The Sun.
London, England, 1869-06-08 00:00:00

TIM SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 8, 1869.

MISCELLANEOUS NEWS.

O-

THE PEERS AND THE BILL.

The decision of the Conservative Peers on Sear-
day is, of course,.the great topic of discussion in the
papers of both parties. It seems to be generally
agreed upon by the Liberal press that if the bill be
cast out Mr. Gladstone will prorogue Parliament
immediately, and take an autumn session. But it is by
no means certain, even now,-that the measure will be
rejected. The majority of the meeting on Saturday
was undoubtedly in favour of the course marked
out by Lord Cairns. But it admitted that they firmly
determined to hear none but the leaders against the
proposed course. Who knows, then, how large the
minority may be ? The number of peers, too, at the
meeting was less by some fifty than the number of
the majority for throwing out the Suspensory Bill'
Bow many of the absent fifty will vote for the re•
jection of the ? The Daily :Yews points out another
consideration. The enders of the Opposition would, no
doubt, choose that the bill should be p:ssed, rather than
that it should be rejected by a small vote. If there
is any- danger cf this catastrophe, no doubt the word
of command will be given to stay away. It is
passible then, the Daily News thinks, that
at the last moment a sense of prudence
may induce the Peers to nc-piesee in the me;:sure.
Several other payers regard the proposed motion as
only a cover under which to retreat ; and the London
correspondent of the Rdependaii, Belye—usually
well informed—says positively that it will be impos-
sible for Lord Harrow by's amendment to be carried.

The Standard turns its tail rather It admits that
it came to a totally different conclusion to that arrived
at by the Conservative meeting, but thinks it to be
its duty as the party organ, and the duty of all other
Conservatives, to recognise the immaculate wisdom
of Lords Derby and Cairns, and to follow where
they go.

" The Lords undoubtedly have acted with the advice
and sanction of mt.ri who know better than we do the per-
smal conditions of the struggle and the character of the
enemy. They may, probably—we most earnestly hope
and trust that they do—estimate more correctly than ue
do the force of the popular feeling, by which they are
impelled and supported, and the extent of the reaction which
the destructive and iniquitous character of the bill has
produced. But, be they right or wrong, the duty of
Protestants, of Conservatives, of all who value the con-
stitution of their country, is now clear. Not only the
Church, but every institution which is dear to English.
men is now at stake. The Lords have resolved, in
compliance with the urgent demands of tens and hundreds
of thousands in every part of the country, to risk all
upon a contest with an imperious Minister- and an over-
bearing majority of the Commons. If they are crushed,
not only the Church but the Constitution falls with
them; and the liberties of England are eacriliced to
the ascendancy of that democratic principle which is at
this day what despotism ones was—the most dangerous
foe of personal and political freedom. It matters not,
therefore, whether we approve or regret the decision to
give battle. We have nothing to do but to take our places
in the ranks, and fight for all that we hold dearest in
the full certainty that all is at stake. Let every effort
be made to strengthen the hands of the Lords. Let the
whole Protestant and Conservative power of the realm
be exerted to the utmost, by meetings, by petitions,
by organisation, to give to the Lords such a support of
public opinion as shall restrain the struggle within the
limits of the Constitution, and make the self-willed and
overbearing Minister, always at heart an enemy of the
Lords, and likely to be exasperated by au unexpected
defeat, feel that those limits he dare not transgress.
Already his organs have threatened that which, if done,
would deserve impeachment. It is necessary that he
should be made to feel that he dare not execute his
threat."

The Standard evidently does not under-estimate the
gravity of the occasion.

The privacy of the meeting of the Conservative
peers on Saturday has given room for all kinds of
rumours. Amongst other announcements it was
given forth that the Earl of Limerick and Lord
Nelson would vote against Lord Harrowby's amend-
ment on the second reading of the Irish Church Bill
because of their love of a free Church. Whether this
be true as regards the Earl of Limerick we knoiv not,
but Earl Nelson writes contradicting the story as
regards himself :

"If," he says, " I vote in favour of the second reading
of the Irish Church Bill, it will be from no love of the bill
nor from any Quixotic predilection for free Churches, but
simply because I believe that the rejection of the bill,
without any previous attempts to amend it, will be most
injurious to the Conservative party and to the future use-
fulness of the House of Lords, and that such a course will
materially affect for the worse, not only the future
prospects of the Protestant Church in Ireland, but the
whole Irish question under all its phases."

of another, especially •ii tnat otner DO a rival or
opponent. But we clearly ought not to be allowed
to go with our anomalous bankruptcy laws any
longer; and it will be a public misfortune if party
difference delay for another session this most
urgently-needed reform.