RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND ENGLAND; OR, THE EASTERN QUESTION.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1010, 20 September 1877, Page 3

RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND ENGLAND; OR, THE EASTERN QUESTION.

(FROM THE PRESS.) THE TURKS AND THE TURKISH ADMINISTRATION. There is a very clear line to be drawn between the character of the Turkish people and ofjthe Turkish administration. The former is generally good, the latter is generally bad ; but in the case of the latter there is an element to be considered which somewhat, if not to a considerable extent, extenuates the absence of a good administration—namely, the pressure of a powerful enemy always ready to stir up strife, and always on the watch to take advantage of it when stirred up. The difficulty of obtaining an impartial opinion, or indeed facts on which to form an opinion for oneself, is humorously illustrated by Colonel James Baker in the preface to his recent work on “Turkey in Europe:”—“l remember, for example, upon one occasion asking a resident of many years’ standing —a very clever man, but a Philottoman —his opinion of the integrity of a certain Pasha, who held a very important Government post; and I received in answer such a glowing description of the virtues of the old Turk that I instinctively raised my eyes to his shoulders in search of the budding of angelic wings; but on turning to another resident of equally long standing, but a Turcophobist, and putting the same question, I received a reply which made me turn my inspection to the Pasha’s slippers in search, of the cloven foot. The truth lay probably midway between these extreme opinions—that is to say, that the Pasha had been known to do many just and praiseworthy acts, but that he at the same time acknowledged the efficacy of the backshish.” Mr R. Bosworth Smith, assistant master of Harrow School, who approaches the subject in a calm historical spirit in some lectures that he delivered three years ago before the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and therefore before the existence of those hot partisan feelings which are so sadly prevalent at the present day, speaks thus of the Ottoman Turk:—“The genuine Othmanli has many noble social and national characteristics. He is, or was, till the example and the precept of the Western money makers influenced him, eminently a man of his word. His word was his bond, and a bond which was a first-rate security. He is still sober, temperate, dignified, and courageous. Terribly cruel as he is when his passions are aroused, he is at other times gentle, hospitable, and humane. Nowhere in Christendom, with the one exception perhaps of Norway, arc beasts of burden treated with such unvarying kindness and consideration as they are in Turkey, and nowhere probably, in spite of all the depressing influences of polygamy and the degradation of women generally, does the mother retain more hold on her children, or do children regard their mothers with such constant and indissoluble veneration. It was not a Mussulman, but a Christian missionary, and he a zealous and successful one, who, in rebuking some younger missionaries at Stamboul who were speaking contemptuously of the Turks, remarked, ‘ You will see practised here the virtues we talk of in Christendom.’ ” His opinion of the effect of the Moslem Creed is widely different from that of Mr E. A. Freeman, the historian, whose opinions will receive some attention further on. Mr Bosworth Smith says—“ There is in the lives of average Mohammedans, from whatever causes, less of self-indulgence, less of the mad race for wealth, less of servility, than is to be found in the lives of average Christians. Truly w r e may think that these things ought not to be ; and if Christians generally were as ready to confess Christ, and to be proud of being his servants, as Mohammedans are of being followers of Mohammed, one chief obstacle to the spread of Christianity would be removed.”

Sir E. S. Creasy, writing upwards of twenty years ago,speaks of the Ottoman in similar terms. He says “ This long-continued position of unquestionable and unquestioned superiority, ‘ with nothing to provoke the strong to needless cruelty,’ may have conduced to develope in the Turkish character that dignity of manner; that honorable self-respect; that truthfulness, honesty, and sense of justice; that gentleness and humanity even towards brute creation, which the bitterest enemies of the Ottomans confess, and which is the theme of uniform admiration with foreigners who hvae been dwellers in the Ottoman empire.” * * * These “virtues are found among the Ottoman Turks of Asia, where the number of Eayas is far less than westward of the Dardanelles, as well as among the sparse Moslems of European Turkey, nor have those virtues been found to decay with the declining fortunes of their empire. Much is due to the moral precepts of their creed, which ensures sobriety and cleanliness, as well as benevolence, integrity, and charity, among its true disciples. But the Turks are also distinguished above other Mahommedan nations for their high personal qualities, though these are alloyed with many evil traits, which, how'ever, are to a great extent the peculiar vices of their men in power. Among no people are the injurious effects of court intrigue, and of elevation to high authority and wealth of. an individual character, so marked as among the Ottoman.” These are the terms used to describe the “ anti-human Turk ” of Mr Gladstone; the “unspeakable Turk,” of Mr Carlyle, by an eminent writer upwards of twenty years ago. Similar terms are used by writers of the present day who have had opportunities for personal observation. Mr Henry C. Barkley, who spent twelve years in Turkey —seven in forming the Varna and Eustchuk Railway, fire in making that of Xuatendjio—while giving a severe account of the officials, cannot speak too highly of the rank and file of the Turkish nation : “ Doubtless the village Turk has his faults —who lias not ? but they arc faults of a manly kind, and as a counterbalance he has many a fine trait in his cha- - actor. He loves to be idle, and will be so as long as he can • but if the necessity arises no one will go through more hardship and labor than he will. He will struggle on long after hope is past, and, actually will dib of hunger and hardship without a murmur. If led hy

those he can trust (which is rarely the case), he will light splendidly, and he never questions an order, even if he sees death staring at him through it. He is faithful to his master, be he Mussulman or Christian, and will work as hard as anyone if he but see a time of rest before him. He is far the most hone t of any of the various people of Turkey, and is proud and careful of bis promise. He is hospitable, both by his religion and by nature, and it is rarely he turns a stranger 1 am his door; never if he is a fellow-Osnn > li. Ho thinks little of money, an I has few wants. He is kind to all his women, be they wives or slaves, and is himself the slave of all his little children, who treat him as a great plaything. Then he is never wantonly cruel to an animal or any creature, though when ho thinks it necessary he will ride his horse to a standstill, or cut the throat of half-a-dozen people to procure their purses.” The official class he describes as dishonest, untruthful, and cunning. The Zaptichs—the police—are either robbers or in league with robber’s. Colonel James Baker gives even a higher character to the Turkish rank and file. Here is what lie says : “ A nation may change its character but not its nature, and there is one point in common with both the past and the present, and that is that the Turkish rank and file—the real pith of the nation—were then, as now, distinguished for their patience, discipline, activity, bravery, honesty, and modesty. (This last term is used by Q-ibbon, and is very appreciative. There is an absence of all brag about the Turkish soldier), and to their qualities I may also add that of humanity. .... Look at the Turkish soldier in private life, and you find him gentle and kind to children and women, and exceedingly fond of animals When he is exasperated by what ho thinks are insults to his creed, he kills and slays, as his teaching tells him, and he appears a fanatical madman ; but he his then outside his real nature and not within it.” And here let it be remembered that this is the evidence of a man who has travelled throughout Turkey in Europe, and has also resided nearly three years in the country. “ In other respects,” he says, “I have been so circumstanced as to be brought into contact with officials, both foreign and native, of all grades, which has necessarily afforded me the opportunity of acquiring valuable information.”

Mr Gladstone’s criticism of this testimony is not of much value, and is hardly ingenuous. It is to the effect that persons travelling as gentlemen for pleasure through a country meet, of course, with the best of everything ; everything is colenr-de-roxe to them! This is quite true probably, in the case of persons of rank or substance, passing a short time in any place. They receive the best attention and are put into good humor with themselves and everybody around them. But the case of Colonel Baker is that of a man of intelligence and observation who resided among the people of whom he writes for nearly three years. He had, in addition, facilities for forming a sound opinion on the subject of the extract which we have made. In addition to such testimony, it is well known that hospitality and sobriety are qualities possessed by Ottoman s in a high degree. It may not be so well known that in the Koran the equality of all believers is taught; and that it is in Turkey a practical truth, not a mere theory, as among Christians. The raising of a woodman or shoeblack to the highest position in the State would not awaken any surprise. There are no governing families ; none who occupy positions of hereditary right. The Sultan being the Prophet’s Vicegerent, is the sole successor to honor. The remarks of Mr Bosworth Smith, quoted above, show that this feature in Moslemism is a living power among Mahommedans.

From all these sources, then, we come to the following conclusion respecting the Turks and Turkish administration ; —That the bulk of the Turkish and Raya populations are at least equal to their brethren in Western Europe ; that the Government is in the hands of a corrupt class ; and that good government depends too much upon the lives of a few individuals in the existence of a capable Sultan or Grand Vizier.. Of course a similar judgment might be passed upon several European Governments, notably upon Russia, the self-constituted champion of good government. The habit which has lately become fashionable, with the sanction of Mr Gladstone’s great name, of branding the Turk as “anti-human,” “unspeakable,” &c., is very sensibly disposed of by Colonel Taker in these words: —“Such broad and sweeping condemnation is made of the whole nation by those who only gain their information second hand, and the character of the Turkish people is so mixed up by them with that of Turkish officials, that to any impartial man who is well acquainted with the country the injustice is frequently so glaring that it rouses his indignation at the absence which is exhibited of common justice and fair play, qualities of which Englishmen are especially and justly proud. Even the Turkish Government is so frequently denied any credit for what it has done, and is so often blamed for that which it has not done, that those who in their hearts condemn it are, for the sake of fair play, ranged on the side of its defence. It is impossible for any person, and especially one who is resident in the country, to close his eyes to the shortcomings of the Turkish Government; but so much the more should all Turkish subjects be pitied, and when humanity is concerned I cannot understand why any distinction should bo made between the Turkish and Christian peasant except it be sectarian idiosyncrasies, which are so uncharitable that they become unchristian.”

The difficulty ot' establishing a good administration is materially increased by the action of Russia, who by her agents foments agitation and corrupts officials ; and it has been well said that Turkish administration was never more corrupt and incapable than when Russian influence was paramount at Constantinople. This was the case during the reign of the laic Sultan Abdul Aziz, who was largely under the influence of General Ignatieff, the Russian Ambassador.