The Press. — London, England, 1853-08-20 00:00:00

AUGUST 20, 1853. Mr. COBDEN agreed with previous speakers on both sides. He coincided in the opinion that the Russian aggression was unprincipled and auda cious; and in the conclusion that a pacific course was preferable to a more peremptory one, even if it did not secure the desired result until a month later. From this point, however, he proceeded to examine the subject in a new light—that, namely, derived from a consideration of the condition of Turkey itself. We talked much, he said, about "preserving the independence of Turkey," but the very phrase was now merely an empty sound. No country could be called independent where the population were slaves, or where the majority am not approve the state of the Government. In Turkey in Europe three fourths of the inhabitants were Christians, and every Christian in his heart preferred the Russian or any other rule to that of the Mahout. medan. This was a principle which vitiated all our arrangements at present ; superseding or rendering ridiculous the complicated schemes of diplomatists ; and remained still unsettled, as a deep and growing cause of disturbance, beneath all our attempts to close the pending difficulties at the surface. Ministers might prevent a war at the momenkbut the question what is to be done with the Christian population of Turkey? would still await solution. Mr. Cobden then treated the subject in its commercial bearings, and, after denying the expe diency of " fighting for a market," recapitulated a variety of facts and inferences to prove that Russia would be a good customer to this country, and that every extension of Russian power, if at the cost of the Mahommedans, was a positive gain to the class of English producers. He then contrasted the state of St. Petersburg with that of Constantinople, and protested against the argument that we had any natural reason for alliance with such a country as Turkey. Ridiculing the idea of terror from Russian invasion, he declared that Russia could not move an army across her frontier without an English loan. Russia had not shown herself more unscrupulous in regard to Turkey than we had been in regard to Burmah ; and we had no reason to affect fear of her menaces. He also urged the tremendous increase in our own resources of defence. But, he added, we had given hostages to fortune, and if we did plunge into war it would be attended with consequences the present generation little dreamt of, or they would not talk so glibly. Drawing a picture of the commercial disasters certain to ensue from war, he said that Go vernment had done wisely not to listen to the voice of thoughtless and shallow men. Lord PALsts:awrox addressed himself to the task of demolishing the speech of Mr. Cobden—exhibiting its inconsistencies, and denouncing the sordid and yet improvident conclusion on which he had built up his advocacy of peace at any price for the sake of our commercial profits:— " The honourable member began by assuming it as a very proper maxim that we ought to maintain the independence of Tnrkey, and to prevent Russia from taking possession of her provinces ; but, in the °nurse of his speech, he toted every argument his ingenuity could urge to show that Turkey was not worth defending. (Cheers.) If he had stood forward as the avowed advocate of the aggres sive and ambitions policy of Russia, I do not think he could have pursued a course more extenuating, and more calculated to assist that policy, than he has done. (Hear, hear.) I never heard a speech so full of self-contradictions. At one moment Russia was weak and incapable of resisting any serious effort of this country ; and in the next moment he tells us that war with Russia would be fraught with infallible ruin to Englaud. At one time he tells us that Russia is a barbarous power, scattered in her territories and weak in her internal ad ministration ; then he launches out in praise of St. Peters burg, and, because. St. Petersburg is a liner city than Con stantinople, therefore Russia must poasgss both. ( laughter and eheers.) The hon. gentleman is a Free Trader ;in that capacity he made the tour of Europe, and, being received with courtesy and civility, fancied that he had persuaded all the powers of Europe to abandon their former systems in favour of free trade. The honourable gentleman says that the efforts of this country in favour of unrestricted tariffs have signally failed. I should like to know what was the result of his European tour. But we never made wars for tariffs : our wars were waged for the liberties of Europe, and not for the tariffs of commerce ; we waged War for the independence of nations, and for the balance of power, Which the honourable gentleman sneers at, because he does not seem to understand great laughter sad cheer• sag )---but which all well-informed persons feel to be essen tial to the liberty and wellbeing of mankind. (Londe/teem) The honourable gentleman, with all his free-trade partiali ties, entirely forgot those principles when he drew a earn kpurism between the commercial systema of Russia and Tur ey. Does lie not know that the commercial system of Russia is strictly prohibitory, and that the commercial ays• tern of Turkey is as liberal as that of any country with which we have commercial relations? He says that it is immaterial, in a commercial point of view, whether the Turkish empire belongs to Russia or not, for we had not commerce in the Black Sea till Russia got possession of the Crimea. I never beard an argument that was less relevant. It is not true that the commerce of Turkey is immaterial to this country. It is very material. Turkey has many natural products which are essential to our manu factures, and her mineral and natural resources are every year becoming more valuable. The honourable THE PRESS. gentleman is a great advitcate of the principles of uon-interference ; and has frequently said, 'Do not you interinethlle in the atfaira of other nations; eve dally do not dictate to them what form of government they are to adopt.' But what is the matter that he has now especially committed to the deliberation of the Govern ment ma to the futon. consiolentt ion of Parliament ? Why, it is—what are we to do with the Turkish empire ? How are we to dispose of the destinies of the Mahommedans, the Greeks, and the other nu't's that inhabit it ? Strange, this, from a person who maintains the necessity of leaving foreign countries to decide on their own form of govern ment. (('heers.) But Ido not admit that the Turkish empire is in that state of decay which he represents it to he in, or that the maintenance of the independence of Tur key is On object which cannot be successfully attained. 'flte honourable geutleman wholly misrepresents the state of Turkey during the last thirty years. 1 assert, with t fear of contradiction front any man who knows the subject. that Turkey. far front going backward during tin' last thirty years, has made greater improvement than most ether countries during the same time. Compare Turkey now with what she was in the reign of Sultan Malnnoutl—take either her system of govennuent or the prosperity of her inhabitants—take her army—take her navy—take her ad ministration of justice—take the pnosperity of her apical ture—take her improvements in smelt manufaetures as she has—take her commercial system—take her religions to leration—l say, that in all these respects Turkey has iamb , immense progress during the period which I have mentioned. So fur from going along with the 1 . os.n. Rennin in that wort of political slang—(eheepol—in which it is the fashion of certain parties to del ttttt nee Turkey— so far from talking of her as a Los. Jow.y 1 1 1 . or as one aboilt, to 'spire, and which cannot be kept *the, I tun convinced that if we rim only keep out those who wish to get o'hrers I—if we leave those who are ill to deal with her affairs aceording to the way they are now dealing with them—l venture to say that, tae far as the seeds of internal dissolution are cowls-tied, there is not a country with which Turkey will not beer a favourable comparison, and that she is likely to go till and to improve if we 1%11 only keep the hands Id ' 1101 The our her. am bound to say that, if ever l heard a speech which was likely to discourage the Government in the course of policy w'hi'le they have been pursuing—if ever i heard a speech which was likely to damp the zeal of the country in support of the Government, it is the speech of the honourable gentleman. l am happy to any it is the only speech of the kind we have heard twilight, and I only trust it will not mislead persons beyond the 1' 'ts of this country as it might mislead them. (('heers.) I hope the languar we have heard will nut excite abroad a feeling which would tend to mar the efforts of the Government to settle this question satisfaetorily. I trust, rather, that the sentiments and feelings which the general bow of the diststasion of this evening has shown will prove to the whole world what are the nentintente of the British Parliament, and what is the fixed determination of the British nation—(ehrers)-- and that tl gh there may bo pellicle; who wish to Sel• Russia extended to Turkey, yet that is not the wish of the Bridal, nation. mid that the tiovernment and the Par liament are. determinist to maintain the independence of a country which we think it is important should be main tained in its independence, both political and commercial. ((`Guinn.) Wt. tit) not intend to rearrange the country. We do not go &matt &Tiering to the Bulgarian's, to the Ureeks,to the Selavonbms, and to the Mussulmans, who are to be their governors, and what their form of government shall be. It has been the policy of England to give such advice to the Turkish I iovernment as we thought would strengthen the 'lower of Turkey, and contribute to the happiness of the people who live tinder the rule of the Sultan; and I am happy to say that our advice has been attended to, and, as the result, there the people are tranquil—there justice is administered—there oppression has ceasted—them is a state of things which has resulted in the happiness of the people. lam eonvinced that if that aystetu is pursued— it England, united with France, shall say that Turkey must not belong to 'Russia or to any other power—if no tereign power shall be allowed to invade her, I ant eon , Villeed t.hut Turkey has within her all the elements of lift' and prosperity ; that the policy which the I hl' ' gentleman denounces and ridicules is a sound imolicy, and the policy which it is the duty of every Government to pursue. (Load ehrcrn .)" A few words from Mr. Daxsv SEvstomt closed the discussion, and the house was adjourned over to yesterday (Friday) evening. RET.IGIOUS PERSECUTION IN MALTA. Mr. KINNAIRD, on Monday, called attention to the new criminal code lately promulgated in the island of Malta, and of which he had only that morning succeeded in obtaining a copy from the Colonial office. This code, he declared, embodied clauses under which all Protestant dwellers in the island would be subject to intolerable and disgraceful per secutions. There were seven separate articles re lating to offences connected with religion, the punish • meats awarded by which reminded him far more of the intolerant enactments of despotic Governments than of the enlightened legislation of a free country, whose boast it was to have taken the lead in the promotion of civil and religious liberty. By the code of 8 7 penalties of hard labour and impri sonment were awarded to whosoever should disturb the sacred functions or worship of the Roman Catho lic or the Anglican religion in the celebration thereof. These enactments were evidently not intended to in terfere with the full right of discussion ; and it was expressly stated that no English Oovernment would grant protection to the Roman Catholic religion from argument. In that there was the principle of equa thy; but on turning to the amended code he found the roman Church was designated, for the first time, the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, while the An glican Church war entirely omitted by name, and only included under the general term "disseneion," so that it was positively proposed that the religiop of the Sovereign of this country was only henceforth to be regarded iu Malta as dissension. Then he came to the penalties which applied to insults to the Ro man Catholic worship, and to thefts in the private houses of the priests. He found that the term "blasphemy " was applied to persons who spoke against the Virgin Mary or the saints. Then, from four to sic weeks' imprisonment was awarded to those who stole the Eucharist, to which might be added eolltarz confinement for a period of sixty days. A more iniquitous and monstrous law was never pro posed ; and seeing that they had hundreds of sol diers stud sailors in that island, any one of whom might in a moment of inadvertence take some breed and wine from a priest's house, ho thought they ought to pause before they allowed such a punish ment to be indicted as was inflicted by this code. It he were in Malta and a Boman Catholic prooesition were to go by. he candidly confessed he should not take off his hat, nor should he kneel ; but under this law he should be liable to imprisonment though he was a British subject. This was contrary to the whole spirit of British law, and unprecedented in Malta itself ; and he could not believe that the noble , lord who led this house, and who wrote that ad mirable despateli to the Duke of Tuscany, would sanction such a law as this. The hon. member con cluded by moving a resolution setting forth that the proposed code infringed tins constitutional rights and liberties of the subject, and an address to the Crown praying her Majesty to withhold her sanction from it until the subject had received the mature Lion of Parliament. Mr. 'l'. 51 Pt: ns, who seconded the motion, sr.; gued that the Roman Catholic laity, as well as the Protestants, were tyrannised over by the eode as it stood. Mr. F. PEET. objected to the motion, as tending to revive religious animosities ; and to the speech which introduced it, because it contained many insecumeim. The present code was iu reality milder than the laws which it superseded. The chapter appropriated to offences against religion had been passed with much diflienlty through a local assembly, consisting of a majority of Roman Catholics, because of its mildness and impartiality : " lu codifying the Law of Malta, every attempt had Ibern made to assimilate it as far as possible with the mild spirit which had of bite years pervaded the laws of England. Originally the Church of Rome was styled the ' dominant Church ; but the Oovemnient Objected to that on the ground that they would not admit the domitintion d the Church of Rome within these realms; and the Legialativa t :outwit had therefore with great difficulty been induced to alter the plinow of ' the Church of the country,' which was nor torionsly Roman t ic. tinder tills sle religion's Attic. t' and ceremonies were equally pro defied. There was in. &idiot...chapter that might seem to co /II traillet thiN assertion) —namely, that against the profanaton of o objects of wo rship lint the contradiction watt only an apparent one, for it was 010 ious that Protestants could lime no such objects. lin would admit that the code was serene. He should have been glad. for instant*, if the provision against blaspheming this saints bad been omitted; but the h u e, gentleman had very much exaggendtml the severity of the proposed laws. it was it mistake, for example, to minims. that a .114/ its could bepow i s h r d tier is. it taking of his hat minks a procession WILA IMSNillg. Nothing WA/4 punishable except acts of commission ; nor mould a penalty be its flirted for acts committed without any if/With/II t 4/ insult ssr pestane. ttn the whole he could not agree to the motions, Des anse it would render it necessary to postpone the cation of this go& till next laeaNlegr ; and the cotliticut ion of the laws of Malta was a pressing and long-fiat neeessityll Mr. I. Burr preferred the alternative of postponing the code, and denounced the attempt now mule ty entrap the Crown of England into an acknowletig • ment and guarantee of the Boman Catholic religion. Mr. I'ELLATT also disapproved of the ()ode, whose enactments, he said, carried us back to the middle. ages, and created a benefit of clergy in favour of the ministers of a particular body of religionists. Mr. NE.WpKoATE painted out that if the code were adopted subjects of the English Crown would be liable for penalties if they declined to recognise the very doctrines and conclusions which all who took the oaths of abjuration were called upon solemnly to repudiate. Mr. Hung discovered that when England took possession of Malta there were pmmii.a% made to the inhabitants which would be violated if the present motion was carried. Hy the contract we had made with the Maltese we had hound ourselves to give them all their rights as a Roman Catholic country. He disapproved of much that was in the code, but it VIM the choice of the islanders themselves, and we must respect it. Mr..l. 11. FITZOEIIALD believed that the code estab lished nothing more than a fair equality, peeing that it was framed for a community essentially Homan Catholic, and the freedom of whose religion had been guaranteed by the British Government.