ENGLAND'S TREATMENT OF TURKEY.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1258, 30 March 1878, Page 2

ENGLAND'S TREATMENT OF TURKEY.

L" Pall Mall Gazette."] The attitude -which England has adopted in her foreign policy may be such as to delight the Quaker and his temporary allies, the Ritualist and the Philosophical Radical, but the judgment of foreigners, which often is a prelude to that of history, already warns us. that the manner in which England has treatecj Turkey is not universally regarded as honour able. We are aware that to advance a vofl in favour of the Turk is to excite tho men who like to keep their consciences qifl by looking at only one side of a but, addressing ourselves to perons who nH admit that even a Mussulman is fair play, wo ask whether Turkoy has mul cause to be satisfied with English condueffl and whether the opinions now expressed us at Constantinople are such as ought to make us feel proud ? The Turks have not forgotten, if we have, that during fifty yeara they were taught to regard us as their best frier.ds, and were constantly urged to shape their policy with a view to obliging us. Tories and Whigs vied in giving them assurances of support and in exacting reciprocal services. Tho Biilish Ambassador at Constantinople in some sense ruled Turkey, for his word, had paramount weight, and if, through some passing cause, ho was temporarily overshadowed by the Russian or French Ambassador, no efforts were spared to replace his authority on a dominant footing. Nothing was heard in those days of Turkish barbarity in the Christian provinces. Englishmen who visiied Bulgaria ov Roum lia (and there were not a few who did so) rendered justice to the spirit in which the pashas administered tho law, trying to keep Christians and Mussulmans at peace ; and it was generally admitted that the i'm'ks had a very ciiilicnlt part to play in the face of the ceaseless intrigues of Russian agents. Moreover, nobody thought that Bulgaria or any of the Christian provinces would be a whit happier if freed from Turkish rule. The example of the corrupt little Greek kingdom, with its burlesque of constitutionalism, its brigandage, and its treacherous policy, was there to disabuse thinking persons, of acy

illusions as to the capacity for self-govern-ment possessed by those queer Christians ; and as for the alternative of throwing Bulgaria and its neighbours under Russian protectorate, that was a scheme against which British Liberals would have been the first to raise their voices. Turkey was bidden to bold firm to provinces for winch Bho little cared, because it was England's interest that she should hold them. If left to herself she ■would have granted her troublesome vassals some sort of autonomy to quiet them, or else she would have employed very drastic mean'" to bring them in subjection. But neither of these courses suiied'England nor the other Powers concerned in the treaty of 1856. The watchword wa? —"Wait. Do nothing to raise the Knstrrn Question. When it has become evident, that Russia is assailing you again, then wo will interfere and settle matters once and for all." Can any statesman deny that this was the policy adopted towarde Turkey by successive British Cabinets, and chiefly by those in which Mr Gladstone held a seat ?

Meanwhile—that is, while Turkey abandoned her own free will for the snko of British protection—she rendered us the inestimable service of discouraging the participation of the Mußsulm ms in the Indian mutiny. Certainly, if she had then hearkened to Russia, anci if she could have dipped into the future and foreseen our present policy, her attitude would have been very different. She might have orga? ised a modus civendi with Russia on easy terms, and by exciting the Musfulnren Indians against us have possibly dealt a finishing blow to our power in the East. Let it be remembered that at that time French Napoleonic interests were at one with Russia in desiring cur downfall. However, Turkey held fast to us, and repaid her Crimean deht with loyalty. Then came the Polish rebellion of 1863, and it seemed that a fine opportunity had dawned for Turkey to stamp out Panslavist intrigues, for Russia had her hands full, the Hungarians were straining to join their Polish brethren, and Napoleon 111., whose policy tacked about with the wind, would not hnve been sorry to lend a hand in restoring Polish independence. But England's fear of a general conflagration once again urged her to keep Turkey quiet, and the opportunity was lost. Four years later the Sultan Abdul Aziz paid a state visit to London; and if the Liberal newspapers of that date be referred to, it will be found that they one and all hailed him as an ally. There was not a discordant voice—not a single note of warning to prepare the man for the view that was by-and-by to be taken of his race as a pack of infidels unworthy of countenance: even Mr Gladstone failed to throw out a hint that he thought the honours paid to the Sultan injudicious, as calculated to misled him. Yet it would have been kind had he done so, for it would have prevented much after-trouble; but the difference between 1867 and 1877 was, that in the former year Mr Gladstone felt himself to be on the eve of returning to power as Prime Minister, and was chary of utterances which might have materially interfered with his prospects, or else have thrown upon him heavy responsibilities. But even after he had acceded to the Premiership, the future author of the " bag-and-baggage" policy neglected to breathe a word which might inform the Turks that the support of the Liberal party was withdrawn from them. He omitted to so at the time of the Khivan campaign. He even neglected the excellent occasion afforded by the denunciation of the Treaty of Paris by Prince Gortschakoff at the close of _ the Franco-German war. Why so much taciturnity, since Mr Gladstone had more opportunities than he has had since of satisfying himself as to the holiness of Russian motives ? We come now to the Servian revolt, and once more England stepped into the field to hold the Turk's arm. The aggression had been flagrant, and, according to the laws that prevail in all States, Turkey was justified in chastising her rebellious vassal and rendering her powerless for further mischief. If she consented to forego this her right in deference to British advice, is it to betupposed that she thought England would stand by twelve months later and suffer those very Servians who had been spared to rise up with cowardly treachery and overwhelm her when she had fallen ? But British interference had not yet done its worst; for when Russia threw down the glove the obvious policy of Turkey, fighting for her national existence, was to proclaim the "holy war." If the Sultan had hoh-ted the Blacksmith's Apron, and called upon all the Mohammedan faithful throughout the East to join it, what would have become of Russia, who had to use all her might, her gold, her diplomacy, her intrigues, as well as her arms, to vanquish Osman? Truly the war was from the first a one-sided nffair ; for while Russia flaunted her " holy" cause, Turkey was not allowed to make any of the capital that can' be got out of the word "holy." England dissuaded her. Far England's sake the Turks were not to make war according to their own notions, and by 6uch means as would have secured them the advantage, but according to fashiots which they did not comprehend, End which put them against fearful odds. Well, they have obeyed England from first to last, and what have they ' gained by it ? To be told that they must now shirt for themselves, that nobody likes them, that nobody would be so foolish as to fire off a cartridge in their defence, is a strange return for years of compliance and countless acts of submission; and, indeed, some Turks may think—for even Turks think—that English good faith has not come with a conspicuous brightness out of all these matters.