The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-21 00:00:00

MAR( II 21, 1857. they had come forward and expressed what I am sure is their own honest and sincere conviction, that, with the best intentions, a hasty and ill-judged step taken by the plenipotentiary bad involved conse (=noes which he would be the first to regret and had been the last to contemplate ; that they could not altogether vindicate the course he had pursued, but that allowance ought to be made for the diffi culty of the position in which he was placed, and concluding with an intimation of their intention to do that which they have done subsequently, to send out another plenipotentiar:. with full powers, if not to supersede, to override the authority of that official, and to bring the affair to the earliest conclusion possible ; I will venture to say that that declaration on the part of the Government would in this and the other house have put an end, if not to all discussion and debate, undoubtedly to any chance of an adverse division. (Cheers.) But what was the course of the Government' Here is the proposition—that the papers, as they lie before us, do not justify the conduct of the officials. Her Majesty's Government join issue, and declare that, in their judgment, the papers do justify the conduct of tho officials. They compel us to say " Ay " or "No ;" and yet it is quite obvious that, towards the conclusion of the debate, some change came over the spirit of the dream of the Government, because, towards the end of it, their supporters said, "After all, it is very hard that the Government here should be held responsible for what has been done by the officials there, of which they had no previous cognisance, which was done without notice to them— which was done on the other side of the world ; and it is very cruel to make them responsible for the conduct of their agents." It was not we, or the other House of Parliament, but they who made themselves responsible for the conduct of their agents. (Cheers.) And here let me warn the Government. However magnanimous it may seem, however grand it may sound, to say that on all occasions a public servant — more especially an absent public servant—is to be defended, you ought only to carry that as far as is consistent with justice. (Hear, hear.) You may carry it even as far as is consistent with indulgence ; but when it comes to the point that by the indiscre tion of a public servant the country is plunged in a war, the expenses of which are not to be calculated and the horrors of which are not to be told, then, I say, if that public servant is to receive the support of the Government to the extent of insisting on dis solving Parliament if Parliament does not concur with him, you are giving a most exorbitant premium to imprudent conduct, to hasty actions, and to want of a due sense of their proper responsibility to every gentleman you employ in every part of the world. (Loud cheers.) But if you considered the conduct of your agent so entirely blameless—if you thought the papers quite justified his prudence, and showed him to be the fittest man to conduct affairs of that kind, why supersede him? (Hear, hear.) I know not whether the determination to send out that super seding officer was come to before or after the division of the House of Commons, but in either case it affords to the majority of that house ample vindica tion for the vote to which they came. (Hear.) If it were the intention of Government previous to that debate to supersede Sir J. Bowring, in the first place they ought frankly to have sail so, which would have put an end to the discussion; and, in the next place, it argues a foregone conclusion in their minds that the papers did not justify the conduct of Sir J. Bow ring. (Hear, hear.) If that intention were only formed after the decision of the House of Commons had shown what was the opinion of the representa tives of the country, I say the House of Commons performed a signal service in compelling the Govern ment, by their vote, to do that which they ought to have done voluntarily. In either case the vote of that majority is amply justified, if only by the fact that, having vainly attempted to vindicate his con duct, the Government proceeded to supersede Sir ohn Bowring. (Hear, hear.) THE PRESS. The moment, my lords, that majority was declared there arose a cry of " factious combination," " unna tural coalition," " unprincipled attempt to overthrow the Government." There arose charges most revolt ing to the feelings of every honourable man—charges which I shall prove to be as base as they are un founded—charges which I do not think any of your lordships, at all events, will have the courage to stand forward and support. (Hear, hear.) For myself I will only say—and I say it on the word and honour of a peer and of a gentleman—l do not know, and I have not known, of any concert, of any combination, of any agreement, of any understanding with regard to those votes and those motions in either House of Parliament between any persons not professing the same political opinions. (Cheers.) I distinctly and solemnly declare I have been no party to such con cert or combination, and I as emphatically declare my solemn conviction that the vote arrived at in the House of Commons was the result of no combination, of no concert, still less of any desire to coalesce against the Government for political objects, but that it was the spontaneous expression of opinion, reluc tantly expressed by many, with regard to the con duct of officials whom the Government supported. (Cheers.) What I have stated now will, 1 hope, carry conviction to tho minds of all of those with whom I have the honour of personal acquaintance, and, I trust, also to the minds of many more to whom lam not personally known. But I will proceed to state facts which I think will convince the most sceptical that there cannot be any coalition of this kind. Your lordships will, perhaps, have done me the honour of recollecting that upon the first night of the session, having no information but what was to be derived from the public papers, I expressed great anxiety with regard to the position of affairs in China. I expressed doubts as to the legality and prudence of the course pursued, and great apprehen sions that it would be productive of signal disaster. Shortly afterwards the papers were laid upon the table of the house, and I made it my duty most care fully and most anxiously to examine their contents. The information furnished by her Majesty's Govern ment strengthened and confirmed the impression which I had previously received. I gave notice ac cordingly of my intention to bring forward certain resolutions, and, at the same time, I asked to be furnished with other papers necessary to the full elucidation of the case. I thank the Government for the ready courtesy with which they furnished every information on the subject; but, having read those papers, I came to the conclusion that it was my bounden duty to bring that case under the consi deration of your lordships. I did not mention that intention of mine to above three or four persons of those most intimately and politically connected with me; and, until the time I came into this house and laid the resolutions on the table, I believe I am literally correct in saying no human being had seen those resolutions or was responsible for one syllable they contained. (Hear, hear.) If the House of Commons is to be accused of factious coalition and unprincipled combination, why is not the same charge and the same imputation made here ? The charge is *l3 applicable to one house as to the other. (Hear, hear.) How was the party formed which supported my resolution in your lordships' house ? Not only of those noblemen who usually sit upon this side, and share to a great ex tent in my political opinions, but it comprised, also, the two noble earls opposite (Earls Aber deen and Grey), and the noble lord the Comp troller of the Exchequer (Lord Monteagle). My resolution was also supported by a noble earl than whom there is not a more staunch supporter of her Majesty's Government, nor a more decided Whig of the old school I was supported by the high authority of Earl Fitzwilliam, and her Majesty's Government do not appear to have borne him any for his share in this supposed combination, if I may assume for a fact the statement which has been made in the public journals, that his eldest son has recently been appointed Lord Lieutenant of the West 491 Riding of Yorkshire. (" Hear," and a laugh.) I said I had no combination or concert with any person before I came into this house, and 1 spoke the exact and literal truth. But when I came into this house I took an opportunity of showing to my noble and learned friend now at the table (Lord Lyndhurst) the resolution which I had prepared, and I had the good fortune to find that it met with his entire approval. There was at the time sitting by my noble and learned friend a Whig peer—a man of great eminence, a distinguished and cordial supporter of her Majesty's Government. He asked if I would allow him to see the resolution. I said, certainly, if he wished it. Having read over the resolution care fully he asked me whether I had any objection to strike out one epithet. I replied certainly not, and at once drew my pen through the word to which he objected. I then laughingly observed—" As I have altered my resolution to meet your wishes, I am entitled to claim your support." (A laugh.) And I had it. (Continued laughter.) That was the only combination I entered into. (Hear, hear.) That noble lord is a leading Whig peer and a supporter of the present Government; he, therefore, is my accom plice in this unprincipled combination. (Hear, hear.) So much for the House of Lords. Now, I am bound to defen 1, if defence be neces sary, my political friends in the House of Commons from the charge of being concerned in what un doubtedly would have been a most unprincipled act. Shortly before I gave notice of my motion in your lordships' house, but after making my statement in the debate upon the Address, at a time when the House of C was occupied and its attention almost entirely engrossed by the discussion upon the budget, a right hon. friend of mine with whom I am in constant and intimate political communication asked me whether I did nst think the subject of China was one that it was desirable to bring before the House of Commons, for in that case he was will ing to make a motion upon it. I said I fully con curred in his opinion, and that I thought it was a case which Parliament could not possibly pass over ; but I advised him nct to give any notice until he had communicated with one or two political friends, more especially with the right hon. gentleman who leads the Conservative party in the other house. My right hon. friend, some twenty-four hours afterwards, came to me and said—" I have acted upon your advice, and have given no notice,but I am sorry to tell you Mr. Cobden has taken the matter out of our hands and has given a notice upon the subject of China which will prevent me from doing anything." Now, my lords, I will go further, and tell you a little more of our conversation, to show how much foundation there is for this cry of " coalition." My hon. friend expressed to me his apprehension, in which I concurred, that the fact of the subject of China being bro tight forward by a person whose views general ly we dissented from entirely might in • dispose some of those who agree with us from giving their support to a motion which they could not in strict reason or justice resist. We have it, too, upon the high authority of Mr. Cobden—a gentleman with whom I have not the least acquaintance, and have never, I believe, exchanged a word either upon this or any other subject. We have his declaration in the House of Commons that before he brought forward his resolutions he communicated them to no one ex cept his intimate friend, Mr. Gibson, the member for Manchester. (Hear, hear.) Am I to vindicate myself and my friends from a charge of combining to procure the factious overthrow of the Govern ment with Lord J. Russell, with Sir F. Baring, with Lord R. Grosvenor, and other most distinguished and faithful adherents of the Whig party ? Yet all those members voted in the majority, and all, I presume, on the slanderous reports which are spread abroad, are regarded as accomplices in this base and in famous coalition. tHear, hear.) The majority in the other house comprised many supporters of the Government; it comprised, almost without excep tion, beyond those actually in the Government, every man of note of every party in that house. (Hear, hear.) Of the party which goes by the name of ommons