The Press. — London, England, 1853-06-25 00:00:00

JUNE 25, 1853. light, or the existence of heat ; to ignore a fact so notorious in the sight of the fleets that are periodically arriving laden with the pre cious cargo ; and in face of the fact of its accu mulation in the vaults of the Bank of England to the height of twenty-tiro millions sterling— a hoard unexampled in the commercial annals of England. In connection with gold, our contemporary notices the typographical error by which our printer has put down 3/.78. 94., instead of 31. 17s. 94., the figure at which we made our caleula tion of the price of an ounce of gold. The writer says it should have been 31. 17s. 100. ; but this is a mistake ; for, if he will only turn to another page of his own paper last week (Economist, p. 686), he will find foreign gold in bars quoted as we have stated it—at 31. 17s. 9d. But 31. 17s. 1041 is the price per ounce, not of bullion, but of gold coin issued from the Vint. The same writer, not less unaccountably, whilst admitting the existing scarcity of silver, still denies that the value of the metal has in creased since its proportion has been inverted by the arrivals of gold from Australia. He says, " Apply the test of price, and there is no " evidence of any deficiency of silver," the price of silver for some years having ranged from 4s. 11d. to ss. an ounce, and remained so to this time. " During the whole of the present "year the price of silver has ranged from four " shillings and elevenpenee to five shillings." Again we need resort no farther than the pages of the Economist for the correction of this error. The price of " silver in bars," as quoted by the Economist in this identical publication of last week (p. 886), is five shillings and a penny, during the year it has been sold as high as ss. 11d., and this very week sales have been effected at ss. lid. But there is conclusive proof of the growing scarcity of silver in the following table, showing the rise in price in each year since the prodigious influx of gold in 1849-50. It was— S. d. I. d. In 1944 1849 IMO IM'l 1832 - .. 4 111— 5 lf Abundant evidence of its increasing value will be found, not only in the exports of silver to India, which have risen within the last few years from 50,000 ounces in 1849 to 12,000,000 ounces in 1852, but like wise in the fact that the exchange value in London of the East India Company's rupee, which for seven years before the recent influx of gold had never exceeded ls. 111 d., has never been under two shillings since, except for one single month; and it rose as high as 2s. lid. within the last year. The East India Company itself evidently anticipates a continuation of this increasing price of silver, else why did it issue in January last its official notification that in 1875 (twenty-two years hence), it would reserve to itself the option to pay off its four per cent. transfer loan at two shillings and a penny, or, in other words, at four per cent. above par? Is not this a precaution to guard against the risk which it already foresees of a still higher rise In the exchange ? This is the real question, and that which vitally affects the trade of this country with our Indian possessions—the abiding and in creasing adverse rate of exchange which has ruled since 1849, raising the price of every commodity with which India supplies the United Kingdom, in consequence of the importer being com pelled by the East India Company to pay for his goods in a scarce metal when an abundant one is at hand. And this brings us to the last and most important point on which the Economist takes exception to our statement. We have said that, whilst the imports of India amount to 17,000,0001 per annum, her exports are but 10,000,000/., and the balance of seren millions must be paid for in silver rupees. The force of the writer's comment is directed to show that the above are the sums total of the ex ports and imports of India to all the world, whereas to Great Britain in 1849-50 her ex ports were but 7,028,4701., and her imports 7,578,989/., leaving a balance of 552,510/. in favour of the United Kingdom, instead of 7,000,0001. against her. THE PRESS. On this we have to observe, in the first ' place. that, if the Economist implies that the habitual state of the trade with India showed a balance in our favour of halt' a million ster- ' hng, it will be difficult to reconcile s uch a chronic state of things with the fact, which is notorious, that England has been annually forwarding to India from two to three millions in specie. But our original statement exhi bits correctly the results of trade as between India anti the rest of the world, showing a balance in her favour to the large amount particularised. And the pressure if this ba lance .falls almost exelusi rely on this eon nt ry. inasmuch as the vast bulk of it is remitted through London, and is provided for either by bills upon India or direct shipments of silver. For example : the amount of silver exported to India in 11452 was upwards of 3,200,0001.,and the bills drawn on the presidencies, for which cash was given in England, between May, DO% and May, 1853, was 3,319,005/.; and, taking the balance of trade in 1852 t for which the ac counts are not yet published) to be only equal to that of 11419-50, it follows that 0.519,000/. have been sent out from England in liquidation of the balance of 7,000,000/.—the difference being represented by the outstanding tramate tions of the commercial year. What we have said will be sufficient to show that our facts are not "erroneous;' nor our reasoning " fallacious," as was supposed by our centemporary. We have a conviction, strengthened by every advance of inquiry, that the views we have taken are sound, and the proposal of Mr. DISRAELI one so advanta geous to British trade that its ultimate adop tion is inevitable. It is so obviously in harmony with those principles of untrammelled inter course which now prevail in our policy that we can only ascribe the strictures of the writer in the Economist to the unconscious impulse of party operating to the prejudice of a mea sure which has everything to recommend it, except the accident of having been propounded by a political opponent. RUSSIAN AGGRESSION COMPARED WITH ITS "LIBERAL" PRECEDENTS. THE pretension of the Czar to enforce a protecting or mediating authority between the Sultan and his Christian subjects is justly resented by the rest of Europe ; and we cannot imagine that the strange document bearing the signature of Count Nesselrode, which appeared in all our newspapers during the last week, can have any effect in allaying the ferment. True it repudiates any immediate intention of annex ing European Turkey to the Russian dominions, but it contains the barefaced avowal that the doing so de pended only on the will of the Empemr ; and, if he refrains, he is restrained only by his own moderation and generosity. " You are sufficiently aware," says the Russian Minister in the manifesto to which we have alluded, I " of the policy of' the Emperor, and know that his Majesty does not aim at the ruin and desiruction of the Ottoman empire, which he himself on two occa sions has saved from dissolution." After recapitu lating the injuries and insults inflicted by Turkey upon Russia, and the patience with which they hap been endured, the document proceeds to observe : " Our august master would have been justified — wounded as he was in his dignity, in his friendly confidence, in his form of worship, and in the reli gious sentiments which he shares with his subjects— in demanding ample satisfaction. His Majesty would have done so if, as he has been assured, he had only sought for pretexts to upset the Ottoman empire." The cause that produces this storm of indignation is more frivolous than any which a great European power has ever yet assigned for aggression, and con tains in it the complete justification of the tillltail„ " The evident partiality" of the Sultan "for the Latins" produced only "a serious yet friendly letter" which the Emperor " found himself under the obligation of addressing ;" but this admonition not producing the desired effect, and " France having received cony eli sions in favour of the Roman Catholics in Jerusalem," and, moreover, " the Turkish commissary having had the audacity to prevent the Russian consul in the holy city from publishing a firman," rendered some manifestation of Russian indignation imperiously necessary. But another outrage was soon to be per petrated, and we arc glad to know what is the " most flagrant" act of injustice of which the Russians com plain. " The most flagrant violation of it (the rights of the Russo-Greek Church) has been the delivery to the Latin patriarch of the key of the principal church at Bethlehem." We heard without autonkikment of the attempt of 171 the French Cabinet to extend their influence in Syria on any terms, and to gain a footing under any pretence ; it might facilitate those wild schemes of Eastern aggratutisement which that nation has never ceased to entertain ; anti in the meantime it might gratify the vanity of the " parti-pretre" in Frame, which affect: a bigotry of which the Jansenista Goa Jesuits in the beginning of the last century won% have been ashamed. but we should have expected that. Russia would have brought forward a more se rious cause of offence. We think that "the public opinion of the enlightened 10th century" was entitleo to more respect than that. two of the great !towels of Europe should avow their subject of quarrel tr. be no other than a squabble between the priests of rival superstitions for a monopoly of juggling in the Syrian temples ! Surely such a cause is most inade quate to involve all Europe in a bloody war, with all war's usual aceompaniments of plagues, pestilenee. and famine ! We hail expected better reasoning and hotter sense front the Russian Emperor, and we had hoped he would not. have forfeited so lightly the high re putation that his forbearance, circumspection, and moderation had universally gained. During these last five years what extravagant pre tensions have been raised, and what insolent de mands have been advanced—what unjust aggression has been perpetrated amidst the applause of " the enlightened and liberal " of Europe, occasionally only rebuked by a feeble protest from the farsighted of the West, who know how such doctrines must lead to the oppression of the weak and the tyranny of the strong ! To this torrent of folly and injustice we are hound to admit that the example of litigant afforded a bright and brilliant contrast; but can we ever forget our own expedition to the Grecian Archipelago to demand payment for Don Pacitiee's cracked china, or demands for indemnity, urged with such prepotency by both Englund and France in behalf of the supposed losses sustained by natives of the two countries during the insurrections in Naples and Sicily? Where shall we find an excuse for compelling the King of Naples to grant an armistice in the moment of his victory, to delay his reoccupation of his own domi nions, and to prolong the expenses, the risk, and the bloodshed of civil war? No "affinity " between co religionists can here be pleaded, nor any " sym pathy " with suffering nationalities. And may not the Emperor of Russia demand of France why he has not as good a claim to occupy the Danubian prineipalitiem, united as they are to his dominions by so many and such complicated interests, as a French army has to garrison the principal cities in the Roman States ? If we are not mistaken, religion was pressed into the service to mask the aggressive act of the French Republic, just as it figures in Count Neaselrode's manifesto side by side with the "dig nity " of his imperial master. Has Russia less of a right to plead for this aggression than the King of Prussia ter his invasion of Denmark in 114• IS, or that of the King of Sardinia or Austria in the same fatal year? The Emperor Nicolas, we believe, remon strated on both these occasi nn ; he protested against our Italian policy, and perhaps put a stop to the aggressive spirit in Germany ;—may he not now request to be informed by what article in the code of international war we imposed our mediation on Austria after the defeat of the Sardinian armies, and checked the victorious career of Marshal Radetzky when with one blow he might have ended the war? Theme acts were performed amidst the applause of the " Liberals" throughout Europe. May the Em peror of Russia not inquire why the cause of libe rality is to maintain a complete monopoly of injustice and violence? It was the unwarrantable and meddlesome inter ference of Lord Palmerston, in favour of the Hun • garian rebels in Turkey, that first blew up a quarrel between the Sultan and the Emperors of Austria and Russia; and we must, in candour, admit that the " sympathy " between the Emperor Nicolas and the Greek subjects of the Sultan may be as strong as that which united Lord Palmerston to the rebels of the Emperor Francis Joseph. If the wrongs committed by other European powers can justify the aggression of the Emperor of Russia, we think he stands acquitted—if " sympa thies and affinities," and oppressed nationalities, war rant an armed interference, we think him justified; for surely the feelings which connect him with the Greek subjects of the Porte must be much stronger than those which unite French and English with Italians, Sicilians, and Poles and Hungarians. Let us be understood. We do not defend the pre sent conduct of the Russian Emperor—quite the contrary. In comparing it with that of other Euro pean powers during the periods referred to, we mean to express our strong sense of its injustice, impoliey, immorality, and imprudence; but we wish to draw the attention of the public to the inevitable conse quence of any departure from the laws of honour and sound policy, and the certainty that our own weapons will be turned against ourselves, and used with greater skill and superior eucce'i; to out own permanent lob* and detriment. I