TURKEY, EGYPT, AND THE AFFAIRS OF THE EAST. THERE is a witchery, an enchantment, about all that relates to the East, which throws far into the shade the more homely spectacles, and the more familiar events of the western world; and which renders us fabulists rather than historians, and novelists rather than biographers, when we attempt to write of Turkey, Egypt, and the East. The Arabian Nights' Enter tainments is the mirror of Eastern life and of Eastern history. The porphyry pillars, the bazaars, and baths; the gilded barges, the embroidered elephants, the cloudless skies, the half veiled maidens of Eastern luxury; the curtains which surround the voluptuous slaves of the mighty pachas, beys, and lords, of those distant climes; the feathers of the egret of Cashmere, or of the argus pheasant's wing; the costly armour of the cavaliers, the lake of pearl, the sacred shade of a banyan tree, the Brahmins of the great Pagoda, the story-tellers of the East, the shawl goats of Thibet, the flowered girdles, the hung strings of fine pearl, the kitars to which Arab maids lis tened by moonlight in the gardens of the Alhambra, the prophet-chief, his tomb, the haram's curtained galleries, the burning focusts of Brahma, the rich Divan with its turbaned heads, the fur-bound bonnet of Bucharian shape, the full and fawn-like eyes of Persia, the small half shut glances of China, the bloom of Georgia, and Azar's darker smiles; the splendid pageants, the endless processions, the white flag of Mokauna, the hundreds of banners to the sunbeam spread, the plumes, and lances, and the glittering thrones; Bucharia's ruby mines, Eden's sainted shades, the mosques, mausoleums, and sepulchres of distant ages; the camels with their camel-drivers, the Hassan of the desert, the caravan seras, the gold-coloured campac on the black hair of the Eastern women, the perfumed rods of the Eastern halls, the variegated coories which visit the coral trees, the blue pigeons of Mecca, the pagoda thrush, the birds of paradise, the white heron's feathers in the Uzbek Tartar's turban, and the "Alla Acbar" cry of the Arab-are some of the Eastern remembrances of our youth, and some of the dreamy recol lections of departed years, when "life was new, and all was in its spring!" The Christian, when he thinks of the East, remembers "the Man of sorrows, who was acquainted with grief" follows him in his wanderings in the Holy land-gazes on that bright star of Bethlehem, which led the Eastern sages and the Eastern shepherds to a stable and an infant-listens to the sayings of him "who spake as never man spake," on the Sea of Galilee, on the Lake of Gennesaret, on the Mount of Olives, and in the Temple of Jerusalem-weeps at the Cross of Calvary, and in the Garden of Gethsemane, and treads with hallowed awe those plains, or ascends with sacred rapture those mountains, which were once gazed on by that eye which ever beamed love and mercy, and which was itself moistened with tears, when he wept at the grave of Lazarus, or over the then future fate of the Holy City. The pious Jew, when he thinks of the East, remembers that there the first man was created that there dwelt the first long-lived patriarchs, and the descendants of Noah till long after the Deluge-and that there the great monarchies of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia, were founded and flourished. He remembers the land of Judea or Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, Assyria, Arabia, and Egypt. Palestine is pre-eminently dear to him. There the kingdoms of Israel and Judah flourished-there the temple of God was erected by King Solomon-there most of the inspired Scriptures were written and there, in after ages, One arose who accomplished the all-important work of human redemption, and the Apostles of the Saviour were supernaturally qualified to go forth among all nations to preach the gospel of eternal salvation to a lost and ruined world. In the East, also, lay the land of Canaan, the land of promise to Abraham and his family, the land of Palestine, named after the Philistines, and that land of Judea, from the tribe of Judah possessing its most fertile division, now more commonly called the Holy Land, as there the ministry of Christ was exercised, and there the obedience, and death, and resurrection, and ascension of our Redeemer took place for our eternal salvation. What Christian can hear of SYRIA, and think of Antioch, now Antachia, without remembering that it was there that the Christians were first so called after their Divine master? There were the mighty Babylon, the humble Bethany, the celebrated Bethsaida, the hill of Calvary, the Cana in Galilee, the well-remembered Capernaum, the rivulet Kedron, the lamented Chorazin, the distinguished Corinth, the famous Damascus, the cities of Decapolis, the beloved Emmaus, the adored Galilee, the awful Golgotha, the destroyed Gomorrha, the of ten-mentioned Jericho, the four-hilled Jerusalem, the dear and worshipped Nazareth, the ancient and venerable Nineveh, the Patmos, so interesting to our earliest astonishment, the Samaria, whose daughter's history has so often been perused with delight, the Sarepta, with whose widow we are so familiar, the Siloam, whose healing waters we have heard of from our infancy, the Sheba, whose Queen has surprised us by her unbounding riches, the Sinai and the Horeb of another dispensation, the Zion, whose children's songs shall constitute the music of heaven, the Sodom, whose destruction we mourn over, the Tarsus, whose Saul afterwards became the glorious apostle of the Gentiles, and the Mount Tabor of Palestine, on which, in very deed, transpired the scene of the Transfiguration. The philosopher, whether natural or moral, the poet, the linguist, the lover of arts and sciences, the antiquarian, the painter, the sculptor, the historian of ancient days and of bygone centuries, all seek in the records, monuments, and recollections of the East, materials for their minds, tastes, and occupations; and drawing from those vast storehouses of knowledge and of facts, they enrich our libraries, adorn our galleries, and excite a livelier piety in our houses and in our temples. We approach, then, with unaffected diffidence, and yet with undisguised delight, the consideration of the Eastern question; and, with the page of prophecy in one hand and the light of revelation in the other, we propose to open up fully this mighty and momentous subject. Nations do not rise and sink of their own volition; the decline and fall of the Turkish empire, and the expanding power and influence of the Egyptian monarchy, are not the doings of man, but the works of God; and we feel, as the patriarch was enjoined to do, when approaching the burning bush-" the place on which we stand is holy ground." But whilst we thus introduce to the attention of our readers this mighty question of the "affairs of the East," let it not be supposed that we shall be unmindful of those "material" questions which are identified with the history of modern society, or that we shall not descend from the heights and loftiness of the mountain, to the shades and retirement, obscurity and workday character of the valley. Whilst we would cultivate, as a source of cheerfulness, excitement, and pure delight, the illusions of the world in which we have not lived, we would not forget that world in which we are living; that we have to do with man as he is, in the age in which we are suffered to play our humble part in the great drama of time; and that we are Britons as well as Christians, and citizens of the bravest and the brightest of the Isles of the ocean, as well as of a world created by the power and the perfections of Heaven. We have no love of chimeras. We derive our greatest enjoyments from facts. Sometimes those facts are past, at other times present realities, and at others only viewed through the long vista of futurity;-but they are facts and our faith is no more required to be exercised for the future than for the past. If, then, our introductory observations have appeared to the man of business, to the capitalist, to the merchant, to the politician, the diplomatist, or the statesman, to be more poetic than historical, and more imaginative than real;-if any of them shall have apprehended that we are disposed to deal in generalities rather than in specialties, and in flights of fancy rather than in positive and uncontradictable facts-let all such misapprehensions be laid aside, let all such misconceptions be abandoned-and let a fair and undivided attention be granted to us, whilst we unfold and develope the vast subject which now occupies our minds as well as interests our affections, Since the incorporation of Egypt with Turkey, the two great questions, until within a few years, have been, 1st, whether the pachas have acted honestly and fairly by the Egyptians, as representatives of the Sublime Porte; and 2nd, whether they have submitted to the suzeraineté of the Sultan, and have faithfully transmitted the khazneh, or tribute, to the Sultan. The Mameluke Government was an episode. The Mamelouks or Mamelukes were a race originally composed of Circassian or Mingrelian slaves, and for some years were the only military force in the country. For many years, at the close of the past and during the present century, Egypt was distracted by civil wars between the contending beys, by whom its provinces were governed. In 1786, the Turkish admiral, Hassan Ali, gained several victories; but though he repressed, he could not totally subdue them. In 1811, the Pacha Mehemet Ali, having received information of a conspiracy formed by the Beys, he, under the plea of a solemn feast, induced 800 of the chief Mamelukes to join in a procession to Cairo. When in the citadel, they were entrapped between the outer and inner wall-many of them were shot, and the rest were beheaded. An equally large number were subsequently killed in the neighbouring towns and villages, and their massacre was pursued into Nubia, till the race of Mamelukes became extinct. The history of the pachas, from the time of Selim I. downwards, would be profitless, though not uninteresting -and it would prolong this article to an unreasonable length. It is only necessary to be borne in mind, that the Pacha of Egypt, up to very late years, was the acknowledged subject of the Porte; that, with but very few exceptions, the submission of the pachas was complete; and that, although in consequence of the gradual weakening of Turkey by the defection of her allies England and Austria, and by the aggressions of her foes the Russians and the Greeks, her authority is so much reduced, her power so inconceivably small, and her state so help less, as to be unable to resist the disobedience and rebellion of the present Pacha and his victorious and able son, Ibrahim, yet that the Sublime Porte has never recognised Egypt as an independent government, is at this moment demanding the payment of the arrears of the khazneh, and is anxious to oppose the dominion of the rebel Pacha, in that portion of its former dominions (Syria), to which now we must direct a moment's attention. SYRIA, or Suristan, was possessed by a succession of foreign nations, before the time of Ptolemy, when it became a province of the Roman empire. Five centuries afterwards, when the sons of Theodosius divided their immense patrimony, this country was annexed to the empire of Constantinople. In this situation it continued till the 7th century, when the Arabian tribes, under the banners of Mohammet, laid it waste. Since that period, torn by civil wars and by numerous invaders, it fell into the hands of the Turks, who have been its masters from the beginning of the 16th century. It is divided into the governments of Aleppo, Tripoli, Damascus, Acre, and Gaza, or Palestine. Is this province of Turkey in Asia, bounded on the north by Caramania and Diarbekir, on the east by the latter and by the deserts of Arabia, on the south by Arabia Petræa and Egypt, and on the west by the Mediterranean, to b. come a portion of Egypt, under an independent crown, and separated from Turkey,-or is it to remain connected with the Turkish empire? This is one of the mighty questions which must erelong be resolved in the East and one of those to which we must direct the attention of our readers. Of Syria itself it has been truly said, On Syria's plains, though plenty fills her hoin, And Smyrna's fruitful fields abound in corn, Deem not those happy in the peaceful shade, Whom earthquake, fire, and pestilence invade, Whose freeborn souls to haughty despots bow, And for tyrannic pachas hold the plough.” If Syria and the Syrian Christians were unhappy under the domination of Turkey, they are not less so under that of Ibrahim. If the Druses encouraged the Sultan in his attempt to regain Syria, they did so with sincerity; and the whole of Syria is now prepared to rise up against their Egyptian oppressors. Alas! for poor Sy. ria, the land of so many marvels in ages long passed away, there is no hope, we fear, for her, either from the expiring power of the Porte, the rising fortunes of Mehemet Ali, or the tender mercies of the Cabinet of St Petersburg. We think the reader of the foregoing pages will now be prepared for the contemporary history of TurkeyEgypt Syria-the Sultan-the Pa cha-and the approaching dénouement. Let us briefly recapitulate the events of the last very few years. We have said that the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, which was that of 1832, between Turkey and Russia, made Turkey the vassal of the Russian empire; and now we add, that the treaty of Kutahia, previously signed between the Porte and the Pacha, destroyed the integrity of the Ottoman empire, and constituted Egypt an independent province or nation. Yet the great Lord Chatham exclaimed, "I do not take the pains to discuss the question of the East with any man who does not perceive that the independ ence of the Ottoman empire is a question of life and death to Great Britain." Was Lord Chatham right or is Lord Palmerston a better patriot, an abler diplomatist, and a more profound statesman? We shall see hereafter. The treaty of Unkiar Skelessi tied and bound the Ottoman Porte, and placed it in the hands of its old enemy, Russia. The treaty of Kutahia gave Syria to the Pacha of Egypt. The Porte had lost all but Syria. Moldavia, Wallachia, Greece—all all had been taken ;-Russia was mistress de facto of the Dardanelles, Egypt was only nominally subject to the Porte, to whom it even refused the payment of the tribute; but Syria was left. Well, Syria was sacrificed also and the Porte stood alone. The former treaty rendered the old ally of Great Britain helpless, and dependent on their common antagonist-Russia: the latter treaty, that of Kutahia, conferred power on that Pacha whose ambition knows no bounds, and who will be the first to throw all impediments in the way of Great Britain in her land approaches to her Indian possessions, if he can only make such arrangements with Russia as shall secure to him and his descendants the hereditary empire of Egypt and Syria, Thus Turkey was weakened to help. lessness, and Egypt was strengthened and fortified, whilst Great Britain, under Whig domination, looked on at the dismemberment of the Turkish empire, and at the creation of an Egyp, tian dynasty, and pronounced no prohibition, uttered no vetɔ. France boasts that the treaty of Kutahia was favourable to her views, and satisfactory to her policy. "She gained by the treaty of Kutahia," says the French ministerial organ, ❝because it is the interest of France to maintain the grandeur of Egypt." But why is France interested in maintaining the " grandeur of Egypt ?" First, That she may carry on with Egypt an extensive and most profitable commerce. Second, That she may carry on with Syria a large and beneficial trade. Third, That the new French possessions in the Barbary States may have a powerful and independent ally on the north of Africa. Fourth, That France may, by her alliance with Egypt, be able to exercise a control over the maritime influence of England, aud, above all, may possess sufficient influence with the Egyptian Government to prevent Great Britain from greatly profiting from her proposed land communications with India. Fifth, That France may concur with Egypt, when powerful and independent, iu preventing the northern powers of Europe from gaining any footing in the north of Africa, or in Asia Minor, and any permanent and im portant influence in the Mediterra nean. Sixth, That France may, in conjunction with Egypt, keep Turkey in a feeble and helpless state, by perpetuating the separation of Syria from the dominions of the Porte. And, lastly, That France may thus become in Eastern affairs a mediating power, and attain a degree of importance and weight which never could otherwise belong to her in any Oriental questions, since neither her geogra phical, commercial, nor maritime position entitle her to any preponder ance. France affects, indeed, to feel a great interest in the preservation of the Ottoman empire-and the govern inent declares that it must remain in tact. But what does France mean by intact? Simply that Austria shall not possess Bosnia and Albania, and that Russia shall not take open and avowed possession of Constantinople. But is this sufficient to restore life to Turkey? Is this to be the compensation for the loss of Egypt, Greece, and Syria, as well as of Walachia and Moldavia? "La France," says one of the ablest writers of the new school of politics in that country, "dans la question d'Orient est une puissance mediatrice. Ce qui lui donne ce caractère aux yeux de tout le monde, c'est qu'il est évident qu'elle n'a en Orient aucun intérêt de conquête et d'agrandissement. Elle n'a qu'un intérêt de civilisation." But what is this interest of France, when examined closely, and searched to its heart? We are told that such interest is to maintain the Ottoman empire in its present state-and we are assured that such state is one of independence. It is no such thing. The Ottoman Porte is dependent. It is dependent on Russia on the one hand, and on the Pacha of Egypt on the other. The French politicians tell us, that the present independence of Turkey is necessary to the preservation of the European equilibrium. But we reply that the equilibrium was destroyed by the treaties of Kutahia and of Unkiar Skelessi. When Turkey had not bowed her neck to the Pacha of Egyptwhen Syria yet belonged to the Porte -when Russia did not exclude from the Dardannelles whom she thought fit to proscribe; when Wallachia and Moldavia were not under her real domination; when the Black Sea was not the private property of the Czar;-there was something like an European equilibrium as to the affairs of the East; but such equilibrium exists no longer-and Turkey must fall, if the status quo be preserved. "But," it is said, "France protested against the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi and she could do no more." And what was the reply of Russia to her protest? "That, whenever the case should arrive that the Porte should require her aid, in virtue of the condi tions of that treaty, that she should fulfil those conditions in the manner and to the extent she might think fit, paying no attention to that protest " 66 The interest of France, we are told, is not one of conquest. Granted. But what is it? It is the erection of an Egyptian and Syrian empire as op. posed to Turkey. This is what France calls the status quo. Egypt is to become a civilized state. She is on her way. France must take care not to interrupt her progress, and not to allow it to be interrupted." But why this anxiety for the progress of Egypt? The secret has escaped the French politicians of the 19th century. It is this:-for the moment, the progress of Egypt is favourable to French commerce and to French conquests in Africa;-and eventually Egypt and Syria may be worthy of French ambition! "Commençons par fonder notre colonie d'Alger," cries the monarchical organ of the Revolution of July. And what afterwards? Listen to the following announcement :— "Tant que la guerre sera contenue entre l'Egypt et la Turquie, tant que le traité de Kutahia seulement sera en question, la question sera encore touta-fait Orientale." Yes; but when it shall cease to be wholly Oriental, when that war, as to the East, which Marshal Soult, the Premier of France, has just declared at the French tribune to be sooner or later inevitable, shall break out, what will then be the position and conduct of France? Hear, again, the government organ. "Mais dès que la guerre sortira de ce circle, dès que le traité d'Unkiar Skelessi sera aussi remis en jeu, la lutte alors s'engagera entre l'Angleterre et la Russie, la question devien dra Européenne, and Dieu seul sait le dénouement." Thus the policy of France is for the moment-for the time being-for some years to come, to favour the progress of Egypt in Syria; to assist the developement of what she calls " Egyptian civilisation;" to maintain intact the treaties of Kutahia and Unkiar Skelessi; to preserve a nominal and sham, but not real peace, between the Porte and the Pacha; to profit from this state of things in her trade and commerce; to exert her influence in preventing Great Britain from completing her arrangements for her overland expeditions to India; and then, when the time shall come to decide whether there shall be a Turkish or an Egyp |