New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-09-09
The Peers rejected 1t by . vote of 1877 to SO. In
1860 they rejected it again by 12s to 81. In 1867

The Peers rejected 1t by vote Of 1877 to SO. I'm
1860 they rejected it again by 1913 to 81 In 1867
they threw ont new bill by so to "a. In 1860
they passed it, Not till after eleven years. con test
did the Church militant from it's citadel within the
House of Lords haul down the flag. The Jewish
Disabilities Relief Bill had still harder time of it,
First passed in the Commons in 1888 by majority
OF l37 1t was successfully rejected by the Lords in
1888 in 1884, in 1886, in 1913, in 1851, in 1858,
ana In 1897. In 1913 tho Lords gave way. and the
Jews from the position of political outcasts where
the Lords had left them for quarter of a century
after the Commons had voted their emancipation,
stepped into the privileges of full citizenship But
Tor the wealth and social influence of two great
jewish families the Monteiiores and the Roths-
childs, the ostracism of the might have lasted
much longer 1t is to be said, however, for the
Lords that they did not hate the Jews much more
than they hated Englishmen who not of the
same sect with themselves. They would not allow
Engishnen who were not members of the Church
OF England to be born, or educated, married,
buried as they liked. There curious instance of
the small spite to which great body of mobiles
could descend in tho Dissenters' Marriage Act of
1886, Which permitted marriage outside the Estab-
Ashment only to those who would swear they had
CONSCIENTIOUS objections to the service of the
Church. In making that grudging concession, their
Lordships imposed upon those who took advantage
of it the ignominy of having their banns read be-
paupers. They tried to deprive Dissenting minis
tiers of access to the warehouses; They tried to
exclude DSsenters from all share in the admnistra-
ton of charitable trusts. And so on; till it is
too much to say with our author that in dealing
with Disseners at every stage of their existence the
Lords have uniformly endeavC red to brand them
with some sign of inierlority.
Yet with reference to all these and the many
other questions which the evidence of lordly
llliberallty Is collected In this book, of two
things is true: The questions were either of such
secondary Importance that the Lords able to
allege that there was no irresistible national
movement upon them-in which case they prolonged
their opposition almost dd Hbitum or the nation
made its will known dccisively, and then the
Lords yielded after one, two, three refuSals.
Till Lord Salisbury tried his hand at a crisis the
Other day, there had been issue of capital inn
portance, the Corn Laws excepted, on which the
Lords had attempted to resist, and had given way
at the first trial. The recorded in this volume
which may seem to he exceptions will all be found,
on examination, to fall under or the other of
these two categorles 1t should be added that the
book does purport be an exhaustive catalogue
of insian in which the House of Lords has
thwarted, for longer or shorter time, the viii of
the English people lt is only, its author
marks, lisS of samples. Tie Saturday Rere,C
presuming with its usual confidence the syInpa-
thy or ignorance of it's readers, observes that it is
bitter partisan should be able to collect few eases
OF persistent anagonism on the part of the less
popular and less powerful branch of the lie gsature
To which The RAJ Mall Ga-ette replies compacty:
As the House of Lords opposed almost every
measure of Liberal legislation for the last half
century, it would be interesting to know how many
more samples of persistent ntagonism the Saturday
Rev lever expected to find" For people who are not
" bitter paTtisans' there are perhaps instances
enough III these few pages 10 serve as means tor
forming an opinion on the general tenor and spirit
of the legislation which during fifty years has
been going on in what is called the Upper Chamber
That chamber contains. it is true n minority of
members who are liberal in something better than "A
party sense; who too much men of the world
to legislate at the bidding of priests too open
minded TO be guided by spirit of caste, too sound
politicians and statesmen to believe that England
exists for the benefit of aristocratic clique. But
they are in a minority, and hopeless minority,
and when the time comes for passing judgment on
the House of Lords 1t will 90 judged by the acts of
the majority. G. w s.