The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-17 00:00:00

that if I were a rayah—that is, a Christian subject of the
Porte--I should prefer a Russian or any other Government
rather than a Mahomecian one. (Hear, hear, and marks of
dissent.) Ido not say but that the hon. member for Pon-
tefract, who has travelled in Turkey and in Egypt, would
not find himself a great deal freer man in either of those
countries than in Russ'a. But it would be a very different
thing if he were to become a resident in the East, to mount
the badge in his cap, and to be placed in the position of a
rayah or Christian subject of the Porte. I admit it is a
matter of opinion, but it is an open question whether they
would not prefer the Russian to the Mahomedan rule.
All I wish to urge is this, that that is a question which
we must entertain. We are not taking the course which
will ensure Turkish independence of other powers, un-
less we carry the great bulk of the population in Tur-
key with us. It is obvious that we cannot consider
their wishes at present. The question ought to be more
discussed ; it presses upon us all, and it will press upon us
still more—it will hamper the Government in all their
negotiations, especially on the question of resisting force
bfforce. It may be possible for a time, if you will, to
undertake to say how the eastern part of Europe shall be
governed, but in the end we must go further, and from a
consideration of the wishes of the people themselves we
must undertake to say who shall permanently govern the
Turkish empire. That is a question on which I dare say
the hon. member for Aylesbury would be able greatly to
enlighten us, and to tell us what the tendencies of the
Wallachians—what the tendencies of the Servians—what
the tendencies of the Greeks may be; it is difficult for us
to know them all, but of this I am quite sure, that we
shall have our hands full if we undertake to deal with this
question as it ought to be dealt with. As to sending our
fleet to the Bay of Besika, and keeping the Russians out
of Constantinople—that you may do, no doubt. Russia
has always avoided a collision with a maritime power. She
has avoided it- with America—she has avoided it with.
England—because in such a collision all the illusion re-
specting her greatness would be dispelled at once. But in
the meantime you aro keeping up an enormous armament,
which does not tend to settle the question—you are induc-
ing the Turkish Government to prepare for war, which will
bring ruin and bankruptcy on her finances—you are there-
by placing Turkey in a more feeble and prostrate condition
than she was in before. I have no doubt the Government
will prevent a war, but the question will not he settled; it
will come up again ; and you must therefore address your-
selves, as men of sense and men of energy, to the question
—what are you to do with the Christian population ? for
Mahomedanism cannot be maintained, and, what is more,
I should be sorry to see this country fighting for the main-
tenance of Mahomedanism. I never could get up any zeal
on behalf of the Mahomedans ; they keep the plague—they
keep slavery—they have a bazaar for the sale of black and
white slaves. You may keep Turkey on the map of Europe;
you may call the country by the name of Turkey if you
like, but do not think you can keep up the Mahomedan
rule in that country. A great deal has been said about the
necessity of maintaining the independence of Turkey on
account of her commerce. Nov, as a Free-trader, I must
once for all enter my protest against fighting for a market
at all. I never would consent to fight for a low tariff. In
the first place, I deny that you could do so. You fought
for a tariff in Spain, and after spending 200 or 300 millions
of money in keeping Spain out of the hands of an enemy
who would have excluded your commerce, you accomplished
your object, and Spain and Portugal repaid your exertions,
by enacting the most restrictive ariffs in Europe. You
occupied Sicily during the whole of the last war ; and
when you left it, what sort of tariff was enacted for your
manufactures ? (Hear, hear.) In the next place, I have
too much faith in my principles to go to war for them. I
believe that freE-trade principles will spread and make
converts by means of peace. We are making converts
every day by the proofs we are affording of the salutary
and striking benefits of free trade. (Hear.) Therefore
do not talk of war as a means of removing restrictions, or
of opening markets. Besides, the noble lord is under a
great delusion as to the accounts of our commerce with
Turkey. The returns for which he moved, and on which
he relies, are the returns of exports to the Black Sea, which
are sent most of them to Austria, up the Danube. It is
not Turkish commerce. Constantinople is a mere depot
from whence our goods are sent to Tc ebizond and elsewhere
—there is very little consumption of our commerce in the
dominions of Turkey. Though I have no partiality for
Russia—on the contrary, lam not sorry to see the great
representative of the despotic principle humiliated and dis-
honoured by the mean plottings and contrivances which he
has carried on through the whole of these transactions; yet,
let us not delude ourselves with any idea of danger result-
ing to this country from Russian ascendancy. I maintain
that all the commerce we have on the Black Sea is owing
to Russian invasion. We never had any commerce in the
Black Sea until Russia took possession of the Crimea.
What is the fear, then, that Russia would exclude our
commerce if she were to retain the province ? We need
not fear but that Russia will be as glad to send us her corn
then as she is now. Take the case of Russia on the other
side of Europe—take our trade with Russia in the Baltic.
Our exports, indeed, are not large, because Russia has fol-
lowed the example we set her, and placed restrictions upon
our manufactures, as we 30 or 40 years ago placed restric-
tions on her produce. But still for the native produce we
do take from her we pay her in sugar and other articles. I
therefore discard the idea altogether that Russia will dis-
courage our trade. What, on the other hand, is the pros-
pect of our trade with Turkey? It is a country without a road.
You cannot go three miles out of Constantinople, or any
of the large towns, except on horseback. Constantinople
has no pavement—it has no lamps—it has no scavengers
except the dogs ; it has not a building of stone or brick.
It is known as an historical fact, in the flowery language
of Burke, that the Turks have been a curse and a blight
wherever they have come. Ido not defend Russia, but do
not let us suppose that they will refuse to trade with us.
Go to St. Petersburg—a city that may vie with London—
a city that has all the splendour and magnificence of Paris,
with a river twice the breadth of the Thames running
through it. Let any man go to St. Petersburg or to Mos-
cow, and then let him go to Constantinople, the one built
on the most favoured situation on the face of the earth,
the other in the midst of every disadvantage, and yet see
the contrast. Constantinople is, as an American traveller
has said, a city of boxes, with lids that are open all day
and shut at night. (Laughter.) Do not deceive yourselves
and pretend that we are the natural allies of such a coun-
try for the purpose of trade. I protest against the argu-
ment that it is for the interest of England, or that we are
bound to maintain Turkey in possession of those rich and
fertile territories. There may be other political reasons,
but I object to facts being brought forward which have no
foundation, in order to mislead the English people in re-
gard to their true interests. These points must be deve-
loped—they must be reasoned upon—they must be dwelt
on for the next few years. The present question may
be settled—l do not expect that it will lead to war
—I do not find any sensible people who ever did ex-
pect that. (Hear, and laughter.) A great deal has been
said about the power of Russia, and about the danger
to England if Russia were allowed to occupy the countries
of the Bosphorus. I never shared that opinion. I wrote
upon that question eighteen years ago, at a time when
people were much madder upon the question than they
aro now—when the predecessor of the hon. member for
Birmingham was crying out night after night for a war
with Russia. I had travelled in that country, and I ex-
pressedopinion—an opinion which all the recent
only tended to confirm—that it was absurd to
events h
amv
ey
talk of Russia invading England. Why, she cannot move
an army to her own frontiers, except by the aid of foreign
gold. I said so not long since in the City, that she could
not make any aggressive movement, except by the aid of
an English loan ; and nine months afterwards I attended
in the same room in the city, to denounce a loan of six
millions, which was about to be raised under the pretence
that it was for the Moscow railroad. I had seen it myself
nearly six months before, and it was then nearly finished ;
so that it was absurd to talk of the loan being intended
for that scheme. The country is poor and thinly popu-
lated—it is a mere series of villages ; how could it in-
jure England or France? It may possess Turkey, be-
cause Turkey is in a state of decay, and when a country
falls into decrepitude, its next neighbour will be sure to
take it if he can. I repudiate the notion of Russia in-
vading England. But what has been done, and by Eng-
land, towards such of the Mahomedan powers as we are
neighbours to in India? We have not been a whit less
unscrupulous in our diplomacy towards them than Russia
has been to Turkey, and especially in the way that, within
the last two years, we have dealt with Burmah. But
however Russia may deal with Turkey, I do not see what
right we have to interfere with a matter so far removed
from us. I believe that England would be ready to resist
an attack from whatever quarter it might come, and that
she would be ten times more powerful to resist than Russia
to attack. All the resources that we have in our vast ma-
nufactures—all the appliances that we possess in our pro-
digious steam-vessels, and in our mechanical skill, would
be turned in six months—ay, in six days—to the contriv-
ance of engines of destruction which would render us more
powerful than any other nation on the face of the earth.
All these are wanting in Russia ; they must come here for
their steam-boats, or for the artisans to make them, and
there is not a chance of their injuring us. But while I say
this, let me address a word to those members who repre-
sent the manufacturing districts—let me give them a word
of advice as to the position we should occupy if war were
to break out. The sufferings which that event would oc-
casion would be such as those who only remember the war
that commenced sixty years ago can have no conception
of. In the first place, we have a vast increase in material
,
wealth and that wealth has greatly increased our menu-

facturing population. Where we had one man dependent
upon the raw materials supplied by foreign countries in
1793, we have twenty-five men now. Where we had
30,000,000 or 40,000,000 of exports then, we have 80,000,000
or 90,000,000 now. Let me tell my friends the members
for the manufacturing towns, who talk so glibly of war,
that while I agree with them that in a war to defend
this kingdom England would bring all her resources to
bear, and would defend herself against all the world, yet
I say that if England were to go further, and to engage in
a continental war, you do not know what belligerents you
might have in six months after its declaration. (Hear.)
A war now would be attended with consequences of which
the present generation little think, or they would not talk
of it so glibly. In the first place, you would have the
Americans, whose country was a mere infant in 1793, and
to whom we could then say, " You shall come to no part
in Europe except by our permission," and we could seize
their ships and press their crews at our pleasure. Now, if
war were to break out, what would be the first thing we
should be called upon to do ? Why, we should be called

upon by the Americans to disavoW the right of search.
We could not refuse that, and that concession would place
America at once as our rival in the carrying trade of
Europe. And, remember, you have now repealed your
navigation laws. In 1793 you could send out large fleets
of merchant ships, under the convoy of ships 4of war, twice
a year. You had the monopoly of the seas • and it did not
matter to you when or how your ships sailed, because other
countries must wait upon you for their supplies. But
what would be the case now, if you were to go to war ?
If you were engaged in war with a maritime power, they
would issue letters of marque to fleets of steamers, who
could take refuge when they pleased in Stockholm or other

neutral ports. Your insurances for freights would rise
at Lloyd's in proportion to the risk of capture. How
would your manufacturers—how would your numerous
and wealthy colonies consent to bring over their freights
in English bottoms, when Hamburgers and Frenchmen
were not subject to the same risk ? Remember that
the repeal of the navigation laws has thrown you open to
the competition of the wholeworld in shipping, as in every-
thing else. I must beg my honourable fuend the member
for Newcastle—and Newcastle had often sent bellicose

members to this house—to remember that there is no port
which would suffer more severely, more in proportion to
the magnitude of its commerce, than Newcastle would do,
if we should go to war. But I beg pardon of the house
for having gone into these considerations. All I wish to
say is that I think the Government have done wisely in
disregarding the cry of thoughtless men ; they have done
wisely in not listening to the cry of the newspapers, some
of which profess the democratic principle, as if democracy
ever gained by war. The Government have done right,
not only for the interests of the country but even for the
interests of themselves ; for if they should plunge the
country into war, the shallow men who now cry for war
would in less than six weeks call for the disgrace and the
removal of the very Ministers who began the war, I have

nothing to say to the Ministers. Ido not blame them be-
cause they have taken up a position to defend the Turkish
empire. It is a traditionary policy they have followed,
and unless they had public opinion with them, no Govern-
ment could avoid doing so. All I say is, that I have no
doubt they will soon get rid of the difficulties respecting
the Wallachian provinces ; and I congratulate them on
having been as peaceable as the people would allow them
to be. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—I cannot allow the speech of the
hon. member who has just sat down to pass without one or
two observations, and I cannot accept the praise which, in
his conclusion, he has given to the conduct of the Govern-
ment on the grounds on which he has been pleased to place
it. Nothing is more painful than to see a man of great
ability labouring under an internal conviction which he
knows to be contrary to the opinions of his fellow-country-
men, and afraid—l do not wish to use a stronger term—
afraid openly to express it, but cloaking it under every
specious device which the ingenuity of his practised ora-
tory can afford. The hon. gentleman states that he agrees
with every one who has spoken before him. He agrees with
everybody at the beginning of his speech, and he ends by
differing from them all on every point. (Hear, hear.) The
hon. member began by assuming it as a very proper maxim
that we ought to maintain the independence of Turkey,
and to prevent Russia frOin taking possession of her pro-
vinces; but, in the course of his speech, ho used every ar-
gument his ingenuity could urge to show that Turkey was
not worth defending. . (Cheers.) If the hon. gentleman
had stood forward as the avowed advocate of the aggressive
and ambitious policy of Russia—if he had stood forward as
the defender of that policy which he pretends to denounce
and condemn—l do not think, in the present state of feel-
ing of the house and the country, he could have dared to
pursue 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—he did not tell us, as he once told
the country, that Russia could be crumpled up like a sheet
of brown paper—but he told us that Russia was weak, that
she was incapable of resisting any serious effort of this
country ; and in the next moment he tells us that war with
Russia would he fraught with infallible ruin to England.
How does he reconcile these two statements? At one time
he tells us that Russia is a barbarous power, scattered in her
territories and weak in her internal administration ; then
he launches out in praise of St. Petersburg, and because St.
Petersburg is a finer city than Constantinople, therefore
Russia must possess both. (Laughter and cheers.) The
hon. gentleman is a Free-trader ; in that capacity he made
the tour of Europe, and being received with that courtesy
and civility which his personal qualities so well entitled
him to, he fancied that he had persuaded all the powers in
Europe to abandon their former systems in favour of free
trade. The hon. 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, sir, 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 liberties and
independence of nations, and for the balance of power,
which the hon. gentleman sneers at, because he does not
seem to understand it—(laughter)—but which all well-in-
formed persons feel to be essential to the liberty and well-
being' of mankind. The hon. gentleman, with all his free-
trade partialities—and no man has been more assiduous or
more earnest in the enforcement of that principle than he
has been—l should be the last to withhold from him any
tribute of admiration for his great services in this respect—
but he entirely forgot those principles when he drew a com-
parison between the commercial systems of Russia and
Turkey. Does he not know—and if he does know, why
does ha attempt to withdraw the attention of the public
from the fact—that the commercial system of Russia is
strictly prohibitory, and that the commercial system 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 no commerce in the
Black Sea till Russia got possession of the Crimea. Sir, I
never heard 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 that are essential to our manufactures, and her
mineral and natural resources are every year becoming more
valuable. Ah, but, says the honourable member, you are
under a deception—you look to the returns which are on
the table of the house, and which are made out as if all
the exporti went to Turkey, whereas the fact is they all
go through Turkey. Now I ask the honourable gentle-
man, who thinks that these exports go through Turkey,
whether they would be allowed to go through Russia ?
(Cheers.) Whether Turkey consumes them herself, or whe-
ther she acts as the channel through which they pass, still
it is equally to the advantage of our commerce, and it be-
comes, therefore, of great importance to England that
Turkey should remain an independent state. The hon.
gentleman is a great advocate of the principle of non-inter-
ference ; and he has frequently said, Do not you inter-
meddle in the affairs of other nations ; especially 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 Government and to
the future consideration of Parliament ? Why it is—what
are we to do with the Turkish empire ? how are we to dis-
pose of the destinies of the Mahomedans, the Greeks, and
the other races that inhabit it ? He taunts us by telling
us, " You are patching up a rickety building ; you yield
to the ignoble and vulgar prejudices which have been
handed down to you by tradition ; but the fabric cannot
last—it will fall to pieces—the Sultan must be expelled
from Europe—the Sultan, the army, and the two or three
millions of Turks who are now encamped in it ; it is high
time that England were considering how she will dispose
of those territories, when relieved from the blighting pre-
sence of the Moslem." Strange doctrine this, from a per-
son who maintains the necessity of leaving foreign coun-
tries to decide on their own form of government. (Cheers.)
But I do not admit that the Turkish empire is in that state
of decay which he represents it to be in, or that the
maintenance of the independence of Turkey is an object
which cannot be successfully attained. The' honourable
gentleman wholly mispresents the state of Turkey during
the last 30 years. I assert, without fear of contradiction
from any man who knows the subject, that Turkey, far
from going backward during the last 30 years, has made
greater improvement than most other countries during
the same time. Compare Turkey now with what she
Was in the reign of Sultan Mahmoud—take either her
system of government or the prosperity of her inhabit-
ants—take her army—take her navy—take her admi-
nistration of j ustice—take the prosperity of her agriculture
—take her improvements in such manufactures as she has
—take her commercial system—take her religious tolera-
tion—l say, that in all these respects Turkey has made
immense progress during the period which I have men-
tioned. So far from going along with the hon. gentleman
in that sort of political slang —(cheers)—in which it is the
fashion of certain parties to denounce Turkey—so far from
talking of her as a dead body, or as one about to expire,
and which cannot be kept alive, I am convinced that if we
can only keep out those who wish to get in—(loud cheers)
—if we leave those who are in to deal with her affairs ac-
cording to the way they are now dealing with them—l
venture to say that, so far as the seeds of internal dissolu-
tion are concerned, there is not a country with which
Turkey will not bear a favourable comparison, and that
she is likely to go on and to improve, if we can only keep
the hands of other people off her. Turkey, it must be re-
membered, has no Poland and no Circassia to distract her.
(Cheers.) lam bound to say that, if ever I heard a speech
which was likely to discourage the Government in the
course of policy which 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. lam happy to say it is the
only speech of the kind we have heard to-night, and I only
trust it will not mislead persons beyond the limits of this
country as it might mislead them. (Cheers.) I hope the
language we have heard will not excite abroad a feeling
which would tend to mar the efforts of the Government to
settle this question satisfactorily. I trust, rather, that the
sentiments and feelings which the general tone of the
discussion of this evening has shown will prove to the
whole world what are the sentiments of the British Parlia-
ment, and what is the fixed determination of the British
nation—(cheers)—and that though there mo,'y be persons
who wish to see Russia extended to Turkey, yet that is
not the wish of the British nation, and that the Govern-
ment and the Parliament are determined to maintain the
independence of a country which we think it is important
should be maintained in its independence both political
and commercial. (Cheers.) We do not mean to go with
the hon. gentleman into a rearrangement of the Turkish
empire; we do not attempt to dictate to barbarians, or
Slaves, or Greeks, or Mussulnians, who shall be the go-
vernors, or what shall be their form of government. It has
been the policy of her Majesty's Government to give such
advice to the Turkish Government, with a view to the in-
ternal improvement of that country, as, while it may on
the one hand add to the strength of the Turkish empire,
may, on the other hand contribute to the happiness and
prosperity of the people under the rule of the Sultan.
(Hear.) lam glad to say that those endeavours have been
attended with most beneficial consequences, and that
wherever our consular arrangements have been extended in
the Turkish empire we have seen tranquillity increased,
justice better administered, oppression cease, and those
benefits conferred which it must be the anxious object of
the English Government to promote in every country where
its advice may be considered worthy of attention. (Hear.)
I am convinced that if that_ system be pursued, and if
England, united with France, shall say that Turkey shall
not be molested by any other power, their dictum will be
enforced. I am satisfied that Turkey has within itself
the elements of life and prosperity, and I believe that the
course adopted by her Majesty's Government is a sound
policy, deserving the approbation of the country, and
which it will be the duty of every British Government to
pursue. (Cheers.)
Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR thought it would be seen from
this debate that the spirit of the British people was not
dormant, but that they were prepared to support those
Ministers who took an active part in repressing wanton
aggression. He regretted that the moral influence of this
country had been very much weakened by our conduct in
the East, for he thought we had taken exactly the con-
trary course to that adopted by the Romans ; we had at-
tacked the weak on the simplest grounds ; for instance,
we had annexed Burmah because a petty officer was kept
waiting for half an hour in the sun ; While, on the other
hand, we forbore from any interference with powerful na-
tions which had committed the most wanton aggressions.
As he understood, in the memorandum which had been
addressed to Russia by her Majesty's Government, there
was no reference to the great aggression of that power—
her entrance into the principalities. He was glad that
the Ministry contained a nobleman of proper English
spirit, who, he was certain, would not consent to remain
a member f any Administration unless a policy were fol-
lowed which was conducive to the honour of this country.
The motion that the house at its rising do adjourn until
Friday was then agreed to.
HACKNEY-CARRIAGES DUTIES BILL.
This bill was brought in by Mr. WILSON, in accordance
with a statement made by him in a preceding part of the
sitting, went through the several preliminary stages, and
was read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Mr. E. EGERTON, copies were ordered
of any memorials addressed from time to time to successive
Postmasters-General by the inhabitants of the towns of
Stoke-upon-Trent, Macclesfield, and Congleton, on the sub-
ject of the postal arrangements
of those districts, with the
dates of such memorials ; and of any replies to the memo-
rials, and of any instructions issued to the Post-office autho-
rities in relation to the further postal accommodation of
those districts.
Mr, SOTHERON moved an address to the Crown Or a