The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1884-08-17
The House of Lords mistaken.

HOUSE OI LOTOS UnSn0kcns
The attempt Of British Radicals to brow
beat the Peers into abjuring privilege
which 80 sound q Liberal as Mr.. BAaEHoT
pronounced expedient and wholesome, is not
having the SUCCESS which was at first antlc-
ipated. 1t Ia true that Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN
and other conspicuous representatives Of
extreme opinions have been in this instance
seconded by Mr.. JOHN BRIGHT and that the
imposing demonstration in London has been
followed by similar uprising in Birming-
ham, which had less significance. however,
on account OF the notorious eagerness with
which that place is wont to obey the impulse
Of radical agitation. But the Conservatives
have not shrunk from facing their opponents
In tho north, and the monster meeting held
in their interest at Manchester shows that
the II ass Of voters in the manufacturing dis
tricts are by no means convinced that the
House OF Lords has done anything to de-
servo overthrow. II the movement to CO.
cree the Peers can be checked thus early in
the heart OF Lancashire, it Ia not likely to
gain much momentum In the rest Of England
during the Parliamentary recess. The Radi-
Gals will now be forced to substitute calm
argument for vindictive appeals to preiu-
dice and passion and 1t may be found that
their alleged grievance has no foundation
either In law or fact, but Is q mere pretext
to escape submitting to the verdict Of the
ballot box.
When men have time to think about the
matter, they will ask themselves what the
Peers have done 80 much worse than their
action In analogous crises as to justify the
furious outcry against them. They rejected
the first Reform bill, and 1t is indisputable
that they would have thrown out the second
had not Mr.. DIsRAELI and the Abdullamites
under Mr.. LOWE relieved them OF the neces-
sity by defeating 1t In the Commons. Their
right to reject such measure once, until by
dissolution OF Parliament the sense OF tho
country can BIZ Enthusiastically ELECTED. has
never been contested by any eminent
and trusted expounder Of the Brit
ish Constitution. In this instance they
did not even exercise their privilege
OF interrogating the will OF the electors by
summarily rejecting the whole bill. They
accepted its fundamental principle, but, by
an amendment, they declared that redistri-
button ought to go hand in hand with the
extension Of the franchise. Nobody denies
that redistribution Is Indispensable, and q
year ago many Liberals pronounced 1t more
urgently needed even than extension. But
II the nation does not think so, IT, be-
Ing directly consulted on this ques-
tion, 1t insists that the franchise shall
be extended first, and reapportioned
afterward, then Lord SALISBURY and
other Conservative leaders have declared
that the upper House will bow to the wishes
OF the people. They repudiate any intention
OF initiating the intractable temper exhibited
by the Peers half century ago, when Lord
GREY's Reform bill was rejected not only
once, but second time after 1t had been ex-
plicitly and resolutely ratified by the con-
stituencles. Then, and not till then, did Lord
GREY threaten to recur to the Crowns con-
stitutional power Of swamping q refrac-
tory majority In the upper House by the
creation OF new peers.
Already the Radicals have learned that
they cannot carry their Wing comrades with
them In their premature crusade against the
hereditary legislators. Prudent Liberals,
also, though they may look on the Ho use
OF Lords as grotesque anachronism.
would rather postpone attack on the
outworn institution until 1t can be
shown to offer fragrant, unequivocal
obstruction to the national resolve. They
would go as far as Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN,
should the Peers venture to throw out the
Franchise bill q second time, after q new
House OF Commons had been elected on the
issue OF electoral reform. But they are
naturally averse to weakening the case
against tho upper Chamber by trying to
punish 1t for simply expressing the belief
that In the pending controversy 1t represents
moro faithfully than the House OF Commons
the views OF the electors. As to the stock
charges OF immortality and incompe.
tance levelled at many OF the hereditary
legislators, these have no relevancy
to the present dispute. which turns, VIC re-
peat, on the naked question whether, be the
Peers what they may, they do not correctly
voice the opinions OF the voting body. As to
these accusations, moreover. while there is
ground enough for them, Liberal member
OF the Commons has recently declared that
the popular assembly needed purging quite
as badly as the upper Chamber; and that
for every licentious and inefficient peer, he
could point out the equally offensive counter
part In the lower House Of Parliament.
1t will DO observed that Mr.. GLADSTONE
Is far more cautious In his utterances than
Mr.. CHAMBERLAIN, and that he has thus far
shown no inclination to press the Peers to
the wall No man knows better than the