with them is conducted on principles of mutual advantage? Exposed as those of Turkey are to dangers and frequent collisions both within and from without,-insulated, moreover, by their creed when taken as the guide of their policy,—whither is a blind obedience to their traditional maxims calculated to lead them? When they shall have reached that stage of weakness and confusion which would infallibly tempt the ambition of powerful neighbours, where should we find a shelter for our commercial or political interests in that quarter, or how should we avert the war which duty, policy, and humanity would then concur to force upon us?

We should not deal fairly by the public if we pretended to supply the amount of knowledge required to enable them to comprehend in all its details the condition of the Turkish Empire. We can only hope to bring more prominently and distinctly into view such circumstances in the state of Turkey as are essential to a clear apprehension of the subject, and to place in their proper light those leading considerations which are best calculated to settle our judgment as to the affairs of that country.

We are stimulated by recent events to undertake this task, particularly by the death of Sultan Abdul Mehjid, and his brother's accession to the Ottoman throne. These unexpected changes have more than ever attracted public attention towards the seat of power in Turkey, and it is by no means improbable that a crisis of vital importance to ourselves, and to all Europe, may eventually arise out of their consequences.

The Turks are separated from us by so many barriers that, when we are summoned to give them a thought, our first impres sion is one of surprise that we should have any interests in common with them, or that we should entertain any wish either to press our advice upon them, or to step forward, at our own cost and peril, in their defence. Why, it may naturally be asked, even by those who can think more calmly than Mr. Madden, should a Christian state concern itself about the welfare of a people whose rule of action is the Koran? Why should those who live under a free constitution desire the maintenance of an empire governed on despotic principles? Why should a nation whose Saxon literature embraces the whole circle of knowledge, ally itself with a horde of Tartars-for such the Turks originally were-whose written idiom is almost exclusively confined to tracts and commentaries steeped in bigotry and alien from our conceptions of truth?

Yet, obvious and rational as these impressions may in appear ance be, we cannot with prudence or safety adopt them as the

ground

ground of our national policy in the Levant. Long before we had acquired any territorial footing in the Mediterranean, that spirit of trade and navigation, which belongs so emphatically to the British Isles, impelled us into commercial intercourse with the shores of Turkey. Those who embarked in the trade with that country required protection for their persons and properties against the violence of a despotic government, the cupidity of local authorities, and the prejudices of a fanatical population. We are indebted to one and the same great Princess for the Levant and East India Companies, which in their day, though now consigned to the common resting-place of human inventions, rendered good service to the State on no common scale of magnitude. It was in connection with the former of those companies, and in support of its establishments, that our first ostensible engagements with the Porte were contracted under the name of Capitulations. These and some additional treaties, which are still in vigour, constitute the legal securities of our countrymen for the enjoyment of justice and friendly treatment wherever the Sultan's power is practically maintained.

The charter of the Levant Company, though it originated in the year 1581, dates in its improved shape from the reigns of James I. and Charles II. The Capitulations, as now existing, date from the year 1675, but refer in several of their preliminary clauses to earlier periods, beginning with the reign of Elizabeth. The trade, which, thus protected, took root and gradually spread through the Levant, has, we all know, of late years taken much larger proportions. It now comprises the transit trade with Persia, and altogether stands at a high figure in our table of imports and exports, as annually presented to the two Houses of Parliament. It also includes our traffic in grain and other important articles of produce with the Danubian provinces and the neighbouring districts of Russia. The shipping employed in conveying such articles of export from those quarters, as well as the corresponding articles of exchange manufactured in Great Britain, must of necessity thread its way through the narrow, well-fortified channels of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. No inconsiderable portion of our trade with Hungary, and in general with the States of Austria, inclines to follow the same direction, and that tendency can hardly fail to be increased by the new and shorter lines of communication which, as in the recent instance of Kustandjee, promise to facilitate our means of commercial intercourse on that side, whether by rail or by canal.

MacCulloch in his valuable work, the Dictionary of Commercial Navigation,' remarks that the trade between England and Turkey is of much greater value and importance than is

generally

generally supposed, and it appears to be susceptible of an alm indefinite increase.'

He goes on to say that 'in 1825 we exported direct to Txey, including what is now the kingdom of Greece, 13,674,00 yards of cotton cloth, and 446,462 lbs. of cotton twist; that in 1831 we exported to Turkey, exclusive of the Morea, 24,556,000 yards of cloth, and 1,735,760 lbs. of twist.'

'Plain goods,' he remarks, in speaking of Manchester, 'now form the half of our investments for Turkey; and it is impossible, seeing the extent to which articles of this sort are made use of in all parts of the empire, to form any clear idea of the magnitude of this trade.'

Übicini, in his able Letters on Turkey," anticipates the eventual concession by the Sultan's Government to European foreigners of the power to hold land, as property, in the Ottoman dominions Calculez,' says he in pursuing this idea, 'l'essor prodigieux que peuvent prendre en peu d'années l'agriculture et le commerce de la Turquie, sortie de son état précaire, dégagée des entraves qui la gênent, maîtresse de ses populations, et fécondée à l'intérieur par l'industrie et les capitaux de l'Europe, dont les armes la défendront contre les attaques du dehors.'' Consider what a prodigious flight may be taken in a few years by the trade and agriculture of Turkey, released from its precarious condi tion, disengaged from the difficulties which embarrass it, mistress of its whole population, and fertilized throughout its territories by the industry and capital of Europe, whose arms will defend it from all external attacks.'

In confirmation of these prospects, even under the existing system of Turkish law, we learn from the returns presented officially to Parliament that in the year 1854 our imports from Turkey, Moldavia, Wallachia, and Syria amounted in real declared value to 6,131,1107., and from Turkey alone to 2,219,2987; that four years later, namely, in 1858, the former of those two amounts had increased to 9,786,2997., and the latter to 2,632,7167.; that, moreover, taking the account of exports of British and Irish produce to the countries specified above for the same years respectively, in real declared value, the amount for 1854 was 4,475,4837., for 1858 7,188,5287.; and for Turkey alone 2,758,6057. in 1854; 4,256,4067. in 1858.

Experience and conjecture, facts and appearances, thus converge towards the same point, and warrant a steady belief that the interest our country has in the welfare of Turkey is not imaginary, but well-grounded, substantial, and progressive. Be it remembered at the same time, that in giving our support to the main* See Quarterly Review,' vol. xcviii.

tenance

nance of the Ottoman Empire, to the improvement of its admiistration, and to the expansion of its resources, we promote the terests of a state whose commercial policy, at all times sinularly liberal, was from an early period in advance of European gislation. MacCulloch, in his work already quoted, observes at, In almost all that relates to her commercial regulations Turkey is entitled to read a lesson to the most civilised European Powers.' Whatever may have been the cause of it, any supeiority in so important a respect is highly to the credit of a government so constituted as that of Turkey. Ascribe it, if you please, to ignorance or to indifference-we must, nevertheless, admit that ignorance, which steps instinctively before others into the right course, possesses a claim to our good will, and that indifference, which opened a great empire to useful intercourse with all friendly countries, had at least the merit of not being repulsive in its character, or unproductive of much international benefit. But on either of these suppositions how are we to explain the positive encouragement given by the Porte to commercial adventurers from abroad, and carried even to the extreme of allowing the Ambassador and Consuls of each friendly nation to exercise an independent judicial authority within the Turkish dominions?

At all events, in so far as the Porte, however mechanically, acted on the principles of free trade, the advantage, which her adoption of them conferred on foreign countries, had the effect of diminishing that estrangement which mutual fanaticism had long engendered between the followers of Mahomet and the professors of Christianity. England and France, in particular, were not slow to improve the opening afforded by such liberality to a more cordial understanding between their respective subjects and the inhabitants of Turkey. The British Cabinet appears to have lost no opportunity of cultivating friendly relations with the Sultan. Its endeavours from an early period were directed, as occasion offered, towards the maintenance or the restoration of a state of peace in the Levant, and those endeavours became more frequent and active in proportion as the declining strength of Turkey yielded to the pressure of neighbouring Powers. Even the apparent exceptions offered by our policy in 1806, when in league with the Russians we sent a squadron to the Bosphorus, and in 1827, when we joined with the Czar and the Bourbon in founding the constitutional monarchy of Greece, were not the results of any unfriendly sentiment towards Turkey. In the former case, which was that of a fearful crisis in European affairs, we had to detach the Porte from a dangerous and unwilling subserviency to France; in the latter we aimed at bringing the Vol. 111.-No. 222.

2 B

Porte

Porte into an arrangement which promised to have the effect of closing a breach in her dominions favourable to Russian aggression, and of realizing a system of reform required for the recovery of her independence and internal prosperity.

Knolles, in his 'History of the Turks,' which was praised so highly by Dr. Johnson, relates that in the year 1621 Sir Thomas Rowe, a distinguished diplomatist of that time, arrived at Constantinople with the character of Ambassador in Ordinary from King James the First. Among the important objects which Sir Thomas was instructed to submit to Sultan Osman, there figures an offer of British mediation between His Highness and the King of Poland, who were then at war with each other. In the discharge of this duty the Ambassador is stated to have used the following words on his Sovereign's behalf :--

'His Majesty hath commanded me to offer himself as a mediator of peace, to accommodate the late breach with the kingdom of Poland which, if your Majesty shall hearken unto the rather for his sake, as your royal ancestor hath done in the like occasion, His Majesty will accept it as a respect of your love, which will assure and increase the commerce and friendship of your dominions.'

The Sultan, replying to the King of England, declares his pleasure in the following terms:

'Whensoever on behalf of the Polacks an ambassador shall arrive at our high court and shall desire our favour and amity, by the mediation of your resident now in our Imperial Porte, all matters shall be pacified and ended, and with a pen we will blot out all former differences; and the peace being so established, your instances and desires for them shall have grateful acceptance with us.'

His Highness's letter concludes with the warmest assurances of good-will and friendship on his part towards the King. It expresses a confident expectation that, as in times past,' the 'ancient, perfect, and acceptable course of friendship will be always observed and maintained.' In short, it is evident from a perusal of these passages that the mediation of England was acceptable to the Porte, that it had been used on previous occasions, and that both parties felt the value of each other's friendship-the one as taking a lively interest in the peace and welfare of Turkey, the other as liking to have an instrument of accommodation on which reliance could be placed in times of emergency.

The Turkish Empire, in proportion as its power declines, is exposed on every side to the encroachment of its neighbours. Even Persia, though a Mahometan country, yet differing from Turkey on points of religious belief, and greatly inferior to it in extent and population, is not a rival who can be safely despised.