The Eastern Question, its facts and fallacies: with a map

Front matter

I

HANDBOUND AT THE

Ml

Introduction

Independence of Turkey and British interests — Doctrine of the Pall Mall Gazette and its consequences— Territorial divisions of Turkey — Populations of Turkey : Races and Religions — Christian Slaves and Mussulman Slaves : Lheir sympathies and antipathies— Practical working of Ottoman system of Government ....... page 1

Chapter 1. The Rayahs Of Turkey

Their condition discussed under the four heads of: — 1. Security for life — 2. Security for honour— 3. Security for religious freedom — 4. Security for property . . . . .28

Section I. Security For Life

Evidence of British Consuls — Syrian massacres : their cause and motive — Periodical massacres in Turkey only exhibitions on a large scale of what goes on all the year round in detail— A mendacious book on Bulgaria — Trustworthy witnesses — Examples of Turkish misrule and abnormal cruelty — Studied indignities offered to Christians and to their religion . . .51

Section II. Security For Honour

Virtue and beauty of the Bulgarian women — Daily outrages on their honour in ordinary times — Examples of fiendish torture on women in ordinary times — Inability of men to protect their

X CONTENTS.

women — National character of the Slaves — The Lucretia of Bulgaria: a tragic story of 1841 — Consequent insurrection and frightful atrocities — The Haiduks — Forcible conversions to Islam — Violation of female chastity rewarded by Turkish Government — A Fallacy exposed . . . page 70

Section III. Security For Religious Freedom

Intolerable wretchedness of the Rayah's lot — Rayahs and their Bishops — Armenians and their Patriarch — Causes of Bulgarian Schism — Religious intolerance of the Turks — Value of Turkish Promises — Illustrative cases — The Multeka — Sir G. Campbell's opinion controverted — Utopian Legislation — Code of the Multeka unrepealable — Islam essentially intolerant — Legal indignities put upon Christians — Turkish Toleration explained — Insecurity for religious freedom the normal condition of the Rayahs . . . . . . .87

Section IV. Security For Property

Land Laws of Turkey — Land tenure of Rayahs — Tithe farming — Taxation: its amount and details — Condition of Rayah and Mussulman compared — Compulsory hospitality imposed on Rayahs — Irregular exactions — Turkish Police — Albania ; its real condition very different from Sir P. Colquhoun's imaginative description — A plausible objection answered — The case summed up . . . . . .115

Chapter II. Turkish Misrule Incurable

A plea on behalf of Turkey — The Turkish Government the Chief Criminal — -Proofs of this indictment — The Porte glories in its iniquity — Humanity of Mussulmans to Christians punished as a crime— Reason why Turkish misrule is incurable — Midhat's constitution analysed, and shown to be an imposture — Turkish official account of the constitution — Degeneration of the Turkish race — Turkish devotions — Mr. Urquhart on Islam — Condition of women in Turkey — Turkish population gangrened by the sins of the Cities of the Plain — State of Albania described by a British Consul ..... 149

CONTENTS. XI

CHAPTER IIL

MUSSULMAN RULE IN SPAIN AND SICILY.

Difference between Turk and Moor — Redeeming points in Moorish Domination — Another side to the picture— Moorish civilisation an exotic — Condition of Christians in Spain under the Moors — Unfaithfulness of Spanish Moors — Moorish atrocities in Spain — Moorish rSgime characterised by Prescott as ' a ferocious despotism ' — This opinion confirmed by other authorities — Mussulman rule in Sicily — Intensity of its religious intolerance as described by Amari — Its inevitable decadence, and why — Mussulman rule in India ' a disgrace to civilisation ' — Its intolerance . . . . . - . page 191

Chapter IV

DR. BADC4ER ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY.

Dr. Badger's Letter to the Pall Mall Gazette — Dr. White's ' famous Bampton Lecture ' an imposture — Dr. Badger's theory conclusively refuted by himself . . . . .219

Chapter V. The Little Rift Withtn The Lute

Futility of giving Turkey another chance, and why — Constitution of the Turkish Government examined and shown to be incapable of Reform — Infallibility of Islam and Ultramontanism compared and contrasted — Islam a crystallisation, not an organism — Principle of spontaneous dissolution in every Mussulman State — The pattern man of Islam — Sketch of Mahomet's character — Influence of his character on his followers — His dealings with the Jews — His frightful cruelty and sensuality— Bulgarian atrocities a legitimate outcome of Islam — Saint-Hilaire and Dr. Muir on Mahomet and Islam — Bulgarian atrocities and reign of terror in France compared — Difference between the atrocities of Turkey and those of other nations — The three radical evils of Islam . . . 232 xii CONTENTS.

Chapter VI. The Alternative

Lord Salisbury's opinion combated — A choice of evils — Various Solutions of Eastern Question discussed — The Bulgarian problem easy of solution — Character of Bulgarians — State of education— Municipal institutions in Bulgaria — A striking example of Turkish rule — Relations between Mussulmans and Christians in Bulgaria — The Pomaks in favour of Conference programme, and advise coercion of Turkey — Precedent of intervention and coercion in Syria — Autonomy for disturbed Provinces the kindest Policy for Turkey — Alternative schemes for Bulgaria — Mussulmans and Christians under Russian rule — Bosnia a more difficult problem, and why — Bishop Strossmayer's Solution— Religious toleration in Servia — Who caused the failure of the Conference at Constantinople ? . . . page 261

Chapter VII. The Russian Bugbear

Great Names no guarantee against political delusions — Historical illustrations — Russia and India — Conquest of India by Russia an impossibility — Ruinous to Russia even if possible — Such a design would prove Russia to be a nation of lunatics — Russia may give us trouble in India, but for another reason — Suicidal policy ofRussophobists — Russia and Constantinople — Reasons why Russia has no designs on Constantinople — Political morality of Russia and England compared — Russia and Khiva — A statement of facts — Authorities quoted — England and the opium trade — Emancipation of serfs in Russia — Incidents of English rule in India — Sir G. C. Lewis on bugbears . 297

Chapter VIII. Who Are The Credulous ?

The Question examined and illustrated — The Attorney-General on Russian and Turkish atrocities — Facts and Fictions — Historical summary of relations between Russia and Khiva — Causes and justification of Kaufmann's expedition — Alleged atrocities — Gromof s narrative — Credulity and incredulity exemplified — Impalements in Bosnia — Antecedent probabilities — Overwhelm-

CONTENTS. Xlll

ing evidence rejected in favour of absurd surmises — Foreign Office suppressing evidence — Consular genesis of myths — Mr. Lowtlier after dinner — The two pictures — Lord Beaconsfield on the Circassians— Consuls writing to Order — A British Ambassador receiving presents from the Sultan — Sir H. Elliot suppressing evidence of Bulgarian atrocities— A French Journalist's report of Bulgarian atrocities— An example of unique cruelty — Aspersions on the Servians refuted — Lord Derby's ' petty local disturbance '—Sir H. Elliot's comparative estimate of human life and British interests — Nemo repentefuit turpissimus ..... page 339

Chapter IX. Retrospect And Prospect

Divergent policies in Lord Aberdeen's Government — The Prince Consort on the Turks — History repeating itself — Lord Aberdeen's opinion of the Turkish Government — True meaning of the Treaty of Paris — Mr. Gladstone on Treaty of Paris in 1856 — Lord Palmerston's explanation — His policy different from Lord Derby's — Mr. Gladstone on the Eastern Question in 1858 — Great debate on Danubian Principalities — Lord Robert Cecil supports Mr. Gladstone and is denounced by Mr. Disraeli — The two policies in the light of events — Prince Gortchakoft's despatch on Turkey in 1860 — Anglo-French Intervention in Syria in 1861 — Autonomy secured for the Lebanon — Wise and loyal conduct of Russia — Cretan insurrection of 1866-7 — Austria and all the Powers recommend a Policy of Autonomy— Lord Derby objects, and breaks up the European Concert— Outbreak of last insurrection — Lord Derby's policy depicted in consular-delegations, Andrassy Note, Berlin Memorandum, Constantinople Conference, and General IgnatiefT's protocol — Turkish opinion of Lord Derby's policy : ' A drum — skin and wind' — Beneficial results to British interests as well as to humanity from a cordial understanding between England and Russia — How to deal with the Mussulmans of India — Coercion of Turkey means Peace — Lord Derby's Policy means War ....... 415

THE EASTERN QUESTION.

INTKODUCTION.

We have been often admonished of late by a certain class of our political instructors that it belongs to the essence of a sound English policy to maintain — not for its own sake, but for ours — the territorial integrity and political independence of the Turkish Empire. Though not very old, I have seen so many things swept away without loss which were thought at the time to be a necessary ingredient of British policy, that I shall contemplate without dismay a fresh addition to the already abundant list of political maxims which have, happily, passed from the region of mischievous fallacies into that of obsolete phrases. I am so far from believing that the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire are necessary to the interests of England, that I hope to prove the converse of that proposition in the course of the following pages. At the same time, I wish we heard somewhat less of ' the interests of England.' If respect to its own material interests is to be the guiding motive of English policy to such a degree as to override the claims of humanity and of natural justice, it is obvious that other nations are equally entitled to act

2 imiiiou ii.Mj£it.itt>TS AT ANY COST.

on tins rule. Yet those who are most energetic in preaching this doctrine of national selfishness are the very persons who vex the air with their denunciations of Eussia for daring to turu to her own advantage the policy which they recommend to England as the beau ideal of British statesmanship. In an article on ' Turkish Atrocities and English Duties,' the Pall Mall Gazette of August 30 commits itself to the following doctrine : — ' Was our policy in the East sound and necessary policy, as we believe, and as the Ministry believed it was ? If so, it could no more be affected by the massacres at Batak and Panjurischte than by the slaughter of Christians by Mussulmans a thousand years ago. For on what was our Eastern policy founded, as it ought to remain based ? Not, certainly, upon any affection for the Turks, or any admiration of the Turkish character. It was always known that the Turks were abominably cruel in war, and corrupt in ways most revolting to Western civilisation. But our policy in the East was not rooted in " love of Turkey" anymore than in " hatred of Eussia," and it would be absurd to contend that it should be changed on a sudden because the Turks have shown, m a most hateful way, that they are — now as always — little, if at all, better than savages. Our Eastern policy, as we have conceived it, and as the Government, we trust, have pursued it, is founded on neither likings nor dislikings of creeds and races. Its basis is shaped and established by the conditions of our national existence, and of that irrepressible struggle for empire in which we cannot escape taking part, and which embraces the whole of the Eastern and Western worlds. Are we to shift our ground in a moment from a position which we have deliberately taken up because the Turks have been guilty of loathsome cruelties in Bulgaria ? There would

— unless we utterly mistake the temper of the country

be no bounds to the contempt with which a Ministry

would be visited that thus set its sails to the gusty sentiment of the passing hour.'

This is the doctrine which the Pall Mall Gazette has preached, with great ability and consistency, all through the controversy on the Eastern Question. And I have no doubt that the Pall Mall Gazette represents, on this subject, an influential section of educated English opinion. Yet it is hard to believe that any considerable number of Englishmen — and I fear I must add of English women — have realised the hideous immorality of the policy which they advocate. Translated into plain language, it means either that crime ceases to be crime when it subserves the interests of the British Empire, or that the British Government is justified in committing crimes the most monstrous in its ' irrepressible struggle for empire.' I say justified in committing, for qui facit per alium facit per se. In some cases to permit is to commit. But the policy recommended by the Pall Mall Gazette — that is, by a powerful section of English society — is not merely a policy of permitting wrong, but of upholding it. The case is this. It is frankly admitted, as a fact ' always known, that the Turks are abominably cruel in war, and corrupt in ways most revolting to Western civilisation.' The Bulgarian atrocities therefore, it is argued, 'brutal beyond conception ' as they were, ought not to have taken us by surprise. Well-informed people always knew that these brutalities ' beyond conception ' are quite in keeping with the character of the Turk and with the traditions of the Turkish Government. But considerations like these are, it seems, altogether irrelevant. It is of course very unfortunate that the Turk

B 2

4 BRITISH INTERESTS AT ANY COST.

is such a brute. Nevertheless, brute as he is, England must uphold the integrity and independence of his ' revolting ' rule rather than risk any damage in the ' irrepressible struggle for empire/

But if this doctrine is tenable, where are we to draw the line ? It appears to me that, logically considered, the doctrine of the ' irrepressible struggle for empire ' forbids us to draw any line at all. If, for the sake of selfish gain, we are bound to uphold a political system of which one of the ordinary characteristics is to indulge in 'brutality beyond conception/ we are clearly justified in indulging in these brutalities ourselves, whenever the alternative is the jeopardy of our interests in the c irrepressible struggle for empire.' But if England would be justified in defending her interests, in the last resort, by brutalities like those of Batak, why not Turkey? Let it be granted that Midhat Pasha, who planned and ordered the Bulgarian atrocities, believed that he was thereby serving the interests of Turkey, and his conduct is triumphantly vindicated by the political logic of the Pall Mall Gazette.

Stripped of all disguise, this is the dismal conclusion in which we are landed by the advocates of British interests at any cost. I, for one, however, refuse to believe that it can ever be the interest of a great nation in the long run to uphold iniquity. But there is no need to discuss that question here, since it can easily be shown that in helping to liberate the Christian subjects of the Porte from their cruel bondage England will at the same time be strengthening the British Empire at the very point where it is supposed to be most vulnerable. There never was a case where philanthropy and policy had better reason for co-operating. This will appear as we proceed. But let us, first of all, endeavour to take a sort of bird's eye view of the Turkish Empire as it is — its territory, and its various races and religions.

Territorial Divisions of Turkey.

The territorial possessions of Turkey are divided among the three continents of the Old World, and extend over an area of about 30,000 geographical square miles, lying between 48° — 30° north latitude and 13° 30' — 45° east longitude. This gives a coast line of 1,200 leagues bathed by seven seas : the Adriatic, the Mediterranean, the Archipelago, the Sea of Marmora, the Black Sea, the Eed Sea, and the Persian Gulf.

The whole of European Turkey is called by the Turks Eoumelia, or the country of the Eomans, a name given in the middle ages to the Greeks of the Lower Empire. It is divided into a number of Vilayets or governments-general, as follows : —

1. Adrian ople, the ancient Thrace, which came into possession of the Turks in the year 1364, and became their second capital in Europe ; the first being Gallipoli, taken in 1357.

2. The Vilayet of the Danube, corresponding to the ancient kingdom of Bulgaria, which was conquered by Sultan Bajazet I. in 1393. It was formed into a Vilayet of the Danube in 1864, having previously consisted of the three Eyalets of Silistria, Vidin, and Nish.

3. The Vilayet of Bosnia, including Bosnia and Turkish Croatia.

4. Herzegovina, which formed part of the Vilayet of Bosnia up to the end of 1875, when it was erected into a separate Vilayet.

5. Salonica.

6 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS.

6. Yanina (Epirus).

7. Monastir.

8. Scutari.

9. Djiza'ir (the Isles), comprising all the islands of the Ottoman Archipelago from Samothracia to Ehodes, except Samos and Candia.

10. Crete, or Candia, which received in 1867 a separate constitution, which I believe has proved in practice to be little better than a sham.

Constantinople forms a separate government of itself.

Turkey in Asia comprehends four great divisions. On the West Asia Minor, called by the Turks Anatolia, forms a vast peninsula, equal in extent to France, bounded on the north by the Black Sea, on the west by the Archipelago, on the south by the Mediterranean and part of the chain of the Taurus, and on the east by an imaginary line drawn from Trebizond to the Gulf of Alexandretta. This territory was gradually acquired by the Ottomans between the commencement of the 14th century and the conclusion of the 15th century, during which time they annexed successively the numerous principalities which had arisen on the ruins of the Seldjucidian empire.1

Turkey in Asia is divided into sixteen Vilayets, of which the following may deserve a passing mention for the sake of old associations : —

Khond&vendkiar ; comprising part of Bithynia, Phrygia, and Mysia, and having for its capital Broussa, the ancient Prusium. Conquered in 1326 by the Ottomans, it became their capital and the cradle of their power.

1 ^tat Present cle l'Empire Ottoman. Par MM. A.Ubiciniet Pavet de Courteille, p. 12. An excellent manual of reference.

Aidin; formed out of a part of Isauria, Lydia, Ionia, Caria, and Pisidia, and conquered by Mahomed II. in 1426.

Adana (Cilicia Petrasa) ; subject for two centuries to the Turkoman dynasty of the Eamazan Oghli, it fell under the Ottoman yoke under Bajazet II. in 1481.

Konieh (Icomwm.)', containing part of Isauria, Syria, Pamphylia, Silicia, Lycaonia, and Cappadocia. Till within the last few years this district was called Karamania, from Karaman, who obtained possession of it in the middle of the 13th century, and from whose descendants it was wrested in 1475 by Mahomed II.

The Vilayets of Angora and Sivas ; formed of the ancient principality of Eomhaneddin, which consisted of parts of Galatia and Cappadocia.

Trebizond ; formed of the ancient provinces of Pontus and Colchis, and wrested in 1420 from David Comnenus by Mahomed II.

The Eastern division of Asiatic Turkey, comprising Turkish Armenia and Kurdistan, extends to the frontiers of Persia and Eussia. Armenia, which fell with the Greek Empire of Trebizond under Ottoman rule, has been formed into the Vilayet of Ezroum. Kurdistan (now formed into the Vilayet of Diarbekir) is a mountainous district, peopled by nomadic and warlike tribes, nominally under the dominion of the Porte, but practically independent till 1837, when they were partially subdued by Hafiz Pasha, and more completely ten years later by the submission of their two Beys.

The third division of Asiatic Turkey is Syria, or Cham as it is called in the East. It extends from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, and comprehends — with the Lebanon, which was erected in 1864 into a separate government — the Vilayets of Damascus (i.e.

8 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS.

Southern Syria, Palestine, and Phoenicia) ; Aleppo (i.e. Ccelo-Syria, Northern Syria, and a slice of Mesopotamia) ; Bagdad (i.e. Mesopotamia and Assyria, and a portion of the Vilayet of Basra (Irak- Arabia).

The last division of Asiatic Turkey is Arabia, containing the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and forming one large government, that of Yemen.

Ottoman Africa comprehends the Vice-royalty of Egypt, subdued by Selim I. in 1517 ; and the ancient regencies of Tripoli and Tunis, which were united to the Ottoman dominions, the former in 1552 under Solyman the Great, the second in 1574 under Selim II.1

The Turks themselves divide the provinces of the Empire into what they call ' immediate possessions' and ■ tributary States.' In Asia Turkey possesses no tributary States — all its provinces are ' immediate possessions.' In Africa, on the other hand, it owns no ' immediate possessions,' Egypt, Tripoli, and Tunis being, as we have seen, semi-independent States, acknowledging the suzerainty of the Porte by the payment of tribute and by furnishing a contingent of troops in case of war.

In Europe the possessions of Turkey are of both kinds, ' immediate ' and ' tributary.' The former have been enumerated above. The latter consist of Servia and Eoumania, which acknowledge the suzerainty of the Sultan by payment of tribute, but which are not obliged to furnish any troops in defence of Turkey.

Populations of lurhey; Races and Religions.

So much as to the territorial divisions of Turkey. The question of its population is a much harder one to

1 In this enumeration I have closely followed Ubicini.

answer, owing to the impossibility of obtaining accurate statistics. I will here set down the figures supplied by some of the most recent writers on the question.

The Turkish Minister of Finance in 1866 reckoned the population of the Turkish Empire in round numbers at 42 millions : 18 millions for Europe, 18 millions for Asia, and 6 millions for Africa. Another table of statistics was published by the Turkish Government in 1867, which does not give more than 40 millions for the whole empire, distributed as follows : —

Europe with the Isles (except Cyprus) 18,487,000 Asia with Cyprus . . . 16,463,000

In both these estimates, however, the tributary States are included, the population of which, according to the last Turkish statement, is 9,300,000, and is distributed as follows : —

Moldo-Wallachia

.

4,000,000

Servia

.

1,000,000

Egypt

.

3,350,000

Tunis (with Tripoli)

.

950,000

This reduces the population of Turkey Proper to 30,700,000 :—

Ubicini, however, points out that these figures cannot be depended upon. Koumania, for example, which the Turkish estimate of 1867 puts down at 4,000,000, had in 1861 a population of 4,424,961 ; and Servia, which is put down at 1,000,000 in 1867, had 1,215,961 in 1866. Ubicini's own estimate is as follows : —

10 POPULATION OF TURKEY.

Vilayets. Mussulmans.

Non-Mussulman

Adrianople 603,110

991,076

1,594,186

1,535,466

2,591,116

Bosnia and 1 619fiU Herzegovina J

613,414

1,232,458

Salonica 249,656

248,314

497,970

935,202

1,436,700

Monastir 795,986

611,610

1,407,596

Scutari 176,000

224,000

400,000

Constantinople 620,000

580,000

1,200,000

Candia 93,112

118,888

212,000

Archipelago 114,360

305,640

420,000

The population of the whole Turkish Empire, according to MM. Ubicini and Courteille, does not exceed 28^ millions, not including the tributary States. Of these 28.^ millions, according to our authors, about 13^ millions belong to the conquering or Ottoman race; the rest representing an agglomeration of peoples of divers origin and languages, which may be divided ethnographically into seven principal groups, as follows : —

1. The Turkish group (comprehending under that designation Ottomans, Turkomans, and Tartars) gives a population of 14,020,000.

2. The Greco-Latin (comprising Greeks proper, Tzintzares, and Albanians) gives a population of 3,520,000.

3. The Slave (comprising Serbo-Croats, Bulgarians, Kossacks, and Lipovans) gives a population of 4,550,000.

4. The Georgian (comprising Circassians and Lazes) number 1,020,000.

5. The Hindu group, or Gypsies, numbering 212,000.

6. The Persian (comprising Armenians, Kurds, Druses, &c.) number 3,620,000.

7. The Semitic group (comprising Jews, Arabs, Chaldees, Syro-Maronites) number 1,611,000.

This gives a total of 28,533,000, of which 18,578,000 are Sunnite Mussulmans and 360,000 belong to various non-Christian sects. The remaining 9,615,000 are distributed as follows : — The Greco-Eussian Church absorbs 3,225,000; the Bulgarians 2,920,000; the Armenians 2,450,000 ; Chaldean JNTestorians 130,000; Syrian Jacobites 65,000. Of Eoman Catholics, including the Maronites, the Melkites, and all other Uniats, our authors reckon 670,000. There are about 5,000 Protestants in all Turkey, and about 150,000 Jews. This gives 9,465,000 Christians as against 18,938,000 Mussulmans and Pagans,1 and 150,000 Jews.

Thus far the calculation of Ubicini as to the population, races, and religion of the entire Turkish Empire. The present inquiry, however, is chiefly concerned with the European provinces of Turkey. Let us therefore compare Ubicini's statistics with those of other independent inquirers. Ubicini, as we have seen, reckons the population of European Turkey, exclusive of the vassal States, at 10,992,026, of which he gives 4,828,416 to the Mussulmans, and 6,163,610 to the non-Mussulmans.

M. Emile de Girardin, on the other hand, in a recently published work2 which gives evidence of careful research, reckons the Christians of European Turkey at 8,660,000, and the Mussulmans at 1,200,000, excluding of course the tributary provinces. I assume,

1 Ubicini includes 240,000 Gypsies and a considerable number of other non- Christian sectaries in his estimate of the Mussulman population of Turkey. His exhaustive division groups all the populations under the three heads of Mussulmans, Christians, and Israelites. But, as a basis for political speculation, this is an entirely misleading division. The Mussulman group is not a compact mass united by the bonds of national unity. There is no solidarite, but only a very attenuated cohesion, between large masses of its constituent elements.

2 La Honte de l'Europe, p. 28.

POPULATION OF TURKEY.

though he does not say so, that he leaves out of this estimate both Jews and Gypsies, which together probably reach the figure of about 250,000. As regards the whole population, this estimate falls short of Ubicini's to the extent of 882,000. But the discrepancy as to religion is much more startling ; Ubicini's estimate of the Mussulmans being 3,622,416 in excess of Girardin's, and of the Christians 2,496,390 less. This is tolerably puzzling, and the uncertainty increases as we extend our researches. Perthes, in his annual abstract of the population of the world, reckons the European population of Turkey at 8,000,000, and its Asiatic population at 13,500,000. Of the former three-fourths are assigned to Christianity and the remaining fourth to Islam, all the non-Christian element being, I suppose, included under that designation.

Bianconi1 estimates the population of Asiatic Turkey at 12,000,000, and of European Turkey, not including Eoumania and Servia, at 19,000,000, in round numbers, viz. : —

Bulgaria

.

8,000,000

B/Oumelia

.

4,000,000

Herzegovina and Bosnia

2,500,000

Macedonia and

rhessaly

2,000,000

Albania

1,500,000

Turkish Servia

500,000

Miridites

100,000

Nomad Gypsies

.

200,000

Total .

18,800,000

1 La Question d' Orient Devoilee, ou La Verite sur la Turqnie. Par F. Bianconi, Ex-Ingenieur, Architecte en chef des Etudes de Chemins de Fer de la Roumelie, Bulgairie et Bosnie. Paris, 1876.

To prevent misapprehension, it may be as well to add that M. Bianconi is a Frenchman and a Roman Catholic.

INTRODUCTION'.

This population, with the addition of 800,000 Jews, he divides according to races and religions as follows : —

10,000,000 Slaves, of whom 9,000,000 are assigned to the Orthodox Greek Church, and 1,000,000 to the Roman Catholics. 4,000,000 of indigenous Greeks belonging to the Orthodox Church.

200,000 Gypsies without any known religion. 100,000 Miridites, nominally Roman Catholics, but in fact semi-savage mountaineers.

This calculation is evidently too high all round, except perhaps in the case of the Gypsies.

Mr. Farley, who knows Turkey as well as most men, gives the following statistics, in his work on 4 Turks and Christians ' : —

Ottomans

Slaves

Greeks

Albanians

Roumanians

Armenians

Jews

Tartars

Gypsies

1,150,000

7,200,000

1,450,000

1,500,000

4,000,000

400,000

70,000

16,000

214,000

16,000,000 while, according to religious profession, there are, according to Mr. Farley : —

Mussulmans

.

3,200,000

Greeks and Armenians

11,600,000

Roman Catholics

.

890,000

Other sects .

.

240,000

16,000,000

Mr. Denton puts the non-Turkish races of Turkey at 11,583,700, and the Turks at 1,260,000. While as to religion he gives the Christians at 10,673,700, and

14 POPULATION OF TURKEY.

the Mussulmans at 2,200,000. This calculation does not include Eoumania, to which Mr. Denton gives a population of 4,500,000, or Servia, with a population of 1,340,000.1

Sir George Campbell reckons the population of European Turkey, excluding the tributary States, at 8,000,000 or 9,000,000, and thinks that, ' including Constantinople, it is probably more.' The non-Mahomedans he puts at 3,500,000, and the Christians at 5,500,000. Bulgaria, however, is the only province which he professes to have investigated in person, and there he thinks that the population is more than 5,000,000. But the Bulgarian delegates, Messrs. Zancoff and Balabanow,2 assert that the Bulgarian Christians alone amount to 5,000,000, the remainder of the population consisting of 450,000 Pomaks and 350,000 Turks. This would raise the population of Bulgaria to 5,800,000, an estimate which, for reasons stated hereafter, I believe to be not far from the truth. There would remain, therefore, only from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 to all the rest of European Turkey outside the vassal States, if we are to reckon the whole population at from 8,000,000 to 9,000,000. But this would clearly be far below the mark, and the inevitable conclusion is that the whole population is much larger than Sir George Campbell puts it. He gives the Greeks over 2,000,000 in all. The Christian Albanians, Bosnians, and Koutzo-Wallachs and the Armenians settled in Europe, together with the Jews and other races and sects, he puts down at 2,000,000 more. This is far too low an estimate. The Mussulmans in Europe he reckons at 3,200,000 of which he gives 2,000,000 to the Turks, 500,000 being assigned to Constantinople alone. This calcula-