Page images



[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

13th June, 1835. 16 of Safer, 1251.

The English "Courier," on the appearance of a pamphlet entitled " England, Ireland, and America," has made a sortie, no less violent than unexpected, against the Ottoman Government and people.

The "Courier," like all passionate advocates, ignorant of the cause which they plead, has accumulated a mass of exaggerations, in order to spare itself the necessity of reasoning and proofs; it has substituted opprobrium for discussion. Its two articles are the complete summary of all that during ten years has been brought to market in the shape of odium and untruth respecting the Ottoman empire, by the Macfarlanes and other speculators in chronicles, who land in a country, scamper over it like dogs on the scent, and hasten back to sell to a bookseller, for their two months' subsistence, the anecdotes which they have scraped together as their travelling provisions. Was it decorous in a respectable journal, which occupies an elevated rank in the English press, to re-open on a sudden these long forgotten sources, in order to foist on Europe the impure productions which she had already once rejected with disgust?

The picture which it draws of Turkey is not even new; it is the re-production of an old description, which has no other importance than as occupying a place in a journal to which credit is attached, and at a moment of importance to the destinies of a vast empire. Assuming as correct the colouring given by the " Courier," how

ever sombre it be, we say, If there be in Turkey misery, depopulation, and anarchy, with whom rests the blame?

You attribute it to its religion-where are your proofs? The accusing party has none to bring forward, but the defendant has proofs which are incontrovertible.

In June, 1826, when the Janissaries revolted for the last time against the innovation of the regular troops, which had been organized by Sultan Mahmoud, the standard of the Prophet is unfurled. Religion intervenes, therefore, at this terrible crisis; it is invoked in order to decide against a body which had rebelled against all reform, and against the Prince who wishes to change a social state degraded by long abuses, and who attacks the first opposing obstacle. The trial is decisive of the question of the religion of Mahomet. At the summons of the criers, who invoked the aid of the true believers, a hundred thousand men, united under the Mussulman oriflamme, crush to pieces in a few hours the rebels.

[ocr errors]

Who can misunderstand the meaning of this victory? It is Religion that has triumphed; it is Religion which, personified in the Sultan, the supreme Pontiff, and in the people, the interpreters by their actions of the religious dogmas, has proclaimed the necessity of reform, and struck its opponents to the ground. The destruction of the Janissaries was a stroke of policy and of religion united for the same end, viz. that of improvement. And yet how many reminiscences illustrated this still powerful body of the Janissaries! It commenced with the origin of the Ottoman monarchy; its glory was identified with the most splendid conquests of which it had been the most useful instrument its name alone recalled epochs of renown dear to the nation. The Janissaries had reigned as masters during three hundred years; they had in their favour that consecration of time which continues still to support a power long after it has lost all other aid. Why, then, were they overthrown with a facility which is one of the most remarkable facts of this age? Why, on the immense surface of this empire, in its most remote provinces, was no single defender to be found whose resistance has called forth their re-establishment? It is because

religion was arrayed against them. It condemned their licentiousness and the general disorganization of which they were the cause, and it could not associate itself with their principle of immobility.

Since the disappearance of this corps, have we seen a single fraction of the population take up arms, at the call of religious inspiration, against the reforms successively introduced by the Sultan? They have been numerous, no one will dispute it; without stopping to discuss their merit, it is sufficient to certify that, as reforms, they would have provoked general opposition, if the argument of the "Courier" had been well founded; if religion were an insurmountable barrier to all amelioration.

Away, then, with imputations founded on worn-out declamation, and destitute of every vestige of proof, against a religion which has not yet been sufficiently studied in the institutions and habits it has created, and on which Europe has never enjoyed the means of forming an equitable opinion. We do not believe that we are equal to the task of supplying this deficiency, and we have not the pretension to undertake it; but the facts before our eyes require to be described as they strike us. Here, in Turkey, we shall always see effected at pleasure, in the smallest space of time, and by the simple force of reason, that which has elsewhere required ages of struggle and torrents of blood. The Turks owe to their religion an undoubted superiority of intelligence, of good sense, and of equity, which they never fail to display when necessity calls it into action. They fear God, and derive from this ruling sentiment the calm reason, the philosophy, which do not waste themselves in words, but which are shown in their actions. In Christendom, people fear God to a certain extent, but they dread those who intervene between God and society-the churchmen, the powerful, the doctors of all colours, who lead their flocks by ignorance, corruption, or sophisms, who drag society in a thousand opposite ways, without unity, without community of thought, and who, when the day of personal trial arrives, belie their doctrines, and by their example throw doubt on the convictions which they have formed by their lessons.

How comes it, then, that in Turkey there is misery and depopulation? Since Turkey has ceased to make herself feared, since her people, attaching themselves to the soil which she had conquered, have become sedentary and industrious, has Europe ever ceased to persecute her by her political repulsion, and by her religious hatred? Will this be denied by the "Courier," which, hardly thirty days ago, sounded the charge against Turkey, and in its manifesto mingled religion with politics.* If we examine the period of the last century, we shall see the Ottomans almost uninterruptedly engaged in gigantic wars, which they had not provoked, threatened when they were not attacked, and held by the necessity of defence in a perpetual state of alarm, which is not always war, but which never is peace. Is it, then, amidst the perils of anxiety, that the weather-beaten crew resumes its strength? is it in that perpetual state of crisis, in which blood is shed, that riches are accumulated and that population increases ?+ Has the present age, so vaunted for its intelligence and its toleration, treated Turkey any better? How many blows have been struck at her during thirty years! If we recapitulate them correctly, and add the treasure and the men swallowed up in those struggles in which fanaticism and animosity were not to be found in the ranks of those who fought for their creed, their rights, and their hearths; the riches and population which still remain in Turkey would be the most conclusive argument against the detractors of this country.

The partial insurrections in the Ottoman empire, which have

"We deny that it is possible that England, or that any civilized Christian country, can be interested in the support of so odious a despotism. But to suppose any such thing is to libel the British nation."-" Courier."

[ocr errors]

The Frankfort Journal of the 11th of August has the following: "The truth is, that the whole of the young Turks, arrived at the age of marriage, are taken for the military service; thus the country is menaced with entire depopulation, in spite of the firmans of the Sultan!" Such, then, is the effrontery of this anti-social Cabinet; and the consequences of its own violence, and of Europe's deluded co-operation, are now quoted and exposed-to cast opprobrium on the Sultan.

never been any thing but the inevitable result of external circumstances, by which all the ties had been loosened, are termed by the "Courier" anarchy. Without harping on the word, let us examine the causes of the evil.

There exists in the empire a vassal possessing a fleet, an army, and treasures, who is nominally dependent, but in reality independent. How this power has been acquired by him, and what has been the result to the people whom he governs, is a matter foreign to our present question. But he has made use of these means to hazard an attempt against his master and his country, which has been favoured by success. He is powerful, almost a sovereign; and he may still try the fortune of arms whenever he pleases. Around this power, elevated in the face of that of the Sultan, the thoughts of all the discontented are concentrated; they know that at any moment they may find efficacious assistance; intervention in case of a struggle; refuge in case of defeat. The necessities of the position which he has assumed bind his interests to those of whoever chooses to oppose the Government. What is such a power, but a permanent provocative to complaints and acts, which change their character into insurrection?

It may be objected that this danger is only so alarming, be cause in Turkey the discontented are numerous. Let us leave, as we have announced to the accusing party, a basis as large as they desire; we retain sufficient strength in this simple question : Does no discontent prevail in the other States of Europe? Let us examine them.

In England, if the Governor of one of the fractions of the United Kingdom, possessed of as many troops and ships and as much money as the King, were any moment to enter into a contest with equal chances of success, supported by the excitement of rivalry, what would not the wrongs of Ireland become to England?

If in France, the commander of a military division at Bourdeaux, Lille, or Strasbourg, in revolt, under any pretext, had beaten the troops of the Government, taken a third of the territory, and continued, by the intervention of neighbouring States,

« PreviousContinue »