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

Peelites, but who do not appear to me to act in greater concert among themselves than with other people—(a laugh)—we saw Mr. Gladstone, Mr. S. Herbert, Sir J. Graham, and Mr. Cardwell, all of them joining in the vote of the majority, and yet three out of those four gentlemen are certainly infinitely 7nore disposed to support her Majesty's Government than to adopt the policy of the party sitting opposite to them. Thera were Lord J. Russell, Sir F. Baring, and Lord R. Grosvenor in the majority to represent the great Whig party, and I presume we shall hardly be charged with combining and coalescing with Mr.Cobden and Mr. Gibson, or with Mr. Roebuck, the represen tative of the extreme Radicals. The very absurdity of the supposed combination is its own best refuta tion in the minds of all calm judging men. (Hear.) I can understand that for political objects two parties not materially differing in their general views, and who think that between them they will be able to carry on the affairs of Government, may agree to sink minor differences, and combine to attain a poli tical object, but for such a combination to exist of five different parties, all differing from each other upon almost every political question, is so complete an absurdity that the charge of factious combination must be scouted as ridiculous. (Hear.) This cry of combination and coalition is nothing new. It is the usual resort of a Government when it finds public opinion in Parliament too strong for it. And what is Parliament to do in such cases ? A motion is submitted in which the conduct of the Government is impugned. If it is supported only by gentlemen oY one set of political opinions then it is said to be a mere party question or trial of strength. If, how ever, the facts of the case are so strong as to induce many of the habitual supporters of the Government to assent to the motion, then we are told it is a factions combination—an unprincipled coalition. (Hear, hear.) I have heard it said, too, that the merits of the case were so much in favour of the Government that even some of our own Conservative supporters felt bound to uphold the policy of the Minis ters. Now, my lords, I have never for one moment questioned the judgment or the discretion, still less have I questioned the motives, of any gentleman who upon that occasion voted against his own party. I have assumed, as I was bound to do, that every gen tleman who so voted did so from a conviction that the Government had not merited the censure of Par liament. There were, to be sure, reasons assigned by some hon. gentlemen for their votes which do not appear to me to bear conclusively upon the decision they arrived at. We were told that gentlemen could not vote against the Government which made such ex cellent ecclesiastical appointments. ( A laugh.) Now, my lords, I am not able to trace the connection between the two things, when we are told that the Government makes excellent ecclesiastical appoint ments, and that therefore Sir J. Bowring was justified in making war upon Canton. (" Hear," and laugh ter.) However, if the justification of being governed in the vote by the strength of the case is good for one side it is good for the other. Damus hanc veniam— hut then we are entitled to add— Petimusque vicissim. If we are told the case was so strong in favour of the Government that your own supporters would not stand by you, are we not entitled to say the facts were so strong that men of all parties, differing upon other points, had no resource but reluctantly to vote against the Government? Hear, hear.) What do we learn from addresses now being issued by mem bers of the House of Commons to their constituents ? There is hardly one of those addresses which does not say circumstances have occurred at Canton which are very much to he regretted, and that it would have been very much better if Sir J. Bowring had waited until he received instructions from home. They can't say his conduct was justifiable; but then comes in " the infamous coalition," which overrides all con. siderstions of justice, and authorised hon. members to vote that Sir Bowring's conduct was justified by the papers presented to Parliament, while, in their ad- LORD DERBY'S SPEECH. dresses to their constituents, those hon. members frankly admit that his conduct was not justified. (Hear, hear.) As I have said, this cry of combina tion is nothing new. Let me read to the house the language of a very eminent statesman when a similar question was raised in the House of Com mons. He says : The hon. and learned gentleman has demanded a full explanation of the circumstances under which that vote will be given. Sir, he shall have that explanation. I have no reserve. The hon. and learned member has stated that there is a dishonourable conspiracy formed against her Majesty's Government. Sir, a more unfounded charge never was preferred. He presumes that there has been some base compromise between gentlemen sitting on this side of the house, but holding different opinions upon matters of vital interest. He is wholly mistaken. There has been no such compromise. He talks of there being three courses to pursue; he tells us there are three com binations by which office may be obtained. He says, " I demand to know which of these three courses you content plate." Now, is it not possible for the hon. and learned gentleman to suppose that there may be a fourth? Is it not possible for him to speculate upon the possibility that men in this house may intend to give their votes with out reference to political combinations? Does he exclude the possibility of that fourth course of action, which arises from a conscientious conviction as to the truth? Is that excluded from his contemplation ? May it not be possible that men cannot subscribe to a resolution which asserts that a certain course has been best calculated to preserve peace and to support the honour and dignity of this country? Is it not possible that, without reference to party or personal interests, men may decline to affirm a resolution which deals with principles of greater im. portance to the welfare of this country for good or for evil than have ever been under the consideration of the house ? Now, who were the parties on that occasion? BY a singular coincidence the speech was made in the House of Commons in consequence of a motion made by me in your lordships' house censuring, the policy of the Government, and referring especially to the department of it which was presided over by the noble viscount now at the head of the Administration. He was the man whose conduct, censured by the House of Lords, he considered in so much doubt as to the judgment of the House of Commons that then, as now, he did not think it unworthy of him to raise the cry of "combination and conspiracy," and to attempt to bias the judgment of the house by the same cry, which his followers were raising with as much truth as now. (Cheers.) The accuser was the same and the defendant was the same. And who were the parties involved in the guilt of that con spiracy? My lords, I need hardly tell you that the eminent statesman whose language I have just quoted, whose indignant denial of those vile motives I have read to you, that that statesman, so charged with combination and conspiracy, was one who for four years had given them his constant and unvary ing support—that that statesman was the late Sir Robert Peel—(Hear)—and that that speech was the last he addressed to Parliament but a few hours be fore the unhappy event which deprived the country of the services of that eminent man. (Hear, hear.) But who was the man who put himself forward as the chivalrous defender of Viscount Palmerston on that occasion, and who moved the exculpatory reso lution in the House of Commons ? That man was Mr. Roebuck, one of the present supporters and accomplices in this "base conspiracy." (Cheers.) My lords, I have given you facts to show, not the improbability, but the impossibility of such a coali tion. The very notion of it is too absurd for the veriest gobentouche who catches up and swallows the last newspaper canard ; nay, it is even more absurd than that metnorable story of wholesale massacre i❑ America of which the most egregious dupe was the leading journal iu this country. (A laugh.) It is more incredible than anything the wildest stretch of imagination can picture. But I know well the power of what has been somewhere called— The barefac'd lie, with manly courage told, W hich— I forget part of the line— with resistless force, And heard by thousands, is behaved of course. (A laugh.) I know the Antteus•like power with which calumny, refuted a dozen times, ever springs from the ground with additional strength from each successive fall ; and, notwithstanding the solemn as sertion I have made and the facts I have stated, nothing will surprise me less than to see the daily press teeming with repetitions of this base and un founded calumny, or to find it made the stock•in.trade of electioneering addresses and speeches during the next three months (Hear.) My lords, I should not wish to say anything personal ; but, by whom soever and wheresoever that shall be said, written, or printed, I solemnly declare that that statement bears precisely that relation to truth which is ex pressed in very pithy and homely language in the first line which I have just quoted to your lordships. (A laugh.) But, my lords, how long is it since her Majesty's Government has had this holy horror of combina tions—how long is it since they discovered that the votes of men not concurring in general political principles, but joining together on some particular occasions, must necessarily be given from factious and unworthy motives ? I will not go back to the earlier history of the life of the noble viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. No man is better qualified to speak of combinations than he because no man has had a tithe of the experience of them that he has had. (A laugh.) I will not go back even to the commencement of the present Parliament ; I will be satisfied with reverting to the present session of Parliament, and recalling to your lordships' recollection a certain motion which was brought forward in the House of Commons by a supporter of the Government—a gentleman named Mr. Locke King—in favour cf reform and an exten sion of the franchise. That motion was opposed by the noble lord at the head of the Government, and to support his opposition to that motion of his own supporters and adherents he brought into the field the magnificent number of thirty-one members, of whom twenty-one were persons holding official situations. (A laugh.) Against the whole of his own supporters were arrayed 179 members, thirty one being the number of votes which the Govern ment could raise when left to themselves, to their own resources, and to tbeir own supporters. (A laugh.) On that occasion was the " combination " rejected with scorn ? No ; the Conservative party, true to their principles, and casting aside all ques tions as to whom they were about to support or defend, came to the rescue of the noble viscount, increased that miserable minority of thirty-one to 192, giving thereby a majority of thirteen to the noble lord, and that act of the Conservative party saved her Majesty's Government from the fate of Ache =— from being devoured by their own hounds, and from disgrace and defeat. (Cheers and laughter.) One little fortnight after that time the party who did this —who, regardless of political considerations, and look ing only to principles, defended and supported the noble viscount against his own adherents—passed a deliberate judgment on papers submitted to their consideration ; and that party, who from the absence of factious motives saved his Government from anni hilation on the former occasion, are now charged with a disgraceful coalition for the purpose of ousting the noble viscount from office. (Cheers from the Oppo sition.) My lords, I ask you to put these two cir cumstances together, and say, if a charge of faction can be brought against either party, to which party it can be fairly applied. It may be in the recollection of your lordships that my noble and learned friend Lord Brougham, in a speech on the Address, expressed a hope that in the matter of the Chinese war our officials abroad were not seeking a pretext for picking a quarrel for their own advantage. I venture to parody that expression of my noble and learned friend, and to express my hope that in this question relating to the Chinese war her Majesty's Government are not seeking a pretext for picking a quarrel to their own advantage. (Hear, hear.) I think it is just possible that, fore seeing some questions which might cause them some embarrassment, they were not sorry to avail them selves of any favourable opportunity that might offer itself for dissolving the present Parliament, and that the result of the division on the Chinese question was regarded as a favourable occasion for the noble viscount to appeal to the general support and con fidence of the country. My belief, however, is that this Chinese question will have no influence whatever at the coming elections ; that it is not intended to