THE EASTERN QUESTION.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 987, 24 August 1877, Page 3

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

Eev. Mr. Watson’s Lectuki

The Rev. H. C. M. Watson, incumbent of St. John’s, delivered a lecture in the schoolroom last evening on the Eastern Question. There was a very good attendance, the room being well filled. Sir J. C. Wilson occupied the chair, and briefly introduced the featurer. The Rev. Mr Watson said that he first wished to return Ids thanks to the gentlemen who had taken such interest in his lecture, and given him the aid of newspapers and books as material to form his lecture upon. He would also call attention to the maps which were on the wall, so as to explain the situation of the various tribes. The lecturer then proceeded to point out on the map the position of the various tribes and their present habitation. The Turks were a, large family, occupying a large space of Asia. Niue of the tribes formed part of the great Moslem family, the tenth not being so. Of these several families the one he proposed to speak of now were the Ottoman Turks. This family effected a lodgment in Asia, and soon gathered a people, and under the son of Sultan Othman effected a footing in Europe, which soon resulted in their extending over Europe, and thus founding the Turkish Empire in Europe. Under Mahomet 11. the Turkish empire was extended nearly as far as it was in the present day. Rapidly passing over the accession of the various Sultans of Turkey up to the time of Solyman the Magnificent, the lecturer proceeded to show from history the gradual decline of Turkish power from this time under the aggressive policy of the despots of Russia. He then proceeded to describe the rise of the Sclavonian provinces, and stated the number of Sclavonians to be ninety millions. The gradual rise of Russian power from the thirteenth century was then traced to the accession of Ivan the Terrible, coinciding with that of Elizabeth of England, who adopted the title of Tsar, a title which was retained until Peter the Great, who changed the title to Emperor of all the Russias. In the reign of Bajazct the second, the first intercourse took place between Turkey and Russia; and now he had done with historical matters, and would proceed to show how the policy of the Russian Empire had been directed towards the breaking up of the Turkish Empire. In the reign of Queen Mary of England the Turks and Russians crossed swords for the first time—and in the engagement the Turks were worsted. Afterwards however, tlic Tartars 111 ade an incursion, and Moscow was sacked by them. Eor nearly a hundred years peace subsisted between Turkey and Russia. After a retrospect of the wars between the Turkish Empire and the European nations, the lecturer proceeded to argue that from 1681 (ho decline*of the Turkish Empire became apparent. In the war with Austria in 1682 the Turkish army was all but annihilated, and the empire of the Turks received a severe blow, Russia and Yenetia taking towns and provinces from the Turkish rule. In 1695, in the reign of Peter the Great, Russia attempted to obtain the mastery of the Black Sea, and suceedcd in capturing Azoff, and built a fortress at Taganrog. There was one point to which he would refer [here —it was that the soil of Turkey, like England, was inviolable as regarded political refugees. This was exemplified in 1819, when Turkey declined to give up the Hungarian refugees who had lied to Turkey. This therefore must be remembered as a good trait in the character of Turkey. In 1711 a peace was made with Russia, the terms of which, it was needless to say, was never kept, as none of the Russian treaties ever were. The lecturer then gave a brief sketch of the policy pursued by him who succeeded Peter the Great against the Turks in carrying the war through the Crimea without any declaration of war being made. A secret treaty was next made between Austria and Russia to break up the Turkish Empire, and the three Powers went to war, in which the Crimea was again desolated. The Austrians, however, were badly beaten, and the peace of Belgrade was concluded. Peace now reigned for thirty years, and in 1768 the Turks again went to war, the cause being her remonstrance against the partition of Poland. Turkey, however, got much the worst of it, and peace was concluded, one of the worst that was ever concluded so far as Turkey was concerned. In this treaty Russia claimed to have the Crimea an independent province ; it was settled that Russia should have a consul in every town of the Turkish .Empire; and that Russia should have the power <>l remonstrating with all the Christian subjects oi Turkey. Some I';t years after this the Crimea, through the machinations of Russia, was annexed to the Empire under Empress Catherine. In 1788 there was another war between Russia and Turkey, and intrigues were fomented by Catherine 11. to obtain the sovereignty of the Turkish Empire. The treaty of Jassy followed, the condition of Poland being troublous. It might be noticed that Poland was always ready to rise, as no doubt she would be now when she got a chance. During the Napoleonic wars. Turkey was alternately the football and plaything of France and Russia. It was over the •'attempted breaking up of Turkey that the

two robbers, Alexander and Napoleon quarrelled. The former wished to have what lie called the key of his house, the Black Sea, but Napoleon declined to allow it. Briefly referring to the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope, the lecturer deplored the action taken by the British in this matter. Tie then proceeded to quote from conversations between the Emperor Nicholas and the English Ambassador as to the partition of Turkey and the occupation of Constantinople by the Russian troops. The purport of the conversations were to the effect that England and Russia should divide Turkey between them. The Crimean war broke out, and then Russia received a severe handling, not nearly so severe as she ought to have done. She should have been compelled to have paid an indemnity for the harm she had done. M r Watson then proceeded to contrast the characters of the two nations. It had been urged in a. section of the Press that the Turks were all that was bad, but he woidd quote from the works of Creasy and Colonel Baker, which was totally opposed to this view of the Turkish character. [Read.] The Turks were, ho contended, the most hospitable nation in the world, and not only so but the virtues the English nation spoke of the Turks practised. He would again read from the work of a writer who had passed several years in the districts in which the atrocities had been said to be committed. This writer said that in Salonica he saw some thousands of the troops fresh from the front who were billeted in the town. There was not a single complaint, and the town was as quiet as in ordinary times. [Hear, hear.] This was worth twice as much as the statement of Mr Gladstone. The lecturer then proceeded to point out the many faults of Russia. She was an aggressive power and one too just emerging from barbarism. Russia was also violently intriguing. This policy was consistently carried out by Russia, and she woidd have been in the Danubian provinces had it not been for the great powers. Russia also worked in another way. Bulgarian and Roumanian children were selected by the Russian consuls and sent to Russia to be educated. When the education was complete (hey returned to their native villages and cities as priests and schoolmasters who became thus the secret agents of Russia. Mr Watson then quoted from letters of General Ignatieff (o show that any attempts of Turkey to reform her administration were systematically prostrated by the intrigues of Russia and also from Mr Erost’s “ Secret Societies of Europe,” to show that they were used by Russia towards the end of dividing Turkey. The policy of Russia in fomenting sham insurrections for the purpose of affording her a pretext to step in and take charge of affairs in Turkey was next referred to, and an extract read from the letters of Viscount Strangford to prove what the lecturer advanced. In the face of the past history of Russia they could not believe one word of the protestations of the Czar, that he did not intend to annex an acre of the Danubian provinces or to occupy Constantinople but a short while. 11 e would now refer to a statement he had made on a former occasion, that Russia was an intolerant power. A correspondent had stated that this was not the case. He now repeated this, and stated that Russia was the most intolerant power in the world. He need only say this, that he held in his hand an extract which detailed the banishment of two lawyers who had defended some young people who had been guilty of a slight offence. Then again, the writer had said that he was sorry when he said that the Bible was not circulated freely. Well, in the Bible Society’s report there were no Bibles in the Russian tongue, though there were New Testaments. Again, the Bible Society’s agent had asked the Emperor if it were consistent with the laws of the Empire that the Bible might be circulated. Putting these two together, it would be seen that he was quite justified in saying that the Bible was not allowed to go free —which was the case in Turkey. But, compared with drowning women and children and beating them to death because they would not embrace the Russian faith, these were but small matters. In a report to the British Minister, it was stated that, in January, 1871, in Poland, children of all ages were beaten because they would not embrace the Russian faith. Massacres were common and the peasantry were shot down by the Russian soldiery. The lecturer then proceeded to contend that Russia was cruel in the greatest degree, and that these cruelties were practised by orders of officials, and in cold blood. [Mr Watson here quoted from various documents to prove the cruelty of the Russian troops acting under orders.] These atrocities, it was pointed out, did not excite any indignation in England, nor did Mr Gladstone get up meetings to comment on the atrocities, though Mr Gladstone’s party was in power. The lecturer then quoted from the “Edinburgh Review” to show the reason of the anti-Turk feeling in England. This paper summed it up in three points, viz.—Ist., that the High Church party wished to go through the Greek Church to Rome; 2nd, that the Low Churchmen and Dissenters looked to the destruction of Turkey as carrying out the prophecy of Revelations ; and 3rd, that there was a large amount of money invested in Turkish bonds, and when they paid 7 per cent, those bad traits were not discovered, not until they only paid 3 percent. As regarded Mr Gladstone’s policy, he contended that the opinion of the colonies was thoroughly against it. They knew the policy of Russia, hence the people of the colony were strongly antiRussian. [Cheers.] The lecturer then proceeded to criticise very unfavorably Mr Freeman's work on the Turkish nation, and t o contend that Russia could not be called Christian, while Turkey had been open to the civilising influence of Christianity. He contended that it was the duly of England, as a Christian nation, to prevent Turkey being overwhelmed by Russia. This for three reasons —Ist. That Turkey was a free-trade nation, and Russia not. 2nd. Because as Turkey was Mahomedan, and we had a large number of Mahomedan subjects in India, it was our interests to protect Turkey. 3rd. That the aggressive policy of Russia was so pronounced (hat the Great Bowers must, step in and prevent Russia becoming the ruler of iurk'-v m Europe. In conclusion. Mr Watson strong! y expressed his opinion that England, being a Great. Bower, had duties to God and to the other nations, and should prevent a great military Bower like Russia beating the life out of a little Bower like Turkey. [Cheers.] The lecture, which was an admirable one throughout, was listened to with the greatest attention, and at its close the lecturer was greeted with loud applause. Mr Hamilton moved a vote of thanks to the lecturer, eulogising the research and ability which he had displayed. The resolution was carried amid bud applause,