The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-30 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON.
The following is a more extended report of the
speech of Lord ohn Russell than we were enabled
to give in our -impression of yesterday :
Lora. St 'RUSSELL said—Let me, in the first place,
'express to you my most cordial thanks for the
honour you have done me in again returning me as
one of your representatives in Parliament, and I
will take this opportunity of speaking—l hope at
no very great length—on topics that are at this
time of very great interest, both as concerns home
and foreign politics. First let me mention,
though very briefly, the late Reform Bill of the
Government. lam not going into any description
or examination of that bill ; I have done that before.
I have this further reason for not examining the
details of that measure—it has been condemned
both by the late House of Commons and the coun-
try, by Conservatives as well as Liberals, as a mea-
sure totally unfit for the exigencies of the country.
(Cheers.) It was obvious that that bill was faulty
an this respect, that it altered what was good and
seful and left unaltered what was mischievous and
defective. (Cheers.) Such a bill, therefore, could
not meet the approbation of the House of Commons,
and for my own part I am readyto incur any of the
blame that has been lavished on me for having as-
sisted in throwing out that bill. believing, as I did,
that if it had passed it would have restrained the
liberties of the country, and given rise to many
abuses, so that Gattons and Old Sarums would have
sprung up anew throughout the country. Well,
upon that rejection of the bill—and it was much
the same whether it was rejected on a resolution or
on the second reading—the Ministry thought fit to
advise her Majesty to dissolve Parliament. Was it
on the Ministerial Reform Bill ? Not at all. When
I had the honour, in the name of Earl Grey and his
Government, to propose the first Reform Bill, and
when it met with obstacles in the House of Com-
mons, Earl Grey advised the King to dissolve Par-
liament, but he did it boldly and manfully on the
merits of the bill. He said, " Here is a Reform Bill,
does the country accept it or no ?" and the country
by immense majorities, declared it was willing to
accept that measure. las Lord Derby taken any
such. course ? (Cries of no.) You very rightly say
"no," because the candidates who are favourable to
the Ministry, and even the Ministers themselves put
the bill of the Government in their pockets, or put
it behind the fire, before they venture to present
themselves to the electors of the United Kingdom.
Then for what purpose is the dissolution ? For the
purpose of allowing Lord Derby to say, " The
country is against reform, or it is only for such a
reform as I may think proper to give, and it has
entire confidence in the present Ministry to deal as
they will with this great question." Now, I think
the country cannot give that answer. I think the
country desires a good measure of reform,—a tem-
perate measure, if you will,—a safe measure if you
will—but still a sound and effective measure.
(Cheers.) Gentlemen, I will not examine the bill
of the Government, neither will I give you the de-
tails of such a measure as I shall be ready to pro-
pose. Many reformers have expressed their views
on this subject, and although they differ in some
respects, yet, upon the whole, there is a very gene-
ral agreement,—such an agreement that on consul-
tation and on comparison of their different views
they might soon concur as to what would be a good
and effective measure. Passing from this subject, I
will say a few words upon a question which excited
a good deal of attention not long ago, but which
has been superseded in the public mind by other
subjects of more pressing importance. I allude to
the question of charch-rates. (Cheers.) I have
not been asked for any opinion or pledge with re-
spect to the question of church-rates ; but I think
that question has come to this point—that either
the present law must be maintained or church-
rates must be altogether abolished. (Cheers.)
Being of opinion that the maintenance of the pre-
sent law is not for the benefit of the country,—see-
ing that it produces much heartburning,—that,
according to the testimony of many clergymen of
the Established Church, it is an obstacle to the use-
fulness of that church—(cheers)—and that in the
view of Dissenters it is objectionable to them on
grounds of conscience—l think that, providing the
means for such voluntary collections as may be re-
quired, church-rates ought to be altogether abo-
lished. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, I have this morning
been asked another question,—one that does not
relate to our home affairs, but which affects a great
portion of our empire—with regard to the instruc-
tion to be given in schools in India. Now, I should
say that in schools which the Government assists,
there ought to be equal religious instruction for
those who desire it, either in the ancient faith of
the country, or in the Bible if they are mildling to
accept it, or else there ought to be secular schools
in which no religious instruction should be given.
The question is one of great difficulty and delicacy.
But although I have given you my opinion on the
subject—an opinion upon which I shall be prepared
to act—l believe it is a question that may be safely
left with the Governor-General of India or the Sec-
retary of State for India, Lord Stanley, who is
anxious to do in this matter whatever is most for
the benefit of India, preserving the great principle
of religious liberty and respect for the convictions
of the people. (Hear, hear.) I now arrive at that
which is the question of most urgent interest at the
present moment—l mean the state of foreign affairs.
(Cheers.) In touching that subject I must first
allude to a speech which was made a few days ago
by the First Lord of the Treasury, the Earl of
Derby, at the Mansion-house. In that speech he
alluded to a speech of mine, and whether I have
misconceived the purport of a former address of his,
or -whether he has not expressed himself so clearly
as is his wont, is not a matter that is worth dis-
puting. But I was happy to see that the opinion
expressed by Lord Derby at the Mansion-house is
one in which I can entirely and unfeignedly concur.
It will, I am sure, be a great advantage, upon what-
ever other points we may differ—whatever differ-
ences may arise with respect to the internal Go-
vernment of this country, and the principles upon
which it should be conducted—it will be a great ad-
vantage, whatever Ministry may bc in power, that all
the chief parties, and the chief leaders in Parliament,
should agree in the same opinion with regard to
foreign affairs. (Cheers.) I have hardly ventured to
give so positive and peremptory an opinion as has been
attributed to me by one of the gentlemen who has
proposed a candidate—that all the Powers of Europe
are in the wrong—(a laugh)—but this I do think,
that neither Sardinia nor Austria has been entirely
in the right with respect to their late disputes, and
that the matter of those disputes might have been
settled by amicable conference among the Powers of
Europe, instead of being brought to the dreadful
arbitrament of arms. I think those Powers should
have considered what a blessing it has been that,
with the exception of the war between France,
England, and Sardinia on the one part, and Russia
on the other, there has been no war in Europe since.
1815 ; and how great is the responsibility of those
who are willing to ruin her fairest prospects, to de-
stroy her most fertile fields, and to rush into war
with each other on a dispute that might have been
settled without any such resort. In the next place,
I think Austria has been for many years exerting
an undue and injurious influence in Italy by insist-
ing that, whenever any sovereign asked for Aus-
trian assistance to support his misgovernment, that
assistance in the-shape of-.armies should always be
given. In the sight of the Government of Austria
there are, apparently, not 25,000,000 people, but
about five persons in Italy who are entitled to be
considered ; and any one of these five—be he the
King of Naples, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, or
whom he may—immediately on his application,
• should have the assistance of Austria in order to put
down a free constitution and re-establish the abuses
of despotism. The consequence has been a deep irri-
tation against—or, I may say, a violent hatred of—
Austria throughout Italy. But what have been the
demands of Sardinia ? The demands of Sardinia—
according to the despatches of her Minister—have
been not only that other states should be left with-
out Austrianinterference, but that there should be
• a change in the Government of Lombardy. Now,
Lombardy belonging to Austria by treaty, and her
possession of that province being undisturbed by
internal tumult, I say no other Power has a right
to dictate to Austria what shall be her mode of Go-
vernment in Lombardy. Advice may be given, advice
may be useful, but no Power has a right to interfere
by arms in order to change the mode of internal
administration. Such being the state of the case,
such being the opposite pretensions, I think the
only course for her Majesty's Government to pursue
was to attempt by a friendly intervention to prevent
these differences from resulting in war. An attempt
has been made to exert that influence, whether
wisely or not it is impossible for me to say. No
correspondence has been produced which will enable
Parliament and the country to form a judgment on
the subject. I have no doubt, however, that it was
well-meant advice, and I am exceedingly sorry that
it has failed of effect. Now, this being so,
think
we ought not to be carried away by too great
ap-
prehensions as to what may be the consequences of
this conflict. As is asserted by the King of Sardinia
it is a conflict for a change in the government of
Italy, for the independence of Italy. As is affirmed
by the Government of Austria, it is a conflict for
the maintenance of treaties and of her t
just posses-
sions. In that contest, I think, we ought to be
entirely neutral. (Loud cheers.) cannot conceive
that there would be any advantage in our interfer-
ing in favour of one party or the•other.
(--cnewed
cheers.) My opinion has always been, and I ex-
pressed it on the first night of the late session of
Parliament—not, as has been suggested on the part,
I believe, of four Powers of Europe, that the States