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

TIM POLITICAL CRISIS.

The Liberal Commons gave their note of defiance
to the Conservative Peers on Monday night. The
Whips arranged a little scene which was
intended to have, and did carry with it, much
significance. When the Speaker took the chair there
were barely enough members present to constitute a
house, and there was nothing on the paper calculated
to prompt hon. gentleman to display any particular
alacrity of attendance. A few minutes prior to the
commencement of public business, however, there
was a sudden and numerous inflow of Ministerialists,
and very shortly the benches on the right became
crowded to excess, as if pending some important
official declaration, or in expectation of a great field
night. The Prime Minister, who usually
enters the House and takes his seat on the
Treasury Bench from behind the Speaker's chair,
departing from his wonted custom on this occasion,
came by the bar when the way was clear. His
entrance was at once recognised, and immediately
a shout was raised by the Liberals, which they
renewed and renewed again until long after Mr.
Gladstone had taken his seat. Thus again have the
Liberals shewn their adhesion to their leader, and in
doing so have proclaimed unmistakeably that they
will support him, if it be necessary, against the
Peers. Of course the Tory journals find in the event
an indication of the ready subservience of the mem-
bers of the party to the Whip. That can pass.
But a few months ago the same organs were
rejoicing in the division of the same party. They
would doubtless rather see a repetition of the same.
It is worthy of note that the same Conservative
journals are exulting in the fact that " When the
members of the National Union assembled to
present to Lord Derby their address in regard to
the Irish Church Bill, they were joined by Sir Thomas
Gladstone, Mr. W. E. Gladstones elder brother, who,
on the p art of the Scottish Constitutionalists, presented
to Lord Derby a petition for the rejection of the
bill." This paragraph is published under the heading.
"A Divided House."

In spite of the continued confidence with which
Lord Derby expressed to the deputation from
the • Conservative Association his conviction that
the bill would be thrown out by "an adequate
majority," that contingency becomes more and more
uncertain. It is understood that eight peers, includ-
ing, beside those already mentioned, Lord Sidmouth,
expressed their dissent from the course recommended
by the ex-chief ; and it is probable not only that
more dissentients would have expressed their views
but for the impatience with which those who spoke
were received, but that a large number of the peers who
absented themselves did not approve of the course
to which Lord Derby has pledged himself. The few
remarks made by Lord Devon in presenting the
petition from the Archdeaconry of Exeter are
sure to have great weight. It is remarkable
that five such distinguished High Churchmen
as Lords Devon, Salisbury, Carnarvon, Nelson,
and Limerick should all be opposed to the
rejection of the bill. Their natural antipathy to the
Orange party has perhaps quickened their judgment
in this matter. They cannot but see how dangerous
both for the Church and the State is an alliance with
men who, because their Church is destined to dis-
establishment, threaten to hoist the green flag and to
resort to civil war.

The lengths to which the Orange party are pre-
pared to go in dealing with the Irish Church Bill
may be gathered from the fact that the most extreme
of the Dublin papers talk of appealing to the mob,
and openly contemplate the probability of civil war.
Extremes meet; and in suggesting an appeal to
arms, the organ of the Orangemen—the lowest depth
of Low Churchism—is but carrying out the policy
which the high Church Archdeacon Denison first
put forward in his address at the Bristol Conservative
banquet prior to the session of 1868.

The London correspondent of the Leeds Mercury
attributes the present action of the Conservative
peers entirely to Lord Derby. He says that it is
notorious that :

"Lord Cairns was in the first instance strongly opposed
to the course which has now been adopted; and it is hardly
necessary to say that Mr. Disraeli and Lord Stanley regard
that course with positive disgust. But the Tory peers are
no longer disposed to take their cue from the two most
eminent men of their party in the House of Commons, and
Lord Cairns has not the personal influence in the counsels
of the Opposition which would be necessary to enable him
to bend his nominal followers to his own will. He is the
agent more than the leader of the party, and in this
instance he has received his brief from Lord Derby, and is
compelled to speak to it. Acute critics saw mischief some
weeks ago, when Lord Derby suddenly assumed a leading
part in the House of Lords, and made his most outrageous
and unscrupulous attack upon Mr. Bright. At that
time it was generally supposed that the Earl intended
to thrust Lord Cairns aside, and assume, uninvited,
his old post of leader. He has, it seems, chosen another
course. He is to be, not the ostensible chief, but
the wirepuller of the party. The moderate men have
been thrown overboard, and the Westmeaths and Redes-
dales and Mariboroughs are ready to go anywhere
or to do anything at his instigation. The amiable but
very weak nobleman who has been chosen to move the
rejection of the bill will, of course, give no support but
that of his ,ote to his party. It will rest with Lord Cairns
and Lord Derby to state their reasons for forc;ng upon
the House of Lords the unequal contest between them-
selves and the country. On the other hand, Lord
Salisbury, Lord Stanhope, and Lord Carnarvon will
speak against the policy of their :party, and it is now
understood that Lord Westbury, upon whose support the
Tories confidently reckoned a short time ago, will take no
part with them. It is yet more certain that Lord Russell
will give them no assistance."
The same writer testifies to the extreme delight
with which the decision of the Peers has been hailed
by the extreme Liberals. He says—and we can bear
out his assertion—that the number of able men who
now openly avow their preference for a Republican
form of government is increasingly large. These
views were openly avowed at a dinner party given
by an eminent journalist on Saturday evening, and
every member hailed with delight the news of that
evening. The hope of those who hold these extreme
views is that the great question of privilege versus
the public good will be raised upon some point of
broad and general interest; and their belief is that
the moment the question is raised under such
circumstances they will be able to enlist under their
banner the whole of the trades unions, which they
have been courtingthaessimdousotupsolyweforfruyleoarrgs
apnasisatiiaonnsd
exTi whichthi
The
yta.nley writes to the Star on the
itghThieinyi
.trhLe geyacuio•idpuhanstsr
present political crisis, and endeavours to find some
means of escape from the impending dead-lock. Con-
sidering the large majority by which the Suspensory
Bill was thrown out, he thinks we mustcontemplate the
creation of at least fifty new peers, or, perhaps, even
a hundred, if this means of carrying the Irish Church
Bill be resorted to. Mr. Stanley thinks it is neces-
sary to remember that while many Peers who voted
for the Suspensory Bill will be absent from the
division, the creation of new peers will offend many
lukewarm Liberals who have hitherto supported
the Government. There are grave objections
to the creation of peers, and there are
many considerations which shew that we want
some more efficient remedy for the present state of
things. It has been suggested. that it might be
found in Mr. Gladstone s resignation, since the im-
possibility of forming a Conservative Government
would, it is supposed, convince the Peers that they must
give way. But Mr. Gladstone is supported by such
an overwhelmig majority that no light could be
thrown on the matter by this course. Neither is a
general election likely to be of much service. How
can the position of affairs, asks Mr. Stanley, be
different if we go through the same routine, and
what new argument can be addressed to the House
of Lords in Octobery The present collision has, he
thinks, been impending ever since 1832, and the dis-
cord of ideas between a House of great territorialists
and a popularly-chosen assembly will -become daily
greater. The Peers have got to learn the lesson—
and the sooner they learn it the better—that the will
of the people must prevail. Let them not invite a
revolution by seeking, either alone or in alliance
with great material interests, to stein the rising tide
of popular government.