New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-08-16
THE LORDS And THEIR LEADER

Inc llousc OF Lords are repeating the tactics
adopted eleven years ago when Mr.. Gladstonc's
first Land act was crippled with amendments.
The modified bill was sent back to the Com
mons once and again, approaches to agreement
being made each occasion. When ncgotia-
tons for compromise were finally opened, the
Lords withdrew all their amendments except
those relating 10 the fourth general division of
the act. To these they adhered tenacously,
and Mr. Gladstone reluctantly consented to a
compromise on these terms. In like manner
the lords have sent back the present measure
to the Commons with their original amend
mcnts unchanged save in minor respects. If
they are under prudent direction, the natural
Inference would be that they are aiming TO
effect one or two radical changes in the bill and
are fully prepared TO abandon all the other
amendments For example, they are bent upon
forcing the passage of Lord LanSdownc's
amendment or Of the two which were defeated
by the narrowcst maiorities in Committee of
the Commons; and accordingly hold the other
notifications i'll reserve in order to facilitate
compromise by series of concessions Even in
this way they can do mischief enough The
amendments on which they laid the greatest
stress in 1870 were those by which tenants
were deprived of compensation on special
grounds when elected for non payment of rent
and in consequence of their action there was no
method of checking capricous evicions in the
hard times caused by the failure of three har-
vests i'll succession, so that land agitation be-
came policy OF common defence in Ireland.
similar compromise may be attended with as
disastrous results at the present time.
The inference which we have pointed above
| is narrowed by IA restrictive clause implying
prudent leadership in the Upper House. If the
Of 4 IN coIl a..
will hold their ground at one or two sail
points of their present line of attack, and rccedc
from their position elsewhere. They will not
venture to make an utimatum of the series of
amendments which they have reaf1irmed unless
their leaders are so foohardy as to challenge
the political asccndancy of the Commons and
TO DEFY the deliberate Judgment of the consttu-
encies. This is II conclusion that is borne ont
by the inherent probabilities Of the situation
| and by the experience of the century. On the
other hand, the attitude of the Lords is any,
| thing but concliat0ry the amendments which
the Commons had brushed aside were replaced
with indecent haste and many signs of bad
temper, and the Conservative Peers are di-
rected by one who is utterly disqualified for
political leadership. Lord Saisbury's Conser-
vatism has been completely added by his Tory
ism. He could only discern the ruin and
humiliation of his party when Mr. Disraeh in-
PRODUCED the Reform bill of 1867. He has
never recognized the fact that the titled aristoc
racy are under patriotic obligations to make
| concessions to the masses. An Old Tory of the
Old Tories, ne is convinced that the people are
far too powerful as matters stand, and that
the Conservatives, 80 far from ever adopting
popular policy themselves, must battle for
social order and resist every demand for polit-
| ical reform. Thoroughly aggressive without
particle of pliancy in the fibre of his character.
he is peculiarly untitled for the leadership of
hereditary chamber, whose coordinate func-
tons legislative body have been virtually
ignored for fifty years
The leader of the Lords may be predisposed
to favor spirited policy of unfinching resist
ance to the Commons but his followers cannot
be so reckless as to encourage him to swerve
from the traditional policy of their order The
lines OF compromise and concession which have
been marked out by the leaders of the party
since the century opened will separate them
from an iu-judged and ill-timed policy of