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

EPTETT OF THE 117BLIC JOURNALS,

The Times remarks that for: th,, second time within a

few weeks Mr. Briers colleagues have bad to disclaim
responsibility for his publicly expresaed opinions. Let us
hope that it is for 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 may be excused if
they give him to understand that no man, however
valuable his support, can he 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 afence towards his own colleagues is the
jubilant ill will with which he retlll3 to antiCpate ;:tteli a
vote of the Lords as will dairrtge atn;Ft.l.:es.
1..1.:1t1 it Cect ti-at he can only knell his reputa•
tiou 14,r judi:nitnt by rot rcccguisirg the diffetenee
between Lis present and his fointr f ti:itier. We do
not expect him to abandon his cpinions.
secret that he is adverse to the institution of the peerage.
He has said in former c'ays that it wes urfitted 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 justified in stating it theoretically if
called upon to give his views on the subject. But to give

It is no

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 questions relating to Lis
department in a suitable and decorous manner, and even
condescends to carry the responsibility of a Minister
into the moderation 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 kr. 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 been 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. Dail!, 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, bad depre-
cated the holding of meetings pending the decision of the
Zipper 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 might 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 dexterouily, 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 contented himself with eying
this answer 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 has,
howeyer, merely "blown through brass" the not es Lrrd
Grey has breathed through silver." In the meantime,
the President of the Board of Trade must feel that ex-
planations and apologies of which he is the subject do not
strengthen his own personal position or that of the Govern-
ment ; and he will do well to avoid giving future occasion
for them. The Irish verdict of "Not guilty," aceem-
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 I.7pper Ireure, thinks it was more than un-
kind in Lord Cairns to read the whole of the fatal letter
itself. It was bard even for an onlooker, with deft ctive
sympathies in respect of the Lords, rot to feel for elle
unhappy p"ght of the majority, as Lord Cairrs's excel
lent voice reproduced the sufEciently trenchant sentences.
But though a little painful, the discipline was whole-
some. It was a tolerably satisfactory instalment of
justice. Mr. Bright haS bad many Litter 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 thewhole 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 answer which they were sure
to get. The design, no doubt, as we pointed out on Wed-
nesday, was to raise a little political wind. Not a capful
could be got, and the bulk of the obstructive party in the
Upper House has still nothing else for it, but to make up
its mind on which horn of the political dilemma to impale
itself.

The Herald, in discussing the two grcat speeches of
Thursday evening, says that Lord Derby will have none
of the measure. Lord Salisbury thinks it light to meet
the House of Commons half way.• He presumes 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 bead 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 ex;st than that it
should do that. The object of the second House of Par-
liament e as to supply the omissions and remedy the de :'erts
of the other. But wheneeer; Tiird Salisbury argued, the
House of Commons and the 'country Lad agreed upon a
principle, the House of Lords had 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 ere compact phalanx in their
opposition to those measures of spoliation and high-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, be bad urged the peers at the
recent meeting at Chesterfield .11cusc to reject it rather
than give their sanction to its principle by allowing it to
be read a second time. But ho had spoken simply in his
_character as an individual member of the House, and
without the smallest assumption of a right to offer authori-
tative counsel ; and since that occasion he had not used
the slightest influence to sway the judgment of his brother
peers. He spoke, he said, for himself alone. But, quoting
the fervid protest of the Bishop of Peterborough, h,
declared that, having regard to the account which he
must give to his Maker, he dared not, could not, and
must not, record his vote for the bin, and that if the vote
which he intended to give in fatour 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
Pretest against it. In addressing himself to the policy of
those who urged that the bill should be allowed to pass its
second reading inthe hope that it may be amended in
comnAtere, Lord "Derby reminded the House that, as has
been already pointed out, every speaker who has recom-
mended that entree has been conspicuous for the energy
witl; which he has denounced the bill. For himself, he
declared that, objecting wholly to the principle of the
measure, find 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 House is Leyond question.

The Eubscriptions ia SundniaLd and the neigh-
tow boor! on beliAli of 24r. Jaw piakisy
aziolizttg grqxtli of APO! .