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

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for marine warfare has been at once superseded by the,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 ':.,ew
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 constructi 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 Vie 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 propellers 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 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 shockin 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(isrtehate
best guarantee for universal and perpetual peace ? G
cheering.) Will the 3,500 tons be a match for the 12,000 ?
No. And do you suppose that human intellect and inge-
nuity will stop there. I have heard it surmised that they
wont 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 ldnd,
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 froeer than wo 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
serve 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 resolution that 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 ad-
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 the 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 here 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
people
war, andlhoet know what we are goinglieve99outofeveryloO
le) go to
int the country de not
to war about. (Cheers and hisses.) I totally differ from
our gallant visitor here in the sentiments he expressed
when ho attended the meeting at the London Tavern. He
said there, towards the conclusion of his speech, after he
had been advocating our intervention by force of arms to
coerce Russia in this matter, he said, "I hope the Turkish
government will be induced to fulfil the promises it made
towards the Christians which are not fulfilled." And he
wound up by saying, " I could say a good deal more about
that, but it might appear to be prejudicing you against
Turkey." But now we are for the truth, the whoietruth
and nothing but the truth. Our gallant visitor knows the
breach of promises on the part of the Turkish government.
Ho 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 sot 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 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 placre,l
don't admit that the accession of territory ne cessa
have
yleads to the increase of the power of a state.eme Itehe
visited Turkey and Russia sufficiently to enable
what I know of Russia, I believe
in-
derstand what I read about these cohnentwriee
isildanbde more
deepened her rivers, widened their
powerful from this moment if she
adoptedchannels, a
pacificnc increased sceocul course,
ment of her internal resources.
e
pursuing a warlike course.
fertility of her soil, and attended gsenheerawllyoultodthiencdreevaeselomp-
the more you weaken
power more by that thaniur beyurfaee,
The more you extend .your (
-c two capitals, Moscow
and centre. If Russia, instead
and St.
Petersburgh, takes Consuantinople as a third,wl
believe that instead of tending to increase her power, in
twenty years it would have an opposite effect. I know
this is not the popular opinion, because there is a
universal desire in the mind of man to acquire more
territory. The farmer, who has got 500 acres of land,
and has not sufficient capital to work it well, will

vo'-
neneidgeha,ar to increase his number of acres ; and his
vr'ith his large number of acres, insufficiently tilled
though they be. But that opinion is not sound and philo-
sophical, and does not work to the advantage of indi-
viduala. And the same principle applies to states. But
in the next place, I don't take the encroachments of Rue-
sia upon Turkey as a sign, still less as a proof, that Russia
wants to encroach upon us. Russia, it is true, is evidently
encroachingaipon her neighbours in the East because her
neighboursetere adedecaying, disorderly, and anarchical
people. Nations, don't perish from without : they always
perish by suicide from within. Wherever you find a nation
eclipsed from the map of the world you will fird that has
been caused, and invariably caused, by a long period of i
misgovernment, amounting sometimes to centuries, which
leads you to wonder as you read, not that that country was
extinguished when it was, but that it was allowed to re-
main so long before it became: annexed to another more
prosperous and orderly state. I say, the case of Turkey
is precisely that case. You have Russia, a less barbarous
country, better organised, and with all its faults, more
progressive and industrious than Turkey ; and you find
Russia encroaching upon Turkey. Well, I therefore deny
that you have proof that the encroachments of Russia are
necessarily to lead to this vast increase of power that is to
overshadow the world. I say, that taking the course that
Russia has pursued for the last 30 years, and comparing
that with the progress of the United States, you will find
that where Russia has advanced three, the United States of
America have advanced at least to thirty. That is, at the
least, the comparative progress of the two countries. Mea-
suring the power England has gained during the last 30
years against Russia, we have increased four or five times
more in real power and wealth than the Russian empire.
Now, I don't say this as an argument that we should en-
courage Russia to attack Turkey. But when you say I
should go to war to prevent danger to this country, I want
strong proof of danger before I go to war to avert what is,
after all, but a calamity in imagination. But lam told
that we must go to war with Russia, because Russia is an
anti-commercial country, and Turkey favours commerce.
lam not disposed to admit the premises. I ‘deny that
Russia has ever been an anti-commercial country. No
Government in the world has shown more carelessness to
extend commerce and manufactures, wherever they have
extended their empire, than the Russians. That is our
complaint against them, that when they took her territory
they shut us out with their tariffs. But shutting out by
tariffs 'does not make people an anti-commercial people.
We formerly put on a restrictive tariff, but that
protec-
tion, as it was called, did not make us an anti-commercial
people, but was intended to benefit this country by mak-
ing this country's commerce more profitable. Russia has
become a restrictive country, but there is no restriction im-
posed by her half so indefensible as that which we put upon
her corn up to within the last ten years. And I would
here point to this fact, that all the commerce you have,
and the world has, with the Black Sea, has been made by
the Russian encroachments on the borders of the sea ; for
until the Russian Government erected Odessa, there was
no communication by the Black Sea. Where do you get
your corn from now? Odessa ; yet Odessa was the results
of the encroachments of Russia. They tell me that you
'are going to lose the trade with Wallachia and Moldavia,
because the Russians are going to make further encroach-
ments upon that country. lam told by the best authori-
ties connected with that trade that all the commerce grow-
ing up in these countries is owing to the more settled go-
vernment consequent upon the encroachments of Russia.
Don't take mop '
inion. Turn to M'Culloch's Dictionary,
to the head of Odessa, and read his description of those
Russians about which we are now discussing, M!Culloch,
writing in a commercial spirit, says that whatever objec-
tions there may be in a political sense to the encroacments
of Russia upon the Black Sea, by giving greater order to
its government and greater security to its industry, it has
undoubtedly tended to improve the commercial relations of
these regions. In the face of these facts, am Itogo to war
to prevent the possibility of our losing some of our trade to
Constantinople ? (Cheers.) Don't assume that I want to
argue that we should encourage Russia in her aggressions.
I want merely to show that the arguments with which they
want to urge us on to war are such as the people of this
country in their own interest ought rot to accept, lam
told the tariff of Turkey is very favourable. It is quite
true that the Turks have so far despised foreign commerce
and had so little faith in their power of collecting duties at
the outports, that they have never attempted to collect
duties upon the exports from foreign countries. But to
say that Turkey has done this in the interest of commerce,
because faey wish to encourage trade in exports and im-
ports, is to suit anderstand the character of that country.
Go into the interior of the Turkish Empire, and inquire
what security there is for the cultivator of that country ?
Wherever a Pasha may levy his exactions, the rudest mode
of plundering the peasant is resorted to—that of handing
in the produce as he grows it. Let me see what security
there is for the internal communications of the country.
Ask how a camel load comes from the interior to Smyrna,
and see what security there is. Why, that magnificent
country, that contained in aecient times nearly the civili-
sation of the world, is given up to such a state of brigand-
age that even the merchants of Smyrna dare not go seven
miles from Smyrna to their comitry-houses, for they would
be carried off by bands of brigands for the sake of obtain-
ing a large ransom for their recovery. It is absurd to talk
of such a country as that being favourable to commerce.
When I hear of returns being ma.de to the Reuse of Commons
of the comparison of our exports to Turkey and Russia,l say
give us the imports as well as the exports. As a tree-trader,
I value imports as well as exports. Let us see the amount
of the tallow, the hemp, and the corn we get from that coun-
try, and how we pay for it. It is true Russia, copying our
example, puts on high duties upon our manufactures, but
we take raw cotton to Petersburgh, and exchange it
for tallow, hemp, and corn, which is a profitable trade.
You have a larger proportion of tonnage carrying on trade
with Russia than with any other country. But when
people talk about the trade with Turkey, I beg to remind
them of one fact, that they are arguing in our favour ; be-
cause the trade is carried on, not by the Turks, but by
Christians. Whoever heard of a Turkish vessel coming
from Turkey, manned with Turks, kluging over freight
here for the purposes of commerce ? You have sixty
Greek merchants in Manchester who carry on all the trade
with Constantinople in British manufactured goods. It is ,
the Greeks and Christians, who have the wealth and en-
terpriee of that country, that I wish to be considered in
this controversy. (Hear.) The very fact that commerce
is in the hands of the Christians, is a proof that you can-
not long secure that supremacy of Turks over Christians
it the object of our diplomatists to accomplish,
but which they never will affect. Now, my gallant
neighbour here, I see, used a rather peculiar phrase that
fell from me some years ago at a meeting, with regard to
" crumpling up the Russian Empire." Now the phrase I
used was at a meeting on the subject of the Hungarian
invasion in 1849. I attended a meeting in the City of
London Tavern, to protest against the invasion of Hun-
gary by Russia. Russia was allowed then to march her
armies across Wallachia and Moldavia to strike a death-
blow against Hungary, and no protest was raised against
this by our Government. (Hear.) And it is my deli-
berate conviction, from a patient study of our blue books,
and it is the conviction of those illustrious men engaged
in that Hungarian struggle, that if Lord Palmerston nad
made a simple verbal protest in energetic terms, then
Russia would never have invaded Hungary by passing
through Wallachia and Moldavia, It was well known
down
that the ministers of the Czar of Russia almost went
upon their knees to entreat him
_gnot to embarkr protest
in that
struggle between Austria and
.H.un y. 0u
would have been backed by the ministers of the Czar, if it
had been made, and I believe would have prevented that
most atrocious outrage upon the rights and liberties of a
constitutional country. I said, on that occasion, when
I attended a public meeting in the City of London Tavern,
in the midst of all that excitement and phrenzy in favour
of Hungarian nationality, I said, I would resist any
attempt to send any force to fight the battles of Hun-
gary on the banks of the Danube. I did not disguise
my views on the subject any more than Ido now. While
condemning the conduct of Russia towards Turkey, I
will not sanction the sending of any soldiers to fight in
favour of Turkey. I have never sanctioned intervention
by force of arms in foreign disputes, and when I send
any men to fight my battles, I will take part in them my-
self. (A laugh.) I said also that if Russia did attack us,
such were the enormous resources of this country—its
resources of wealth and scientific application—that we
could crumple up her empire by blockading her ports anti
sealing them hermetically, so that she could have no com-
munication whatever with the civilised world. That is a
truth, and may be accomplished. But I say again that Russia
does not mean to come to attack us, and it will be time
enough to talk of going to war with Russia, when Russia in-
timates one design inimical to our interests. Mr. Cobden
next alluded to the reason why he rated at so low a value
thelpower of the Russian empire beyond her own dominiens,
which was her want of wealth. He recapitulated the occa-
sions on which Russia had to contract foreign loans with
Amsterdam and London, and affirmed his conviction that
whatever was the issue of this dispute Russia could not go
on without another loan. He knew no cause for going to
war, but if it was thought necessary to interfere, he sug-
gested that instead of resorting to physical force, they
should first try the effect of a system of outlawry, such as
making it penal to contract for a Russian loan, prohibit-
ing;the sale of Russian stock, which ho considered would
staike*Karere a blow at the power, ambition, and preten-
sions of that country, as if they sent a fleet to Besika Bay.
As an illustration of the absurdity of keeping up military
and naval armaments to convince other nations of our
ability to resist attacks, Mr. Cobden directed attention to
the United States, where they had only one line-of-battle
ship in commission, and whose army consisted of only
10,000 or 12,000 men, yet their enterprise, industry, im-
mense resources, and lightness of taxation, rendered them
is the eyes of other nations a power which they would be-
ware of coming into collision with. He ridiculed the con-
duct of the boy-emperor of Austria in engaging his troops
in so many fields of mimic battle, remarking if that plain
man in black clothes in a room in Washington were to !end
a frigate to Trieste with a hostile message, that boy-
emperor's heart would at once be in his jack-boots at the
very thought. He concluded a long and eloquent address
by commending the claims of the peace party on the sup-
port of the country.
The LORD PROVOST here intimated that istdressoritghie-
nally arranged that Mr. Bright should e
Napier. The
meeting, but he had given way to Sird CharlesN
gallant admiral, it was understood, v was nwo t tomove an
amendment, and he (the Lord Provost) hoped
hearinthge. meeting
)
would give him a patient and deferential Sir CHARLES NAPIER; who was received with loud and
repeated cheers, said, it may perhaps appear extraordinary
-that a naval officer or admiral should come forward to ad-
dress this meeting. It is generally supposed, and that very
improperly, that naval and military men are always for
war and
for large establishments, and that they have n;
idea. beyond bloodshed. (Cheers.) But I beg to tell you
that this is a most erroneous notion. (Cheers) Lord Nelson
was not fond of bloodshed or war. (Renewed cheers.) And
if you read Lord Nelson's private letters you will find that
he was always wishing for peace. The Duke'of Wellington
was
always a peace man after the war was over. (Laughter
and applause.) He was always for peace ; and he succeed-
ed in preserving peace, And I can assure the citizens of
Edinburgh—and lam proud of being a citizen of your
city—(cheers)—that I am just as anxious for peace as my
hon. friend who sits at my right hand (Mr. Cobden) or any
gentleman in the assembly. But we may differ as to the
means of obtaining peace, and we may still more differ as
to the means of preserving peace. (Hear, hear.) And I
must say that I do not think that the plan propounded by
my hon. friend Mr. Cobden is exactly the way to preserve
the peace of this country.- (Cheers.) That hon. gentle-
man has said very fairly and very properly, and it has a
very excellent appearance, coming as it does with all that
beauty of 'language which ho is capable of using, that if
France agreed to reduce her force to ten sail of the line,
and if we agreed to reduce our force to ten sail of the line
also, they would both be placed on equal terms : granted.
And he said farther, that if we reduce our force to five eail
of the line, and the French did the same, we would be ex-