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

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 19, 1855.

LORD STANLEY AT LYNN.-ADDRESS

TO THE ELECTORS.

(From the Lynn Advertiser.)
Lord 'Stanley, M.P. for the borough of King's Lynn,.
having intimated his wish to address the electors, a meeting
called 'for that purpose, was• held at the Town Hall, 'on
Thursday; There was a very large attendance on the 'Veda-
sion, and all .parties'in the town were amply represented iu
the gnieetiug. Amongst others present wo obs.xVed the
following gentlemen, viz. :—Tho Rev. R. Cattle', Roil G.
Leeper, Rev. J. Bransby, Rev. A. W. Diirdin, Rev. G.
Rigby, 'Rev. J. T. aligner,, Captain 'Cresswell, R. N.,
Lieutenant Garland, R.N.' Messrs. R. Baggy, P. Cresswell;
W. Moyso, J. Platten, G. Hogg., P. Wilson, J. B. Whit-
ing; R. Pitcher, L. W. Jarvis, J. J. Coulton, J. P. Bleu-
cowe, E. Durrant, C. Goodwin, F. Milton, H. - Edwards,
J. B. Jeffery, W. Beloe, L. Self, R. Cook, W.. Arnies,
I. 0. Smetham, W. Bleueowe, J. Scales, H. Plowiight, H.
Allen, W. Cooper, A. Swatman, C. Sheppard, T. Sheppard,
Soppings, J. Laird, Plows, Blott, Share, F. R. Partridge,
Atmore, W. Shipp, W. Patrick, Harding, H. Wells, J.
Thew, Sayle, &e.
On Lord . Stanley's entering the room, in company with
Mr. Bagge, he Was loudly cheered, and his lordship's recep-
tion throughout was such as. to—convey to him the fullest
assurance of the confidence reposed in him by his con -
'stitueuts.

The Mayor having been requested (on the motion of Mr.
Bagge, duly segonded) to take the chair, stated that it was
his intention to have said a few words on the occasion :
but, labouring as he was under a very severe cold, sore
throat, -and loss a voice, he should content himself with
merely introducing to the meeting Lord Stanley, who, on
all occasions, he was sure, did everything to promote the
welfare and interests of the inhabitants of the town, and
who was, he thought the meeting would agree, entitled to
their warmest-thanks for his conduct. (A ppig.u...)
Lord Stanley on rising to address the meeting was received
with much cheering. He proceeded to speak as follows :—Mr.
Mayor and Gentlemen, I have asked you to meet me here to-
day, because I think it only right and'coOrteous after so long
a period as that which has elapsed between the election of
1852 and at the present time, to offer to you although unso-
licited, some account of the manner in which during that
time I have attempted to discharge the trust imposed upon
me as your representative. I take this step not solicited by
any one here ; I take it without reference to any prospective
probabilities of a future Parliament—for a general election at
this time appears very unlikely; but I-take it because I wish
to offer on my part, and to ask from you in return, that frank
and full confidence which at all times and under all circum-
stances ought to exist between the electors and the elected.
(Hear, hear.) And let me in the first place express to you
my gratitude, not only for the support which here I have al-
ways received, but also for that which I value even more—for
the perfect and entire freedom of political action which you
have always left in my hands. There are many here whose
advice I value, there are some to whose judgment I would
even defer my own ; but in the six years that I have been your
member it has never once been said to me upon any single oc-
casion, " you must vote for this measure, or you must ab-
stain from voting for that, or else you will not be returned
again." (Applause.) I am proud of such confidence; and,
though the case is my own, and though, therefore, I may be
considered as an interested party, I will say I believe that is
the best way, I believe it is the only way, to obtain honest
and effectual political service. There are difficulties enough
in the way of any man who aspires to be a conscientious and
independent legislator—personal feeling, party bias, class in-
terests, liking or aversion for particular men, the fear of
seeming inconsistent with one's_ former professions, the
fear of seeming to forbid for popularity or for offico—all these
are motives which warp a man's mind without his knowledge,
and which make it not always easy to see clearly what is
one's duty. There is nothing gained by interposing another
obstacle between aman's conscience and his vote ; and I think
you will agree with me that if a. member is not fit to think
and to act for him elf upon public matters, he is much better
in any other place than in the House of Commons. (Applause.)
Well, gentlemen, the three years of this Parliament, although
productive of consequences which may ultimately be mo-
mentous not only to England, but to Europe, have been, so
far as internal legislation is concerned, singularly barren of
results. (Hear, hear.) 'The Government of Lord Derby
quitted office too soon to bring forward any measures; and,
of course, in public as in private affairs it is idle to claim
credit for unfulfilled intentions. When Lord Aberdeen formed
his ministry we were told on all hands—it was the general
cry of the country, that there never had been an administra-
tion of greater promise ; and certainly, if we are to judge by
the number, by the magnitude, and by the variety of the in-
terests with wuich they undertook to deal, and of the ques-
tions which they undertook to settle, we must allow that
there never has been a more promising administration. We
were to have a large measure of parliamentary reform ; we
were to hive augmented and improved proviqion for national
education ; the poor law was to be reformed—settlemat
done away ; and lastly, there was a scheme to throw open,
as it was said, and to remodel the civil administration of this
country upon au entirely new basis. Well, what happened ?
Parliamentary reform was first postponed, then abandoned.
An education bill was introduced; was laid before the House
of Common ; was thero received with no particular favour
indeed., but with no particular censure and yet, nevertheless
suddenly and without cause it disappeared from public
view. The Poor-law Bill -a measure which I believe
would have received the support of quite as many Conser-
vative as Liberal inembers—broke down in the face of Par-
liament from a want of concert among its promoters— one
Minister supporting one scheme, and his colleague defending
-another; and that measure, too, was withdrawn, and never
appeared again. And as to that much-vaunted scheme of
civil service reform, which had boon named in the Queen's
Speech, and which had been introduced to the country by the
applause of the newspaper press -that measure never even
was submitted to the Reuse of Commons at all, but, after
having been so named in the Royal speech, and after the
details of it had been sketched out in the newspapers, was
withdrawn, and has not been heard of from that day to this.
Now I. need not tell you that the initiation of public mea-
sures rests with the Government, and that where from any
cause Government does not undertake the work'of reform,
not very much can be done by independent private members.
Some measures, however, have been carried, and many have
been discussed; and to these minor topics, though only com-
paratively minor topics, I will advert in a few words before I
come to that which is the one object of the day—l mean the
war in which we are engaged. (Applause.) Two measures
have been carried which I shall pass over very shortly. A
bill was introduced for the prevention of bribery—a bill con-
taining some provisions of a very stringent character—a bill
which, since it has been in force, in those few cases in which
it has had a trial, has, I believe, worked well. That bill ori-
ginated pretty equally with both sides of the house, and, as a
whole, was not opposed by any party. It is a measure for
which neither the 'Government alone, nor the Opposition
alone, could claim credit. It was a bill which originated
with the entire House of Commons; and, as far as the details
were concerned, I believe we may say that the most important
provisions which it contained were due to my friends Mr.
Walpole and Sir Fitzrgy Kelly. There was also a bill intro-
duced and carried for the reform of the University of Oxford.
That was a measure of which the necessity and the import-
ance had long been felt; and it was a measure which, as a
whole and upon principle, did not meet with opposition from
any quarter. It underwent important 'modifications in its
progress through Parliament. It excited much discussion,
and, perhaps, some needless apprehension ; but it happened,
singularly enough, that the• on'y great principle which it
could be said to involve, the only principle of really national
importance which it contained—the principle of admitting
persons not members of the Church of England to study in
those universities—that principle formed no part of the Mini-
sterial plan ; it was not adopted by the Ministry when sug-
gested to them from another quarter ; but it was carried
against the opposition of the Ministry by a union of indepen-
dent Liberal and Conservative members. (Hear.) There
was, indeed, a measure also passed in that session, of which
the entire credit or discredit rests with the Government-4
mean the India Bill of Sir Charles Wood. I mention that
amlseoasbuerecauspae itrtl was on aocncoeunwitthof
wihtsichl great'w importance, pmoyrtgaenlfeei,n
somertl
degree connected. It became my duty, whoa that measure
came to a second reading, to move an amendment postponing
the consideration of the subject for a period of two years.
I and those with whom, and by the advice of whom, I acted
on than occasion did so, not because we were hostile to the
principle of Indian reform, but precisely the reverse. We
thought that if time were allowed for the public to become
better informed upon the subject, and for a more general
interest and attention to be excited in the 'country—we
thought that if a limited period—two, three, or even five
years, had been allowed for that purpose, and, in the mean-
while, if all permanent legislation had been suspended, that
means would have' been afforded of introducing many great
and beneficial improvements in the government of India
which were not at that time possible, and that the ad-
vantage so gained would more than compensate for the
delay. Wo were the more entitled to hold that opinion,
because at the time the measure in question was brought
forward an inquiry had been ordered to take place before
a committee of the House of Commons ; that committee
had sat during a part 'of two sessions ; it had investigated
the subject, but investigated only a part of the subject ; and
upon that partial investigation, the inquiry being stilt un-
concluded, Parliament was asked to legislate, the inquiry
was to be cut short, and the House of Commons was to
decide upon the whole of a case of which it had heard only
a part. I have often reverted to that vote ; and though
certainly there never was a Ministerial measure more success-
ful in a Parliamentary sense—though never did opposition,
I must confess it, undergo more signal defeat—l must say
i;ntelitirgaehffstet.cteinThdtnheoeflaseoucatbreasient,te;th House of Commons
that, looking back upon that measure, I am satisfied the vote
;iditnoetxctiotuedchntohegic.oenai
interest td
stiikugaelii:teatilowages
amount of public feeling. The matter was accordingly left
in the hands of a comparatively small section, and Govern-
ment had everything their own way. Well, gentlemen, I will
now advert to one or two questions, not perhaps of greater
intrinsic importance, but of more -interest to you. I take
first the question of church rates. I have voted for the abo-
lition of church rates, and shall do so again. When the mat-
ter was first brought forward for discussion in the session of
1853, I thought, and many others thought, that a compro-
mise would be possible, which, while equally relieving Non-
conformists from the unjust burden to which they are sub-
jected, would serve to mitigate in no small degree the oppo-
sition and the dislike to any change which were felt by the
agrneoatthermember bodyef Churchmen.
porliame. I
ntThat plan was proposed by
supported it in writing,
and I voted for it in the division ; it was fully and fairly dis-
cussed; and the result of the discussion which then took
place upon my mind was to convince me that fair and equit-
able as that compromise might be in, point of principle, it
was encumbered and embarrassed with so many practical
difficulties in the working as to make it difficult for it be
carried through the House of Commons, and make it quite
impossible fonit to be successfully carried vont. Well, then,
I had only to choose between maintaining the law in its actual
state or voting for its total repeal. I thought it was a ques-
tion, not merely of policy, not merely of expediency, but of
justice and right; and I therefore could have no hesitation
as to the course I shoOld take. (Applause.) I am quite
aware that in some districts, especially in the rural districts,
inconveniences would be caused for a time by the withdrawal
from parishes and congregation of that compulsory legal sup.
port to which they are at present entitled. I do not over-
look that objection, and I not underrate its importance ;
but I think the inconvenience in question would be only tom.
porary ; I think it would be more than counterbalanced by
the termination of that'strife Rad dissension which we have
so long witnessed in connection with this question ; and
I think that the, change is doubly important, not only on
account of the intrinsic merits of the cause, but because
it will Pam' us the first trial, the got Partigial 047.

periment, of that principle cf self-support in religious
matters which, whether wo 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 as 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
tho next place, gentlemen—and I promise to touch the sub-
ject briefly—one word on that groat question of national eau-
, cation. That .ia a ,question which is actually and at this
moment before Parliament. Two billy are now before us—
ono 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 Mead and late col-
league, Sir John Pakington. Between the principle of these.
two bills there is no important difference; and I think that
oiretunstance alone shows that the parties have draivn nearer
to one another on this subject than they were a few years
ago. I remember, when the question was debated in the
yearslBso, 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
v-
Osnuepoarrtteydwbeyrepudbelitecrmined that pub-
licsh
schools—all
et
hools
extreme
allviwsechosOls pp
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
or two broad nrinciotan effecting the question which C th;"'r
it dosirable to lay down. In the inast place, I would say that
no measure of education will be worth anything which does not
recognise and which does not include in its system schools
already existing. Those schools are not enough in number,
her are they what they ought to be. Both in quantity, and
still more in quality, they are deficient. Still in those schools
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 bean 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 inext 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 cooperation of at least the nore enlightened part of
the clergy. (Applause.) I purposely avoid arguing that as
a question of principle. I treat it as ono 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 religions instruction must be given—(hear, hear)—but
there the difficulty begins. Many 'arsons object conscien-
tiously, and not unnaturally, to pay out of the public 'fisnds
for the support of sectarian schools belonging to other do-
nominations. Ido not say that you can altogether avoid
that difficulty, but I think you nay very much diminish
it by a simple rule somewhat analogous to that already
adopted in Ireland—a rule, namely, that religious instruc-
tion, though given in all schools, stall 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 schaol 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 you dc with reference to this
question, I think it is most important. to recognise and to
respect the principle of local selfsgovernment. 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 departmont ought to be represented in
Parliament ; and, besides that Parliamentary chock, 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 thick that all Government grants ought to bo made
dependent upon tho raising of local rates; and I think
(though here I speak with less certainty) it would always be
welithat 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 bean 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 cprasponaa 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 that point I
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 bo 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
thei')ao
tl country.poorer
classpointl amongaiilitsfs
say
morethfrae
ismseaelincoonathintgituceonnesieer:aotifyie2-0:073:
class
ake
sql
frankly
equal
1, distributioninto,
nowsofar
possessas m overy o lnl it.
itheindividual
daoi
vwr: u
ac 1 ti:
aw, to order, to government, or to property, in the existence
11
security to
to:
which we have so many. I think they lead to corruption;
of 11
if
thosethon goes,ver y
The number of voters is limited, the value of an individual
vote is, therefore, very great, 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
raake another class discontented--I mean the unrepresented,
or partially and imperfectly represented, manufacturing po-
pulation of our great towns. If,. therefore, the question
came before( us, I should have no ob iebtion to deal by law
with those constituencies. At the same time you m
remark this—that it is scarcely possible, as matters
stand, that any small measure of reform should pass
this Parliament. There aro sO
sonny local and per-
sonal interests affected; there are _ .
7 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 impossiolo for mo to do more)
at these topics, I come to the question la I.
Ii occupies all our
minis, and for the last 12 months has Afloat monopolised
public attention—l mean the war. Su
s -star-) Il think there are
we questions which we have to ask ard to answer : How did
we get into the war ?—With what objects .
results are we
fighting ?—and in what manner is thew ar and
to be carried on ?
(Hear, hear.) Now, as to the first of those questions, I think
that it was solved in a word by the present Foreign Secretary,
Lord ClsaandOn. Lord Clarendon tdd the House of Lords
that wo had drifted, or that we were drifting, intowar. That
phrase, I believe, precisely describes tits. situation. The tradi-
p ,
tional policy of this country has been, at least during the pre-
sent generation, a pelicy of peace and gat least
I voted
for non-interference in the year 185 G ; and that is a vote
which I should repeathou now. On tho other hand, it seems
to me equally clear, though I do act
know that it is, an
opinion equally prevalent in this country, that the policy of
the Emperor of Ruaa has always la
--ert to avoid a quarrel
with England. I jailge him not onl—
a by the acts of the
last two years, but by the 30 years % more of his reign.
I form that opinion judging partly bud—
y that celebrated me-
morandum of 1844. The moaning and
Purport of that
memorandum the evident object and intention of its
writing, was that, provided England and Russia could agree x
as to what should-be done about Taske_, the Emperor of
Russia cared very little for tho op any other power.inion of
I judge, also, by the language which the Emperar held to
our Minister at St. Petersburg, Sir Hamilton Seymour.
Ido not think it is very likely—s do not think it ap-
pears very reasonable or natural that a, man Should tell
not only his acts—not only his plane—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 tell 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
was
it-
self to believe that the other in earnest. We did not
think that the Government of Russia would dare to resist the
united wishes of France and England. Tho Emperor of Rug.
sin, on the other hand, judging by past experience, aria s
thik, encouraged by the indecisive language of our own
statesmen—the Emperor of Russia thought that France
and England could not and would not act cordially to.
gather.
ther Why, you may recollect the language which wag
held by tho late Government and by its supporters in the
year 1853. In the leading journal
of the country, at
that time the organ of the
Gladstone at Manchester—(hear}—in 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 deism_
cated, and that, do what you would, the Turkish empire and
well
the Turkish people could not be saved. (Heal) It was
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 countil; It Wan well known
in England, and, of course, being known in England, it was
known also in Russia. Is it not natural, is it not reasonable
to suppose that the Emperor of Russia judging from that
fact, and knowing also that up to the present time there
never yet bad been a cordial alliance between France and
England—judging, I say from those facts, should conclnde
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, yon may ask me,
.. Of what conse-
quence is it to discuss that question now I 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 ease, then, of course, we
should have had no alternative and no recourse, except to
fight and to continuo the struggle until one nation or the
other was destroyed; but if, 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—t I hen, I say, 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 Russell to conduct those ne-
gotiations. (Hear.) No name in politics stands higher than
his. He sets out with the prestige of a great position, of
eminent abilities, and of a historical career, and, notwith-
otwaill.tio attnaPtil to trance him clio noteF 70.4.9_4 4511
____—_

been made by some of his colleagues, with an unstained per-
sonal and political honour. (Applause.) I trust, therefore,
that the negotiations conducted by him may not be unsuc-
cessful. If that is so, he will have earned the highest and the
most ennobling of all human triumphs—that of restoring
European peace. (Hear, hear.) But there are some
persons who tell you (and this is an opinion very popular
in this country) that if a peace could be made now; upon
whatever terms, it could be -nothing more than a mere
truce. Well, there is something very plausible in that
saying. Bat-I happen to have looked back to the debates,
to the discussions and to the opinions of men who lived
when the peace of 1815 nets concluded ; and the language of
the Whig ptrty at that time, the language of the Liberals of
that day, was, that France would never submit to, the humili-
agai
ew
toil•re fts
misfortunes
tneueri until lef
ryeledoas7bOys
iialutast
ati
its
breakinwould
h
u.
nyt e
tion of that peace, that that peace was a mere truce, that war
a
ahnadd. thheaeta them
another and more
zee de r ge no
oe
successful contest. I have no doubt the gentlemen who held
that language id 1815 got great credit for their saeacity—pro-
plias of evil generallydo. But the peace of 1815 has been
more than a mere truce ; it has lasted for eight-and-thirty
years ; it has lasted until the two nations have come to
understand one another better; it has lasted until, when
again called forth to battle, they are found fighting side by
side, not as enemies, but as allies. (Loud applause.) Well,
then, I say I for one will never quarrel with an honourable
peace merely because not battles enough have been fought,
because not enough of blood has been shed, or because it
comes too soon. I say emphatically an honourable peace,
because I do not believe the people or the Government of
France or of England would accept any other. (Applause).
As to the terms which ought to be made, it is idle to mention
them now. We cannot decide what they— shall be until
the progress of the war is seen ; until we know what
powers of resistance or of vitality Turkey herself can put
forth ; until we know whether we are to have Austria for
as, .11a, f" a friend as neutral AT "La
for we are not fighting in this cause alone—we cannot tell
what terms of peace ought to be made until we know what
terms aro approved by our ally the Emperor of the French.
Therefore, although I might have been much inclined to enter
into those great territorial questions which have been mooted
—the question of Poland, the question of Finland, the ques-
tien of the Principalities, and the question of the Crimea—l
think it is idle to discuss such topics ..now, when we must
discuss them in a merely speculative manner. (Hear.) In a
word, what I say is this—l am for a vigorous and energetic
prosecution of the war, as leading to a speedy peace. (Cheers.)
I am for moderate terms of peace, as tending to put a speedier
end to war. And I am the more inclined to hold both these
opinions because (we must look at it 'fairly, and we ought to
state it frankly) the resources of this country are inexhaustible.
There is scarcely any expense which we cannot afford to
incur ; there is scarcely any amount of military strength
which we cannot afford to put forth ; but, after all, we have
a debt which exceeds the debts of all other European Govern-
ments put together ; we have a debt which is felt at this
moment, and which, perhaps, will be felt still more, as every
serious incumbrance upon our industry. We are daily forced
more and more into commercial competition with America
and with the continent ; and, though it is perfectly true that
the same weight of debt was borne 30 years ago, when our
population was smaller, and when: our resources were much
less than at present, still there is one difference between the
circumstances of that time and the circumstances of our own
which ought not to be forgotten. Thirty years ago emigra-
tion was unknown—that is to say, it had not become the
habit or the custom of the people. Whatever, therefore,
might be the sufferings, and whatever the discontent
caused by the load of taxes then pressing upoii the people,
no alternative was open to them except to remain. At
present it is different. Every day yeti see men who have
fair prospects before them at home emigrating • on the
slightest possible inducement to America or to Australia. I
believe, that if you were to double—if you were very largely
and materially to increase your debt, so as to add perma-
nently some ten or twelve millions a year to the national
taxation, you would give an impulse to that movement of
emigration which would, to say the least of it, be highly dan-
gerous, and which might ultimately end in a depopulation of
the country. (Hear.) That is a question which we must look
at fairly, and which we cannot overlook in considering this
subject of the war. So, therefore, I am for a vigorous, for
an energetic, and, if it can be, for an irresistible displaY of
military power ; and I am for such a display of power for this
reason, among others, that we cannot afford a long war.
(Applause.) Now, gentlemen, although I feel that I am oc-
cupying more of your time than I have any right to do —(No,
no, and cheers)—l should like to say a word upon' the man-
ner in which the operations of this war have been conducted;
(Hear.) It is of no use to deny that which everybody knows.
Great errors have been committed, and groat disasters have
ensued. The question is, what is the cause of those errors
and of those disasters Who is in fault, and who is' the party
responsible for them ? Three answers are generally given to
that question. There are many 'who say—and I observe that
the newspapers aro taking up that cry—that there is some-
thing in our parliamentary system, something in our internal
administration, which is in fault. Others say that it is the
organisation of the army which is defective. And a third
class again, reply that it is not the fault of any system, but
simply of an individual minister. Now, I will, with your
permission, consider those various peinta; and I hope you
will do me the justice to believe, that though they may be
somewhat delicate, I will attempt to discuss them without
any prejudice of party or class. (Applause.) The complaint
commonly made against our system of parliamentary g‘vern-
ment is this that under it all power and authority are _
, monopolised in a few hands, and that talent, without
I connection, dose not find proper scope. Now, the question
to ask ourselves is, whether that is true or no ? I - it the
fact, that in the present day and during the present cen-
tury high administrative offices have been usually filled by
incapable men, having no merit except that of connection ?
Of course that is a very popular theory ; and it is easy to
understand why it should be a popular theory. In the first
place, it is taken up by those and by the friends of those
who, having been, as I believe, in a great degree responsible
for the present disaster, are naturally anxious to screen them-
selves and their friends by throwing the blame upon that ab-
straction— a system. In the next place it is a pottier theory
because it flatters every man who, having entered public life,
having somewhat overrated his own abilities, and leaving
failed accordingly, is very glad to lay the blame upon his
want of influence rather than upon his want of energy or
talent. (Applause.) But I am very much mistaken in those
whom I address hero if you are likely to be led away' by any
vague or unmeaning Cry. (Hear, hear.) Take the facts as
they stand. Take the House of Commons as it is actually
constituted; take each' party in the House of Commons, and
consider who, in those parties, are the leading men. I begin
with what is called the ultra-liberal party. I do not suppose
it will be said that Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright have made
their way brmeans of connection, or from any cause except
that of their own ability ; and yet Mr. Cobden and Mr.
Bright, unpopular as their views are upon this question of
the war, have filled as large a place in the public eye as any
Public men now living. Well, take next the party of the
present and the late Government. Of that. Government, next
to its chief, no one would hesitate to say that in the House of
Commons Mr. Gladstone is the leading member; and you are
all aware of Mr. Gladslone's career ; you are all aware that
his parliamentary success is due solely and entirely to his
own personal ability. I might go through a long list of
names—Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Disraeli—it is in-
vidious to mention names; but I will undertake to say that
ifany ono takes the lists of the House of Commons as they are
at present constituted, he will find that a clear majority of
those Who are or Who have been in the highest offices, or who
have filled a large place in the public eye, are men who have
made their way, not through connection, not through family
influence, but simply by the exercise of their own faculties and
powers. (Hear.) Nay, I go further. I am not defending our
Parliamentary system as by any means perfect. It has great
faults ; but its faults lie, I think, in the contrary direction to
that now urged. The fault of our Parliamentary system is
that it does injustice to men who, with considerable power of
labour and with considerable administrative talent, do not
possess the faculty of debate. If there is any class to which
it does injustice it is that class. it certainly is the case that
in the House of Commons, as iu every popular assembly, the
mere power of public speaking,i the mere facility of reply in
debate, is a talent more valued than it properly ought to be.
(Hear, hear.) But that is not a fault on the side of an aris-
tocratic or exclusive system ; that is not a fault which tends
to throw a monopoly of power into the hands of a few per-
sons and families. That is a fault which, if it is inherent in
our government, we share, and share in pretty equal propor-
tions, with the republican government of America. (Hear,
hear.) Whatever the defects of the system may be, it cer-
tainly has this merit : no man absolutely without talent or
capacity can hold a high Parliamentary office or represent an
important department. Consider the work that he has to do.
He may be called upon any day or any night, often at the
shortest notice, to answer for and to defend his own measures
and that of his colleagues. No clerk, no colleague, no subor-
dinate can assist him in doing that work. The measure of
his ability is taken ; his capacity or incapacity, as the case
may be, is fairly tested; and if he be incapable, if he be unfit
for the office which he holds, his unfitness is no secret either
to himself or to others, and the pain, the ridicule, and the re-
proach of such a situation are in themselves a sufficient guar-
antee that it will not often be coveted. I say, then, what-
ever the fault of our Parliamentary government, it certainly
has not the tendency of throwing office into the hands of in-
capable men of high connection; and if time allowed, and if
I were not unwilling to weary you, I think that I might
prove that that has been the case by a reference net only
to our own but to many former generations. But if the
Parliamentary system be not in fault, the next question is
whether the defect lies in the organisation of the army;
and on that point I say at once I do not undertake an entire
or a confident defence. I think that in the faults which are
commonly ascribed to our military organisation there is also
some considerable admixture of truth. One explanation of
those defects is obvious; and I think it tends to exculpate
from blame all parties concerned. That cause is, that an
army can only be properly tested in time of war. (Hear,
hear.) No reviews, no Chobham camps, no parade in Hyde
Park, will ever teach officers and men their duty, or show
the country whether the army is fit for its work or not. Now,
we have had a 40 years' peace. That is a great blessing ;
and we must not complain if we have some price to pay for
it. We have had a 40 years' peace in Europe, and the result
of that peace necessarily 'is that almost every military officer
whom we can employ is either inexperienced from not having
seen a battle, or superannuated because his experience dates
from the time of the Peninsular war. (Hear.) But there
is something more than that. Our army, though it makes
a large figure in the estimates, is small compared to that of
the great military monarchies, and it has been- scattered
abroad over a great variety of colonies. Hence, although
what is called the regimental organisation—the organisation
and the discipline of the regiment is perfect in itself, yet
when you come to place several regiments together, when you
come to deal with a larger force—with brigades or with dive
dons—neither officers nor men have any practice of united
'
action, and for want of such organisation great confusion
arises. Now I do not think it is fair, admitting, as
I do,the
faults of the system, to blame men either at home or in the
field for not doing well on the first trial that which they have
never done before, that which they have never been taught
to do, and that which they leave nevereven seendone by others.
Well, that is my explanation of the principal defects of the
military organisation. It is commonly said now that an injus-
tice is done to the private soldier by the infrequency of pro-
motions from the ranks. In that statement, I do not hesi-
tatet to say, I think there is some truth. (Hear, hear.) But I
think also there isisome error, some exaggeration.' I do jus-
tice, as every one does, to the admirable conduct of the pri-
vate soldiers of our army. (Cheers.) But I would say, in
the first place, that promotions from the ranks are not quite
as rare as they have been represented to be; and; in the next
place that which is more important, that the opportunities
for distinction, the opportunities for such actions as enable a
man to rise from the ranks, do not occur very often in time of
• Reaves it is nvt ix Wadi lift, it is sot vn partidta or ill

reviews that a private soldier has the means of so distin
gnishing himself as to earn his promotion to the rank of an
officer. Therefore, without imputing blame to any one, I
think it is a natural and necessary state of things that pro-
motions from the ranks will be rare in time of peace, and be-
come more frequent, necessarily more frequent, in time of
war. I think that is extremely desirable. Ido not say that
prejudice in some quarters may not have had something to do
with the fault complained of ; but I think prejudice has had
comparatively little to do with it; and I think the principal
cause has been thacwhich I have mentioned—namely, the
infrequency of opportunities for distinction afforded to the
private soldier. [A Voice—" Feed them letter. No raw
coffee."] There are, no doubt many respects in which we
shall find that the military organisation requires reform. All
I can say' is that I believe there is not the slightest desire
among any party in Parliament to throw obstacles in the way
of such reform. I believe that all reforms that can be proposed
will meet with a fair and impartial consideration ; and I my-
self shall be heartily glad if they can, be found practicable.
But, after all, it is not the military system, it is not the
organisation of the army which is responsible for most of
the errors which have_ been committed. It was not the
fault of 'the military system, that after we had twelve
months' notice of a war impending, the English army was
sent out from this country destitute of the means of moving.
(Hear, hear.) It. was not the fault of the military system
that when that army had been sent out it was despatched
to the most pestilential quafter that could be found on the'
shores of the Black Sea, and there detained in inaction
many months. It was not the fault of the military
system that that army, scantily provided with materials for
a siege, and decimated by disease, was sent to undertake the
siege of Sebastopol, Government not having apparently taken
the trouble to inquire what was • the strength of the place or
whether it had a garrison of 20,000 or 100,000 men, and that
that army was sent out at a season when the operations of a
protracted siege had become impossible. (Hear, hear.) Again,
SI •treie ..s ii‘o fault either of the military or of the naval orga-
nisation. that our largest and heaviest lino-of-battle ships were
sent to the Baltic to attack forts within reach of whose guns
they could not possibly come. All these errors are distinctly
chargeable upon individuals—upon the late Cabinet--upon
those who had the conduct of the war in the late Cabinet.
They are indisputably the faults of Ministers, and not the
faults of any system. (Hear.) Ido not say that by way of
adding to the humiliation or to the punishment of those who
have been sufficiently punished already ; but I do say it, be-
'cause I think those who are anxious to defend those Ministers
are endeavouring unduly and unfairly to exculpate them by
throwing the blame upon a system of government at home
which is not at fault, and upon a military system which,
though undoubtedly defectiye, owes its defects principally to
the prevalence of a long period of peace. (Hear, hear.) And
now, gentlemen, I think you will be glad to hear that I have
pretty nearly gone through all the subjects which I undertook
to discuss with you. As to the future, of course it is idle
either to speculate or to suggest. The conduct of a war, the
conduct of military operations, must always be very much in
the hands of the Government. One point, and one only I
would mention—l mean the question of finance. Ido not
blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for having tried as
long as he possibly could to avoid ant permanent increase in
the debt of the country. It was a fault on the side of pru-
dence, it was a fault on the unpopular side; and on both of
these accounts it is deserving of forbearance and of respect.
But I say that whether that policy were wise or no at
the commencement of the war (I mean the policy of pay-
ing for the war out of the taxes of the year), it has now
become, and will shortly become even more, simply and abso-
lutely impracticable. (Hear.) At the same time it is not fair
that a temote posterity should be charged with the expenses
of our wars. The only remedy, the only resource which I see
is to raise that portion of the funds required which cannot
be defrayed out of the taxes of the year, by means of what
are called terminable annuities—that is to say, spreading the
period of payment over a certain limited term of years—
neither, on the one hand, raising it entirely from the taxes of
the year ; nor, on the other hand, leaving it as a permanent
addition to the national debt. By that means the expense of
this war will be borne, as it ought to be borne, by the gene-
ration which makes the war ; ' the debt will not be perma-
nently increased, and, at the same time, the taxes need not be
increased to any excess. I think, on the whole, that is the
fairest, that is the safest, and that will be ultimately the most
popular policy. There is one subject on which I have said,
and on which I shall say nothing, I mean that which relates
to the personal part of politics, the position of parties and the
change of governments. Those are subjects with which I
never very willingly deal, and at this moment they sink into
infinite insignificance. For myself, I can only say lam ready
to support any ministry which will carry out a vigorous and
a prudent policy to a successful issue. (Cheers.) I believe
that is the general feeling of Parliament; I am certain that it
is the universal feeling of the nation. God forbid that it
should be said of us in this ago and country— above all, God
forbid that it should be said of the Parliament of the country,
that in the heat and excitement of faction, patriotism has
grown cold. (Applause.) My sincere hope is, that ministers
may deserve that support which Parliament desires to give
them. Lord Palmerston has takes office in a time of great
difficulty. Ho has been a great popular statesman ; and,
though his years aro not few, and though his goverwnont is
mainly that which the House of Commons has lately censured,
I still hope that, he will,prove himself strong enough to secure
unanimity for his Cabinet and vigour for his councils. But,
in any case, and under whatever ministry, we shall continue
to rely with a sure hope upon the unimpaired resources and
the unaltered spirit of England—a spirit somewhat too care-
kge and boastful in time of prosperity, but a spirit persever-
ing in .difficulty and indoxaitable by disaster. (antlers.) For
myself, I desire nothing—l aim at nothing—l shall labour
fo'r nothing, except to see the national honour maintained
untarnished, the blood and treasure of Englishmen no longer
recklessly squandered as they have been, war effectively and
prudently carried on, and peace early restored. (Loud and
continued applause.)
Mr. AaMEs said he was sure he should speak the sentiments
of' the mayor, the sentiments of the present assemblage, the
sentiments of the town, and, he would say, the sentiments of
their common country, when he said that they could not
allow Lord Stanley to leave the meeting without thanking
him most heartily for having come down at the present crisis
to address them upon the national affairs. He (Mr. Armes)
could not believe, and ho was sure his lordship would not
believe, that every atom of his expression had been equally
agreeable to so large and mixed a community ; but there
could scarcely be anything, he (Mr. Armes) conceived, more
grand in itself, nul more comprehensible in its idea, than
that all of them should agree to recognise the pure-patriot-
ism of the sentiments which his lordship had announced.
(Hear, hear.) He thought that the town of Lynn might well
be proud of its representatives. (Loud applause.) He had
great pleasure in proposing the thanks of the meeting and of
the town to his lordship for "coining down to address them
upon the present occasion. (Applause.)
Mr. BAGGE proposed a vote of thanks to the Mayor for his
kindness in presiding on this interesting occasion.
Lord STANLEY seconded the motion. _

After which " three cheers for Lord Stanley" were called
for, and the call was responded to by round upon round of
the most enthusiastic hurrahs.

Tho meeting then separated.

PAPER MONEY IN RUSSIA.

(Front the Derbyshire:Courier.)

The Czar, it appears, is availing himself of the advan-
tages to be obtained by the use of paper money. A
recent ukase makes this proclamation :
" Wherefore we have thought fit, for enabling the Trea-
sury to moot all its present engagements without imposing
now taxes, or increasing those already in existence, and in
approval of the Finance Minister's proposal accepted by
the Council of State, to grant permission to the Treasury
to cover the ensuing extraordinary expenses by the tempo-
rary emission of national promissory notes."
These notes are, it is said, to be paid off three years
after the proclamation of peace. One-sixth of the amount
issued is to be made over, in the meanwhile, to the ex-
change land in silver roubles. The amount now issued
ii not large, viz., twelve millions of roubles, or less than
2,000,000/. sterling. There can be little doubt that the
Czar is acting wisely by abstaining from the imposi-
tion of new taxes. Russia has comparatively little
commerce, and the amount of circulating medium
which she requires is not great ; this small amount
of paper money issued by the Czar will, nevertheless,
not be without its beneficial efsct. It will tend to en-
courage commercial enterprise and to assist trakle just
at the time when the War renders such assistance
valuahle. If the Czar manages his paper money judi-
ciously, it will retain its value promote the prosperity
of the cation, and be a powerful auxiliary in enabling
him to cart' on the war with England and Franco.
Representative paper money is new A tried sad ascer-
taisesi system. It was tried in England from 1797 to
1317. The result is clearly pointed out by Air. James
Taylor in his recent " Essay on Political Economy,"
which abounds with wise and useful suggestions on the
stbject of money :

" It is a fact worthy of special ',tics, that when means
were in this way (viz., by the suspension of cash payments
by the Bank) provided for superseding any absolute ne-
cessity for gold, the Bank lad no difficulty in procuring as
muck of that scarce metal as the necessities of the Govern-
ment required. By this salutary use if paper money under
the Restriction Act of 1797, our national industry was
sustained through the unexampled difficulties of our
valour,
and with Napoleon ; and, aided by the loyalty, alu
and industry of a prosperous and united people, the
to
Government was enabled to bring that fearful contest a
the
stores most honourable to the British nation,
stores and productive powers of the nation being greater
at the end of the war than at the beginning, although a
very large portion of our male population had been em-
ployed for more than 20, years in thew
of or kof
_destroying
rather than of producing the necessaries life.7,
In the first French Revolution we witnessed the wild,
ignorant, and mischievous abuse of paper money. In the
Revolution of 1845 we behold the sober, judicious, and
salutary use of paper money. Wherever power exists
there is danger. In the material world the most power-
ful agent we are at present acquainted with, steam, is,
if not properly controlled, a demon of destruction. Un-
der proper management how beneficial and valuable is
the service it renders to man. Such is necessarily the
case with paper money. Peel saw half the currency
question. His cultivated, shallow, common-place un-
derstanding, took in tho evil which lay exposed on the
surface of the subject ; he had not scope and depth of
intellect to penetrate below and extract the good.
The French, fortunately for themselves, have not had
a Peel inflicted on them. Their financiers have arrived
at tho moans of using paper money with security and
advantage. Accordingly we find that, by the returns of
the Bauk of France, for 1854, just published, that they
have increased their discounts by forty millions sterling
during the past year, while their stock of bullion is
larger by more than two and a half millions at the pre-
sent time than it was in January, 1854. It is a most
encouraging feature in the French return that the opera-
tions of the French banks in the provinces have increased
in amount, and are greater in the aggregate than those
of the main establishment in Paris.
In the meanwhile the stock of bullion in our bank is
less by about two millions than it was a year since, and
the active circulation is also diminished by about the
same amount. Money is scarce, the rate of discoun
hie), and trade depreomod. "I could point out towns,