The Sun.
London, England, 1855-02-19 00:00:00

periment, of that principle of self-support in religious
matters which, whether we like it or no—whether
we approve it or no—whether we think it the best possible'
system or no Seems likely, perhaps certain in the
inevitable progress of public events, to be the principle of
the next generation. (Hear, hear, and applause.) I trust,
therefore, that we shall succeed in this matter; I trust that
something will be done. But if we fail, and if nothing is
done, I shall still confide, in this case es in many others, in
the good sense of the community at large to remedy and to
neutralise the effects of injurious legislation. One word, in
the next place, gentlemen—and I promise to touch the sub-
-ject briefly—one word on that great question of national edu-
cation. That is a iquestion which is actually and at this
moment before Parliament. Two bills are now before us—
one introduced by Lord John Russell, which, in the present
state of affairs, can only be considered as an
.expression of
opinion on his part ; another by my friend and late col-
league, Sir John Pakington. Between the principle of these
two bills there is no important difference ; and I think that
*Circumstance alone shows that the parties have drawn nearer
to one another on this subject than they were a few years
ago. I remember, when the question was debated in the
year 1850, Mr. Fox, a supporter of what is called the secular
system in education, proposed a plan of his own. There
were then two parties who held very well-defined and some-
what extreme views. One party were determined that pub-
lic schools—all schools supported by public grants—should
be taken entirely out of the hands of the clergy. Another
party were equally anxious to have them placed entirely and
exclusively under the control of the clergy. Now, I think
that those extreme opinions on both sides are disappearing. I
think that there is a general wish in Parliament, and a grow-
ing anxiety in the country, to have this question satisfac-
torily settled. I think that each side is willing to concede.
something, and that we may with no great difficulty, and at
no distant period, arrange the terms of a compromise. Of
course I do not here enter into any detail ; but there are one
the firstthle place, I would say that
it
tr
desirable
a tdola principlesdown.
n affectingl question which I think
no measure of education will be worth anything which does net
recognise and which does not include in its system schools
already existing. Thoee schools are not enough in number,
nor are they what they ought to be. Both in quantity, and
still more in quality, they are deficient. atm in these 1501331 s
something more than one-half of the people is more or less
adequately instructed ; and it would be folly, and worse than
folly, to overlook altogether, in constructing a new system,
that which has already been done ; it would be folly to lay a
new foundation instead of adding to and enlarging the. edifice
which already exists. That is the first rule which I would
lay down ; and in the [next place I would express my own
firm conviction that throughout the country, and more espe-
cially in the agricultural parts of the country, no measure of
education will work successfully which has not the support
and the co-operation of at least the mere enlightened part of
the clergy. (Applause.) I purposely avoid arguing that as
a question of principle. I treat it as one of practical neces-
sity. Both on that account, and because of the general feel-
ing of the people, I believe that what is called the secular
system is, utterly out of the question. (Hear, and applause.)
Some religious instruction must be given—(hear, hear)—but
there the difficulty begins. Many persons object conscien-
tiously, and not unnaturally, to pay out of the public funds
for the support of sectarian schools belonging to other de-
nominations. . I do not say that you can altogether avoid
that difficulty, but I think you may very much diminish
it by a simple rule' somewhat analogous to that already
adopted in Ireland—krule, namely, that religious instruc-
tion, though given in all schools, shall be in all optional
and not compulsory. (Applause.) I think that the objec-
tion I speak of will be very much diminished, if not removed,
when it is understood that every school receiving support
from public funds, whether national or local, is bound to re-
ceive and to admit to its secular teaching any child of whatever
denomination—that child not being compelled to attend
the religious teaching. (Applause.) That is the second
rule, therefore, I would wish to lay down. And, thirdly,
I would say, that, in whatever yon do with reference to this
question, I think it is most important to recognise and to
respect the principle of local self-government. Too much
power under the present system is given to the Government
department called the Committee of Council. (Hear, hear.)
That power is irresponsible : it ought to be made responsible
to Parliament. The dopartme et ought to bo represented in
Parliament ; cud, besides that Parliamentary check, I think
that it ought to be further checked and controlled by local
action in the various districts. To explain in a word what I
mean, I think that all Government grants ought to be made
dependent upon, the raising of local rates; and I think
(though here I speak with less certainty) it would always be
well that assistance from those local rates should be given in
proportion to the amount that is raised by voluntary effort.
In that way you may, by recognising those three principles :
first, the recognition and the inclusion of existing schools;
secondly, that that religious instruction shall everywhere be
offered, but everywhere be made optional ; and thirdly, by
recognising the right of self-government ; by admitting, I say,
those principles, I believe you will overcome the greatest diffi-
culties which lie in the way of a settlement of that question,
and that a satisfactory compromise may be arranged. (Ap-
plause.) Now, gentlemen, if I had been addressing you in
this place, either last year or the year before, I should have
felt it necessary to dwell perhaps at 'some length upon that
even more extensive and more momentous question of Parlia-
mentary reform. That is a question, however, which for the
present is very much in abeyance ; and. I do not think that
for a time it is likely to' be revived. I therefore pass it by
with merely one remark. I would observe that every pro-
position of Parliamentary reform which has been of late
years submitted to the House of Parliament involves 'two
perfectly distinct ideas —two questions which have little
or nothing to do with one another. One of those questions
is the extension of the franchise to a lower and poorer
class than that which now enjoys it. on taut, Fcrix26
purposely avoid making any remark at present. I will
merely observe that it seems to me a question very much of
degree and of time. Much may be safe now which would not
have been safe in the year 1832 ; and much may be rash and
premature and dangerous now which in 15 or 20 years will
not be objectionable. But the second question, and that
with which I think Reform Bills have principally undertaken
to deal, is not so much the extension of the franchise to a
Poorer class as its more equal distribution over the area of
the country among the class who now possess it. Now, on
that point I will say frankly that, so far asmy own individual
opinion goes, I see nothing conservative-I.sec no security to
law, to order, to government, or to property, in the existence
of those very small constituencies of (200 or 300 voters, of
which we have so many. I think they lead to corruption.
The number of voters is limited, the value of an individual
vote is, therefore, very groat, and that has a tendency to pro-
duce bribery. I think, therefore, they tend to demoralise one
class—the class of voters in those boroughs ; and they tend to
make another class discontented-_I mean the unrepresented,
represented, .manufacturing
fore, the question
e.e
no objection to deal by law
manufacturing po-
pulations
Therenea l small measure
are
came
al•
mpartiallye before
oroef andus o,u imperfectlyshgreatourshould
towns.
Tevs•
with those constituencies. At the same time you must
remark this—that it is scarcely possible, as matters
of reform should pass
tsoshtanianaid,pinarlailaavtmstseanntaY:ffected ; there so many local and per-
are so many obstacles with
which any measure of that kind, will meet in the House of
Commons, that no such measure is likely to pass unless it be
supported by a great pressure and demand from without • and
that is one reason (I speak to you here with all frankness)
why, though perfectly willing to deal fairly and equitably
with the question, if it become before US, I have no particular
desire to see it unnecessarily stirred, Now, gentlemen,
after glancing briefly (and it is impossible for me to do more)
at these topics, I come to the question which occupies all our
minis, and for the last 12 months has almost monopolised
public attention—I mean the war. (Hear.) I think there are
throe questions which ive have to ask and to answer : How did
we get into the war ?—With what objects and results are we
fighting I—and in what manner is the war to bo carried on ?
(Hear, hear.) Now, as to the first of these questions, I think
that it was solved in a word by the present Foreign Secretary,
Lord
Im believe,
idene. ,y
Lordcis el Clarendon told the House of Lords
that we had drifted, or that we were drifting, into war. That
phrase,
tradi-
tional policy of this country has been, at least during the pre-
neov p
redescribes
the situation. The
seat generation, a policy of peace and non-interference. I voted
for non-interference in the year 1850 ; and that is a vote
which I should repeat now. On the other hand, it seems
to me oduallY clear, though I do not know that it is an
prevalent in this country, that the policy of
opinion eq uaLy
the Emperor of Russia has always been to avoid a quarrel
with England. I judge him not only by the acts of the
last two years, but by the- 30 years and more of his reign.
I form that opinion judging
partly by that celebrated me-
morandum of 1844. The meaning and Purport of that
memorandum the evident object and intention of its
writing, was that, provided Eu la
g ud and Russia could agree
as to what should be done about Turkey, the Emperor of
Russia cared very little for the opinion of any other power.
I judge, also, by the language which the Emperor held to
our Minister at St. Petersburg, Sir Hamilton Seymour.
Ido not think it' is very likely—l do not think it ap-
pears very reasonable or natural that a man should tell
not only his acts—not only his plans not only plans which
he was at that time carrying out, but Plans for the distant
and remote future —plans of which the execution must ne-
cessarily be long deferred—l do not think it is natural that
any man would toll his most intimate thoughts and intentions
to the Minister of a country with which he intended at that
time to go to war. I believe, therefore, the fact to be this
when the diplomatic negotiations became involved, and the
quarrel appeared serious, neither Government could bring it-
self to believe that the other was in earnest. We did not
think that the Government of Russia would dare to resist the
united wishes of France and England. The Emperor of Rus-
sia,the other hand, judging by past experience, and I
on ' ive laugu e
think, encouraged by the indems _ ag of our own"
statesmen—the Emperor of Russia thought that France.
and England could not and would not act cordially tee
gether. Why, you may recollect languagethe
which was
by
held by the late Government and its supporters in the
leading journal of the count t
Year 1853. In the
e Ministry ;in the language of a
that time the organ of th M nguage of Mr.
Gladstone at Manchester—(hoar] the speeches of Lord
Aberdeen in the house
of Lords- everywhere you could trace
the same idea and the same feeling, that war was to be depre-
cated,would, the Turkish
and that, do what you , empire and
the Turkish people could not bo saved. (Hear.) It was well
known that this was the opinion of the Ministry , it was
well-known that that was the opinion of the men who at that
time held the Government of this country • itw as well known
in England, and, of course, being known in England, it was
known ah.o iu Russia. Is it not natural, is it not reasonable
to suppose that the Emperor of Russia judging from that
present •
fact, and knowing also that up to the _ time there
never yet had been a cordial alliance between France stud
England—judging, I say from those facts, should conclude
that we were not in earnest, and that we meant to protest,
indeed, and remonstrate against his acts, but to do nothing
more than protest Well, you narty_aele me, Of what conse-
quence is it to discuss that question now ? I think it is of
great consequence, and I think so for this reason ; if it were
clearly made out that the
Emperor of Russia had deter-
mined to invade and conquer Turkey, at whatever cost,
and notwithstanding the • opposition of any and of every
other government—if that were the case, then, of course, we
should have had uo alternative and no recourse, except to
fight and to continue the struggle until one nation or the
other was destroyed ; but fi, as I believe, the Government of
Russia had no such intentions—if the Governments have been
at cross purposes—if the quarrel has arisen, in fact, out of a
mutual misunderstanding much more than out of any set,
premeditated purpose of hostility—then, I say, I see no rea-
son why a secure and an honourable peace should be impos-
sible. (Hear.) I look, therefore, with great interest to the
negotiations now carrying on at Vienna. I augur well from
the appointment of Lord John
.R Russell to conduct those ne-
gotiations. (Hear.) No came .
e in• olities stands higher than a
his, Ho-sets out with the prestige of great position, of
emineut abilities, and of a historical career, and, notwith-
:standing the Attempts to tradttce his character which have