THE TURKISH QUESTION. R. RICHARD COBDEN has two customers, one a Russian and the other a M Turk. He is on friendly terms with both. Going along Manchester one day, he sees the Russian assault and endeavour to rob the Turk Richard Cobden is so close to them that there is not a man in Manchester who will not cry shame upon him if he passes by without interference. The Turk asks him for his help against the Ruffian: we wrote it Russian in our copy, but the printer put ƒ for f: it is a very small difference. Mind you, it is only one Russian trying to rob a single Turk in Manchester streets. The Turk asks Richard Cobden for help. By no means,' says Richard Cobden: 'the Russian is my better customer. Be still, you Mussulman wretch! and let him rifle you in peace.' a Now, is Richard Cobden really such a fool as this? Well, it was not a Russian, but the Mongrel (another misprint: indeed we had written Mongol) Autocrat of Russia; the Turk was Sultan of Turkey; and Richard was 'himself again.' And indeed he said that Russia was a better customer than Turkey, and therefore- Did he mean that therefore a dastardly desertion of duty could be anything but dastardly? Your 'practical men' have a sad practice of traveling a long way out of the real question. A close reasoner like Mr. Cobden ought to be aware that this Turkish Question is one not of trade-statistics but of national morality. Poor Richard does not know anything about that. He minds his shop and thinks it very unchristian- -to hinder a Christian Russian, particularly such a stout chap as this, from maltreating a Mussulman. He hates Mussulmen. This is hardly an imaginary case. In the newspapers of Dec. 4, is the following police report. G. F. Gustard was brought before the Lord Mayor for an assanlt. A Mr. Stewart was leaving the shop of Mr Dossitor, in the Poultry. Gustard met and passed him in the entrance, turned upon him, kicked him, and on Stewart's turning round struck him in the face, and threatened him with a dagger. There had been no quarrel. He had never seen the man before. The blow and the menace with the dagger took place in the shop. Mr Dossitor came round from behind the counter, but declined to send for the police; and, when the police came, would fain have persuaded Mr Stewart not to give Gustard in charge. The Lord Mayor invited Mr Dossitor to account for his conduct under such remarkable circumstances. Mr Dossilor-My reason was that Mr Gustard is a customer of ours, and I was in hopes that nothing would occur.' The Lord Mayor-You saw him brandish a dagger, and that was very good authority for interference.' Mr Dossitor-Certainly I did see him brandish the dagger, but he did it in a mild way? Yes, Mr This is Poor Richard and the Peacemonger all over. Russia does certainly brandish the dagger, but it is 'in a mild way,'-and the Tzar is 'a customer of ours.' Cobden! private morality and public morality have both the same grounds. But again he travels from the question. The right is not necessarily with the strong, any more than with our 'best customer.' The one is a coward's argument, the other a shopman's. In any Bible in the world you'll find no exceptions made in favour of either class. Poor Richard, again, cares for none of your Bibles in these matters. He is a Sunday-Christian and worships his Ledger all the working week. You can't carry Christianity out in politics.' Yet he is inconsistent enough to talk of not supporting the Mussulman against his fellow-Christian. Lord have mercy, Richard! Your fellow-Christian, that devil of a Tzar. Let us put a case again. If a certain Russian, who shall be nameless, walked into Richard's counting-house, took one of Richard's clerks by the throat, and made him hand over all his master's cash that was in his possession; would not Richard try, personally or by deputy, to turn the Russian out? Suppose the Russian really had a little account against him, would Richard stand that way of settling it? If Richard was strong enough would he not think himself justified in thrusting out the intruder with his own proper force; if not strong enough, would he not claim the assistance of the police, or any passer-by? Put the case again, Richard! That instead of being an indifferent Christian you were an out-and-out Turk: would that entitle the Russian to rob you, or the police or others to refuse you aid? Suppose it was the firm of Cobden Brothers, or Mussulman & Co. so invaded, and half a dozen Ruffians of any country who invaded, are the police to hang back because the danger is six times greater? Or is the defence against wrong which was allowable to one to be forbidden to six? Or will Mr. Cobden tell us what number of individuals is required to make outrage not outrage; how many must be associated together in order to lose the right of resisting injury, or evade the duty of assisting the injured? There is but one code of morality, Mr. Cobden! whether for individuals or for nations, and public morals ought never to run counter to it. This Turkish Question in spite of all the complications in which diplomatists have entangled it, remains yet a simple question of right and wrong. As simple a question as that at the head of our paper. What is not right for one Russian is not right for a Russian nation, or for the power that misrules it. If it is cowardice in one man to let the wayfarer be outraged and he standing by,-if it is baseness in one man to defer the defence of right to some care for his own pocket,—if it is a villainy for any one man to quibble out of a manifest duty, so is it cowardly, base, and villainous in the nation (which is only a combination of so many men) to permit outrage, to defer the defence of right, to quibble out of the requirements of duty. But our Mussulman-hater has no idea of evading duty. He has only his peculiar methods of performing it. He does not indeed fight against outrage (even when Outrageous is a customer); but he arbitrates. Now, did he offer arbitration when he caught in his pocket the hand of a thief, who indeed might have needed his half-crowns? Not he. He held him firmly till the police came up. And when a deaf and dumb Cossack or a wolf is springing at his throat, will he talk then of arbitration? O, Richard! if arbitration serves not in the private exigence, will you explain to us the morality of the public difference? The whole talk of arbitration amounts to this: That Russian has robbed a Turk under my window. If the Turk grapples with him, and it comes to a fight, there'll be a crowd, my windows smashed, customers kept away, my head broken, God knows what- So I step blandly to my shop door and say—'My good Turk! you are not so strong as this Russian, you'll surely be thrashed, and I'm a deal too busy to interfere. Better let him keep what he has. Go along both of you, foolish fellows! and settle it over a pot of tea.' There's the whole rationale of arbitration, which suits very well either the thief or the permitter. Of course nobody thinks that permitter means accomplice. But the Turk's 'a rogue too.' Then there's a pretty lot of you. What says that for the right of wronging him? This Turk has 'no business in Europe.' Is it the business of the Russian to turn him out? There's a right and a wrong in this as in all other human questions. Ascertain which way it is, and point your cannon accordingly. It is of no worth using small arms for great distances; and speaking-trumpets carry only sound. There is a right and a wrong. They are not fools in our Counting-house! But it is convenient to be blind sometimes. Yes, so blind that the Aberdeens and Alberts and other 'leading statesmen' make a convenience of you. Convenient to the Counting-house! Is it convenient for the nation? Is it convenient that a nation should not determine the morality of these national questions? Your fast man may make light of the 'everlasting bonfire;' but the immoral nation is damned upon earth. That is not so convenient. What says the national conscience upon this Turkish Question? Why is not the answer given not only in words but in earnest deeds? Why indeed! The very name of Poland has been erased from the map of Europe, yet in their exile the Poles speak as a nation; have spoken and are prepared to act. England standing in her strength has not yet spoken. Two or three un-English knaves, stolen into the chair of Cromwell, speak for England most traitorous words that should make every Englishman ashamed. O my Country! ENGLAND ONCE. ENGLAND once was truthful-hearted, Honour walk'd beside her then: England once had care to merit, England once could laugh at danger: England once had statesmen able, English policy was stable,— Love of Truth and hate of Lies. Cunning now, too dull for daring, Skulketh in the Lion's den: English women cease from bearing Honest and heroic men. England once had merchant-princes,- O for that old knightly daring Drake and Davis taught us when English dames were famed for bearing Where are England's gallant bowmen? Where the shafts that ne'er fell short? Where are England's lusty yeomen? Where the hearts of Azincourt? Where is Tyler's noble daring? Peasant dames were royal-bearing Sordid selfishness for valour, Rascal peace for honest fame, For the hue of noble shame; SPARTACUS. THE POLISH ANNIVERSARY: [Commemorated at Hanover-Square Rooms, London, November 29, 1853.] a As the revival of Polish agitation in England, again to make the sacred cause of Poland dear as of old to English hearts,-as the first public manifestation in England of the European Central Democratic Committee,-and as the first open recognition of English Republicanism as one with European Republicanism, for many a day there has been no meeting so important as that which celebrated on the evening of the 29th of November last the twenty-third anniversary of the POLISH INSURRECTION. It was the first public gathering of representatives of European Nationalities, in Poland's name and in their own to demand help of England, and to proclaim on English soil the new campaign against the Unholy Alliance of Kings. MR WORCELL (Member of the Polish Central Democratic Committee and of the European Central Democratic Committee) took the chair, and, excusing himself from speaking, on account of illness, called on his friend Mr Linton to read the following ADDRESS OF THE POLISH COMMITTEE. In calling together, for a general and solemn commemoration of the twentythird anniversary of the Polish Revolution, the representatives of so many different nationalities, the Polish Democratic Committee needs to explain its motive: that motive is the new era which the passage of the Danube by the Turks seems to be opening for the oppressed and down-trodden peoples. While Poland was not called upon to resume her interrupted but unended struggle, the commemoration of her last national effort was merely an encouragement for her sons to persevere, and an occasion for profound and sad, although glorious, lessons for them. And when the end of our revolution shall have been attained, old errors amended, old omissions supplied, and the people of Poland established in the For which assertion let us ask pardon of our old enemy the Times, the representative of shopkeeping and diplomatic cowardice, and of our ingenuous, not to say liberal 'friend' the Leader and representative of nothing: both of which esteemed prints consider the meeting of no political importance. |