The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-14 00:00:00

have influence, except for the purpose of the cry of combination and conspiracy;" but that the real question intended by the noble viscount at the head of the Government to be propounded to the country will be, " Have I your confidence as the Minister of this country ? " I say emphatically the noble vis count at the head of her Majesty's Government, because I must express my conviction that, as respects the colleagues of the noble viscount on the opposite bench, and in the other House of Parliament, there is not a man in the country, except, of course, myself, that does not consider them as merely appendages of the noble viscount—( a laugh )—useful and orna mental appendages certainly, but still appendages alone, and that it is not a question of confidence in the members of the Government at large, but of con fidence in the noble lord at the head of the Govern ment. (Cheers.) Now, I have adverted to one subject which was introduced rather gratuitously at the time—l mean the ecclesiastical appointments of the noble viscount. That question I know has been and will be put prominently forward with regard to the coming elections. lam quite aware of the delicacy of treat ing a question of this kind, and more especially at the present time. Nevertheless, I will frankly state my opinion on • question which has excited, and continues to excite, a great deal of public considera tion. I trust I shall be able so to express myself with reference to it as to give no offence to any human being, and least of all is it my desire to say one word in derogation of those prelates who, from an unusually rapid succession of vacancies upon the Bench, have been appointed to their present offices upon therecommendation of the noble viscount. I have not the honour of a personal acquaintance with any of those right rev. prelates ; but I know with regard to some, and I am willing to believe with regard to others, that they have been distinguished as men laborious, diligent, earnest, and zealous in the sacred profession to which they belong ; I know that some of them have been energetic in the discharge of parochial duties in some of the largest parishes, and I am therefore not disposel to say one single word in derogation of the appointment of those right rev. prelates. But the more they are all such as I am willing to believe they are, the more I think they will be likely to regret the use that is made of their appointments for party purposes—the more must they regret to see, for mere party purposes, their names paraded and put in invidious contrast with those of others of their right rev. brethren, and their appoint. ments praised and lauded, not on account of their personal qualifications, but because they are sup posed, whether rightly or wrongly, to represent one of the extreme sections of the religious parties which unhappily exist in the Church of England. (Hear, hear.) Do not let me be misunderstood. I have no sym pathy with what are called Tractarian views. (Hear, hear.) I believe that the Tractarian party, by their injudicious course of proceeding, have tended infi nitely to the injury and to the disruption of the Church of England. I believe that they have tended materially to alienate the minds of a large portion of the community from the doctrines and from the teaching of that Church, and I believe they have produced a consequent amount of reaction, which is almost equally dangerous, upon the other side of the question. (Hear, hear.) I think that they have assumed a tone of ecclesiastical authority and an assumption of power which is utterly inconsistent with the spirit and with the feelings of the present day—which might have been suited for ages long gone by, but which at the present time is intolerable, and will not be submitted to. (Hear, hear.) I think, moreover, that they have fallen into the grievous error of introducing practices and ceremonies and forms which are either immaterial in themselves— and which, if immaterial in themselves, ought sedu lously to have been avoided as raising causeless dig <ension and animosity—or which, if more than mere forms and ceremonies, if they assume any further meaning, indicate an approximation which has unfor •anately led to more than an approximation on the part LORD DERBY'S SPEECH. of many of that party to a creed which, with all respect to its many amiable and virtuous professors, I cannot as a Protestant and a member of the Church of England but regard as religiously corrupt and politically dangerous. (Hear.) I have therefore no sympathy with the Tractarian party, and I conceive that nothing would be more dangerous, nothing more detrimental to the interests of the Church of England than the preponderance of that party in the Church. But because I entertain these opinions I am not necessarily therefore to throw myself into the other extreme ; I am not necessarily to associate all my sympathies and all my feelings with those who profess a degree of latitudinarianism and pseudo liberalism which leads them to fritter away, for the purpose of establishing a wider basis and including a larger number of persons within the folds of the Church, those doctrines which the Reformed Church of England has held to be essential and vital. (Hear, hear.) I have the greatest respect for the labours and the energies and the piety of many of the Dissenters of this country. There is room enough, God knows, for them and for the Church of England, in the common combat agfinst vice, and irreligion, and immorality—(Hear, hear)—and with regard to them I say, with all my heart, " they that are not against its are on our side," and God speed them in the good work we are carrying on together. But, I confess it, my sympathies, my feelings, my affections are with that body of the Es tablished Church—and thank God, they are both numerous and of weight and influence !—who, pre ferring the religion of the closet to the excitemelt of the platform, with their Bible for their guide, with the ancient Fathers of the Church and with the modern lights of the Reformed Church as their com mentators and assistants, are more ready to inculcate upon their hearers the practical precepts than the abstruse doctrines of religion ; but who, nevertheless, maintaining the bond of unity in the Church, and maintaining it in the spirit of peace, are not precared for the sake of a false peace and of a false union to compliment away any of those which the Church up holds as its fundamental and essential doctrines. (Cheers.) My lords, it is because those are my opinions, and because they are the opinions I be lieve of a very large number of the well-thinking and sound-thinking men of this country, that I regret that her Majesty's Government should have thrown, or should have appeared to throw (for I will not say that they have thrown), or should be applauded for having appeared to throw, the whole weight of their influence and authority into one end of that scale within which the wise latitude of the Church of England allows a diversity of opinion. (Hear, hear.) I am quite aware that these are topics which I ought to apologise for introducing to your lordships, and yet in this house I know that they will be ap • proached with respect, with reverence, with candour, and with fairness. But if I feel that these are topics which ought hardly to be dealt with here, I ask, how much less should they be made the subject of bitter political contest in the crowded arena of the hustings, in the exciting atmosphere of political strife, and amid all the ribald jesting and cries which often dis tinguish these election saturnalia? My lords, I can not but say that for the sake of the Church, of the Government, and of the country, it is most unfortu • nate (if it be the fact) that the Government should go to the country and appeal to the constituencies upon such a question as that of the leaning of the Ministry to one or the other of the different sections into which, as I have said, the Church of England is at present divided. I cannot conceive a more un happy subject of contest; I cannot conceive one from the discussion of which more unmitigated evil must follow. (Hear, hear.) But, my lords, I go to topics which are less foreign to the ordinary business of your lordships' house. The question before the country is this : " Has the noble viscount at the head of the Govern• merit a claim to the confidence of the country?" Before I answer that question I must look, as far as I am able to judge, to what has been and whet is the suppozed policy of the noble viscount. With regard to his foreign policy, I am afraid I shall be repeating what I have so often said before to your lordships in expressing my want of confidence in the discretion and the prudence with which the foreign affairs of this country have been conducted by the noble viscount. Ido not forget the events of 1848—(Hear, (hear)--I cannot forget the events of 1850, and the miserable affair to which I have lately referred ; but passing by these, I look to the present moment, and I see that the noble viscount continues, not in the most dignified manner, all that mischie vous interference with the affairs of foreign countries which I have so constantly deprecated here. ( Hear.) I do the noble viscount all justice. I give him full credit for the manliness and the courage with which in 1855 (certainly with the popu lar voice and approval in his favour) he accepted the conduct of affairs and stepped forward as the adviser of the Sovereign ; and I give him credit, together with his colleagues, for bringing to an issue more or less successful the war in which we were then en gaged. But, at the conclusion of that war, I must say I cannot extend an unqualified approval either to the terms upon which peace was concluded, or, still less, to certain transactions which accompanied the signature of that peace. (Hear, hear.) I think that in the Conferences of Paris the noble viscount and those who acted with him fell into a most grie vous error, and inflicted a serious injury upon the maritime power of this country. (Hear, hear.) I refer to that most ill-judged concession by whisk they sacrificed what bad been maintained for ages as the maritime rights of Great Britain—rights which, in my conscience, believe to be essential to the maintenance of your maritime power, and without your maritime power I need hardly say that you are nothing. I think that that was a most unfortunate concession, and I think it the more unfortunate because it appears to me to have been wholly gra tuitous and unnecessary. (Hear, hear.) I come now to an act I have before adverted to in this house, and which I really think is as mischie vous and as unjustifiable as any I ever heard of—l mean the interference with the affairs of Naples. We have undoubtedly had papers laid before us pro fessing to explain the circumstances under which this interference took place; but so meagre a collec tion of documents—one throwing ao little light, or rather such studious darkness, upon any question, it never happened to me to deal with. (Hear, hear.) Throughout the whole forty-five pages contained in the blue-book, there are only three documents which bear in the slightest degree upon what we wanted to know. The remainder consists entirely of reports of trials, memoranda (for the most part anonymous) referring to the affairs of Naples, but not bearing in the slightest degree upon the main question— namely, our right of interference in the affairs of an independent State. Now, I am not the apologist of the King of Naples ; but you had not, upon the showing of these papers, the slightest pretext for supposing that any European interests were in danger, that any British subjects bad suffered, or that you had anything to complain of which would justify you in going to the King of Naples with a recommendation from the Governments of England and France advising his Majesty to enter upon a new course of internal policy. That claim of the right of interfering was undoubtedly rejected by the King of Naples, as it would have been by any Sovereign who had the slightest sense of his own dignity and inde pendence. (Hear.) Yon recommended his Majesty to grant a general amnesty. Now, what had you to do with a general amnesty in Naples ? Were the Neapolitans your subjects' What mattered it to you how the course of justice ran in Naples, provided British subjects did not suffer ? Suppose, now, that some years before her Majesty had been advised to grant to Mr. Smith O'Brien that free pardon to which his subsequent conduct has proved he was very well en titled, the Minister of some other country bad come to you and had represented toyon officially that it would be a great gratification to the people of Ireland if her Majesty would be pleased to extend a free pardon to Mr. Smith O'Brien and his colleagues (I won't use an