The Press.
London, England, 1857-03-21 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
more disposed to support her Majesty's Government
than to adopt the policy of the party sitting opposite
to them. There were Lord J. Russell, Sir F. Baring,
and Lord It. 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 factions 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
of 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 a.s to induce
many of the habitual supporters of the Government
to assent to the motion, then we are told it is a
factious 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 oar own Conservative

supporters felt bound to uphold the policy of the Minis-
ters. Now, my lords, I have never for one moment
queetioned 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 cure, 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.

Damua hanc veniam—
but 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.
siderations 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-