The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-09 00:00:00

ij.ONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1869.

Although the Marquis of SALISBURY was, accord-
ing to his wont, shrewdly sarcastic in his answer
last night to the arguments set forth by the Duke of
ARGYLL, we cannot but think that for once his
Grace had decidedly the best of it. It is all very
facetious, no doubt, talking, as Lord SALISBURY did,
of " the extraordinary ru.ninating power of the
noble duke, causing him after such a long
process of digestion to chew the cud" and so
forth. It is all whimsical enough his suggesting
that because the Duke of ARGYLL bad found occa-
sion only yesterday to refer to a speech delivered a

_es
month previously, that, therefore, as Lord SALIS-
BURY says, " What I ought to do would be to move
that the debate be adjourned fora month, by -which
might; perhaps, be able to produce an.anssisez."-
All this is purely idle jocularisy—entirely beside. the
mark—and is little better than frittering away the time
of Parliament and giving provocation to so much
senseless laughter. As to the real drift of the argu-
ment set forth by the Duke of ARGYLL, the noble
marquis, as it seems to us, almost disingenuously
affected to misapprehend it. The tendency of the
whole of that argument was towards the rational
vindication of the independence of the House of
Lords as a distinct branch of our Legislative
system, as a separate portion of our com-
plex Constitutional Government. Insomuch was
this the case that when Lord SALISBURY said last
night, addressing himself to his Peers, "I quite be-
lieve that this House is subordinate to the nation ; I
do not believe it is subordinate to the House of
Commons," the Lords cheered, and the Duke of
ARGYLL joined in the cheering. In so doing his
Grace was perfectly consistent. Yet the Marquis of
SALISBURY commented upon the remarks of the
noble duke as though they advocated the abso-
lute subordination of the House of Lords
to the House of Commons. What the Duke
of ARGYLL had been especially insisting upon in his
observations, apropos to the consideration of the Life
Peerages Bill in Committee, was, and it must
be said quite reasonably, this, that the measure he
was referring to is one that will submit the con-
stitution of the Lords to the discussion of the other
House, and, " though this may be necessary and ad-
visable," said the Duke, "for grave reasons, no man
can deny that it is iu itself an evil, and to raise a dis-
cussion upon the abstract principles of the Constitu-
tion and of the constitution of this House before
the other House always involves a certain amount of
danger." That danger he, the Duke of ARGYLL,
considered greatly increased by allowing the measure
to be sent down to the House of Commons based
upon arguments like those delivered in its favour by
two noble lords of such distinction as the Marquis of
SALISBURY and the Earl of CARNARVON. The
whole force of their reasoning in its behalf,
as an innovation, was indubitably to the effect
that the Bill was desirable, was, indeed, for
that matter requisite, as a means of increasing
the strength of the I louse of Lords as a political
body. "1 bus," said the Duke of AIIGYLL, " the
argument of these two distinguished members of the
House is that the bill will add political strength to
this Ilouse, and in such a degree as materially to
alter the present relative position of the two Houses,
and to place your lordships on a footing, not merely
of legal equality, but of influence and authority
equal to the House of Commons. Nov, lam con-
vinced," said his Grace, " that for such a purpose
the bill is not worth the paper on which
it is printed." An emphatic declaration, which
—it is noticeable—elicited cheers, not from the
Ministerialists, but from the Opposition ! The fact is
that the Bill is unquestionably inop2ortane at this
moment, as it submits the constitution of the House
of Lords to open and direct discussion in the House
of Commons, and that it does this, according to
the reasoning of the Marqu;s of SALISBURY, to the
very end, and with the avowed object of so far
strengthening the hereditary branch of the Legisla-
ture as to render it independent of, and a fitting rival
to, the popular House of Parliament.

'WHILE the organs of the Orange fanatics are
openly suggesting a resort to civil war, and the clever
literati of London and young Oxford are looping on
with quiet but eager interest at the impetus which is
being given to Republican ideas by the second
estate of the realm, it will be won for those who
sympathise with neither extreme to consiib r well the
present critical position, with the view, if possible, of
warding off results that they world not de:Are
to see.

The first thing to be noticed is the very un-
constitutional course of the politician who claims to
be Tar excellence the leader of the Constitutional
party. As we have before said, no one can blame
the Lords for having thrown out the Suspensory
Bill of last year. The subject of the Irish Church
had not at that time been referred to the
nation, and it was impossible to say what would be
the result of such reference. The then Prime
Minister appealed to the people—the people whom
he had enfranchised—and the result was an answer so
emphatic that it could not be misunderstood. Mr.
DISRAELI himself said the nation had declared
against him. But while Mr. DisnAlmi recognised
this fact by resigning office, Lord DERBY will not
recognise it. He counts the ordinary constitutional
reference to the people, the ordinary constitutional
reply at the polling-booth as nothing ; he protests
against the decision of the householders, and appeals
from them to the " residuum." He is dissatisfied with
household suffrage, and appeals to universal suffrage.
The logical result of this course would be to abolish
the House of Commons, and to summon the whole
nation to give a vote on Salisbury Plain. Nor is this
the only unconstitutional act on Lord DERBY'S part
It is a recognised principle of the unwritten
Constitution that when the nation has unmis-
takeably decided in favour of a certain course,
the Lords shall give way. It is not only the
Marquis of SALISBURY of to-day who asserts
this, but the Duke of WELLINGTON of forty years
ago. No man had a higher sense of duty than he
had. Duty was the governing motive of his life.
No man was less influenced by considerations of
expediency. Nevertheless it was he who brought in
a bill to emancipate the Roman Catholics in 1829 ;
it was he who counselled the Tory peers to stay
away from the second reading of the Reform Bill of
1832 ratherthan havetheir House swam ped by a num
ber of new peers. It was he who, when Lord DERBY
broke with Sir ROBERT PEEL, and preferred to incur
all the horrors of a famine rather than tamper with
the Corn Laws, told his fellow peers that they were
bound to carry out the wishes of the nation in this
matter. Who can doubt that he would have taught
the same lesson at the present crisis ? On the other
hand, we have Lord DERBY, who has always been
obstinate, who has always carried out the policy of
" No surrender," except on one memorable occasion,
who opposed Free Trade, the admission of Jews into
Parliament, the abolition of church rates, and
who now that those changes have been made in spite
of him, recognises them, and would do nothing to
reverse them—we find him proposing a course which,
if he can persuade his followers to adopt it, will be
as useless as it proved on all former occasions, and
whose unwisdom he himself will hereafter tacitly
admit. But Lord DERBY, in spite of the obstinacy
which he has usually displayed, cannot be depended
upon to remain firm. He may resist to
the last, as he did in the case of the
Corn Laws ; but he may give way, as in the case of
Parliamentary Reform,
and a measure infinitely
more sweeping than he opposes. If he do not, what
other course can he take ? Level up ? Grant con-
current endowments ? That policy is even more
odious to his Orange friends than Mr. GLADSTONE'S
bill. Adopt the suggestions of the Irish Church
Commissioners, and knock a few bishops on the
head ? But that scheme fell dead from the first,
and Lord DErins:'s chief ally on that commission
—Lord STANIIOPE—has openly condemned Lord
DERBY'S present course, and declared his preference
for that which the PREMIER has taken.
Put it is needless to discuss these alternatives.
Lord DERBY will take neither, for the simple reason
that the country will not place him in the position
to take either. No event that has yet taken place
can be more certain than that, if the Lords reject
the bill in the summer, they will have to pass
it •in the autumn. But what a sacrifice