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

THE PRESS.

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 fall
explanation of the circumstances under which that vote
will be given. Sir, he shall have that explanation. T have
no resme. The hon. and learned member has stated that
there is a dishonourable conspiracy formed against her
unfounded ,"

Majesty's Government. Sir, a more .. 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 contem-
plate." Now, is it not possible for the hon. and leaded
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 calculatod 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, be 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.)
Bat 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 th 3 impossibility of such a coali-
tion. The very notion of it is too absurd for the
veriest gobemouche who catches up and swallows
the last newspaper canard; nay,, it is even more
absurd than that memorable story of wholesale
massacre in America of which the most egregious
dupe was the leading journal in this country. (A
laugh.) It is more incredible than anything the
wildest stretch of imagination can picture. Bat I know
well the power of what has been somewhere called—
The barefac'd lie, with manly courage told,
Which—
I forget part of the line—

with resistless force,
And beard by thousands, is believed of course.
(A laugh.) I know the &ntteus•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 male the stock-in-trade

SATURDAY,

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 be bas 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 vates which the Govern-
ment could raise when left to themselves, to their
own resources, and to their 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 Actmon—
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

MARCH 21, 1857.

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 liovern-
meat. ( Cheers. )
Now, I have adverted to one subject which was
introduced rather gratuitously at the time-1 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 a 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 thaw have been energetic in the discharge
of parochial duties in some of the largest parishes,
and I am therefore not disposed 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
sension and animosity—or which, if more than mere
forms and ceremonies, if they assume any further
meaning, indicate an approximation which has unfor-
tunately led to more than an approximation on the part