before the attempt could succeed. They talk of making laws for the conduct of war at Brussels and at Petersburg; but what laws could you make for the conduct of such a war as that would be? The people would feel that their lives, their feelings, their modes and habits of life, were at stake, and there would be a fearful struggle before they would submit to the aggressor. It is impossible, without dismay, to contemplate the possibility of such an occurrence, and we must, as we all love peace, and hope for the prosperity of mankind, pray that this country may remain under the Government of the Turks, and that its industry may be so developed, and its strength so increased, that all thought of its conquest may be given up. Every one will tell you of the great natural resources of Turkey. I will conclude with a few words about one of her resources-that without which no other resource could be made available. Turkey possesses a population capable of achieving success in every department of industry. To great intelligence and quickness in learning they add conscientiousness in labour. I have myself seen many hundred men at Constantinople engaged in putting together ironwork. Now I could judge of this. The work was good; the industry admirable. They were paid by the day, and worked as hard as Englishmen working by the piece. I am afraid it would not now be possible, in all England, to find so large a body of men, in the same trade, who would act so justly by their employers when working by the day. This may partly be the consequence of piece-work in England having become so habitual; but not the less must I congratulate the country, whose labourers are so honest. Time, instruction, and opportunity are alone required for Turkey to excel in those new arts of the West which are making an industrial revolution in the world. Foreign workmen are not required, except in very small numbers to instruct and lead the way. With such a population at its back, there is nothing which the Turkish Government ought not to be able to accomplish. The Congress of Brussels not a Failure for Russia. THE Congress of Brussels has not been a failure, because though Russia has not all she attempted, she has gained' much. To understand what she has obtained we must understand what were her objects. But to be able with calmness and common sense to look at these, we must begin by clearly seeing that the pretended object cannot be the real one. It seems too monstrous to suppose that two such Powers as Russia and Prussia can be actuated by the desire to diminish human suffering. The Russia, the implacable Russia, of Siberia and Poland; and the Prussia of BISMARCK. It is perfectly just to speak of the two together, because in this Congress they evidently act in concert. The more violent texts proposed by the Prussian delegates (in reference to the power to be granted to the invader over the inhabitants of the invaded country) served to carry the modified Russian project (introduced in the course of the Debate), because the latter offered a means of escape from the former. But the difference between the two was only in detail and in matter of rédaction. The arguments of the Russian and Prussian delegates were the same: General VOIGTS-RHETZ urged that it is expedient in the interests of humanity, that no encouragement should be given to the inhabitants of an occupied district to rise against the invaders, as such a course would lead to repressive measures, which instead of diminishing the horrors of War would tend to increase them. Upon which the Russian President observed: "If unlimited rights are given to the defence, unlimited rights are equally given to the attack." He asserted that it was the interest of the invader to have to deal with an organised defence because it would spare his feelings in saving him from having to use severe measures, and that it was in the interest of the country attacked to force it to organise the population under the penalty of not being treated as belligerents, for "an organised defence is a gua"rantee against those acts of patriotic imprudence which, in reality, "cause the misfortune and the ruin of a country."-(P. 5020.) It is impossible, for a still more evident reason, to suppose that it is a real desire to avoid suffering that actuates these two Powers. Which is that the whole thing is an illusion, a deception: and this was evidently felt to such a degree by some of the delegates that they must have found it difficult to keep on the mask of gravity and deference to the "illustrious Sovereign" who had convened them. In the very terms used the deception appears. For whenever it is a point of any importance that is to be regulated the qualification is introduced of " so far as it is possible." Thus is forbidden: “All "destruction or seizure of the property of the enemy which is not im"periously demanded by the necessities of the war." "All the necessary measures must be taken to spare, as much as "possible, the buildings devoted to worship, &c." But that which had first to be determined if the project had been a serious one, was never once referred to in the most distant manner. That is, what guarantees there could be that the regulations established would be carried out,—and what means were to be taken or could be taken to enforce their fulfilment. On the contrary, all through the discussion it was assumed that to draw up a Convention and obtain signatures would be to accomplish the end. Again, it has to be considered that the principles thus proposed by Russia to be introduced into a new code, have been acted on by Prussia, since she has been under the domination of BISMARCK. Two of these nations, whose representatives sat round that table at Brussels had been attacked and subjugated in a war carried on on the principles of "humanity" there discussed. Bavarian peasants were hanged by the Prussians for attempting to defend a village when left to themselves by the Austrian troops. The treatment accorded to French Franc-tireurs and to the village to which they were supposed to belong, cannot yet have have been forgotten. Prussia, and consequently Russia, did not therefore require a Congress to be able to act on the principle of treating all hostility not commanded by the Government as criminal. It was neither therefore the pretended interests of humanity nor the real interests of the military Powers, which led to the assembling of the Congress of Brussels. It was something else. That something else is to be found in the assumption that runs all through the discussion, that Private Property is respected on land, and in the formal declaration consigned in the project that it is to be respected. This has been the great argument used by those who have contended for the immunity of private property at sea. The events of the late War did produce the effect of discrediting that argument. Because it was evident to all that private property was not even respected on land when the invaders had nothing to gain by destroying it or taking possession of it. It was exposed to the private rapacity of soldiers and officers, as well as to the exigencies of War. This effect it had become necessary to destroy, and by this new Code to supply the argument "If private property was little reแ "spected in the last War, it will be respected in the next." Mr. Urquhart on Direct Taxation and Freedom of Trade. (From his Speech at Stafford, 6th July, 1841.) "The corn of this land, as every other means of food or of production, must be rendered cheap for us to maintain our position among nations, but he who proposes to you a measure for the reduction of the price of corn, whilst making corn a source of revenue, speaks to you a lie, as a man speaks that despises those unto whom he lies. Now I tell you, and I call your attention to the subject, and entreat your examination of that subject afterwards, that that which is interesting to you is, that taxes shall fall upon property, and that commerce shall be free. Whoever has spoken to you of Free Trade, without proposing other sources of revenue, is a man that speaks that which is dishonest; you cannot repeal taxes upon commerce unless you place taxes upon property, and the object of my political life is that which I have now expressed, namely, to bring the higher classes to see that they themselves must bear the burdens, and the lower, that their only refuge is the emancipation of their own industry from undue burden of taxation. I re-assert, making it still more distinct, that you may comprehend it, that the cause of your complications in England, the cause of your political dissensions, the cause of the absence of social affections, the cause of all confusion, and of the absence of political wisdom and unity, arises solely from this--that taxes are no longer collected upon property, but have been confided to the collectors of Customs and Excise. The ancient habits of England were different; in England, formerly, every borough imposed its own taxes, and connected, in one body of united discipline, the Sovereign of the State with his lowest subjects. Until that condition is restored, there will be no peace and no prosperity for England, and until you see that that is the end towards which all your efforts should be directed, there will be for me no hope for England." THE BURNING OF Moscow.-How was it that no one asked at Brussels whether the Russians, who set fire to Moscow as a means of resisting the French, would have been condemned as felons under the new Russian Code? It is, however, too late to do so now. Abrogation of the Declaration of Paris. TO THE (LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL OF GREAT HONOURABLE THE COMMONS } BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED. SHOWETH THE SHUMBLE PETITION OF THE UNDERSIGNED PETITION That the strength of England has always been maritime rather than military. That this strength consists in her faculty of seizing on the high seas the goods of her ene mies, whether in their own ships or in those of neutrals. That in 1780 Russia formed a League called the Armed Neutrality, which declared that Enemies' goods in Neutral vessels should no longer be liable to capture. That this League was defeated by England by simply not acceding to it. That in 1800 Russia revived the Armed Neutrality, and that England, by the action of her cruisers, seizing Russian property wherever she found it on the high seas, again defeated Russia and compelled her to make peace. That on the 28th of March, 1854, simultaneously with a Declaration of War against Russia, a Declaration appeared in the London Gazette permitting neutral vessels to carry enemies' goods. That on the 16th of April, 1856, the Plenipotentiaries who had been sent to Paris to make a Treaty of Peace, signed a "Declaration respecting Maritime Law" which contained the following articles : 1. "Privateering is and remains abolished." 2. "The Neutral flag covers enemies' goods." That the adoption of these rules during the Crimean War made the English and French Fleets powerless to injure the enemy's trade, and enabled Russia to dispense with the use of a navy altogether. That in 1870 France, observing these rules, though a military as well as a maritime Power, was unable to make use of her navy, and was subjected thereby to disastrous loss of men, money, and territory. That England, being only a maritime and not a military Power, will, under the rules of the Declaration of Paris, be unable to protect herself from invasion and must suffer all the evils which may be designed against her by the malice of her enemies. That the Declaration of Paris is contrary to the Law of Nations, which forbids a nation to make a treaty which would involve its ruin. That it is not a Treaty, having been signed without any authority from Her Majesty the Queen, who, moreover, has never ratified it. That had it been unobjectionable in its purport, and duly authorised and ratified, it would still be invalid, as no change in the Law of England can be made without the consent of Parliament. Lordships · { u Your Petitioners therefore pray that your will address Her Majesty the Queen praying her to issue an Order in Council announcing that the Declaration of Paris is null and void, and has never been binding upon Her Majesty. And Your Petitioners will ever pray. Printed and published by C. D. COLLET, at 22, East Temple Chambers, Whitefriars-street, Fleetstreet, London; and Sold by I. A. BROOKE, 282, Strand; Birmingham: MORRIS, High-street, Digbeth; Keighley: GREGSON, Low Gate; Manchester: Heywood, Deansgate, and HIBBERT, 67, Shudehill. And by all Booksellers and Newsmen in Town and Country. |