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

LORD DERBY'S SPEECH.

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.) Fur 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, I hope,
carry conviction to the 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.) IC 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 as 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 Urey), 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
ill-will 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 bas
recently been appointed Lord Lieutenaht of the West

Riding of Yorkshire. ("Hear," and a laugh.) 1
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 Commons 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 nit 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 hi-; 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 un.il 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 furtber, and tell you a
little more of our conversation, to show bow much
foundation there is for this cry of " coalition." 3ly
bon. friend expressed to me his apprebens ion, in
which I concurred, that the fact of the subject of
China being bro ught forward by a person whose
views genersily 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 anti
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 ba,,e and in-
famous coalition. (Hear, hear.) The majority i❑
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

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-