their second appearance in the
character of apologists *they -mai be excused if
they give him to understand that no man, however
valuable his support, can be allowed to unite the
functions of Cabinet Minister and of agitator—to
share in the counsels of the Crown, and at the same
time to issue political broadsides. Mr. Bright's attack on
the Lords was meant for publication, and for publication
at an important crisis. He could not himself attend a
meeting, but he penned the bitterest taunts that occurred
to him, and sent them to be read on the platform. But
what makes Mr. Bright's letter a breach of ',decorum and
a serious offence towards his own colleagues is the
jubilant ill will with which be seems to anticipate such a
vote of the Lords as will damage themselves. Mr.
Bright should reflect that he can only lessen his reputa-
tion for judgment by not recognising the difference
between his present and his former position. We do
not expect him to abandon his opinions. It is no
secret that he is adverse to the institution of the peerage.
He has said in former days that it was unfitted to a free
country, and could not be permanent. He has a perfect
right to hold that opinion. We may go so far as to say
that he would be juitifled in stating it theoretically if
called upon to give his views on the subject. But to give
the impulse to an agitation in this sense without consulta-
tion with his colleagues is a breach of political duty as
well as of good faith and good breeding.
The Post says in plain English it comes to this—that
Mr. Bright, being too strong a card to be rejected from
the Government pack, is to be indulged in a double per-
sonality. In. the House of Commons, sitting upon the
Treasury Bench, he is the Right Honourable Head of the
Board of Trade, who answers all questionazigating.l4.is
department in a suitable atid' decorous manner, and even
condescends to carry the responsibility of a Minister
into the poderation which characterises his orations
upon great questions of the day. But at Birmingham,
whether on his legs on the platform, or in the spirit with
his pen, he is still the John Bright of old, flinging his new
dignities to the wind to revert to the impassioned utter-
ances of violent and intolerant invective. Mr. Bright's
past career has been in many respects a good one, and in
all an honest one ; and we confess that when he undertook
the responsibilities of office we were among those who en-
tertained confident hopes that, like many other men less
striking, perhaps, in the power of their intellect, but more
wise in their generation, he would be apt to divest himself
of his former intolerance—to work with men, instead of
against them, and become a useful and sensible member of
the Cabinet which he joined. But the case is,it appears, an
incurable one, and we can only endorse most cordially the
wish which is now uppermost in the hearts of so many—
that Mr. Bright would at once resign a position which he
is no longer competent to fill either with credit to himself
or satisfaction to his colleagues. The barometer of the
House of Lords on Thursday night indicated a storm, and
the sooner this political Jonah has teen got rid of the
more likelihood there is that the Irish Church Bill will be
steered safely to the much-desired haven of final settle-
ment and repose.
The Daily News says that by the jocose parallel which
he instituted between his own practice and fortunes as a
letter-writer and Mr. Bright's ; by the intimation that the
President of the Board of Trade, like h m e',f, Lad depre-
cated the holding of meetings pending the decision of the
Upper Chamber, with the view of avoiding the semblance
of dictatorial interference with the freedom of the Lords ;
and by the assurance that, though individual
members of tha Government :eight agree in the
abstract with the opinions expressed in the Birming-
ham letter, yet that the Government as a whole had
nothing to do with it, and desired to treat the
House of Lords with proper respect—Mr. Gladstone
managed, kindly and dexterously, to release his col-
league from a false position without compromising the
Administration as a whole. Perhaps it would have been
well if Lord Granville had co;itentedrilipseliaavithr g: sing
this arswer as from Mr. Bright, without entering into that
psychological disquisition on Mr. Bright's intellectual and
moral character with which he amused the House. Lord
Grey, who is irritated, perhaps, by recognising in Mr.
Bright's letter a rude echo of his own speech, could not
refrain from a burst of petulant censure: Mr. Bright base
however, merely "blown through brass" the notes Lord
Grey bas "breathed through silver." In the meantime,
the President of the Board of Trade must feel that ex-
planations and apologies of which lie is the subject do not
strengthen his own personal paaitiem or that of the Govern.
ment ; and he will do well to avoid giving future occasit n
for them. The Irish verdict of "Not guilty," accom-
panied with the caution not to do the thing again, meets
the necessities of the case.

The Star, in referring to the discussion on Mr. Bright's
letter in the Lipper House, thinks it was mere than
kind in Lord Cairns to read the 1‘ hole of the fatal letter
itself. It was hard even for an onlooker, with defective
sympathies in respect of the Lords, not to feel for the
unhappy plight of the majority, as Lord Cairns's excel
lent voice reproduced the sufficiently trenchant sentences.
But though a little painful, the discipline was whole-
some. It was a tolerably satisfactoi y instalment of
justice. Mr. Bright has had Many bitter things said of
him by the Conservative lords. It was pleasant to think
that Lord Cairns's legal sense of the necessity cf
producing the evidence of the crime of the accused
was the means of dealing his followers an effective retalia-
tory blow for the many hard words which they have so
long been in the habit of using. Otherwise the whole per-
formance, indeed, was neither more nor less than a piece
of solemn moonshine. Lord Cairns in one House, and
Colonel North in the other, both of them knew perfectly well
beforehand exactly the kind of answerwhich they were sure
to get. The design, no doubt, as we pointed out on Wed-
neAay, was to raise a little political wind. Not a capful
could be got, and the hulk of the obstructive party in the
Upper House has still nothing else for it, Lut to, make up
its mind on which horn of the political dilemma to impale
itself.

The Herald, in discussing the two gnat speech( a of
Thursday evening, says that Lord Derby will have none
of the measure. Lord Salisbury thinks it right
.to meet
the House of Commons halfway. He riltinpes that the
opinion of the nation has been pronounced explicitly in
favour of the bill. The Herald is by no means sure of
this. The judgment of the elections was given rather
upon the side issue as to whether Mr. Gladstone or Mr.
Disraeli should be at the head of affairs; and the public
demonstrations of the last few days seem to indicate that
the masses of the nation are not all in favour of this
destruction of the Church in Ireland. Assuming Lord
Salisbury's premises, his argument is worthy of attentive.
consideration. In accepting the expression of the
national will, the House of Lords would not be acting
in subordination to the House of Commons. It
would be better that it should cease to exist than that it
should do that. The object of the second House of Par-
liament was to supply the omissions and remedy the defects
of the other. But whenever, Lord Salisbury argued, the
House of Commons and the country had agreed upon a
principle, the House of Lords bad no right to resist the
carrying out of that principle in legislation. The responsi.
bility of doing this, if it were wrong, devolved upon the
nation. In consequence Lord Salisbury and those who
agree with him, vote for the second reading. But
Lord Derby and Lord Salisbury, the archbishops and
bishops, will be ranged in one coropaot phalanx in their
opposition to those measures of spoliation and IJ:6h-handed
injustice which Mr. Gladstone has declared to be essential
to the principle of the bill. The House of Lords may
accept or reject the bill. The result after all will be very
much the same. There will be a declared antagonism
between the House of Lords and the majority in the
Commons, which, unless Mr. Gladstone consents to the
complete remodelling of his measure, will necessitate
shortly another appeal to the country.
The Standard alludes to Lord Derby's declaration that
convinced as he was that the measure would be most per-
nicious in its consequences, he had urged the peers at the
recent meeting at Chesterfield House to reject it rather
than give their sanction to its principle by allowing it to
be read a second time. But he had spoken simply in his
Character as an individual member of the House, and
without the smallest assumption ofa right to offer authori-
tative counsel ; and since that occasion he had not used
the slightest influence to sway the judjeßentgliesbrgther
peers. He spoke, he said, 'for himself'alone. t,.quoting
the fervid protest of tLe Eibhop of Peterborough, h,
declared that, having regal d to tLe account which he
must give to his Maker, he dared not, could not, and
must not, record his vote fur the bill, and that if the vote
which he intended to give in favour cf its rejection
were the last act of his political life, he should be
thankful that it had been permitted to him to record his
protest against it. In addressing himself to the policy of
those who urged that the bill should be allowed to pass its
second reading in the hope that it may Le amended in'
committee, Lord Derby reminded the House that, as has
been already pointed out, every speaker who has recom-
mended that course has been conspicuous for the energy
with which he has denounced the bill. For himself, he
declared that, objecting wholly to the principle of the
measure, and finding no assurance that the Government
would accept substantial amendments, he considered that
he had no alternative but to vote for the amendment of
Lord Harrowby. That the speech produced a grave
effect upon the license is beyond question. 1

The subscriptions in Sunderland and the- neigh-
bourhood on behalf of Mr. Hudson, - the ex-railway king,
sirm =mat tp upwwls of £I,M.