The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-, OCPOBER 15,

THE PEACE CONFERENCE.

had come to the conclusion that all our line-of-battle ships
must have screw propellers in them, so that the paddle-
wheel which we formerly considered the best contrivance
for marine warfare has been at once superseded by the
screw propeller ; in order to apply it we must have new
line-of-battle ships. And now, after a few short years,
our former line-of-battle ships lie great unwieldy lifeless
hulks on the ocean, unless our Government has power to
purchase and construct new engines. But now have you
got to the end of it ? I see by the papers great laudation
of these new screw vessels. For instance, there is the Duke
of Wellington battle-ship. I have read the reports of gen-
tlemen's speeches at one very bellicose meeting at Shef-
field, and more particularly the speech of my bellicose
friend the hon. member for Sheffield, who talked of the
naval armaments, and said that the Duke of Wellington
was tie greatest and the best peace society. And I have
seen statements made that the Duke of Wellington is the
most enormous war vessel in our whole fleet, and as such
the best security for perpetual peace—(cheers)—that the
Duke of Wellington and the Agamemnon with their great
screw propellors are the greatest guarantees we could have
of permanent peace. (Hear, hear, from Sir C. Napier.)
My gallant friend here says, " hear hear," but I have not
done yet. (Cheers.) Now the Duke of Wellington is a
ship about 350 feet in length, and I believe measures
about 50 feet odds from the deck to the bottom of the
hold. It is an enormous structure. Well, but had they
stood still with their screw vessels of 2,000 or 3,000 tons
it would not have been so bad. I see there is a vessel
coming from America which is from 6,000 to 7,000
tons burthen. But that is not all. In the great fire
recently in the yard of Mr. Scott Russell there was
destroyed the model of a vessel, the whole par-
ticulars of which I had from himself two months before ;
the money was subscribed, the dimensions were all
settled ; and that vessel, what do you think were its di-
mensions? 12,000 tons, with an engine 2,000 horses power
to drive the paddle-wheels and the screw-propeller, for it
happened that an ingenious mechanic had taken another
look at the fish. He had seen that besides the tail it had
fines—(a laugh)—and he says we must have a vessel that
is not only a paddle but a screw also, and here is the plan
for the vessel :—she was to be 12,000 tons, upwards of 500
feet in length, with paddle wheels at the side, and a screw
propeller at the stern, and having three engines with a
united horse-power of 2,000. Now, I have seen it stated,
most triumphantly in our papers, and copied into the
French journals, that this Duke of Wellington, a little more
than quarter the size of the vessel of which I have spoken,
which, as I have told you, was laid down and will be con-
structed,—well, this Duke of Wellington had such power
with its screw in consequence of its bulk, it could run
down into halves a frigate by the mere propulsion of its en-
gine and without feeling any shock in the collision. Well, if
this steamer is carried out and built of materials equal to
her tonnage, why that vessel with its screw and paddle-
wheels, with an enormous weight and size and length,
may run down the Duke of Wellington just as she was
able to run down the frigate. (Loud cheers.) Well, then,
what suppose the French Government, or any other Go-
vernment, chooses to come and buy from Mr. Scott Rus-
sell, or order a vessel of these dimensions, and our gallant
visitor tells us then that the Duke of Wellington is the
best guarantee for universal and perpetual peace ? (Great
cheering.) Will the 3,500 tons be a match for the 12,000 ?
No. And do you suppose that human intellect and inge-
unity will stop there. I have heard it surmised that thy
won't stop at 12,000 tons ; that the principal of extension
and progress found most prevalent in our manufactories
and other great works will be applied to ships, and there
is no earthly reason to hinder them constructing vessels of
20,000 tons on the principles applied to the construction
of the great Menai tubular bridge, so that we may soon see
great ferry boats carrying the population of a whole town
across the Atlantic and leaving them in Milford Haven, or
landing their passengers on the first bold headland of the
American coast, to find their destinations by railway as
best they may. Well, now, what—referring to this prin-
ciple of maintaining a perpetual peace by these large
standing armaments- I argue is this, that there is no pre-
sent limit to the expenses you will be put to if you go on
in that way ; that they are always aiming at something
larger in structure, and every new project of this kind,
every new invention is open to both nations, and they will
always be rivalling each other in the adoption of these
means of defence. Will the gallant visitor address him-
self to that principle ? (Cheers.) Let him mind we deal
with principles. Though he may tell us of our number
of guns, I ask him to deal with the principle I have
laid down, which will be attended with such an aug-
mentation of our taxes, and in time of peace, when we
have professions of friendship with other nations, and yet
are most constantly rivalling each other in savage demon-
strations of perpetual hostility. (Cheers.) Well, now, we
lay down the principle of non-intervention—(cheers)—not
to interfere with the domestic affairs of any country.
There we enlist every part of every other country in our
favour. If we had only the principle of non-intervention
adopted, the people of other countries would be left to
manage their own affairs. We say we must have a reform
of the colonial system. I think the most practical motion
that can be brought in next year to parliament would be
a motion pledging the House of Commons to diminish our
military expenses in the colonies. They don't contribute
one shilling to the expenses of this government. We have
no exclusive trade with them. They may buy where they
please ; we have given them all the waste land ; we have
no control of that land now. They are freeer than we are,
and the economical condition of the population of our co-
lonies is very favourable compared with that of the great
mass of the people of this country, who can only earn 2s.
or ls. 6d. a day, while the people in the colonies can ob-
tain 4s. or ss. a day as wages. Is there anything like sense,
or reason, or justice, in burdening this country with the
enormous expenditure which we incur in keeping up regi-
ments in our colonies when we have no good object to
servo by them, and when we have given up everything to
them which our ancestors thought worth while to contend
for by force of arms ? (Hear, hear.) Well, now we have
proposed in another resolutionthat it is desirable we should
encourage by every possible means the intercourse of na-
tions, and that by national communication with each
other they are more likely to remain at peace—(cheers)—
that in the assimilation of coinage which is agitating the
minds of scientific men both here and on the continent,
and the adoption, if possible, of a more uniform system of
mercantile law, we will be assisted in our commercial in-
tercourse, which will lead to the principles cultivated by
the friends of peace. Who, then, will say that it is not
desirable that these resolutions should be practically car-
ried out? Well, then, these are general principles. There
is the ocean penny postage, too. I consider it peculiarly
fitted to increase the means of intercommunication, and I
am glad that, my friend the Lord Provost has mentioned
that subject to me because it gives me the opportunity of
expressing to this meeting—and I am sure I only express
the feelings of this meeting when I say how deeply in-
debted we feel to Mr. Elihu Burritt for the exertions he
has made in the cause (Loud cheers.) He may be as-
sured that he has made that ocean penny postage a practi-
cal question in this country. It was spoken off at the con-
clusion of the last session in terms of respect and approba-
tion from all sides of the house—(cheers)—and in the next
session of Parliament we shall have a committee on it, and
I feel no more doubt that this ocean penny postage will be
carried into law than I have a doubt of the existence
of that admirable scheme for which we are indebted
to Mr. Rowland Hill. (Cheers.) But now, as I don't in -
tend to keep a great meeting like this so uncomfortably
situated, knowing too, that there are other friends to nit-
dress you, while I have gone into our general principles, I
don't forget that we are at this moment expected to ad-
dress ourselves in some degree to tho special circumstances
now before this country, and I need not for a moment
shrink from the question in the presence of our gallant
visitor, who has come specially here to controvert our
views on that particular question of the day—l allude of
course to the dispute existing between the Emperor of
Russia and the government of Turkey. (Cheers.) [The
hon. gentleman hero recapitulated what he had observed
on the previous day as to the condition of the Christian
population of European Turkey.] He then continued—l
don't feel very much concerned about this attack upon
Turkey, unless I can see some other way of accomplishing
the amelioration of the Christians of Turkey than that
proposed by the Emperor of Russia. Now, I think this is
the very time to speak of these things, because we are con-
templating to go to war, and I believe 99 out of every 1000.
of the people in the country do not know what
evedifferer from
going
to war about. (Cheers and hisses.) totallye
expressed
when he attended the meeting
our gallant visitor here in the sentiments
said there, towards the conclusionatthe Londonefhis speech,
peeTcahv,earfncer Hhee
had been advocating our intervention by force of arms to
"I hope. the Turkish
government will. . the promises it made
coerce Russia in tbehisiiimdauteteecistehaefiriselafiild,
towards the Christians which not fulfilled." And he
" I could say a good deal more about
thwoaut,ndbuutp it might saying,
tappear to be prejudicing you against
Turkey." But now we are for the truth, the whoie truth
and nothing but the truth. Our gallant visitor knows the
breach of promises on the part of the Turkish government.
He knows that the promises made upon former occasions
have been nothing more than waste paper. He knows that
the pashas and cadis are no more reached by an edict than
the subjects of the empire of China would be reached by a
British act of parliament. Oh, but he says, " I won't say
anything about that now. Let us go and give Russia a
good thrashing, because Russia wants to set this matter
right which ought to have been set right, which was pro-
mised to be set right, but don't say anything about it just
now." But this is the very time to speak about it. It forms a
material part of the question, and I warn the people of
this country before they go to war, to inquire into all
these particulars, though our gallant visitor does not
like to tell them just now. Now is the time of all
others. I will now say a few words upon the interest
England has in the matter. I say we don't come into
the Court of National Judicature with clean hands.
And for us to call public meetings and pass such resolu-
tions as were passed at Leicester and elsewhere, with our
hands reeking with the blood of the Burmese at this mo-
ment—to talk of our being so indignant that we cannot
remain in abeyance while Russia is doing something not
quite so illogical as Lord Dalhousie and Commodore Lam-
bert are doing, something second only in enormity to what
was practiced in the Court of Ava,—to pretend that we
can call God's vengeance upon the nations of the world for
that is presumption and hypocrisy. And, therefore,
whilst admitting the acts to be the acts of wrong and high-
handed injustice, as between the governments of Russia
and Turkey, whilst reprobating the conduct as illogical,
base, mean, and as what may be described in one of the
shortest epithets of the English language, but which I will
express by , while we reprobate and despise it, I
don't think we are the parties called upon to exercise
physical force—to exercise vengeance upon the authors of
these wrongs. I come now to the only question with us,
is it our interest to go to war with Russia in consequence
of the encroachments and acts of injustice which Russia is
performing towards Turkey? What are the arguments,
upon which we are to go to war for our own interest ? I
don't set up the argument of interest. The argument of
interest is set up by our opponents, and IL is urged that if
Russia is allowed to conquer Turkey, our possessions will
be in danger from his aggressive movements. What does
that amount to? It amounts to this, that because I assume
that Russia is going to beat Turkey, and add to his terri-
tory, and acquire enormous power by means of taking that
territory, that then he is coming to attack you. They
assume all that to be true and they will ask you to go to
war in order to avoid what is to happen. But I don't ad-
mit all these dogmatical premises. In the first place, I
don't admit that the accession of territory necessarily
leads to the increase of the power of a state. I have
visited Turkey and Russia sufficiently to enable me to un-
derstand what I read about these countries ; and fromr
what I know of Russia, I believe she would_bemoe
course,
powerful from this moment if she adopted a pacific
deepened her rivers, widened their channels,lltincreased the
fertility of her soil, and attended genera
develop-
mentpoweromf
ohreerbyinttehrnatalthnraesources . She wouldy increase in
by
pursuing a warliko course.
o t e
The more you extend your surface,
the more you weaken
the centre. If Russia, insteadslsc capitals,nttwoopsa third,
Moscow
I
and St. Petersburgh, takes Censuinle a
g to increase her power, in
anopposite effect. I know
this is
universal tbweleinevtye that
yearsinitstewadoniodf tending
haveuiten
ar opinion, because there is a
nive
inthe mind of man to acquire more
unodtesir thee popular
territory. The farmer, who has got 500 acres of laud,
and has not 'sufficient capital to work it well, will

MR. COBDEN AND SIR C. NAPIER.

A public meeting was held in the Music-hall in the eTen-
ing, in connection with the sittings of the Peace Confer-
ence. The large hall was crowded to excess, and the plat-
form was occupied by the leading members of the Confer-
ence, and Sir Charles Napier was seated immediately on
the left of the Lord Provost, who presided.
The CHAIRMAN explained the course which it was pro-
posed should be adopted, which was to the effect that the
resolutions which had been unanimously passed at the
Peace Conference would be commented upon by the speak-
ers, and that at the end the resolutions would be put to
the meeting to say whether they approve or did not ap-
prove, and that if any ono had anything to state against
these resolutions he would be heard.
Mr. RICHARDS (the Secretary) then read the resolution
which bad been passed at the Conference.

Mr. ELIRU BURRITT, who on rising was greeted with

loud cheers, moved the series of resolutions which has al-
ready appeared in our columns, in an eloquent address,
which was repeatedly applauded throughout its delivery,
and pointed out some of the most glaring anomalies in-
volved "in that strange modern system of policy called an
armed peace."
The Rev. Mr. BURNET, of London, supported the rest.
lutions .

Mr. COBDEN, M.P., said, though a good deal has been
said respecting the character and purposes of this meeting,
I will mention an incident connected with it which will
bring home peculiarly to your own minds the extraordinary
metamorphosis that has taken place in public opinion in
this country of into. When in the month of January last
we held a similar Peace Conference in Manchester, we
were, as you know, in the midst of a paroxysm in our ap-
prehension of a French invasion. At that moment the
Conference entered into a subscription at Manchester with
the view of endeavouring to raise 10,0001., of which, I be-
lieve, nearly one-half was paid down on the spot for the
purpose of instantly setting on foot an agitation through-
out the country, to colinteract that spirit of apprehension
and hostility which was manifested towards France.
(Cheers.) And that was, I believe, my own suggestion—
at all events it arose in a conversation of three or four of
us at the Conference in Manchester, whore we proposed to
raise such a fund, when we found the extraordinary
circumstances in which the country was placed, and
the manifest danger of a collision between this country
and France. I thought that it was better that in-
stead of having only one Conference we should have two
or three throughout the country. The city of Edinburgh
was suggested as one place, and Leeds as another, and we

separated from that Conference with the impression that
before the coming Christmas we should have held a con-
ference at Edinburgh and at Leeds for the purpose of coun-
teracting the feeling of hostility and alarm entertained
towards France. (Hear, hear.) Well, now, under what
different circumstances are we here met, with our fleet
acting together with the French fleet, and the prospect of
English and French armies acting under a French general ;
and we find the complete change which you now witness.
But I am very glad that under this justifiable misappre-
hension we have assembled here on this occasion. I have
been delighted during those two days to witness in the
assembled friends of te peace movement, who have met
from all parts of the kingdom, such an evidence of growing
strength on the part of the principles we are here to advo-
cate—(cheers)—and such proves to me that we are gather-
ing round this cause precisely that strength and character
and weight in this country which we found towards the
close of another great agitation which ended in the
triumph of the cause of free trade. (Cheers.) For I see
here the self-same faces with which I fought that battle in
many a hard day. (Hear.) We have the same men. The
cause of peace is the legacy left by free trade, and the men
who won the first will win the second cause. (Cheers.)
And now having finished the labours of the conference and
come before the citizens of Edinburgh with the resolutions
which have been come to by this meeting of delegates, if
anybody asks us, " What are your principles?" we say
don't pick out a stray remark by this orator or the other
orator ; don't cavil at any little discrepancies that you
may find in the speeches of the same individual. We may
look to these resolutions as they are unanimously passed ;
they embody the principles and the objects of this confer-
ence. (Hear, and cheers.) We advocate arbitration in
lieu of fighting among all the nations in the world. (Cries
of " No, no," from a person in the body of the hall, fol-
lowed by cries of " Put him out," and " Chair.") Don't
endeavour to put anybody out ; leave him here and we
will make a sensible man of him before we are done.
(Loud cheers and laughter.) We advocate the cause of
arbitration in lieu of fighting, in the agreement of disputes,
and surely anybody above the rank of savages would say
that's a desirable end to accomplish. (Cheers.) There
may be many who will doubt its practicability. But it is
with those people that we wish to argue this question.
We say, I submit your disputes to arbitration, and if you
cannot settle your disputes in that way, if you should
afterwards resort to the sword, still you will be as worse
off as you are by resorting to the sword without arbitra-
tion. You may tell me that there is no court of appeal
to command and enforce the fulfilment of the decree of
the arbitrator. It is perfectly true. But, on the other
hand, if our policy be carried out, I believe countries like
France and England will enter into a solemn treaty
that any question which may arise, which cannot be
settled by mutual discussion and negotiation, should
be referred to an arbitrator mutually chosen • this
arbitrator shall have the power finally to decide the
question at issue—that being understood, that being in
fact the solemn treaty binding the two countries ; and if
by any chance there should be a quarrel arise, and either
of these countries refuse to submit the question of dispute
to the decision of the arbitrator, then I say if it comes in
the end to war, that country enters the conflict branded
with infamy in the eyes of the civilised world—(cheers)—
inasmuch as she has violated the solemn treaty she had
entered into before, and she is the disturber of the civil-
lised world ; and she would bring the civilised world down
upon her. (Loud cheers.) Well, now, we say we advocate
a mutual reduction of armaments. We don't say disband
your army, sink your fleet, and place yourself prostrate be-
fore any enemy that may come to attack you. But what
we say is, that if France and England have each ten ships
of the line on commission watching each other from oppo-
site parts of the coast, then it is plain their relative strength
towards each other would be precisely the same if they
would each reduce their number from ten to five. (Loud
and continued cheers.) It is a simple question of arith-
metic ; and some day or other when a future generation,
wiser than we, look back on our labours, and the difficulty
we had in convincing the statesmen of our day that three
had the same reference to three that six has to six, will
they not be astonished at the stolidity of this genera-
tion, and if they had any of their grievances to redress or
reforms to effect, surely I think they may take courage
in the midst of difficulty when they find how much diffi-
culty we had to accomplish so trivial an object as that.
(Cheers.) Now, I am glad on this account that we have a
gallant gentleman with us—if he will allow me I will call
him my gallant friend— for we have walked pretty gene-
rally, though not always, into the same lobby in the House
of Commons together. We have a gallant officer here who,
if you are to have a fight instead of arbitration, will do
your business as well as anybody you can get. (Loud
cheers.) This gallant admiral has come from London--
warm from the City of London Tavern—(loud cheers)—
bringing with him a spirit impatient for more decisive
proceedings on this troubled Eastern question. (Cheer-
ing.) gallant gentleman has declared his dispproval
of course which we have taken. And I have no doubt
that he has come here to-night to state the grounds upon
which that disapprobation is founded. (Cheers-) I should
only be anticipating the duty which your right hon. chair-
man can perform as well as any man in England in offering
him, in your name, the most courteous reception and the
most patient attention—(cheers)—in all that he may have
to address to this meeting. And now, whilst explaining
to the public, it is a manifest reflection that we are at the
same time explaining to a gallant and worthy opponent
like him what are our real principles and objects.
Admiral Sir C. NAPIER— How do you know I am your
opponent?
Mr. COBDEN—My gallant friend says, "How do you
know that lam your opponent ?" I have no doubt that
before we are done with him we will make an ally of soy
gallant friend. (Loud cheers.) That will be our business
s
to-night. He is worth converting, I assure you. (Laughter
and cheers.) Now, lot him first of all understand
what he has heard people say, or what he may have read
in some of the public prints, in the Reform Club in Lon-
don, about the objects of this Peace Conference, are pure
fictions. (Hear, hear.) Now, we will tell him what we
really want. We say we don't think this mode of conti-
nually increasing our ships of war, and mutually menacing
each other, conduces to the preservation of peace between
nations, and particularly between France and England. In
the first place we say that it is a very expensive mode, and
if our policy, the policy which we recommend, can be
adopted, there will be at once a great saving to the tax-
payers of this country, so that those who pay the taxes, if
not those who receive them, will be very much obliged to
us. Now, I say it is not only an expensive mode, but it
seems to me to bo an expense without a limit, because
every improvement that's made in the science of ship-
building—every discovery that can be made by the chem-
ist in the art of propelling missiles against each other by
ships of war or by armies—every step we make in the path
of science is constantly made the argument for increasing
the expensiveness of our warlike establishments ; because
every fresh discovery you make and apply to the art of
war, the country on the other side of the Channel must
instantly follow your example, and so the two countries
go on rivalling each other in these inventions for warlike
purposes, and in the improvements in that lovely art of
human destruction. (Cheers.) Why this increase of ex-
penditure—this rivalry in the game of " beggar my neigh-
bour" must constantly go on so long as human reason is
progressive in its nature and purpose. I will give you an
illustration which any man will understand in a moment.
Formerly we were content with sailing vessels for the pur-
poses of war. Then came the discovery of Fulton—the
application of the steam-engine to the propulsion of ships,
and gradually but very slowly steam-ships came to be
adopted by the owners of mercantile shipping. But it was
long after it became a common thing to• apply the steam-
engine to the propulsion of ships before Government
thought of establishing a steam war marine. But gradu-
ally England and then France adopted the system of build-
ing steam-vessels of war. First of all paddle ships were
built. We made great blunders in the construe -ion of our
paddleships, butafterourmanifold blunders, and enormous
expenditure and hideous waste ofmoney,as ourgallant visitor
here knows right well, we thought a perfect system of
paddle steam-vessels had been established, Very well, I
heard the Secretary for the Navy myself congratulate the
country that all that expenditure was at an end, that this
great outlay of capital for steam-vessels was concluded, and
that now all he had to do was done, beyond what was re-
quired to maintain this establishment in an effective con-
dition. Well, but shortly afterwards an ingenious man,
looking at a fish as it glided through the water, bethought
him that he could place the movement of the fish's tail to
the stern of the ship, and then came the invention of the
screw propeller. Well, after the screw propellor had
been found to convey ships across the Atlantic, and, in
fact, round the world, then came the discussion with the
Admiralty whether it should be applied to the purposes of
war. At first, as is always the case, there was a great re-
sistance on the part of the naval authorities, th official
men, to the new invention. I heard naval men say, in a
committee of the House of Commons on which I sat, that
if a shot went through the fan of the screw the ship would
become unmanageable ; but, as is always the case in these
matters, private enterprise took the invention up, set at
nought and laughed to scorn and confusion the dogmas of
official men. (Cheers.) The screw went into mercantile
suips, and when it was found available there, now they