TURKEY. The Turkish or Ottoman Empire comprises Turkeyin Europe, Turkey in Asia, and the vilayets of Tripoli and Barca,or Bengazi, in North Africa; and in addition to those provincesunder immediate Turkish rule, it embraces also certain tributarystates and certain others under foreign administration. Turkeyin Europe, occupying the central portion of the Balkan Peninsula,lies between 38°46′ and 42°50′N. and 19°20′ and 29°10′E.It is bounded on the N.W. by Montenegro and Bosnia, on theN. by Servia and Bulgaria, on the E. by the Black Sea and theBosporus, on the S. by the Sea of Marmora, the Dardanelles,the Aegean Sea and Greece, and on the W. by the Ionian andAdriatic Seas. Turkey in Asia, fronting Turkey in Europe tothe south-east, and lying between 28° and 41°N. and 25° and 48°E.,is bounded on the N. by the Black Sea, on the N.W. by theBosporus, the Sea of Marmora and the Dardanelles, on the W.by the Aegean Sea, on the E. by Persia and Transcaucasia, andon the S. by Arabia and the Mediterranean. So far asgeographical description is concerned, the separate articles onAsia Minor,Albania,Armenia, and other areas mentionedbelow—constituting the Turkish Empire—maybe consulted. (For mapsof Asiatic Turkey, see Arabia;Armenia; Asia Minor;Palestine; Syria.)
The possessions of the sultan in Europe now consist of a strip of territory stretching continuously across the Balkan Peninsula from the Bosporus to the Adriatic (29°10′ to 19°20′E.), and lying in the east mainly between 40° and 42° and in the west between 39° and 43°N. It corresponded roughly to ancient Thrace, Macedonia with Chalcidice, Epirus and a large part of Illyria, constituting the present administrative divisions of Stambul (Constantinople, including a small strip of the opposite Asiatic coast), Edirne (Adrianople), Salonica with Kossovo (Macedonia), Iannina (parts of Epirus and Thessaly), Shkodra (Scutari or upper Albania). To these must be added the Turkish islands in the Aegean usually reckoned to Europe, that is, Thasos, Samothrace, Imbros and, in the extreme south, Crete or Candia. In December 1898, however, Crete was granted practical independence, under the protection of Great Britain, France, Italy and Russia (see Crete), and the suzerainty of the sultan is purely nominal.
Asiatic Turkey.—The mainstay of the Ottoman dynasty is theAsiatic portion of the empire, where the Mahommedan religion isabsolutely predominant, and where the naturally vigorous and robustTurki race forms in Asia Minor a compact mass of many millions,far outnumbering any other single ethnical element and probablyequalling all taken collectively. Here also, with the unimportantexception of the islands of Samos and Cyprus and the somewhatprivileged district of Lebanon, all the Turkish possessions constitutevilayets directly controlled by the Porte. They comprise thegeographically distinct regions of the Anatolian plateau (Asia Minor),the Armenian and Kurdish highlands, the Mesopotamian lowlands,the hilly and partly mountainous territory of Syria and Palestineand the coast lands of west and north-east Arabia. Asiatic Turkeyis conterminous on the east with Russia and Persia; in the south-westit encloses on the west, north and north-east the independentpart of Arabia. Towards Egypt the frontier is a line drawn fromAkaba at the head of the Gulf of Akaba north-westwards to thelittle port of El Arish on the Mediterranean. Elsewhere AsiaticTurkey enjoys the advantage of a sea frontage, being washed in thenorth-west and west by the Euxine, Aegean and Mediterranean, inthe south-west by the Red Sea, and in the south-east by the PersianGulf.
Turkey’s Arabian possessions comprise, besides El-Hasa on thePersian Gulf, the low-lying, hot and insalubrious Tehama and thesouth-western highlands (vilayets of Hejaz and Yemen) stretchingcontinuously along the east side of the Red Sea, and including thetwo holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
African Territories.—Turkey in Africa has gradually been reducedto Tripoli and Barca. Egypt, though nominally under Turkishsuzerainty, has formed a practically independent principalitysince 1841, and has been de facto under British protection since1881.
| Emery Walker sc. |
Population.—The total population of the Turkish Empire in1910, including Egypt and other regions nominally under thesultan’s suzerainty, was 36,323,539, averaging 25 to the squaremile; in the provinces directly under Turkish government,25,926,000.
The following towns have over 50,000 inhabitants each:Constantinople, 1,150,000; Smyrna, 250,000; Bagdad, 145,000; Damascus,145,000; Aleppo, 122,000; Beirut, 118,000; Adrianople, 81,000;Brusa, 76,000; Jerusalem, 56,000; Caesarea Mazaca (Kaisarieh),72,000; Kerbela, 65,000; Monastir, 53,000; Mosul, 61,000; Mecca,60,000; Homs, 60,000; Sana, 58,000; Urfa, 55,000; and Marash,52,000.
Race and Religion.—Exact statistics are not available asregards either race or religion. The Osmanlis or Turks (q.v.) are supposed to number some 10 millions, of whom 112 million belong to Turkey in Europe. Of the Semitic races the Arabs—over whom, however, the Turkish rule is little more than nominal—number some 7 millions, and in addition to about 300,000 Jews there is a large number of Syrians. Of the Aryan races the Slavs—Serbs, Bulgarians, Pomaks and Cossacks—and the Greeks predominate, the other representatives being chiefly Albanians and Kurds. The proportion borne to one another by the different religions, as estimated in 1910, is: 50% Mussulman, 41% Orthodox, 6% Catholic, 3% all others (Jews, Druses, Nestorians, &c.). In the European provinces about two-thirds of the population are Christian and one-third Mahommedan. Full and fairly accurate statistics are available for a considerable portion of Asiatic Turkey. Out of a population of 13,241,000 (1896) in Armenia, Kurdistan and Asia Minor, 10,030,000 were returned as Mahommedans, 1,144,000 as Armenians, 1,818,000 as other Christians, and 249,000 as Jews. There are also about 300,000 Druses and about 200,000 Gipsies. The non-Mussulman population is divided into millets, or religious communities, which are allowed the free exercise of their religion and the control of their own monasteries, schools and hospitals. The communities now recognized are the Latin (or Catholic), Greek (or Orthodox), Armenian Catholic, Armenian Gregorians, Syrian, and United Chaldee, Maronite, Protestant and Jewish. The table on the following page, for which the writer is indebted to the kindness of Carolidi Effendi, formerly professor of history in the university of Athens, and in 1910 deputy for Smyrna in the Turkish parliament, shows the various races of the Ottoman Empire, the regions which they inhabit, and the religions which they profess.
Administration.—Until the revolution of 1908, with a very short interval at the beginning of the reign (1876) of the deposed sultan Abd-ul-Hamid, the government of Turkey had been essentially a theocratic absolute monarchy. It was subject to the direct personal control of the sultan, who was himself a temporal autocrat, which he now is not, and the most generally recognized caliph, that is, “successor,” of the Prophet, and consequently the spiritual head of by far the greater portion of the Moslem world—as he still is. Owing principally to the fact that the system of the caliph Omar came to be treated as an immutable dogma which was clearly not intended by its originator, and to the peculiar relations which developed therefrom between the Mussulman Turkish conquerors and the peoples (principally Christian) which fell under their sway, no such thing as an Ottoman nation has ever been created. It has been a juxtaposition of separate and generally hostile peoples in territories bound under one rule by the military sway of a dominant race. Various endeavours have been made since the time of SelimIII. (1789–1807), who initiated them, to break down the barriers to the formation of a hom*ogeneous nation. The most earnest and
| Races. | Regionsinhabited,orVilayets. | Religions. |
| Albanians | Iannina, Scutari of Albania, Kossovo, Monastir | Mussulman, Orthodox, Catholic |
| Bulgarians | Salonica, Kossovo, Monastir | Orthodox (dissenting) |
| Servians. | Kossovo | Orthodox |
| Greeks | Constantinople, Adrianople, Salonica, Monastir, Kossovo, Janina, Archipelago, Vilayets of Asiatic Turkey,[1] Crete | Orthodox and partly Greco-catholic |
| Kutzo-Vlachs (See Macedonia) | Monastir, Iannina | Orthodox |
| Turks | The whole of European Turkey, Vilayets of Asia Minor | Mussulman |
| Lazes | Trebizond and throughout the whole of Eastern Asia Minor | Mussulman and Orthodox |
| Kurds | Erzerum, Sivas, Seert, Angora, Mosul | Mussulman |
| Circassians | Spread over the whole of Asia Minor | Mussulman |
| Avchar | Adana, Angora, Sivas | Mussulman |
| Arabs | Adana, Aleppo, Syria, Bagdad, Sanjak of Jerusalem, Hejaz, Yemen, Beirut, Basna | Mussulman |
| Armenians | Constantinople and spread over the other Vilayets of Turkey in Europe; also Sivas, Angora, Trebizond, Adana, Erzerum, Bitlis, Mamuret-ul-Aziz, Mosul, Aleppo, Van | Gregorian and Catholic |
| Jews | Spread through Turkey in Europe and Asia, and largely congregated in the Sanjak of Jerusalem and in the Vilayets of Bagdad, Mosul, Syria, Beirut. | Jew |
| Samaritans | Only in the Sanjak of Napluze[3] | Samaritan Jew |
| Gipsies | Spread throughout the whole empire | Mussulman |
| Chaldaeans or Nestorians, speaking partly Syrochaldaic and partly Arabic[4] | Bagdad, Mosul and partly Aleppo, Beirut and Mamuret-ul-Aziz | Nestorian Christian |
| Melchites, or Syrian Greco-Catholics[5] | Beirut, Aleppo, Syria | United Orthodox |
| Jacobite Syrians, speaking Arabic and partly Syrian[6] | Beirut, Syria, Aleppo, Mosul, Mamuret-ul-Aziz | Monophysite and Jacobite |
| Monites[7] | Mt Lebanon, Beirut | Monophysite[8] |
| Druses | Mt Lebanon, Sanjak of Hauran | Druse |
| Mendaites[9] | Basra | Sabaean[10] |
| Yezzites | Mosul, Bagdad, Basra | Yezzite[11] |
important of these attempts under Abd-ul-Mejid (1839–1861)proved, however, for various reasons abortive. So also did the“Midhat Constitution” promulgated by Abd-ul-Hamid almostimmediately after his accession to the throne, owing largely tothe reactionary spirit at that time of the ’Ulema and of the sultan’simmediate advisers, but almost, if not quite, in equal measureto the scornful reception of the Constitution by the Europeanpowers. The ’Ulema form a powerful corporation, whose head,the Sheik-ul-Islam, ranks as a state functionary almost co-equalwith the grand vizier. Until quite recent times the conservativeand fanatical spirit of the ’Ulema had been one of the greatestobstacles to progress and reform in a political system in whichspiritual and temporal functions were intimately interwoven.Of late years, however, there has been a gradual assimilation ofbroader views by the leaders of Islam in Turkey, at any rate atConstantinople, and the revolution of 1908, and its affirmationin the spring of 1909, took place not only with their approval,but with their active assistance. The theoretical absolutism ofthe sultan had, indeed, always been tempered not only bytraditional usage, local privilege, the juridical and spiritual preceptsof the Koran and the Sunnet, and their ’Ulema interpreters,and the privy council, but for nearly a century by the direct orindirect pressure of the European powers, and during the reignsof Abd-ul-Aziz and of Abd-ul-Hamid by the growing force ofpublic opinion. The enthusiastic spirit of reform which heraldedthe accession of the latter sultan never altogether died out, andfrom about the last decade of the 19th century has been rapidlyand effectively growing in force and in method. The membersand sympathizers of the party of reform who styled themselves“Young Turks,” working largely from the European centres andfrom the different points in the Turkish Empire to which thesultan had exiled them for the purpose of repression—theirrelentless persecution by the sultan thus proving to be his ownundoing—spread a powerful propaganda throughout the TurkishEmpire against the old régime, in the face of that persecutionand of the open and characteristic scepticism, and indeed of thehostile action, of some of the European powers. This movementcame to a head in the revolution of 1908. In July of that yearthe sultan Abd-ul-Hamid capitulated to the Young Turks andrestored by Iradé (July 24) the constitution which he had grantedin December 1876 and suspended on the 14th of February 1878.A reactionary movement started in April 1909 was promptlysuppressed by the Young Turks through the military occupationof Constantinople by Shevket Pasha and the dethronement ofAbd-ul-Hamid, who was succeeded by his younger brotherReshad Effendi under the title of MahommedV. A newconstitution, differing from that of Abd-ul-Hainid only in somematters of detail, was promulgated by imperial Iradé of the 5thof August 1909.
In temporal matters the sultan is a constitutional monarch,advised by a cabinet formed of executive ministers who are theheads of the various departments of state, and who are responsibleto the elected Turkish parliament. All Turkish subjects, ofwhatever race or religion, have equal juridical and political rightsand obligations, and all discrimination as to military service hasbeen abolished. The sultan remains the spiritual head of Islam,and Islam is the state religion, but it has no other distinctive ortheocratic character. The grand vizier (sadr-azam), who isnominated by the sultan, presides ex officio over the privy council(mejliss-i-khass) , which, besides the Sheikh-ul-Islam, comprisesthe ministers of home and foreign affairs, war, finance, marine,commerce and public works, justice, public instruction and“pious foundations” (evkaf), with the grand master of ordnanceand the president of the council of state.
For administrative purposes the immediate possessions of the sultan are divided into vilayets (provinces), which are again subdivided into sanjaks or mutessarifliks (arrondissem*nts), these into kazas (cantons), and the kazas into nahiés (parishes or communes). A vali or governor-general, nominated by the sultan, stands at the head of the vilayet, and on him are directly dependent the kaimakams, mutassarifs, deftardars and other administrators of the minor divisions. All these officials unite in their own persons the judicial and executive functions, underthe “Law of the Vilayets,” which made its appearance in 1861,and purported, and was really intended by its framers, to conferon the provinces a large measure of self-government, in whichboth Mussulmans and non-Mussulmans should take part. Itreally, however, had the effect of centralizing the whole power ofthe country more absolutely than ever in the sultan's hands, sincethe Valis were wholly in his undisputed power, while the ex officioofficial members of the local councils secured a perpetual Mussulmanmajority. Under such a system, and the legal protectionenjoyed through it by Ottoman functionaries against evilconsequences of their own misdeeds, corruption was rife throughoutthe empire. Foreigners settled in the country are speciallyprotected from exactions by the so-called Capitulations (q.v.),in virtue of which they are exempt from the jurisdiction of thelocal courts and amenable for trial to tribunals presided over bytheir respective consuls. Cases between foreigners of differentnationalities are heard in the court of the defendant, and betweenforeigners and Turkish subjects in the local courts, at which aconsular dragoman attends to see that the trial is conductedaccording to law. (See further, as regards Turkish administration,the account given under History below, regarding thereforms instituted under the sultan Abd-ul-Mejid in 1839.)
Education.—The schools are of two classes: (1) public, under theimmediate direction of the state; and (2) private, conducted eitherby individuals or by the religious communities with the permissionof the government, the religious tenets of the non-Mussulmanpopulation being thus fully respected. State education is of threedegrees: primary, secondary and superior. Primary educationis gratuitous and obligatory, and superior education is gratuitousor supported by bursaries. For primary education there are threegrades of schools: (1) infant schools, of which there is one inevery village; (2) primary schools in the larger villages; (3)superior primary schools. Secondary education is suppliedby the grammar school, of which there is one in the capitalof every vilayet. For superior education there is (1) theuniversity of Constantinople, with its four faculties of letters,science, law and medicine; and (2) special schools, including (a)the normal school for training teachers, (b) the civil imperialschool, (c) the school of the fine arts and (d) the imperial schools ofmedicine.
Public instruction is much more widely diffused throughout theempire than is commonly supposed. This is due partly to theChristian communities, notably the Maronites and others in Syria,the Anatolian and Rumelian Greeks, and the Armenians of theeastern province and of Constantinople. Under the reformedconstitution (Aug. 5, 1909) education is free, and measures havebeen taken largely to extend and to co-ordinate the education of all“Ottomans,” without prejudice to the religious educational rightsof the various religious communities. Primary education is obligatory.Among the Christians, especially the Armenians, theGreeks of Smyrna and theSyrians of Beirut, it haslong embraced a considerablerange of subjects,such as classical Greek,Armenian and Syriac, aswell as modern French,Italian and English,modern history, geographyand medicine. Largesums are freely contributedfor the establishmentand support of goodschools, and the cause of national education is seldom forgotten inthe legacies of patriotic Anatolian Greeks. Much educational workhas also been done by American colleges, especially in the northernprovinces of Asia Minor, in conjunction with Robert College(Constantinople).
Army.—In virtue of the enactments of May 1880, of November1886, of February 1888 and of December 1903, military service hadbeen obligatory on all Mussulmans, Christians having been excludedbut under obligation of paying a “military exoneration tax” of£T50 for 135 males between the ages of 15 and 75. Under the newrégime this system, which had greatly cramped the military strengthand efficiency of the Ottoman Empire, has been changed, and all“Ottomans” are now subject to military service. Under certainconditions, however, and on payment of a certain exoneration tax,exemption may still be purchased. The revision of the wholemilitary system was undertaken in 1910, especially as regardsenrolment and promotion of officers, but, as things then stood, theterm of service was twenty years (from the age of 20 to the age of40), for all Ottoman male subjects: active service (muasaff) nineyears, of which three with the colours (nizam), in the case of infantry,four in the case of cavalry and artillery; six and five respectivelyin the reserve (ikhtiat); Landwehr (redif) nine years; territorial(mustahfiz) two years. In case of supreme necessity all males upto 70 years of age can be called upon to join the colours. There arecertain recognized rights to exemption from military service, suchas some court officials, state officials, students in normal schools,medicine and law colleges, &c. The redifs form the principalpart of the army in time of war, and are divided into two classes:Class I. comprises all men in the service who have completed theirtime with the nizam. In peace-time it is composed of weak cadres,on which falls the duty of guarding magazines and stores, andof carrying through musketry instruction and drill of therank and file of the ikhtiat and the redif. Class II. was firstestablished in 1898 under the name of ilaweh, and became“redif, class II.” in 1903. This class is distributed in veryweak cadres in time of peace. In time of war, it is completedby all troops not serving with the nizam, the redif class I. or themustahfiz. As the organization proceeded, and stronger cadreswere formed, the redif class II. would become completely absorbedin class I. The mustahfiz have no cadres in peace-time.
The army is divided into seven army-corps (ordus), each under thecommand of a field marshal, and the two independent commandsof Tripoli (Africa) and the Hejaz. The headquarters of the ordusare I., Constantinople; II., Adrianople; III., Salonica; IV., Erzerum;V., Damascus; VI., Bagdad; VII., Yemen; 15th division, Tripoli;16th division, Hejaz. Only the first six army-corps have, however,their proper establishment: the seventh ordu and the commands ofTripoli and the Hejaz have only garrison troops, and are fed by draftsfrom the first six ordus. Each ordu territory, from I. to VI., iscomposed of 8 redif brigade districts of 2 regimental districts of4 battalion districts apiece, each ordu thus counting 64 battaliondistricts. The total strength of the Ottoman army in 1904 wasreturned at 1,795,350 men all told, made up as follows: (1) Active(4 years' service) 230,408 (called), reserve (ikhtiat) 251,511(called), total 481,919; (2) nizam (class I., completely trained)237,026 (called); (3) redif (class II., not completely trained), from21–29 years old, 585,846; from 30–38 years old, 391,563; total977,409 (uncalled); (4) mustahfiz, trained 53,715 (called), untrained40,286 (uncalled), total 94,001.
The strength of the different arms is given as follows:—
Infantry.—79 nizam infantry regiments 1 to 80 (4 is missing),each regiment consisting of four battalions of four companies apiece.Allowing for certain battalions unformed, there are altogether 309nizam battalions; 20 separate chasseur battalions, of four companieseach; 4 special chasseur battalions stationed on the Bulgarianfrontier—total, 333 battalions in the first line. There are 96infantry battalions of redif class I.; each regiment composed of 4battalions—total 384 battalions. (In 1904 the 4th battalion of the94th regiment, and regiments 95 and 96 had not yet been formed,but, it was stated, had by 1910 been made good.) The projectedstrength of redif class II. was 172 regiments of 4 battalions eachtotal, 688 battalions. At the end of 1904 the organization of thisclass was stated as completed in Turkey in Europe at 40 battalionswith a total of 160 regiments: how far the organization hadprogressed in 1910 in Asiatic Turkey was not known.
The following table shows the war strength of battalions, and thetotal war strength of the infantry arm:—
| Class. | War Strength of Battalions. | Total War Strength of Infantry. | ||||||
| Officers. | N.C.O.'s andMen. | Draft Animals. | Rifles. | Officers. | N.C.O.'s andMen. | Draft Animals. | Rifles. | |
| SpecialChasseurs | 26 | 800 | 200 | 650 | 520 | 16,000 | 4,000 | 13,000 |
| Nizam | 24 | 700 | 106 | 650 | 7,896 | 230,300 | 34,874 | 213,850 |
| Redif I. | 24 | 900 | 106 | 850 | 10,320 | 337,500 | 39,750 | 318,750 |
| Redif II. | 24 | 800 | 106 | 750 | 16,512 | 550,400 | 72,968 | 515,000 |
| Mustahfiz | 8–15 | 400–600 | — | 400–600 | 1,760 | 98,000 | — | 98,000 |
The troops are armed principally with Mauser repeating rifles(models 1887 and 1890) of which there are 1,120,000 issued andin store; there are also 510,000 Martini-Henry rifles in reserve.
Cavalry.—Cavalry of the Guard: 1 regiment “Ertogrul” or5 squadrons, 2 regiments of hussars of 5 squadrons each, and 1regiment of lancers of 5 squadrons. Nizam Cavalry: 38 regimentsof 5 squadrons each, or 190 squadrons in all.
Redif Cavalry.—12 régiments of 4 squadrons each, or 48 squadronsin all, attached to the first three ordus. It was further proposedto appoint one régiment of redif cavalry to each redif division.On war footing the strength of a squadron of cavalry is 6 officers,100 men, 80 horses (Ertogrul—140 men, 135 horses). The nizamcavalry is incorporated with the first six ordus. one cavalry divisionof 3 brigades of 2 regiments each being appointed to each ordu.The redif cavalry is not organized with large units, and in time ofwar would be employed as divisional troops. The total war strengthof the cavalry is 54 regiments (210 squadrons); 1580 officers, 26,800men, 21,900 horses. The cavalry is armed with repeating carbines(the N.C.O.'s with repeating revolvers) and swords.
Artillery.—From ancient times the artillery has formed an altogether independent command in the Turkish army. The grandmaster of ordnance is co-equal with the minister of war, and hisdepartment is classed separately in the budget; the artilleryestablishments, parts of the infantry and of the technical corps, and evenhospitals are placed under his direct orders. The artillery is dividedinto (a) field artillery, horse artillery, mountain artillery and howitzerregiments; (b) fortress artillery, (c) artillery depôts. Allartillery troops are nizam: there is no second line. On principle anordu would have with it 30 batteries of field artillery, 3 batteriesof horse artillery and 3 batteries of mountain artillery, or in all 36batteries with 216 guns, all batteries being 6 guns strong. But theunequal strength of the ordus and political and other reasons haveprevented this organization from being carried out.
On war-footing each field battery has 4 officers, 100–120 N.C.officers and men, 100–125 horses and draught animals, 3–9 ammunitionwagons; each horse battery, 4 officers, 120 N.C. officers and men, 100horses, &c., 3 ammunition wagons; each mountain battery, 3 officers,100 N.C. officers and men, 87 horses, &c.; each howitzer battery, 4officers, 120 N.C. officers and men, 100 horses, &c., 3 ammunitionwagons.
In 1904 the total strength of the artillery was given as 198 fieldbatteries (1188 guns), 18 horse batteries (108 guns), 40 mountainbatteries (240 guns) and 12 howitzer batteries (72 guns): total 268batteries (1608 guns). The guns are of various Krupp types. Theammunition train counts 1254 wagons. On a war-footing thestrength of the artillery troops is 1032 officers and 29,380 men.
Technical Troops.—These are formed into battalions of pioneers,railway troops, telegraph troops, sappers and miners, &c.; in all 11battalions (55 companies) numbering 245 officers and 10,470 men.Other non-combatant troops, such as military train, medical corps,&c., are undergoing reorganization. (For the history of the Turkisharmy, see Army, 98.)
Navy.—The Turkish sea-power, already decayed owing to avariety of causes (for the effect of the revolt of the Greek islanderssee Greek Independence, War of), was shattered by thecatastrophe of Sinope (1853). Abd-ul-Aziz, however, with the aid ofBritish naval officers, succeeded in creating an imposing fleet ofironclads constructed in English and French yards. Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid,on the other hand, pursued a settled policy of reducingthe fleet to impotency, owing to his fear that it might turnagainst him as it had turned against Abd-ul-Aziz. He added,it is true, a few torpedo boats and destroyers, but he promptlyhad them dismantled on arrival at Constantinople. Thesenow refitted, a cruiser ordered from Cramp's shipyard (America)and another from W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth & Co., and thebattleship “Messudiyeh” (9100 tons displacement) reconstructedby the firm of Ansaldo (Genoa) in 1902, and re-armed by Vickers,Sons & Maxim, formed the only really effective war-ships at thedisposal of Turkey in 1910, although a few armoured ships inaddition might still serve for coast defence at a pinch, and a few morefor training ships. Taking all into account, the available strengthof the fleet might be put at 7 armour-clad ships, of which the “Messudiyeh”was one, the six others varying in displacement from 2400 to6400 tons; two cruisers (unarmoured) of 3800 tons displacement;some 18 gunboats; 12 destroyers, 16 first-class torpedo boats and6 second-class torpedo boats. There were also two Nordenfeldtsubmarine boats of doubtful efficiency.
Up to 1908 the personnel was found by yearly drafts of two tothree thousand men from army recruits designated by the minister ofwar; the term of service was 12 years, of which 5 were in the first line,3 in the reserve, 4 in the coastguard. The peace cadres (including2 battalions of marines and 4 battalions of mechanics) were supposedto comprise 12,500 men on peace-footing, to be increased on declarationof war to 37,000; but these cadres were mainly on paper.
Under the “new régime” the Turkish government displayedcommendable energy in reconstructing and reorganizing thesea-power of the empire. New construction to an amount of £T5,000,000,repayable over ten years at the rate of £T500,000 a year bynational subscription guaranteed by the government, had by 1910been voted by parliament. The programme of construction whichthis initial expenditure was to cover was fixed at two battleshipsof about 16,000 tons displacement, one armoured cruiser of about12,000 tons displacement, some few auxiliary vessels (destroyers andgunboats), and a floating dock to lift about 17,000 tons. The mainarmament of the battleships was to be three pairs of 12-in. guns inthree turrets, and three pairs of 9.2-in. in three turrets. The secondaryarmament was to be sixteen 4-in. Q.F. guns, and a few smallerguns (boat and field). The armoured cruiser was to carry four pairsof 9.2-in. guns in four turrets as main armament, and fourteen 4-in.Q.F. guns, and a few boat and field guns as secondary armament.British naval officers were engaged for training the personnel, andto assist in the reorganization of the fleet.
Communications.—A considerable hindrance to the developmentof the empire's resources has been the lack of an adequate system ofcommunications; but although it is still deficient in good roads,much has been done of late years to develop railways, extend canalsand improve river communications. From 1250 in 1885, of which903 were in Europe and 347 in Asia, the mileage of railways hadincreased to some 4440 in 1909, of which 1377 are in Europe, 1810 inAsia Minor, 418 in Syria and 835 fall to the share of the Hejaz railway,including the Ed-Dera-Haifa branch. The construction of this lastline is one of the most remarkable achievements of the reign ofAbd-ul-Hamid. It may be said to be an absolutely autocthonousenterprise, no recourse having been had to foreign capital to find themeans requisite for construction and equipment, which were providedby means of a “national subscription”—not entirely voluntary—andfrom other sources which, although the financial methods werenot strictly orthodox, were strictly Turkish. The line was designed,surveyed and constructed by Turkish engineers—employing Ottomannavvies and labourers—in a highly efficient and economicalmanner, the average cost per mile having been £3230, althoughconsiderable engineering difficulties had to be overcome, especially inthe construction of the Haifa branch. The line, stations, sheds andstores are all solidly built, and the rolling stock is sufficient and ofthe best quality (see further under Finance, below).
Production and Industries.—The Ottoman Empire is renownedfor its productiveness, but enterprise and skill in utilizing itscapabilities are still greatly lacking. For the introduction ofimprovements something, however, was done by the creation in1892 of a special ministry of agriculture, to which is attached thedepartment of mines and forests, formerly under the ministerof finance. Since the year named an agricultural bank has beenestablished, which advances money on loan to the peasants oneasy terms. Schools of agriculture have been opened in the chieftowns of the vilayets, and in connexion with those schools,and elsewhere throughout the empire, model farms have beeninstituted, where veterinary instruction can also be obtained.
To prevent the gradual destruction of the forests by unskilfulmanagement and depredations, schools of forestry have beenfounded, and means have been taken for regulating the cuttingof wood and for replanting districts that have been partiallydenuded. About 21 millions of acres are under wood, of whichover 3 millions are in European Turkey.
Wheat, maize, oats, barley and rye are the chief agriculturalproducts. The culture of cotton is making rapid progress,immigrants who receive a grant of land being obliged to devote one-fourthof it to cotton culture. Tobacco is grown all over the empire, themost important market for it being Smyrna. Opium is mainlygrown in Anatolia. All the more common fruit-trees flourish inmost districts. In Palestine and elsewhere there is a large orangetrade, and Basra, in Turkish Arabia, has the largest export of datesin the world. The vine is largely cultivated both in Europe andAsia, and much Turkish wine is exported to France and Italy formixing purposes. The chief centres of export are Adrianople (morethan half), Constantinople and Smyrna, the others being Brusa,Beirut, Ismid, Mytilene and Salonica. Under the auspices of theOttoman public debt administration silk culture is also carriedon with much success, especially in the vilayets of Brusa and Ismid.In 1888 a school of sericulture was founded by the public debtadministration for the rearing of silkworms according to the Pasteurmethod. The production of salt is also under the direction of thepublic debt administration. About a fourth of the salt producedis exported to foreign countries, and of this about three-fourths goesto British India. Since 1885 great attention has been paid to thesponge fisheries of Tripoli, the annual value of which is about £30,000.With its extensive sea-coast, and its numerous bays and inlets,Turkey has many excellent fishing-grounds, and the industry, thevalue of which is estimated at over £200,000 a year, could be greatlydeveloped. Its general progress may be seen in the increase of thefishery revenue—derived from duties, permits, &c.—of the publicdebt administration. Among other important productions ofthe Ottoman Empire are sesame, coleseed, castor oil, flax, hemp,aniseed, mohair, saffron, olive oil, gums, scammony and liquorice.Attar of roses is produced in large quantities both in Europeanand Asiatic Turkey, and to aid in furthering the industry numerousrose plants are distributed gratuitously. The empire is richin minerals, including gold, silver, lead, copper, iron, coal,mercury, borax, emery, zinc; and only capital is needed for successfulexploitation. The silver, lead and copper mines are mainlyworked by British capital. The more special industries of Turkeyare tanning, and the manufacture of muslin, velvet, silk, carpetsand ornamental weapons.
Shipping and Commerce.—The figures obtainable with respect to shipping are approximate, the statistical data not being altogether complete. In 1890–1891 the number of steamers that entered and cleared Turkish ports was 38,601, and of sailing vessels 140,726, the total tonnageof both classesof vessels being 30, 509,861. In 1897–1898 the number of steamers was 39,680 of 32,446,320 tons, the number of sailing vessels being 134,059 of 2,207,137 tons, thus giving a total tonnage of 34,653,457. In 1904–1905 the number of steamers was 49,235 of 44,180,000 tons, and of sailing vessels 133,706, with a tonnage of 2,506,000 tons, the total tonnage being thus 46,686,000 tons. In 1909 the total tonnage was 43,060,515. About a third of the tonnage belongs to British vessels. The number of steamships belonging to Turkey in 1899–1900 was 177 of 55,938 tons, as compared with 87 of 46,498 tons in 1897–1898, the number of sailingvessels in the same years being respectively 2205 of 141,055 tonsand 1349 of 252,947 tons. The following tables show the total valueof exports and imports arranged according to countries of origin ordestination for 1905–1906 and 1908–1909; the same information forthe year 1905–1906 with respect to the principal ports of the empire,and the tonnage of vessels cleared thereat during the year 1908–1909;and the value of the principal articles imported and exportedfor the year 1905–1906.
Value of Principal Articles Imported and Exported
for the year 1905–1906.
| Nature of Goods. | Imports. | Exports. |
| £ | £ | |
| Barley | — | 658,462 |
| Rice | 944,950 | — |
| Opium | — | 639,630 |
| Grapes | — | 2,065,642 |
| Figs | — | 791,473 |
| Cotton | — | 449,628 |
| Valonia | — | 548,442 |
| Crude Iron and Iron Bars | 432,091 | — |
| Sheepskins and Goatskins | — | 528,282 |
| Carpets, &c. | 506,353 | 478,991 |
| Flour | 995,165 | — |
| Cotton Thread | 1,287,243 | — |
| French Beans, Chick Peas and Beans | — | 508,441 |
| Cashmere Cloth | 561,246 | — |
| Coffee | 830,325 | — |
| Madapollam | 916,715 | — |
| Ores | — | 486,037 |
| Wool | — | 439,066 |
| Woollen Fabrics | 785,622 | — |
| Eggs | — | 441,282 |
| Cotton Print (Calico) | 2,014,968 | — |
| Tiftik (Silk-waste) | — | 801,755 |
| Cocoons | — | 970,169 |
| Petroleum | 909,735 | — |
| Sugar | 2,263,928 | — |
Value of Goods Imported into, and Exported from, together with Number and Tonnage of Vessels cleared at, Principal Ports of Turkish Empire.
| Port. | Imports.[12] | Exports.[13] | Number ofVessels[14] | Tonnage.[15] |
| £ | £ | |||
| Constantinople | 8,470,095 | 1,381,432 | 17,792 | 16,214,947 |
| Dependenciesof Constantinople | 673,699 | 2,453,758 | — | — |
| Smyrna | 3,724,525 | 5,722,273 | 5,888 | 2,989,863 |
| Beirut | 3,568,437 | 1,578,691 | 3,076 | 1,740,312 |
| Salonica | 3,111,957 | 1,650,552 | 2,962 | 1,151,273 |
| Prevesa | 358,586 | 259,585 | — | — |
| Yemen | 603,731 | 259,553 | — | — |
| Jidda | 801,927 | 26,154 | — | — |
| Adrianople | 587,653 | 585,810 | — | — |
| Bagdad | 1,510,430 | 777,402 | — | — |
| Alexandretta | 1,669,231 | 887,326 | 685 | 676,137 |
| Tripoli in Africa | 565,331 | 328,164 | 575 | 376,214 |
| Trebizond | 1,507,771 | 1,083,515 | 1,389 | 776,698 |
| Scutari,Albania | 257,397 | 135,850 | — | — |
| Erzerum | 103,280 | 96,405 | — | — |
| Basra | — | — | — | — |
| Kavala | — | — | 1,410 | 283,256 |
| Samsun | — | — | 1,064 | 976,803 |
| Tripoli in Syria | — | — | 1,306 | 919,222 |
| Jaffa | — | — | 1,241 | 1,210,261 |
| Chios | — | — | 2,732 | 915,880 |
| Aivali | — | — | 1,489 | 124,804 |
| Dedeagatch[16] | — | — | 404 | 50,469 |
| Total | 27,514,050 | 17,256,470 |
Value of the Goods Imported from or Exported to Principal Countries during the years 1905–1906 and, 1908–1909.
| CountryofOrigin or Destination. | Imports from | Exports to | ||||||
| 1905–1906 | 1908–1909 | 1905–1906 | 1908–1909 | |||||
| Amount | % | Amount | % | Amount | % | Amount | % | |
| £ | £ | £ | £ | |||||
| England | 9,641,931 | 35.05 | 8,256,793 | 29.96 | 5,552,703 | 32.18 | 4,506,344 | 27.86 |
| Germany | 1,162,538 | 4.22 | 1,697,957 | 6.16 | 1,076,929 | 6.24 | 1,008,750 | 6.23 |
| Austria-Hungary | 5,715,914 | 20.77 | 3,574,724 | 12.96 | 1,874,827 | 10.87 | 2,173,453 | 13.43 |
| Italy | 2,145,789 | 7.79 | 2,150,064 | 7.79 | 872,641 | 5.06 | 883,358 | 5.46 |
| Spain | 118 | — | 15,588 | 0.06 | 21,827 | 0.13 | 17,332 | 0.10 |
| Persia | 643,641 | 2.34 | 485,887 | 1.77 | 57,443 | 0.33 | 82,530 | 0.51 |
| Switzerland | 63,324 | 0.23 | 105,026 | 0.39 | 640 | — | 3,056 | 0.02 |
| United States | 252,247 | 0.92 | 360,446 | 1.30 | 431,684 | 2.50 | 616,951 | 3.81 |
| Belgium | 865,040 | 3.15 | 762,543 | 2.76 | 427,998 | 2.48 | 152,517 | 0.94 |
| Denmark | 33 | — | — | — | 201 | — | — | — |
| Russia | 1,596,631 | 5.80 | 2,187,868 | 7.94 | 520,916 | 3.02 | 504,291 | 3.13 |
| Rumania | 697,631 | 2.54 | 1,107,120 | 4.01 | 350,876 | 2.03 | 336,663 | 2.08 |
| Japan | 1,821 | — | 2,374 | 0.01 | 214 | — | — | — |
| Servia | 89,329 | 0.33 | 441,050 | 1.60 | 172,220 | 0.99 | 86,602 | 0.53 |
| Holland | 524,116 | 1.91 | 555,972 | 2.01 | 509,688 | 2.96 | 220,489 | 1.36 |
| France | 2,341,086 | 8.51 | 2,956,643 | 10.72 | 4,220,006 | 24.46 | 3,187,376 | 19.72 |
| Montenegro | 2,928 | 0.01 | 6,633 | 0.02 | 24,686 | 0.15 | 20,228 | 0.12 |
| Greece | 492,037 | 1.79 | 347,287 | 1.26 | 476,829 | 2.76 | 382,484 | 2.37 |
| Egypt | 812,466 | 2.96 | 1,019,952 | 3.70 | — | — | 1,453,274 | 8.98 |
| Bulgaria | 409,727 | 1.49 | 1,188,981 | 4.31 | 663,139 | 3.84 | 498,414 | 3.09 |
| Samos | 1,210 | 0 | 181,965 | 0.66 | — | — | 10,319 | 0.08 |
| Tunis | 54,495 | 0.19 | 47,524 | 0.17 | — | — | 2,363 | 0.01 |
| Other Countries | 119,738 | 0.44 | — | — | 27,833 | 0.17 | ||
| £27,514,052 | 100.00 | £27,572,135 | 100.00 | £17,255,467 | 100.00 | £16,174,627 | 100.00 | |
The revenues produced by the customs duties for the five years1905–1906 to 1909–1910 are as follows:—
| Year. | Export Duties. | Import Duties. | Total. |
| £ | £ | £ | |
| 1905–1906 | 160,037 | 1,928,957 | 3,088,994 |
| 1906–1907 | 151,677 | 2,260,382 | 2,412,059 |
| 1907–1908 | 143,210 | 2,704,347 | 2,847,557 |
| 1908–1909 | 143,378 | 3,138,534 | 3,281,912 |
| 1909–1910 | 162,252 | 3,533,405 | 3,695,657 |
Finance
Preliminary Sketch.—From the outset of their history the Osmanli Turks adapted to their own needs most of the political, economic and administrative institutions which existed before them. Primarily their system was based on the great principles enunciated by the immediate successors of the Prophet, especially by Omar, involving the absolute distinction between, and impartiality of treatment of, the Mussulman conquerors and the races which they conquered; and from this point of view a carefulstudy of the financial history of Turkey will afford most valuableinsight into the Eastern Question.
In reward for the brilliant services rendered him by Ertoghrul(the father of Osman) and by Osman himself, Ala-ud-din, the lastof the Seljuk sultans, conferred certain provinces in fief upon thesetwo great warriors. They in their turn distributed the lands soacquired among their sons and principal emirs on strictly feudalprinciples, the feudatory lands being styled ziamet and timar, asystem long continued by their successors in regard to the territorieswhich they conquered. The conquered peoples fell into an inferiorcaste, made to work for, and to pay for the subsistence of, theirconquerors, as under the Arab domination; the principal taxesexacted from them were the kharaj, a tax of indeterminateamount upon realty, based on the value of lands owned byunbelievers—(in contradistinction to the tithe [a͑shār] which was a taxof fixed amount upon lands owned by believers)—and levied inpayment of the privilege of gaining means of existence in a Mussulmancountry, and the ji*ziyé, a compulsory payment, or poll-tax, to whichbelievers were not subjected, in lieu of military service. Theconquerors were feudatories of the reigning prince or sultan, andtheir payments consisted principally in providing fighting forcesto make up the armies of the prince. The kharaj, the ji*ziyé, andthe whole feudal system disappeared in theory, although its spirit,and indeed in some respects its practice, still exists in fact, duringthe reforming period initiated by Sultan Selim III., culminatingin the Tanzimat-i-Khairiyé (1839) of Abd-ul-Mejid, and theHatt-i-Humayun issued by the same sultan (1856). The administrationof the state revenues was managed by a government departmentknown as the Beit-ul-Mal or Maliyé, terms generally employedthroughout Islamic countries since the commencement of Islam.But the entire financial authority resided in the sultan as keeper,by right, of the fortune of his subjects. The public revenues werepassed under three principal denominations: (1) the public treasury;(2) the reserve, into which was paid any surplus of revenues overexpenses from the treasury; (3) the private fortune (civil list) of theprince. Expenditure, as under the Seljuk sultans, was defrayedpartly in cash, partly in “assignations” (havalé).
The Osmanli sultans, as also the Mamelukes and the Seljuks,were accustomed to give largesse to their military forces on theiraccession to the throne, or on special occasions of rejoicing, acustom which still is practised in form, as for instance on the firstday of the year, or the birthday of the Prophet (mevlûd). Largessewas especially given on the field of victory, and was, moreover,liberally distributed to stifle sedition and mutiny among the troops,the numerical strength of which was continually increased as theempire enlarged its borders. This vicious system, grafted as it wasupon an inefficient administration, and added to the weight of acontinually depreciated currency, debased both by ill-advisedfiscal measures and by public cupidity, formed one of the principalcauses of the financial embarrassments which assailed the treasurywith ever increasing force in the latter part of the 16th and duringthe 17th and 18th centuries. The Turkish historian, Kutchi Bey,attributes the origin of the decline of the empire to the reign ofSuleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566), when the conversion of manyemiriyé lands into vakufs was effected, and the system of farmingout revenues first introduced. Impoverished by these differentcauses, as well as by prodigal extravagance in interior expenditure,by shameless venality among the ruling classes, and by continualwars, of which the cost, whether they were successful or not, wasenormous, the public treasury was frequently empty. So long asthe reserve was available it was drawn upon to supply the void; butwhen that also was exhausted recourse was had to expedients,such as the borrowing, or rather seizure, of the vakuf revenues (1622)and the sale of crown properties; then ensued a period of barefacedconfiscation, until, to restore public confidence in some measure,state budgets were published at intervals, viz. the partial budgetof Ainy-Ali (in 1018 or A.D. 1609), the budget of Ali Aga (in 1064,or 1653) and that of Eyubi Effendi (in 1071, or 1660). At this time(1657–1681) the brilliant administration of the two Kuprilisrestored temporary order to Ottoman finance. The budget ofEyubi Effendi is particularly interesting as giving the statementof revenue and expenditure for an average year, whereas the budgetof Ainy-Ali was a budget of expenditure only, and even in thisrespect the budget of Eyubi Effendi is far more detailed andcomplete. The budget of Ali Aga is almost identical with thatof Eyubi Effendi, and is worthy of special note for the conclusionswhich accompanied it, and which although drawn up 250 years ago,described with striking accuracy some of the very ills from whichTurkish finance was suffering throughout the reign of Abd-ul-Hamid.
Apart from unimportant modifications, the form of the budgetmust have remained unchanged until the organic reforms of SelimIII., while its complete transformation into European shape datesonly from the year 1278 (1862), when Fuad Pasha attached a regularbudget to his report on the financial situation of the empire. Sincethat time there had been no further change worth noting until the“new régime” was established in 1908. Although the publicationof the budget had only taken place at very irregular intervals, itmust also be observed that the published budgets were by no meansaccurate. From the time of Eyubi Effendi until the end of the grandvizierate of Ibrahim Pasha (1730), the empire experienced periodicalrelief from excessive financial distress under the series of remarkablegrand viziers who directed the affairs of state during that time,but the recovery was not permanent. Ottoman arms met withalmost systematic reverses; both the ordinary and the reservetreasuries were depleted; a proposal to contract a foreign loan(1783) came to nothing, and the public debt (duyun-i-umumiyē)was created by the capitalization of certain revenues in the formof interest bearing bonds (sehims) issued to Ottoman subjectsagainst money lent by them to the state (1785). Then came forcedloans and debased currency (1788), producing still more acutedistress until, in 1791, at the close of the two years' war with Russia,in which the disaster which attended Ottoman arms may be largelyascribed to the penury of the Ottoman treasury, Selim III., the firstof the “reforming sultans,” attempted, with but little practicalsuccess, to introduce radical reforms into the administrative organizationof his empire. These endeavours were continued with scarcelybetter result by each of the succeeding sultans up to the time of theCrimean War, and during the whole of the period the financialembarrassment of the empire was extreme. Partial relief was soughtin the continual issue of debased currency (beshlik, altilik and theirsubdivisions), of which the excess of nominal value over intrinsicvalue ranged between 33 and 97%, and finally paper money (kaimé)which was first issued in 1839, bearing an interest of 8%, reduced in1842 to 6%, such interest being paid on notes of 500 piastres, butnot on notes of 20 or 10 piastres, which were issued simultaneously.Finally, usage of paper money was restricted to the capital only,and in 1842 this partial reform of the paper currency was followedby a reform of the metallic currency, in the shape of an issue of gold,silver and copper currency of good value. The gold coins issuedwere 500, 250, 100, 50, and 25 piastres in value, the weight of the100-piastre piece (Turkish pound), 7.216 grammes, .916⅔ fine.The silver coins were of 20, 10, 5, 2, 1 and ½ piastre in value, the20-piastre piece weighing 24.055 grammes, .830 fine. The coppermoney was in pieces of a nominal value of 40, 20, 10, 5 and 1 paras,40 paras being equal to 1 piastre. In 1851 further attempts weremade to withdraw the paper money from circulation, but these wereinterrupted by the Crimean War, and the government was, on thecontrary, obliged to issue notes of 20 and 10 piastres. Finally, atthe outbreak of the Crimean War Turkey was assisted by her alliesto raise a loan of £3,000,000 in London, guaranteed by Great Britainand France; in 1855 an organic law was issued regulating the budget,and in the same year a second guaranteed loan of £5,000,000 wascontracted in Great Britain. In 1857 an interior loan of 150,000purses in bonds (esham-i-mumtazē), repayable in three years andbearing 8% interest, was raised; the term of repayment was,however, prolonged indefinitely. In the same year another series ofbonds (haziné tahvili), bearing 6% interest, and repayable in 1861,was issued; in 1861 the term of reimbursem*nt was prolonged until1875. In 1858 a third loan was contracted in Great Britain for£5,000,000, and thereafter foreign loans followed fast on one anotherin 1860, 1862, 1863, 1864, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1873 and 1875, not tomention the two Egyptian tribute loans raised on Egyptian creditin 1871 and 1877. In 1859 the settlement of palace debts gave riseto the issue of 1,000,000 purses of new interior bonds (esham-i-jedidē)spread over a period of three years, repayable in twenty-four years,and bearing interest at 6%. Further 6% bonds, repayable in tenyears, and styled serguis, were issued in the same year. Seeing therapid increase of the financial burdens of the state, a commissionof experts, British, French and Austrian, was charged, (1860) withsetting the affairs in order, and with their assistance Fuad Pashadrew up the budget accompanying his celebrated report to the sultanin 1862. Meanwhile kaimē was being issued in great quantities(about 60,000 purses a month) and fell to a discount (December 1861)of 75%. In 1862 further sehims were issued, and these and theloan of 1862 (8,000,000) were devoted to the withdrawal of thekaimē. Later, however, the kaimē was again issued in very largeamounts, and the years succeeding 1872 up to the Russian War(1877) presented a scarcely interrupted course of extravagance andfinancial disorder, the result of which is described below.
The Budget was supposed to be drawn up according to an excellent set of regulations sanctioned by imperial decree, dated the 6th of July 1290 (1875), of which the first article absolutely prohibited the increase, by the smallest sum, of any of the expenses, or the abandonment of the least iota of the revenues fixed by the budget. Under these regulations the revenues were divided into two categories, viz. the direct and the indirect. The first category included the “imposts” properly so called, the fixed contributions (redevances fixes) to be paid by the “privileged provinces,” and the military exoneration tax. In the second were comprised tithes, mine-royalties, forests and domains, customs, sheep-tax, tobacco, salt, spirits, stamps and “various.” The expenses were also divided into two categories—(1) “Periodic and fixed” expenditure, which admitted of neither reduction nor delay; and (2) the credits allowed to the various departments of state, which might be increased or diminished according to circ*mstances. The expenditure of the first category was made up of the service of foreign loans, of the general debt, of the dotations replacing ziamet and timarat (military fiefs) and of fixed contributions such as vakufs. In the second category were included the imperial civil list, the departments of the Sheikh-ul-Islamātand of religious establishments, the ministries of the interior,war, finance, public instruction, foreign affairs, marine, commerce(including mines and forests), and public works, and, finally, ofthe grand master of ordnance. For every province (vilayet) acomplete budget of receipts and expenditure was drawn up by itsdefterdar (keeper of accounts) under the supervision of the vali(governor); this budget was forwarded to the minister of finance,while each state and ministry of department received communicationof the items appertaining to it. Each ministry and departmentthen sent in a detailed budget to the Sublime Porte before the end ofNovember of each year. (The Turkish financial year is from the 1stof March to the 28th of February o.s.). The Sublime Porteforwarded these budgets, with its own added thereto, to the ministerof finance, who thereupon drew up a general budget of receiptsand expenses and addressed it to the Sublime Porte before the 15thof December. This was summarily considered by the council ofministers, and then referred to the budget commission, which was tobe composed not only of State functionaries, but of private persons“worthy of confidence, and well versed in financial matters,”and which was invested with the fullest powers of investigationand inquiry. The report drawn up by the commission on theresults of its labours was submitted to the Council of Ministers,which then finally drew up a general summary of the definitivebudget and submitted it by mazbata (memorandum) for the imperialsanction. When this sanction had been accorded the budget wasto be published. The remaining regulations set forth the mannerin which extra-budgetary and extraordinary expenses were to bedealt with, and the manner in which the rectified budget, showingthe actual revenues and expenditure as proved at the close of theyear was to be drawn up with the assistance of the state accountsdepartment (divān-i-mouhassebāt). This rectified budget,accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, was examined by thebudget commission and the Council of Ministers, and submitted forthe imperial sanction, after receiving which it was ordered that bothbe published. Special instructions and regulations determinedthe latitude left to each department in the distribution of the creditsaccorded to it among its various heads of expenditure, the degreeof responsibility of the functionaries within each department andthe relations regarding finance and accounts between each departmentand its dependencies. These regulations provide carefully and wellfor all contingencies, but unfortunately they were only very partiallycarried out. It may indeed be said that it was only the previsionarybudget (anglicé, the estimates) that received any approximatelyproper care on the lines laid down, while the rule that both theestimates and the definite budget (at the close of each year) shouldbe published was almost wholly honoured in the breach; until 1909,when the Constitution had been re-established the budget had onlytwice been published, in 1880 and 1897, since the regulations wereput into force. Not only were the budgets not published, but nofigures whatever were allowed to transpire in regard to the trueposition of the Turkish treasury—which laid the accuracy of eventhe limited number of budgets published open to suspicion.
All this has now been changed, and the above regulations areconscientiously carried out with the differences in procedurenecessary for compliance with constitutional methods, and withthe submission of the Budget to the houses of parliament. TheBudget is now published in full detail and that for the year 1326(1910–1911), with the explanatory memorandum which prefacesit, is an admirable work, mercilessly exposing the financialshortcomings and sins of the previous system, or rather want of system,while unshrinkingly facing the difficulties which the presentgovernment has inherited. The account thus presented to us ofwhat the previous confusion was, underlines and attests thesummary exposition of it given in the last edition of this work.It was there stated that, on the most favourable estimate,the normal deficit of the Turkish treasury was £T2,725,000,(upwards of £T,1,700,000 below the truth as now declared)and the following observations were appended:—
“This budget represents the normal situation of Ottoman finance;it does not tally with the budget published in 1897, which wasprepared with a special object in view, and was obviously full ofinaccuracies, nor indeed does it agree with figures which could beofficially obtained from the Porte. It is, however, compiled fromthe best sources of information, and it exaggerates nothing. Theformidable deficit is met principally in three ways. (1) By leavingthe salaries of state officials and the army unpaid. In many partsof the empire the soldiers rarely receive more than eight months payin the year, although in Constantinople the arrears are not so large.The reverse is the case with the civil officials, whose salaries in theprovinces are paid more regularly than in Constantinople, owing totheir being charged on the provincial budgets; the average arrearsare from two to three months in Constantinople, and from one tothree in the provinces. The arrears in civil and military salariesaverage annually about £T1,750,000. (2) By means of loans, bothpublic and from individuals. By financial expedients of this kindpayments were effected by the treasury in fifteen years (1881–1896)amounting to £T1,666,000 or at the rate of nearly £T800,000 perannum. (3) By anticipating the revenues of future years. This isthe method so frankly condemned by Ali Aga, as was seen above, in1653. Delegations (havalē) are granted on the provincial treasuries forone or two years in advance, sometimes for a series of years, in orderto pay pressing debts too heavy to be met in a single payment. Nobetter description of the financial distress and disorder of the empirecan be given than that set forth in the official report of the budgetcommission of 1888. “It has hitherto been considered necessaryowing to financial embarrassment, to commence financial years withunbalanced budgets. Later, without taking into consideration theeffective amounts in cash at the disposal of the vilayets, considerablesums were drawn upon them, by means of havalēs, out of proportionto their capacity. For these reasons, during the last two or threemonths of the financial year, the vilayets have not a para to remitto the central administration, and it has been considered imperativelynecessary to draw on the revenues of the following year. Thus,especially during the last two years, urgent extraordinary expenseshave been perforce partially covered by the proceeds of theordinary revenues, the revenues of 1303 (1887) were alreadyconsiderably anticipated in the course of 1302 (1886). Theformer year naturally felt the effect of this, and the tithes whichshould have been encashed in the last months of the year werediscounted and spent several months in advance. Moreover, inorder to meet to some extent the deficit arising as well from theaccumulation of arrears of state departments since 1300 (1884) as,to a large degree, from gross deficiencies due to the neglect of thecivil officials of the government to encash the revenues—to meet,further, the needs of the central administration, and above all, theurgent military expenses of the empire, and to provide a guaranteefor bankers and merchants in business relations with the governmentand the treasury, part of the revenues of 1304 were perforce spent in1303.” This commission proved the deficit of the year to be£T4,370,000. It set out also at length the very defective anddisorderly condition of the state accounts. During the finance ministryof Agop Pasha (1889 to 1894) a good deal was done to set mattersin order, but most of the ground then gained has since been lost.”
To this may be added a short extract from the Explanatory Preface to the Finance Bill for the year 1910–1911. After pointing out the immense difficulties which he had had to encounter owing to the absence of any regular accounts, and above all of any of “those statistics which constitute the soul, indeed the very life of a public administration,” and that it was therefore impossible for him to pretend that he had been able to free himself altogether from the effects of the past, the minister continues, “every time we have endeavoured to have recourse to the previous elements of appreciation, we found ourselves faced by the chaos which characterized former years. We have sometimes ascertained things so strange that we cannot forbear expressing our astonishment at the idea that a great power such as ours could maintain itself under such conditions.” M. Ch. Laurent, the financial adviser to the Turkish government, stated in a lecture on Turkish Finance, delivered in Paris on the 22nd of April 1910, that the Ministry of Finance has now been largely reorganized. Officials, he says, with grand titles and no responsible duties have been abolished, and departments with responsible chiefs created. The agents of the finance ministry, instead of being mere clerks, are now employed in “the assessment and collection of taxes, the control of expenditure, the preparation and execution of the budget, the estimates of the necessary cash required at different points of the empire—all that, in fine, constitutes thereal financial administration of a great empire.” Laurent points out that direct taxes furnish 54% of the revenues of the empire, that agriculture is accordingly very heavily taxed, and that the tax on realty is both excessive and unfairly administered. The summary history given above of the origin of the system of taxation prevailing in Turkey explains how this came about. Reform of this system, and, further, very necessary reforms of the methods of collection of the wines and spirits revenue (which is protection turned upside down,the home-growers being far more heavily taxed than importers), and of the customs (in which almost every possible administrative sin was exemplified), were also undertaken. Three bills, moreover, were presented to parliament, the first regulating Public Accountancy, the second regulating the Central Accounts Department, and the third the service of the Treasury. By this last the centralization of receipts and expenditure and the movement of funds in the provinces wereto be confided to the Imperial Ottoman Bank, which extendedand perfected its own organization for the purpose.
Passing now to the examination of the budget, it should beobserved that the method of estimating the revenues—a matter of greatdifficulty owing to the previous want of method—is described byLaurent as follows: “For every nature of receipts the total effectivecollections for the five last known years were set out, the averageswere taken of these and the increase or decrease of the yearly averageof those same years was worked out and added to or deducted fromthe figure previously obtained. The only exception made to thisrule was in the case of revenues showing a yearly increase, such asPost Office revenue, tobacco, salt, for which were taken the figuresof 1323 (1907) increased by a certain average.” The expenditurewas arrived at in the manner previously described and when thegeneral budget came to be made up the severest pruning was foundnecessary, the original demands of the various ministries and departmentshaving resulted in a deficit of upwards of £T9,000,000. It isthought better here, for the sake of clearness, to reserve observationson revenues specially assigned to the international administrationof the Ottoman Public Debt, and on the expenditure of that administration,and to deal with that subject separately, while, however,including the total figures of both in the general figures in order toreproduce exactly the totals shown in the budget of the empire.The principal items of revenue and expenditure are as follows, thefigures being taken from the published budget above-mentioned.
Revenue. DirectTaxes.[17]—The tax on realty (verghi) is estimatedto yield £T2,599,420. Duties on profession (temettū) consist (a) of afixed duty leviable at rates declared in a schedule forming part ofthe special law (Dec. 8, 1907) regulating the tax, and (b) of a proportionalduty at the rate of 3% on the value of buildings occupied bycompanies or individuals in the prosecution of their business; of 3%on salaries (subject to certain deductions) of employés of suchcompanies and individuals; and on government contractors andrevenue farmers, at the rate of 3% of 10% of the value of contractsfilled and of revenues farmed. The law is defective and unfair inits incidence, and it is not applicable to foreigners. The governmentpromised in 1910 to remedy the law with the assent of the GreatPowers, and, if successful in its negotiations, to present an amendedlaw. The duties are estimated to produce £T393,107; other professionalduties £T110,887—together £T503,994. A “Military Exonerationtax” is levied on male Ottoman subjects between the ages of15 and 75 to the amount of £T50 for 135 persons—certain exceptionssuch as priests, religious orders, &c., are allowed. The estimatedrevenue from this source is £T1,289,612. “Prestations” arepayments in lieu of services (apart from military service) to the state,such as maintenance of highways, &c.—in effect, purchase of exonerationfrom forced labour. These duties vary in different parts of theempire: in the vilayets of Constantinople, Bagdad and Adrianople,and in the sanjaks of Bigha and Tchatalja the day’s work is calculatedat 5 piastres (about 11d.); in the vilayets of Aleppo, Trebizond,Angora, Iannina, Konia, Sivas and Kastamuni at 4 piastres (about9d.); and in most other parts of the empire at 3 piastres (about 7d.).These taxes were formerly levied either in cash or in kind: it has nowbeen decided to levy them in cash only, although this change wasexpected to cause some arrears. Allowing for these, the estimatedrevenue is £T553,938. The “tax on sheep, camels, buffaloes andhogs” (aghnam, meaning literally “sheep,” but for taxing purposesthe other animals are included under the same name), formed originallypart of the “tithe.” It was transformed long since into a fixedamount per head of the animals taxed, which amount varies accordingto the region in which the tax is levied, the highest tariff beingin the sanjak of Jerusalem (7½ piastres) and the lowest in the Yemen(1 piastre). The estimated receipts are, from sheep £T1,790,720,from camels and buffaloes £T144,520, and from hogs £T8890,or together £T1,814,152. “Tithes” are the direct descendant ofthe kharaj already alluded to above. It should here be noted that,from the fiscal point of view, the reforms instituted at the commencementof the 19th century may be summarized thus. In permanentremuneration of certain services to be rendered to the state, thesovereign assigned to civil or military functionaries territorialregions for the purpose, and with the power, of collecting land taxesimposed by Mussulman and Imperial law, i.e. the kharaj or tithe, andtransfer and succession duties. The tithes were originally based onone-tenth of the agricultural produce of the country, but this proportionwas gradually raised under the euphemistic pretence of “publicinstruction,” but really, under financial pressure, to 12% and againin 1900 for military “equipments” (Tejhīzāt-i-’Askeriyeh) by afurther ½% to 12½%. This last surtax, which produces about£T90,000 per annum, was specially affected to a loan, known as the“Tejhīzāt-i-’Askerieh of 1905,” of £T2,640,000, by virtue of acontract between the government and the Deutsche Bank (April 17,1905). The estimated receipts from the “Tithes” (includingtobacco and silk, both hypothecated to the Public Debt Administration)are £T6,731,107. The remaining taxes under the categorydirect are the forest-dues (generally speaking 15% of the valueof wood cut), estimated to produce £T130,094; the mining dues(being a fixed duty of 10 piastres per 10,000 sq. metres of thesuperficial area covering the mine, and a proportional duty varying from1% to 20% of the gross value of metal contained in the ore, accordingto the kind of metal and the method of extraction of the ore),£T45,141; and tax-papers (Tezkērēs), £T58,434. The total “directtaxes” (inclusive of tobacco and silk tithes) are thus estimated toamount to £T13,725,892.
Section II. of the budget is composed entirely of revenues fromstamp-duties. Of these, commercial stamps are among the revenuesspecifically hypothecated to the Public Debt Administration,£T460,079; the others, consisting of legal stamps of various kinds,registration and transfer-duties, &c., are estimated to produce£T653,373 forming a combined total of £T1,113,452.
Under Section III. fall the “indirect contributions” as nowreclassified. The first revenue specified among these in the budgetis that accruing from the wine and spirit duties, which is again amongthose assigned to the Public Debt, £T283,079. Licenses for sale ofTumbēki, a variety of Persian tobacco used for the narghilē, £T2046.By far the most important “indirect” revenue is that produced bythe customs, consisting of import, export and transit duties, andvarious unspecified receipts. Under the old commercial treatieswhich lapsed about 1890—but which have been maintained“provisionally” in force until one or other of the great powers consentsto set a term to the negotiation of fresh treaties—an ad valorem dutyof 8% was imposed on all articles imported into the Turkish empire.In 1905 financial resources had to be found for the special administrationof the three European vilayets as insisted upon by the powers,and to this end the Porte initiated negotiations with the latter toincrease the import duties by 3%. As is usual in Turkey, thisopportunity was seized for the demand of redress of grievances bysuch powers as considered they had any, and the negotiations wereprotracted until July 1907, when France finally gave in her adhesion.Since then the import duties have been collected at the rate of 11%ad valorem under the supervision of the Public Debt Administration,the bondholders having certain rights, under the decree of Muharem,described below, over any increase of revenue arising from modificationof the commercial treaties. By the provisions of the “AnnexDecree,” also described below, three-quarters of the additionalrevenue is assigned to the Turkish government, and one-quarterto the Public Debt Administration to swell the sinking-fund.Fresh negotiations were also undertaken to increase the import-dutiesby a further 4% in order to balance the deficit shownin the budget. In the year 1910–1911 the import duties wereestimated to produce £T3,980,395, the transit duties £T20,276,and the export duties (1% ad valorem, which it was hopedthe government might soon afford to abolish) £T168,993 totalcustoms revenue, £T4,217,752. The remaining “indirect contributions”are port and lighthouse dues, £T148,426. Sanitary taxes,£T20,519, and fisheries and sporting licenses affected to the serviceof the public debt, £T153,990. The revenues figuring under “indirectcontributions” thus reach a total of £T4,825,812.
Monopolies form Section IV. of the budget, and include in the firstplace the salt revenue (£T1,227,750), which is assigned to the PublicDebt Administration, and tobacco revenues of which the larger part,£T865,737, is assigned to the same administration, the total (includingshare of Tumbēki profit) producing £T965,754; the remainingmonopolies are: fixed payment from the Tumbēki Company,£T40,000; explosives, £T106,323; seignorage (Mint), £T10,466; andposts and telegraphs, £T912,129. The “Monopolies” thus rendera total revenue of £T3,262,424.
Section V. includes receipts from commercial and industrialundertakings belonging to the state. These are the Hejaz railway,£T152,000; the Dolma-Bagtchē gas-works, £T59,130; technicalschool, £T8536; the Tigris and Euphrates steamships, £T62,513; andmines (Heraclea coal and other), £T120,710; forming a combinedtotal of £T402,889.
Section VI. is composed of receipts from“State Domains” of which a large proportion was formerly included in the civil list. Under the deposed sultan the Civil List Administration had encroached in every direction not only on the revenues properly accruing to the state, but upon private and upon state property in most parts of the empire. Thus it is explained in the preface to the budget that the revenues “proceeding from the deposed sultan” are not classed together under one heading, but that they have been apportioned to the various sections under which they should fall “whether taxes on house property or property not built upon, tithes, aghnam, forests, mines, cadastre, sport, military equipment, private domains of the state, various receipts, proceeds of sales, rents”—a truly comprehensive list which by no means set a limit to the private resources of Abd-ul-Hamid II., who looked upon the customs also as a convenient reserve on which he could, and did, draw when his privy purse was short of money. Apart from the sources of revenue specified above, of which the amounts actually transferred from the civil list are not stated, Section VI. is estimated to produce £T513,651. In the previous budget there had been a special heading, “Proceeds of Domains transferred fromthe Civil List,” estimated to produce £T620,233, which may havebeen intended to include all the various receipts above enumerated.
Section VII., formed of the tributes of dependencies of which thetwo principal are the Egyptian, £T765,000, and that of Cyprus£T102,590 (assigned to the public, debt) comprises a total revenue of£T871,316. Finally, various receipts of which the principal separatelyspecified are government share of railway receipts (Oriental railwaysand Smyrna-Cassaba railway), £T201,710, and “subscriptions”for the Hejaz railway, £T264,600, form Section VIII.
The total revenues of the empire are thus estimated to produce£T125,848,332, and seeing the careful and moderate manner inwhich the estimates have been framed, this may be looked uponrather as a minimum than a maximum. The minister of financestated in his budget speech to parliament, delivered on the 23rdof April 1910, that the revenues for the year 1909–1910, whichhad been estimated to produce £T25,000,000, had as a matter offact produced £T26,500,000.
Expenditure. Ministry of Finance.—The first item of expenditureshown in the budget is the service of the public debt, amountingto £T8,288,394. The Public Debt Administration plays soconsiderable a part in the finances of the Ottoman Empire, and itshistory is of such importance that a special section of this articlewill be devoted to it below. Under the budgetary heading“Public Debt” is included, as it should be, all expenditure inconnexion not only with the public debt proper, but also withadvances from banks and others, railway guarantees, an accountof which will also be found below, and all capitalized liabilities, asfar as known, contracted by the state.
It is explained in the preface to the budget that one of the abusesof the previous régime had been to obtain advances from creditestablishments at high rates of interest varying from 7% to 9%,when it was found impossible to issue a public loan. The rates onthese advances have now been generally reduced to 6% with theexception of that on the advances from the lighthouse administration,which refused to allow any reduction below 7%. In the years1908–1909 the advances were reduced by £T688,000, in addition torepayments allowed for in the budget, and the credit agreed for theyear 1909–1910 is £T663,000, as compared with £T1,160,000 for theprevious year. In the year 1910–1911 the outstanding advanceswere to be so far paid off that the credits to be opened under thishead would be still further reduced by £T500,000.
The civil list has been reduced to the definite amount of £T443,880,which, without the consent of parliament, cannot be increased.The sultan receives an annual allocation for himself and householdof £T240,000, the crown prince one of £T24,000, and a sum of£Tl53,000 is assigned to the Imperial princes and the sultanas.The deposed sultan was allowed £T12,000 a year, and a similaramount was set aside to provide dowries for two sultanas whowere just about to be married. The debts of the former are statedin the preface to the budget to be very large, and as payments areeffected fresh creditors present themselves with undeniable vouchersin their hands, causing much embarrassment to the minister offinance: no figures, however, are given. The Finance Bill providesthat these debts are to be paid out of supplementary credits.
Under the reformed constitution every senator is entitled to asalary of £T100 per month, any remuneration which he may receivefrom the government for other services to be deducted from thesenatorial allowance which, however, it may of course exceed.Deputies are allowed £T300 for each session of parliament, and £T50per month in addition should the session exceed its legal duration.They are further allowed travelling expenses from and to theirconstituencies on the basis of rules governing journeys of functionariesreceiving a monthly salary of £T50. The amount reserved inthe budget for these purposes is £T181,871.
The ministry of finance absorbs £T2,989,600. In this areincluded the expenses of the administration of both the central andprovincial departments of the finance ministry, the mint, charitableallowances, expenses and presents in connexion with the holycities (£T121,410), pension funds of state officials (£T628,038),administrative allowance made to the agricultural bank (£T225,380)and various other expenses. Various administrative reforms werein hand in 1910–1911, by which it was expected considerably to reducethe credits demanded by the finance ministry—especially thosein connexion with the holy cities. Special attention was called bythe minister to the fact that the system of contributions of officialsto the pension funds has been modified, the deduction from salariesbeing now 10% instead of 5%, and the contributions to the fundsbeing made as to one-third by the treasury, and two-thirds by theofficials, instead of the reverse as formerly: the economy effectedis about £T300,000. A credit of £T17,124 is allowed for thecentral accounts department. The total credits for the ministry offinance are, then, as follows: Ottoman public debt, £T8,288,394;House of Osman, £T443,880; legislative corps, £T181,871;treasury, £T2,989,600; central accounts department, £T17,124;forming an aggregate of £T11,920,869.
Indirect contributions, or more familiarly “customs,” are allowedcredit of £T512,670. The minister of finance points out theimmense importance of the thorough reorganization of the customsadministration. The services of a first-rate English expert (MrR. F. Crawford) were obtained, and much has been done atConstantinople, but the provincial custom’s offices are still lamentablydefective. These were immediately to be taken in hand, andconsiderable sums are being voted for repairs of existing customsbuildings and the construction of new buildings. The reformsalready accomplished have resulted in a marked increase in thecustoms revenues.
Posts and telegraphs, which absorbed a credit of £T782,839 in1910–1911, have also long been in urgent need of extension and betteradministration. An additional credit of £T90,000 was granted, ascompared with the previous year, and increased expenditure wasforeshadowed for the future; on the other hand, it was confidentlyexpected that the post office receipts would increase in far morerapid ratio than the expenditure.
The ministry of the interior was estimated to require £T1,157,230.This sum covered “immigration expenses,” i.e. assistance given insettling Mussulmans immigrating from provinces detached from theOttoman Empire. There can be no doubt that this expenditure isremunerative, since many rich regions of Asia Minor have longsuffered from want of population.
Military expenditure, including the three departments of war,is as follows: the army (excluding artillery), £T8,280,452; ordnance,£T356,439; and gendarmerie, £T1,694,778. As regards the firstof these, it is curious to observe that the budget decree of 1880stringently limited the peace strength of the Ottoman army to 100,000men, “including officers and generals,” in order to put a stop tothe rapidly increasing military expenditure; but this was merelythe expression of a pious wish, at a time when European financialgood will was indispensable, that expenditure might be kept down.No real attempt has ever been made to observe the decree, andindeed observance has been impossible seeing the dangers whichnever cease to menace the empire. To some extent the real levelof military expenditure has been masked by the separation of certainpayments into “extraordinary” expenditure, a course which, it isunderstood, has not been followed in the budgets of the “newrégime,” and which will not be revived. It should however, beremarked that out of an “extraordinary” budget, which will bementioned below, sums of £T709,305 and of £T27,827 were allocatedto the ministry of war and the ordnance department respectivelyin 1909. It is not expected that military expenditure can be muchreduced, except in the direction of supply contracts, which have beenthe cause in the past of iniquitous waste of means.
The official budget shows a credit for admiralty expenditure of£T1,000,327, which is apparently less than that for the previous yearby some £T220,000. This, however, is not a real decrease, salariesof functionaries not on the active list having been removed to theregion of supplementary credits, as are those of civil departments.As a matter of fact, the marine budgets of the two years are almostidentical. The vote of £T500,000 a year for ten years for thereconstruction of the Ottoman navy by “national subscription,” asalready mentioned, was not included in the official budget, norwas there any allusion to it in the prefatory memorandum. Theminister of finance did, however, allude to it in his budget speech,(April 23, 1910), and stated that four destroyers purchased inGermany had been paid for from the national subscription only,without touching the ordinary state revenues. It should be addedthat the Greek War (1897) revealed to the sultan the decrepit stateinto which the Ottoman navy had fallen, and considerable“extraordinary” expenditure—much of which was wasted—has beenincurred since (and including) 1902 to put the least out-of-datewarships into a serviceable condition.
The ministry of commerce and of public works absorbed £T883,161a reduction of some £T180,000 on the previous year. The governmentacknowledges the unavoidable necessity of greatly extendingand improving the internal communications of the country, butcannot see its way to doing so satisfactorily out of the ordinaryresources of the country. This question was being seriously studied,and it was hoped that a comprehensive scheme would be presentedere long. The Hejaz railway figures in the budget for £T550,180,and it is explained that this will not only cover working expenses,but also the final completion of the line.
Floating Debt.—This is really an accretion of undetermined liabilities which has been indefinitely, and probably alternately, advancing and receding for a great number of years, and which no previous minister of finance, or Turkish government, had the courage to face. Now and then it has been dealt with piecemeal, when some particular class of creditors has become too pressing, but it is more than probable that the piece got rid of has been more or less rapidly replaced by fresh liabilities occasioned by budgetary deficits, or by the mere accumulation of interest on debts allowed to run on.
In March 1897 the floating debt was calculated by a financialauthority in the Fortnightly Review to amount to upwards of£T55,000,000, which might be compressed to £T25,000,000 since alarge proportion was certainly composed of salaries in arrear andother items of a similar kind which the government would never,under any circ*mstances, make good. Laurent tells us that thepresent government having found it absolutely impossible to arriveat even an approximate estimate of this “occult debt,” recourse washad, in order to fix it, to the creditors themselves, and a short actof parliament was passed declaring all debts prescribed which shouldnot be claimed by a fixed date. In consequence of this 560,000claims were received, and a first examination showed that the aggregateamount reached by these claims was not less than £T13,000,000.Considering the dilatory methods of Orientals, even when they arecreditors, it is doubtful whether this sum adequately covers the wholeof the claims outstanding, and it may be found difficult, even for aparliament, to refuse claims which should equitably be admittedand which may be preferred later. High authority in Constantinopleput the true amount of the floating debt in 1910–1911 at theamount previously estimated, viz. £T25,000,000. No provisionwas then made in the budget to meet these liabilities, nor did theminister in his prefatory memorandum make any allusion to them;in his budget speech, however, he announced that a scheme fordealing with them would be presented with the budget for 1911–1912.Under the heading “Floating Debt” in the budget for 1910–1911are placed the advances before described.
No other items in the budget call for special remark, but inorder that the information given may be complete, each head ofexpenditure is shown separately below, and the budget for 1910–1911,as first placed before the Turkish parliament, presents thefollowing picture, from which it may be observed that the publicdebt absorbs 26% of the revenue, war service 38% and civilservices 36%.
| Expenditure. | Revenue. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| (See above for details of general headings here given.) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This deficit was increased, by the action of parliament, to£T9,678,000. Almost immediately after the budget was drawn up achange of government took place, and largely owing to this fact theparliamentary budget commission introduced various modificationson the expenditure side of the account, which increased the estimateddeficit to the account justmentioned.[18] The principal increase isdue to the war departments, according to the budget speech of theminister of finance (April 23, 1910), although he states that someincrease is apparent in all departments. The actual figures of theincrease are not, however, given. Exaggerated importance mustnot be attributed to the swollen deficit. The demands of the variousdepartments of state had been much cut down, and according to theminister of finance's own statement much of the reduction was merelyunavoidable expenditure deferred; the fact that some of thisexpenditure, which had been jealously scrutinized, was to be undertakenat once, meant that demands on future years would be relativelyreduced. A loan of £T7,040,000 was arranged with a German groupheaded by the Deutsche Bank. This loan followed upon one of£T4,700,000 in 1908, and another of £T7,000,000 in 1909 (of which theservice is provided by the revenues assigned to the Russian Warindemnities amounting to £T350,000 per annum, of which payment hasbeen deferred for forty years), the year 1909 having shown a realizeddeficit of about that amount—a condition of affairs which wouldappear alarming were it not that the Turkish Empire was passingthrough absolutely abnormal times, and was attempting to convertthe unstable morass of disorder, ineptitude and corruption left bythe previous system into a solid foundation for good and orderlyconstitutional government. With the two previous loans abovementioned, £T5,500,000 capital liabilities were paid off, the workof reorganization had made considerable progress, and £T2,000,000remained in hand at the beginning of 1910–1911 to continue it.As before stated reorganization was quickly followed by a markedincrease of revenue, and it seemed probable that the forecast of theminister of finance that within a comparatively short time thatincrease would amount to £T5,000,000 was not excessive.Negotiations were undertaken to increase the customs import dutiesby a further additional 4%. This measure would produce about£T1,250,000 per annum.
Further expenditure was voted in the course of 1909, to be met byan extraordinary budget. On the receipts side of this budget werecomprised the Austrian indemnity for the annexation of Bosnia andHerzegovina (£T2,500,000), cash and securities belonging to thedeposed sultan (£T1,600,000), sale of old guns (£T300,000), sale oflands and other property recovered from civil list encroachments(£T908,000), and finally the unexpected balance of the proceeds ofthe 1908 loan (£T655,000), the whole forming an aggregate total of£T5,963,000. It was intended to assign to the war department£T3,804,918, to the grand master of ordnance £T358,108, to theadmiralty £T93,912, and to the ministry of finance £T2,443,2O2 forthe payment of the war indemnities in Thessaly and other urgentliabilities, the estimated aggregate extraordinary expenditure thusamounting to £T6,700,140. Some of the assets above mentionedproved, however, not to be easily realizable. Ready buyers werenot found for the state lands, and the sale of the ex-sultan's securitieswas disputed by the German Reichsbank with which they weredeposited, while the government did not consider it good policyto sell the Anatolian railway shares, which it seized at Yildiz, sothat only £T450,000 were encashed by the ministry of finance fromthese sources. Of the sums really received the ministry of financeexpended some £T3,000,000, in payment of the Greek indemnity, inrepayment of £T1,000,000 of advances to the treasury and byassigning the credit voted to the ordnance department, and it wasstated that these payments exhausted the extraordinary resourcesso far as it has been possible to realize them.
Collection of Taxes.—The Ottoman Empire possesses a very complete system of local self-government within certain limits. Every village or town district has a kind of mayor (mukhtar) appointed by election and approved by the official provincial authorities, and a “council of ancients” whose members are elected directly. The taxes are collected by means of the mukhtars, termed for this purpose kabz-i-mal (receiver of treasure), and under the supervision of gendarmes specially named, termed tahsildar (collectors). The officialauthorities provide lists of all the taxes to be collected to the tahsildars, who hand them, against formal receipt, to the kabz-i-mals. The latter are bound to pay in to the local authorities all sums collected in five days in town districts, and in fifteen days in villages, if under 1500 piastres; sums of 1500 piastres and over are paid in at once. The tahsildars check the accounts of the kabz-i-mals, and, if they discover peculation, send them at once to be dealt with by the chief official authorities of the caza (department); all the electors of a mukhtar are, ipso facto, joint sureties for him. If the tax-payer declines to pay his due, he is brought before the proper authorities by the tahsildar; if he persists in his refusal, all his goods, except those indispensable for his dwelling and the pursuit of his trade, are sold by auction, without recourse to a judgment by tribunal. If he has no goods which may be seized, he may be summarily imprisoned for a term not exceeding 91 days: two imprisonments for the same debt are not permitted. The military exemption tax is not collected as above, but by the spiritual chiefs of the various religious communities. None of the above regulations apply to Constantinople, where no military exemption tax is imposed, and where separate official regulations for the collection of taxes are in force. The system of farming put the revenues is admitted, and is almost invariably followed in the case of the tithes. When this is done, the revenues to be farmed are put up to public auction and sold to the highest bidder, provided he can prove himself amply solvent and produce sufficient sureties. Elaborate regulations are in force for this method of collection to secure the state receiving its full due from the farmers, who, on the other hand, are entitled to full officialassistance to enforce their rights.
Assessment of Taxes.—For the purposes of assessment the taxesmay be divided roughly into two classes: (1) variable taxes; (2)non-variable taxes. Under the first head would be included proportionaltaxes dependent upon the value of the property taxed; under thesecond, taxes whose amount does not depend upon that value. Thefirst class contains such revenues as the emlak verghi-si (duty onrealty), ‛ashār (tithes), temettū (professional tax), &c. In all suchcases the taxable values are fixed by a commission of experts,sometimes chosen by the tax-payers themselves, sometimes by the officialauthorities; in all cases both tax-payers and authorities arerepresented on the commissions, whose decisions may be appealed against,in last resort, to the council of state at Constantinople, whose decisionis final. Revenues composing the second class such as the tapu(registration tax) do not vary, unless by special decree, and theassessment is automatic.
The systems, both of assessment and collection, were equitableand far from oppressive in theory. In practice they left almosteverything to be desired. The officials, already too numerous andunderpaid, frequently, as has been stated above, found such pay asthey had far in arrear. They were therefore naturally open tobribery and corruption, with the result that, while the rich oftengot off almost scot free, the poor were unduly taxed, and oftencruelly oppressed by the tax collectors and farmers of revenue. Inall departments there ensued, thus, an alarming leakage of revenue,amounting, it was credibly estimated, to quite 40%. The newgovernment energetically proceeded to remedy this state of affairs.
International Administration of the Ottoman Debt.—Inconsequence of the piling up of the exterior public debt as describedabove, it amounted after the issue of “general debt” in 1875to £T190,750,000, and swallowed up annually upwards of£T10,000,000, or nearly half the revenue of the empire as it wasthen constituted. The revolt of various disaffected provincesbrought matters to a climax; in September 1875 one-half of theservice of the interest was suspended, paper certificates known as“Ramazans” (since they were issued in the Arabic month ofthat name) being issued for that half in lieu of cash, and in thefollowing March it was suspended altogether. After the war withRussia, in order to obtain credit from the Imperial OttomanBank and local financiers, who refused any further accommodationunless their previous and further advances were amplysecured, revenues known as the “six indirect contributions”were handed over to a committee of local bankers (by decreeof Nov. 22, 1879), to be administered and collected directlyby them. These “six indirect contributions” were therevenues from tobacco, salt, wines and spirits, stamps(commercial), certain specified fisheries, and the silk tithe in specifiedprovinces. Two years later, partly in view of the recommendationsof the Congress of Berlin, partly to overcome insuperabledifficulties in obtaining any kind of credit, the sultan authorizedthe Sublime Porte to issue an invitation to the variousbondholders' committees in Europe to send delegates to Constantinoplefor the purpose of negotiating a resumption of payments.These “committees” were the “Council of Foreign Bondholders”for Great Britain, the Imperial Ottoman Bank and its “group”for France, Herr S. Bleichröder for Berlin, the Credit-Anstaltand its “group” for Austria-Hungary, and the Chamber ofCommerce and of Arts of Rome for Italy. The Dutch bondholdersplaced their interests in the hands of the British council. Russiadeclined to countenance the negotiations in any way. Delegatesfrom the various committees assembled in Constantinople inthe early summer of 1881. The commission formed by themin conjunction with the delegates of the Sublime Porte is moregenerally known as the “Valfrey-Bourke commission,” from theleading parts played by the Right Hon. R. Bourke (Lord Connemara),the British delegate, and M. Valfrey, the Frenchdelegate. The outcome of the negotiations was the issue of animperial decree, known as the “Decree of Muharrem,” owingto its bearing the date (Turkish style) of the 28th of Muharrem(Dec. 20) 1881. By this decree the outstanding capital ofthe exterior debt, to which were added the Ramazan certificatesabove mentioned, and all interest fallen due, making agrand total of £252,800,000, was scaled down to £106,437,234(£T117,080,958). On this reduced capital a minimum interest of1% was to be paid, the rate of interest to be increased by quartersper cent. as the revenues set aside for the service of the reduceddebt permitted. For purposes of sinking fund the old loanswere combined into fourgroups:[19] group i. containing the 1858and 1862 loans, with a reduced nominal capital of £T7,902,259;group ii. the 1860, 1863, 1864 and 1872 loans, with a reducednominal capital of £T11,265,153; group iii. the 1865, 1869 and1873 loans, with a reduced nominal capital of £T33,915,762, andgroup iv. the “general debt,” of which the last issue was in 1875,with a reduced nominal capital of £T48,365,236, and the “lotterybonds” (railway loan), with a reduced nominal capital of£T15,632,548, the total of group iv. being thus £T63,997,784.As security for the service of the new reduced debt it was providedthat an international council should be formed, composed of onedelegate each from the bondholders of the United Kingdom,France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy and Turkey, and onerepresenting the “priority bondholders,” a term which will beexplained later. On this council the Turkish government hasthe right of naming an imperial commissioner with “consultativevoice,” i.e. no voting power, but the right to express hisopinion on the proceedings of the council, who would make allreports he considered necessary to his government. The governmentwas empowered also to name controllers to whom all theaccounts of the administration should be open for inspection ondemand. In all other respects the council, provided that it keptwithin the limits of the laws the administration of which wasentrusted to it, was to be entirely independent of the Ottomangovernment, free to appoint and dismiss its own officials fromhighest to lowest, and to carry on its administration on such linesas it thought best. Proposals made by the council for the modificationand improvement of the existing laws and regulationswhich concerned it were to receive an answer from the governmentwithin six months; this provision has remained a deadletter. Any difference between the government and the council,if not possible of adjustment, was to be settled by arbitration.
To this council, with these extended powers, was handed over the absolute administration, collection and control of the “six indirectcontributions” above enumerated, for the benefit of the bondholders, and in addition, it was to encash for the same purpose bills on the customs, to be drawn half-yearly in its favour by the minister of finance, amounting annually to £T180,000, representing the tax on Tumbēki (£T50,000) and the surplus revenue of Cyprus (£T130,000); and the Eastern Rumelian annuity, originally fixed at £T245,000, but gradually reduced by force of circ*mstances, until after frequent suspensions of payment it reached in 1897 the level of £T114,000, and has, since the declaration of Bulgarian independence, been definitely stopped. In order to assist the young kingdom of Bulgaria, which could only with great difficulty and with much damage to its resources have found means to indemnify Turkey for this serious breach of treaty engagements, the Russian government intervened, and proposed as compensation to the Turkish government the deferment for forty years of the annual payment (£T350,000) of the 1877 war indemnity. This proposal was accepted by the Turkish government, which undertook to continue the annual payment of £T114,000 to the public debt administration until the extinction of the debt. The public debt council consented with good grace, although the minister of finance, by omitting to consult that council during the progress of negotiations, lost sight of the fact that a sum of £T87,823 was due to the public debt administration on account of arrears of the Eastern Rumelian annuity up to December 1887, and that a further sum of £T430,741 was due by the Bulgarian to the Turkish government itself in compensation for the Rustchuk-Varna railway under the Treaty of Berlin. As pointed out by Sir Adam Block, the representative of the British and Dutch bondholders, in his report for 1908–1909, the above arrangement would have been prejudicial to the bondholders had the public debt not been “unified” (as described below) since, however, as a result of that unification, the ceded revenues now produced a sum more than sufficient for the service of the debt, it was only the surplus of revenue reverting to the government which was affected. There were further handed over, under the Muharrem decree, to the public debt council, the tribute of Bulgaria, the amount of which has never even been fixed, but as compensation for which the tobacco tithe up to a yearly amount of £T100,000 was ceded to the council in the same conditions as the “six indirect contributions”; the proportional shares (generally known as the “contributive parts”) of the Ottoman public debt to be borne by Bulgaria, Servia,Greece and Montenegro, which according to the Treaty of Berlinwere to be adjudged by the representatives of the Great Powersat Constantinople, one of whom (the Russian) never succeeded inobtaining his instructions, and which therefore have never beenfixed; and, finally, the excess of revenue resulting from a revisionof the commercial treaties. The ceded revenues, exclusive of ths“contributive parts” and the excess from commercial treaties, wereestimated by Bourke, in his report to the bondholders on the decreeof Muharrem, at £1,812,562 (£T1,993,8l8). A substantial reductionhowever, had to be made in favour of the 5% “priority bonds,”which were bonds issued to the local banks before mentioned insatisfaction of their claims, and formed an annual first charge of£T590,000 on the whole of the revenues ceded to the bondholders;the capital amount of the “priority bonds” was £T8,169,986, whichwas to be extinguished by 1906. Four-fifths of the net product ofthe revenues, after deduction of the first charge of £T590,000, wasto be applied to the service of the interest on the new reduced debt,and provided that the four-fifths were sufficient to allow the distributionof 1% interest, one-fifth was to be devoted to sinking fund;but this latter fifth was to be reduced, if necessary, by an amountsufficient to maintain the rate of interest at 1%. The interest onbonds amortized was to be added to the funds available for sinkingfund. The sinking fund was to work as follows: First ¼% on thewhole reduced capital was to be applied to group i.; if there were anysurplus this was to be applied to group ii., until that also received thesame full ¼%, and so on for group iii. and group iv., until the wholesinking fund amounted to 1% on the reduced capital. It was to beapplied by redemption at the best price possible on the market, untilthat price stood at £T66.66, when, if the rate of interest served were1%, it was to proceed by drawings; if the interest were anythingmore than 1%, and less than 3%, the limit of price for redemptionwas to be raised to £T75; if the interest were between 3% and4% inclusive, the limit was to be raised to par. Any surplus ofrevenue beyond that necessary to provide 4% interest and 1%sinking fund was to be handed over to the government. The lotterybonds receive a special treatment both in regard to interest andsinking fund; full information as to the intricate arrangements madefor these bonds will be found in the decree of Muharrem and thepublished reports of the council of administration of the Ottomanpublic debt. In 1890 the sinking fund was increased by the conversionof the “priority loan” into a 4% loan and the extension of theterm of its redemption for 15 years. In this manner an annuityof £T159,500 was set free, of which £T11,000 per annum was allottedas “extraordinary sinking fund” to series A and £T49,500 perannum each to series B, C and D; the lottery bonds were originallyexcluded from this arrangement, and special compensation wasgranted to these later. Each series receives the benefit of the intereston bonds belonging to it amortized by this special annuity. Thus,in the financial year 1900–1901 the total amount of the fund hadrisen from £T159,500 to £T231,500.
The arrangement set forth in and sanctioned by the decree ofMuharrem on the whole worked admirably. Gradually, however,it became apparent that it would be desirable to give Turkish statesecurities, of which those governed by the decree of Muharrem formedthe principal part, a better standing in European financial marketsthan was possible for bonds bearing so low a rate of interest; toobliterate thus, as far as possible, the effects of the past bankruptcy;and, further, to give the Turkish government a joint interest withthe bondholders in the progress of the ceded revenues. The Frenchbondholders, who hold by far the largest proportion of Turkishsecurities, took the principal initiative in this matter, and, afterprotracted negotiations with the Turkish government and the other“syndicates” of bondholders, they succeeded, in 1903, in obtainingthe following modifications of the original decree of Muharrem.
Series B, C and D (series A having already been completelyredeemed by the action of the sinking fund) were replaced by thecreation of new 4% bonds to a nominal amount of £T32,738,772,with a sinking fund of 0.45% per annum, bearing identical rightsand privileges, and ranking immediately after, the priority bonds.The rates at which the series were respectively exchanged againstthe new unified bonds were £100 series B against £70 unified, £100series C against £42 unified and £100 series C against £37, 10s.unified. Bonds of the old series not presented for exchange withina period of fifteen years are prescribed. The amortization is toproceed by purchase when the unified bonds are below par, andwhen at or above par, by drawings. Coupons and drawn bondsnot presented within six and fifteen years respectively of theirdue dates of payment are prescribed. Interest on amortized bondsgoes to swell the sinking fund. When the net product of the cededrevenues amounts to £T2,157,375, the surplus is divisible as to75% to the Turkish government and 25% to the public debtadministration. A variation from this was provided as soon asthe priority bonds should become extinct; but these bonds havingsince been repaid (as mentioned below) by a further issue of unifiedbonds, this variation lapses. The above 25% is to be employedas additional sinking fund for the unified debt and lottery bonds,in the proportion of 60% and 40% respectively. A reserve fundwas created of which the nucleus was the sum already standingto the credit of the “Reserve fund for increasing the rate ofinterest” (£T1,113,865), plus £T300,000 at least in cash by the issueof sufficient unified bonds to produce that amount and the sumof £T150,000 to be paid by the government to the public debtat the rate of £T15,000 per annum. It should be added that thetotal issue was made sufficient to reserve also £T1,460,000 forexpenses, after taking into account £100,000 in cash paid by thegovernment to the public debt administration out of the said issue.The reserve fund was created primarily to make good any deficiencyin the revenues below the amount required to pay the interestdue. If such drafts upon the reserve fund become necessary,they are to be made good in the following years out of the surplusabove mentioned. The reserve fund is increased by the interestit may earn, but when the capital amount of the fund reaches£T2,000,000 the interest earned is merged in the general receiptsof the public debt administration. As soon as the unified debtis reduced to £T16,000,000 the reserve fund is to be reducedto £T1,000,000, the surplus over this last amount being paid tothe government. The unified bonds and coupons are exemptfrom all Turkish taxation existing or to come. Further specialstipulations regarding the Turkish lottery bonds were made, butthese are, as before, omitted. They will be found in art. x.of the “Annex-Decree” of September 1–14, 1903, which gave themodifications to the Muharrem decree here described force of law.Finally the Imperial Ottoman government reserved to itself theright of paying off the whole unified debt at par at any moment,and all the dispositions of the decree of Muharrem not modifiedby the new “Annex-Decree” were formally confirmed andmaintained. In 1906 a further modification took place in the shapeof the final and complete repayment of the priority bonds by theadditional issue of £T9,537,000 of unified bonds for the purpose,taken firm by the Ottoman bank at 86. The rate at which theexchange was effected was par with a cash bonus of 6%. Theprevious annuity required for the service of these bonds havingbeen £T430,5O0, and the additional charge for the service of theunified debt as a result of the operation being £T424,396, whilethe government received £T1,272,600 in cash for its own purposes,there was a slight immediate advantage to be found in it: as,however, the priority debt would have been completely extinguishedin 1932, the financial wisdom of the change is not apparent.
The ceded revenues administered directly by the public debt council have shown remarkable expansion, and may be fairly looked upon as exemplifying what would occur in the general revenues of the empire when good and honest administration and regular payment of officials finally took the place of the carelessness, corruption and irregularity which existed up to the change of régime. The council has not limited its duties to the collection of the revenues placed under its administration, but has taken pains to develop commercially the revenues capable of such development. A large and remunerative export trade in salt to India is now established, whereas formerly not one grain found its way there; the first steps in this direction were taken in 1892 when works were begun to place the great rock-salt salines of Salif, on the coast of the Red Sea, on a commercial footing. The gross receipts from this export trade amounted in the year 1908–1909 to £T99,564, and the profits approximately to £T12,000, in spite of the contest between Liverpool and Spanish salt merchants on the Calcutta market, which led to a heavy cutting of prices. Pains, moreover, have been taken by the public debt council to develop the sale of salt within the empire. These efforts have been rewarded by the increase of the salt revenue from £T635,000 in 1881–1882, the year preceding the establishment of the council, to £T1,075,880 in 1907–1908. Again, in the early years of the administration (1885), the Pasteur system of selection of silk-worms' eggs for the rearing of silk-worms was introduced, and an “Institute of Sericulture” on modern lines was erected (1888) at Brusa for gratuitous instruction in silk-rearing to students from all parts of the empire. Up to the end of 1907–1908, 919 students had received the diploma of the institute, and 465 silk-growers in addition had passed through the course of instruction. These men, returning to their various districts, impart to others the instruction they have received, and thus spread through the regions adapted to sericulture the proper methods of selection and rearing. As a result some 60,000,000 mulberry trees were planted in Turkey during 1890–1910, involving the plantation of about 130,000 acres, and new magnaneries and spinning factories sprang up in every direction; while the revenue (silk tithe) increased in the regions administered by the council from £T17,000 in 1881–1882 to £T125,000 in 1906–1907, the value of the silk crop in thoseregions having thus advanced by over £T1,000,000. But theregions not under its administration benefited at least equallyby the methods above described. Thus the total value ofthe silk tithe in Turkey increased in the period named fromabout £T20,000 to £T276,500, and the total annual value of thecrop from about £T200,000 to £T2,765,000, or by nearly 2½millions pounds sterling.
Table A gives the produce of the revenues in 1881–1882, thelast year of the administration of the “Galata Bankers,” theaverage product of the first, second, third, fourth and fifthquinquennial periods since the public council was established,and of the year 1907–1908.
Table B shows the total indebtedness of the Ottoman Empire,exclusive of tribute loans.
Table A.—Showing Revenues ceded to Ottoman Public Debt Administration at Various Periods to 1907–1908.
| Heads of Revenue. | Last year of GalataBankers, 1881–1882. | Average for FirstFiveYears of Council of Public Debt, 1882–83,1886–87. | Average for SecondFiveYears of Council of Public Debt, 1887–88,1891–92. | Average for ThirdFiveYears of Council of Public Debt, 1892–93,1896–97. | Average for FourthFiveYears of Council of Public Debt, 1897–98,1901–2. | Average for FifthFiveYears of Council of Public Debt, 1902–3,1906–7. | 1907–8. |
| £T | £T | £T | £T | £T | £T | £T | |
| Six Indirect Contributions:—[20] | |||||||
| Tobacco | 881,563 | 822,633 | 755,489 | 788,384 | 725,641 | 815,923 | 899,352 |
| Salt | 634,936 | 651,057 | 702,150 | 755,978 | 861,406 | 987,417 | 1,123,886 |
| Stamps | 129,833 | 146,822 | 185,930 | 212,815 | 221,856 | 321,193 | 366,255 |
| Spirits | 177,163 | 198,356 | 229,059 | 258,848 | 269,482 | 273,893 | 283,301 |
| Fisheries | 26,064 | 34,356 | 44,307 | 44,337 | 47,294 | 53,032 | 69,549 |
| Silk | 17,118 | 24,145 | 39,398 | 56,393 | 69,012 | 98,731 | 131,218 |
| Extra Budgetary Receipts[21] | — | — | — | — | 2,797 | 25,757 | — |
| Total of Six Indirect Contributions | 1,866,677 | 1,937,369 | 1,956,333 | 2,116,755 | 2,197,488 | 2,575,946 | 2,873,561 |
| Tobacco Tithe | not collected | 72,340 | 81,866 | 104,688 | 99,276 | 172,473 | 210,068 |
| Eastern Rumelian Annuity | ” | 150,040 | 126,688 | 129,222 | 88,682 | 159,628 | 114,020 |
| Excess of Cyprus Revenues | ” | 130,000 | 113,557 | 102,596 | 102,596 | 102,596 | 102,596 |
| Tax on Tumbēki | ” | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 | 50,000 |
| Total Gross Revenue | 1,866,677 | 2,339,749 | 2,328,444 | 2,503,261 | 2,538,042 | 3,060,643 | [22]3,350,245 |
| Expenses | 378,789 | 388,000 | 392,403 | 346,143 | 418,537 | 522,798 | 572,850 |
| Total Net Revenue | 1,487,888 | 1,951,749 | 1,936,041 | 2,157,118 | 2,119,505 | 2,537,845 | 2,777,395 |
Table B.—Position of the Ottoman Public Debt on the 1st of March 1326 (March 14, 1910).
| Designation of Loans. | Nominal Capital issued. | Annuities. | Nominal Capital redeemed at 1st March1326(1910). | Nominal Capital in circulation on 1st March1326(1910). | |||||||||||||
| £T | £T | £T | £T | ||||||||||||||
| 42,275,772 | 1,887,375 | 2,345,010 | 39,930,762 | |||||||||||||
| 15,632,548 | 270,000 | 1,509,502 | 12,032,956 | ||||||||||||||
| 4,999,500 | 249,975 | 1,509,200 | 3,490,300 | ||||||||||||||
| 3,272,720 | 180,000 | 289,300 | 2,983,420 | ||||||||||||||
| 2,640,000 | 118,800 | 105,424 | 2,534,576 | ||||||||||||||
| 2,376,000 | 97,120 | 15,642 | 2,360,358 | ||||||||||||||
| 4,752,000 | 200,000 | 8,426 | 4,743,574 | ||||||||||||||
| 2,750,000 | 123,750 | 57,090 | 2,692,910 | ||||||||||||||
| 2,640,000 | 118,800 | 83,556 | 2,556,444 | ||||||||||||||
| 5,306,664 | 238,800 | 123,420 | 5,183,244 | ||||||||||||||
| 4,711,124 | 212,000 | — | 4,711,124 | ||||||||||||||
| 91,356,328 | 3,696,620 | 8,136,660 | 83,219,668 | ||||||||||||||
| 1,010,010 | 50,000 | 239,800 | 760,210 | |||||||||||||
| 1,760,000 | 76,560 | 136,202 | 1,623,798 | ||||||||||||||
| 8,600,020 | 390,000 | 367,180 | 8,232,840 | ||||||||||||||
| 5,500,000 | 167,869 | 1,303,280 | 4,196,720 | ||||||||||||||
| 6,948,612 | 308,686 | 777,700 | 6,170,912 | ||||||||||||||
| 9,033,574 | 362,174 | 852,808 | 8,180,766 | ||||||||||||||
| 7,000,004 | 350,000 | — | 7,000,004 | ||||||||||||||
| Total | 131,198,548 | 5,401,909 | 11,813,630 | 119,384,918 |
Tobacco Régie.—From the beginning of the year 1884 the tobacco revenue has been worked as a monopoly by a company formed under Ottoman law, styled “La Régie Impériale Coïntéressée des Tabacs Ottomans.” This company has the absolute monopoly of the manufacture and of the purchase and sale of tobacco throughout the Ottoman Empire, with the exception of the Lebanon and Crete, but exportation remains free. It is bound to purchase all tobacco not exported at prices to be agreed between itself and the cultivators; if no agreement can be arrived at, the price is fixed by experts. It is obliged also to form entrepôts for the storage of the crops at reasonable distances from each other, and, on certain conditions, to grant advances to cultivators to aid them in raising the leaf. The cultivators, on the other hand, may not plant tobacco without permits from the régie, although the power of refusing a permit, except to known smugglers or persons of notoriously bad conduct, seems to be doubtful; nor may they sell to any purchaser, unless for export, except to the régie, while they are bound to deposit the whole of the tobacco crops which they raise in any one year in the entrepôts of the régie before the month of August of the year following, and may not move any tobacco from the place where they cultivateit without the régie's express authority. In order to facilitatesupervision, a minimum area of one-half of a deunum (a deunum =about one-fourth of an acre) is fixed for ground upon which tobaccomay be cultivated; in the suburban districts of Constantinopleand some other towns, and in enclosures surrounded by walls andattached to dwelling-houses, it is altogether prohibited. For itsprivileges the régie has to pay a rent of £T750,000 per annum to thegovernment (assigned to bondholders), “even if it has no revenuesat all,” and after the payment of a dividend of 8% to its shareholders,and certain other deductions, it has to share profits with the governmentand the bondholders according to a sliding scale agreed uponbetween the three parties. The régie did badly during the firstfour years of its existence, owing principally to two causes: (1)its ineffectual power to deal with contraband to which the systemdescribed above leaves the door wide open; (2) the admissionof other than Turkish tobaccos into Egypt, which deprived it atonce of about £T100,000 per annum. So great were its lossesthat in the year 1887–1888 it was obliged to write them off by reducingits capital from £2,000,000 to £1,600,000. At the same time it wasgranted an extension of penal powers, and the losses on reftieh (dutyon tobacco exported to Egypt) were to be partially borne by thepublic debt administration. Things went better with it from thattime until 1894–1895, when, owing to internal troubles in the empire,and the consequent fear of creating worse disorders, by the strictenforcement of the monopoly, the government withdrew most ofits support, and contraband enormously increased. The followingtable shows the movement of the revenue of the régie from the year1887–1888 to 1908–1909 inclusive:—
| Averagefor 5 years. | Gross receipts fromallsources. | Total expenses, includingfixedcharges. | Net revenue. |
| £T | £T | £T | |
| 1887–1892 | 1,924,264 | 1,735,896 | 188,368 |
| 1892–1897 | 2,330,786 | 2,037,190 | [24]293,596 |
| 1897–1902 | 2,098,537 | 1,898,646 | [24]199,891 |
| 1902–1907 | 2,511,921 | 2,104,739 | 407,182 |
| Year1907–8 | 2,660,895 | 2,146,864 | 514,031 |
| Year 1908–9 | 2,597,909 | 2,167,795 | 430,114 |
Negotiations were initiated in 1910 for the prolongation of theconcession of the tobacco monopoly, which reaches its term in1913.
Railway Guarantees.—Up to 1888 the only railways existingin the Turkish Empire (exclusive of Egypt) were, in Europe, theConstantinople-Adrianople-Philippopolis line and the Salonica-Mitrovitzaline (finished in 1872); and in Asia Minor, the Smyrna-Aïdin(completed in 1866), the Smyrna-Cassaba (completed in1866), the Constantinople-Ismid (completed in 1872), the Mersina-Adana(completed in 1886). The want of railways in Asia Minorwas urgently felt, but no capitalists were willing to risk theirmoney in Turkish railways without a substantial guarantee, anda guarantee of the Turkish government alone was not consideredsubstantial enough. In 1888 it was proposed by the public debtadministration to undertake the collection of specified revenuesto be set aside for the provision of railway guarantees, theprinciple to be followed being, generally, that such revenuesshould consist of the tithes of the districts through which therailways would pass, and that the public debt should hand overto guaranteed railway companies the amounts of their guaranteesbefore transmitting to the imperial government any of theproceeds of the revenue so collected. The government adopted thisproposal, and laid down as a principle that it would guaranteethe gross receipts per kilometre of guaranteed railways, suchgross receipts to be settled for each railway on its own merits.Considerable competition ensued for the railway concessionsunder this system. The first granted was for the extension ofthe Constantinople-Ismid railway to Angora to a group of Germanand British capitalists in 1888. The Germans having boughtout the British rights, this concession became a purely Germanaffair, although a certain proportion of the capital was found inLondon. Since that time various other concessions have beengranted to French and German financial groups, principally theImperial Ottoman Bank group of Paris and the Deutsche Bankgroup of Berlin.
The systems of guarantee above described are clearly faulty,since theoretically the railway company which ran no trains atall would, up to the limit of its guarantee, make the largestprofits. The concessionnaire companies have, however, wiselytaken the view that it is better to depend upon their own revenuesthan upon any government guarantee, and have done their bestto develop the working value of the lines in their charge. Theeconomic effect of the railways upon the districts through whichthey run is apparent from the comparative values of the tithes inthe regions traversed by the Anatolian railway in 1889 and 1898in which years it so happened that prices were almost at exactlythe same level, and again in 1908–1909, when they were onlyslightly higher. Thus in 1889 they produced £T145,378, in 1898£T215,470, and in 1908–1909 £T281,919.
A different system, still more uneconomic than the kilometricguarantee pure and simple, was adopted in the case of the Bagdadrailway. In January 1902 the German group holding theAnatolian railway concession was granted a further concession forextending that railway from Konia, then its terminus, throughthe Taurus range and by way of the Euphrates, Nisibin, Mosul,the Tigris, Bagdad, Kerbela and Nejef to Basra, thus establishingrailway communication between the Bosporus and the PersianGulf. The total length, including branches to Adana, Orfa(the ancient Edessa) and other places was to exceed 1550 m.;the kilometric guarantee granted was 15,500 francs (£620).It should be noted that this concession was substituted for onenegotiated by the same group, and projected to pass throughDiarbekr. This raised strong objections on the part of Russia,and led to the Black Sea Basin agreement reserving to Russiathe sole right to construct railways in the northern portion of AsiaMinor. The Anatolian railway company, apparently unable tohandle the concession above described, initiated fresh negotiationswhich resulted in the Bagdad railway convention (March5, 1903). This convention caused much excitement and irritationin Great Britain, owing to the encroachment of Germaninfluence sanctioned by it on territories bordering the PersianGulf, hitherto considered to fall solely within the sphere of Britishinfluence. Attempts were made by the German group, assistedby their government, to secure the participation of both Britainand France in the concession. These were successful in France,the Imperial Ottoman Bank group agreeing to undertake 30%of the finance without, however, any countenance from theFrench government—the “Glarus Syndicate” being formed forapportioning interests. The British government seemed, atone time, rather to favour a British participation, but when theterms of the convention were published, the strongest objectionwas taken to the constitution of the board of directors whichestablished German control in perpetuity, while it wasevident from the general tenor of the convention that apolitical bias informed the whole; in the end public feelingran so high that any British participation became impossible.
The financial advantages, however, granted by the Turkish government were singularly favourable to the concessionnaires and onerous to itself. The kilometric guarantee of 15,500 francs (£620) was split into two parts, 4500 francs (£180) being granted as the fixed working expenses of the line, all receipts in excess of which amount were to be credited to the Turkish government in reduction of the remaining 11,000 francs (£440) which took the form of an annuity to be capitalized as a 4% state loan redeemable in 99 years, that being the period fixed for the duration of the concession. The line was to be constructed in sections of 200 kilometres (125 m.) each, and as the complete plans and drawings of each were presented at the times and in the order specified in the convention, the government was to deliver to the concessionnaires government securities representing the capitalization of the annuity accruing to that section. The capital sum per section was fixed, in round figures, at 54,000,000 francs (£2,160,000), subject to adjustment when the section was completed and its actual length definitely measured up. A minimum net price of 81½% was fixed for the realization of these securities on the market. The bonds are secured on the surplus of the revenues assigned to the guarantee of theAnatolian railway collected by the Public Debt Administration,on the excess revenue, after certain deductions, accruing to thegovernment under the “Annex-Decree to the Decree of Muharrem”above described, on the sheep tax of the vilayets of Koniah, Adanaand Aleppo, and on the railway itself. The first series (54,000,000francs or £2,160,000), was duly handed over to the concessionairesin 1903, and was floated in Berlin at 86.4% realizing the sum of£1,868,000. The division of the line into equal sections of 200kilometres apiece produced at once a somewhat ridiculous result.The little town of Eregli, some 190 kilometres distant from Konia,presented the only excusable locality for the terminus of the firstsection, and even that place is 90 kilometres distant from Karaman,the last town of any importance for some hundreds of miles on theway to the Euphrates valley, the country between the two townsbeing desolate and sparsely inhabited. But the Bagdad RailwayCompany[25] (the share capital of which is £600,000 half paid up),naturally anxious to earn the whole of the capitalized subvention,completed the construction of the entire 200 kilometres. The linewas thus continued to a station taking its name from Bulgurlu,a small straggling village four miles away, between which and Ereglithere is not a single habitation. But even this did not quitecomplete the distance, and the line was carried on for still anotherkilometre and there stopped, “with its pair of rails gauntlyprojecting from the permanent way” (Fraser, The Short Cut to India,1909). The outside cost of construction of the first section, whichlies entirely in the plains of Konia, is estimated to have been£625,000; the company retained, therefore, a profit of at least1¼ millions sterling on this first part of the enterprise. In the secondsection the Taurus range is reached, after which the constructionbecomes much more difficult and costly. On the 2nd of June 1908a fresh convention was signed between the government and theBagdad Railway Company providing, on the same financial basis,for the extension of the line from Bulgurlu to Helif and of theconstruction of a branch from Tel-Habesh to Aleppo, covering a totalaggregate length of approximately 840 kilometres. The principleof equal sections of 200 kilometres was thus set on one side. Thepayments to the company were to be made in two lump sumsforming “series 2 and 3” of the “Imperial Ottoman Bagdadrailway loan,” series 2 amounting to £4,320,000, which was deliveredto the company on the signature of the contract, and series 3 to£4,760,000. The Bagdad railway must for much time be a heavyweight on the Turkish budget, the country through which it passes—withthe exception of the sections passing from Adana to Osmanieh,through the Killis-Aleppo-Euphrates district (that is, the first pointat which the line crosses the Euphrates some 600 m. from Bagdad),and to a lesser extent through the plains of Seruj and Harran—beingvery sparsely populated, while the financial system adoptedoffers no inducement to the concessionaire company to work forincreasing earnings. It should be mentioned that the BagdadRailway Company has sublet the working of the line to theAnatolian Railway Company at the rate of £148 per kilometre, asagainst the £180 per kilometre guaranteed by the Turkish
Ottoman Railways worked at end of 1908.
| DesignationofMainLines. | Length in Miles(including branch lines). | Amount Kilometric Guarantees. |
| Turkey in Europe:— | £ | |
| Oriental Railways[26] | 815 | Nil |
| Salonica-Monastir | 137 | 572 |
| Salonica-Constantinople | 317 | 620 |
| Total European Turkey | 1269 | |
| Turkey in Asia:— | ||
| Hamidie Railway of the Hejaz[27] | 932 | Nil. |
| Anatolian Railway | 635 | Varies from £270 to £600. |
| Bagdad Railway | ||
| (Konia-Bulgurlu section)[28] | 124 | £620: Annuity £440 Working Expenses £180. |
| Mudania-Brusa | 26 | Nil. |
| Smyrna-Aidin | 320 | Nil. |
| Smyrna-Cassaba | 322 | For main-line and Burnabat and Manisa-Soma branches the government guarantees £92,400 as half the annual receipts. For the Alashehr-Karahissar extension, there is a kilometric guarantee of £755. |
| Damascus-Hama | 361 | 520 |
| Mersina-Adana[29] | 42 | Nil. |
| Jaffa-Jerusalem | 54 | Nil. |
| Total Asiatic Turkey | 2816 | |
| Grand Total | 4085 |
Results of 1908 according to the Nationality of the Capital.
| Nationality of the Capital. | Companies or Societies. | Lengths Worked. | Gross Receipts for the Year1908. | Guarantees paid by the State for the Year1908. | Rents paid to the State for the Year1908. | Totalsper Companies. | Totals per Nationalities. | Average receiptsper mile per Nationality. | ||||||||||||
| per Company. | per Nationality. | |||||||||||||||||||
| Miles. | Miles. | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | £ | |||||||||||||
| Ottoman |
| 932 | 932 | 150,435 | — | — | 150,435 | 150,435 | 161 | |||||||||||
| 137 |
| 129,854 | — | 243 | 129,611 | |||||||||||||||
| 124 | 14,578 | 108,155 | — | 122,733 | ||||||||||||||||
| 42 | 36,400 | — | — | 36,400 | ||||||||||||||||
| German | 635 | 841,081 | 885 | |||||||||||||||||
| 209,105 | 117,030 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 102,570 | 118,755 | — | 552,337 | |||||||||||||||||
| 4,877 | — | — | ||||||||||||||||||
| English | Aidin Railway | 320 | 320 | 293,104 | — | — | 293,104 | 293,104 | 916 | |||||||||||
| Austro-German |
| 815 | 815 | 607,619 | — | 115,679 | 491,940 | 491,940 | 604 | |||||||||||
| 317 |
| 113,505 | 199,728 | — | 313,233 | |||||||||||||||
| 322 | 223,643 | 146,980 | — | — | 1,092,957 | 1,037 | ||||||||||||||
| French | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 361 | 269,934 | 94,801 | — | 364,735 | ||||||||||||||||
| 54 | 44,366 | — | — | 44,366 | ||||||||||||||||
| Various | Mudania-Brusa | 26 | 26 | 15,039 | — | — | 15,039 | 15,039 | 579 | |||||||||||
| Totals | 4,085 | 4,085 | 2,215,029 | 785,449 | 115,922 | 2,884,556 | 2,884,556 | 697 | ||||||||||||
government—an additional indication, if any were needed, of thethriftlessness of the latter in the matter. Moreover, the Anatolianrailway receives, under the original Bagdad railway convention(1) an annuity of £14,000 per annum for thirty years ascompensation for strengthening its permanent way sufficiently topermit of the running of express trains, and (2) a second annuityof £14,000 in perpetuity to compensate it for running expresstrains—this to begin as soon as the main Bagdad line reachesAleppo.
It was stated in the preface to the budget of 1910 that thegovernment would grant no more railway concessions carryingguarantees. The amount inscribed for railway guarantees in thebudget of 1910 was £746,790. The tables on p. 440 show therespective lengths of the various Ottoman railways open andworked at the end of 1908 and the amount of kilometric guaranteeswhich they carried—and the lengths, &c., of railways workedby the various companies according to the nationality of theconcessionaire groups.
Banks.—At the close of the Crimean War a British bank wasopened in 1856 at Constantinople under the name of the OttomanBank, with a capital of £500,000 fully paid up. In 1863 this wasmerged in an Anglo-French bank, under a concession from theTurkish government, as a state bank under the name of the ImperialOttoman Bank, with a capital of £2,700,000, increased in 1865 to£4,050,000 and in 1875 to £10,000,000, one-half of which is paidup. The original concession to the year 1893 was in 1875 extendedto 1913, and in 1895 to 1925. The bank acts as banker to thegovernment, for which it has a fixed annual commission, and itis obliged to make a permanent statutory advance to the governmentof £T1,000,000, against the deposit by the government ofmarketable securities bearing interest at a rate agreed upon. Thebank has the exclusive privilege of issuing bank-notes payablein gold. Its central office is in Constantinople, and it is managedby a director-general and advisory committee appointed bycommittees in London and Paris.
The National Bank of Turkey (a limited Ottoman Company)is a purely British concern with a capital of £1,000,000, foundedby imperial firman of the 11th of April 1909, under the auspices ofSir Ernest Cassel. It is understood that it was originated at theunofficial instigation of both the British and Ottoman governments,with the idea of forming a channel for the more generous investmentof British capital in Turkey under the new régime, so that Britishfinancial interests might play a more important part in the OttomanEmpire than has been the case since the state bankruptcy of1876. This bank brought out the Constantinople municipal loanof 1909 (£1,000,000). Other banks doing business in Constantinopleare the Deutsche Bank, the Deutsche-Orient Bank, the Crédit Lyonnais,the Wiener Bank-Verein, the Russian Bank for Commerce andIndustry, the Bank of Mitylene, the Bank of Salonica and the Bankof Athens.
Monetary System.—The monetary system presents a spectacleof perplexing confusion, which is a remnant of the complete chaoswhich prevailed before the reforms initiated in 1844 by SultanAbd-ul-Mejid. The basis of the system adopted was the doublestandard with a fixed relation of 1 to 15.09, and free coinage. Theunit was the piastre (=2⅛d.), nominally subdivided into 40 paras.The gold pound (l8s. 2d.) was equivalent to 100 piastres; the goldpieces struck were £T5, £T1, £T½ and T¼; the standard is 0.916⅔fine, and the weight 7.216 grammes. The silver coinage consistedof the mejidie (weight 24.055 grammes, 0.830 fine), equivalent to20 piastres, and its subdivisions 10, 5, 2, 1, and ½ piastre pieces.The altilik, beshlik and metallik currencies struck, the first andlast in the reign of Mahmud II. and Abd-ul-Mejid, and the secondin the reign of Mahmud only, were not included in the reform;these were debased currencies bearing a nominal value, the altilikof 6, 3 and 1½ piastres, the beshlik of 5 and 2½ piastres, the metallikof 1, ½ and ¼ piastres; they represented the last degree of anage-long monetary depreciation, the original piastre having had a valueof about 5s. 7d., which had fallen to 2⅛d. The heavy depreciationin silver causing large losses to the government, free coinage wassuspended in 1880, and the nominal value of the mejidie wasreduced by decree to 19 piastres (105.26 piastres thus = £T1), whilein the same year the debased currencies were reduced, altilik,the 6-piastre piece to 5 piastres, the 3-piastre piece to 2½ piastres,the 1½-piastre piece to 1¼ piastre; beshlik, the 5-piastre piece to2½ piastres, the 2½-piastre piece to 1¼-piastre; metallik, the 1-piastrepiece to ½ piastre, the ½-piastre piece to ¼ piastre, the ¼-piastre pieceto ⅛ piastre—these values representing approximately the intrinsicvalue of the silver, at mejidie standard, contained in the debasedcoins. The copper coinage (113,000,000 piastres) and the papercurrency (kaïmē) (1,600,000,000 piastres) referred to in the abovesketch were withdrawn in 1880 by repudiation. The 20-piastremejidie currency, in spite of the further enormous depreciationof silver since 1880, has scarcely varied in the Constantinoplemarket, but has always remained at a discount of about 3%(between 108 and 109 piastres to the pound) under governmentrate; this is doubtless due to the fact that the demand and supplyof the coins in that market are very evenly balanced. The paritythus working out at 102.60, gold continued to be held away fromthe treasury, and in 1909 the government decided to accept theTurkish pound at the last named rate. The fractional mejidiecoins (5, 2 and 1 piastres) are quoted at a separate rate inthe market, usually at a premium over the 20-piastre piece.In the last twelve years of the 19th century the altilik currencywas almost entirely withdrawn, and replaced by fractional mejidie;a large proportion of the beshlik has also been withdrawn, but themetallik has not been touched. These debased currencies areusually at a premium over gold owing to the extreme scarcity offractional coinage. The standard of the altilik is about 0.440fine, that of the beshlik is 0.185 to 0.225 fine, that of the metallikis 0.170 fine. Foreign gold coins, especially the pound sterling(par value 110 piastres) and the French 20-franc piece (par value87½ piastres) have free currency. Throughout Arabia and inTripoli (Africa) the principal money used is the silver Maria Theresadollar tariffed by the Ottoman government at 12 piastres. TheIndian rupee and the Persian kran are widely circulated throughMesopotamia; in Basra transactions are counted in krans, takingas a fixed exchange £T1 = 34.15 krans. The general monetaryconfusion is greatly intensified by the fact that the piastre unitvaries for almost every province; thus, while the pound atConstantinople is counted at 108 piastres silver, it is at about127 piastres for one kind of transaction and 180 for another inSmyrna, 135 piastres at Adrianople, 140 at Jerusalem, and soforth, accounts being kept in “abusive piastres,” which exist nolonger. In some towns, e.g. Adrianople, small change is oftensupplemented by cardboard tickets, metal discs, &c., put intocirculation by private establishments or individuals of goodcredit.
A commission (the successor of many) was instituted at theministry of finance in 1910, to draw up proposals for setting thisconfusion in order. In his 1910 budget speech the minister offinance, Javid Bey, demanded authority to create a new aluminiumcoinage of 5, 10, 20 and 40 para pieces, of which he would issue,in the course of three years, a nominal amount of £T1,000,000to those provinces in which there was a great scarcity of smallcoins. The amounts of Turkish gold, silver and debased coinagein circulation are approximately £T16,500,000, in gold, £T8,700,000(940,000,000 piastres at 108) in silver mejidies and fractions, and200,000,000 piastres in beshlik and metallik.
Tenure of Property.—Real property is held in one of four variousways: either mulk, emiriyē, vakuf or khaliyē. (1) Mulk is theabsolute property of its owner, and can be disposed of by him ashe wills without restrictions, save those enumerated lower down(General Dispositions) as general for all the four classes. Mulkproperty is governed chiefly by the Sheri (sacred law). A dutyof 10 per mille on its estimated value has to be paid on transferby sale, donation or testament; 5 per mille on transfer byinheritance; and a registration duty on expenses of transfer.(2) Emiriyē is practically “public domains.” The state may grantland of this category to private persons on payment by the latterof the value of the proprietary right—the tithes, ground-rent(should there be private buildings upon it), and the land-tax.It is administered by imperial functionaries called arazi-mēmuru;it is with the consent of the latter only that the proprietary rightscan be sold. These rights are of simple possession, but they aretransmissible in certain degrees to the heirs of the possessor.Emiriyē cannot be mortgaged, but can be given as security for debton condition that it be restored when the debt has been repaid.The creditor may demand the arazi-mēmuru to proceed to a forcedsale, but the arazi-mēmuru is not obliged to comply with thatdemand; no forced sale may take place after the decease of the debtor.Emiriyē is not transmissible by will, but may be transferred by donation,which returns to the donor should he outlive the beneficiary.Should a proprietor of emiriyē plant trees or vines, or erect buildingsupon it, with the consent of the state, they are considered as mulk;an annual tax representing the value of the tithes on the portionsof emiriyē thus utilized is levied. The emiriyē then becomes mulk,with certain restrictions as to transfer dues. A transfer duty of5% on the estimated value of emiriyē is paid on transmissionby sale, inheritance or donation, of 2½% on the amount of thedebt in case of mortgage or release from mortgage, and of 10%on expenses of registration. A different scale is established foremiriyē with moukataa (rent paid for emiriyē with mulk propertyestablished upon it). (3) Vakuf is “all property dedicated toGod, of which the revenue is consecrated to His poor”; or“property of which the usufruct, such as tithe, taxes and rents, is attributedto a work of charity and of public interest.” When oncea property has been registered as vakuf it can never be withdrawn.There are two classes of vakuf: (a) Land so declared either directlyby the sovereign or in virtue of imperial authority; (b) landstransformed by their proprietors from mulk into vakuf. The lawsand regulations concerning vakuf are too intricate to be described;generally it may be said that they form a great obstruction todealing with a large proportion of the most valuable property inTurkey, and therefore to the prosperity of the country. Thevakufs are administered by a special ministerial department (evkafnazareti), whose property, on behalf of the state, they theoretically are. The effect of the original system was that a vakuf propertybecame the inalienable property of the state, and the originalproprietor a mere tenant. All fundamental repairs thus fell tothe charge of the state, which could not afford to effect them, and thevakuf revenues decreased so rapidly that already in the reign ofSelim I. (1511–1520) a serious effort was made to deal with thedifficulty. But this resulted in so heavy a burden upon the publicthat the law had again to be altered to extend hereditary rights,and to admit a system of mortgage which was assimilated to thatfor emiriyē; but the evils were little more than palliated. Thecurious gilds called guedik must here be mentioned. They wereestablished at a time when industry was not free, and the governmentfixed the number of artisans of every kind of trade in eachtown, no one having the right to increase that number. Theguedik, then, had the right to erect buildings on vakuf propertyand supply it with the tools, &c., necessary to exercise a trade.The ancient guediks have not been abolished, the government notdaring to deprive them of their privileges; but since the Tanzimātno new ones have been created, industry being declared free.The various special dues payable on vakuf form too long a listto be inserted; the highest is 30 per mille. (4) Kkaliyē. Thisproperty is also styled mevad. It consists of uncultivated or roughlands, such as mountains, stony ground, &c., which are uselesswithout clearance, to which no possession is claimed, and whichare at such a distance from the nearest dwelling that the humanvoice cannot be made to reach them from that dwelling. Anyone can obtain a gratuitous permit to clear and cultivate such lands;the laws governing ordinary agricultural lands then apply to them.The permit is withdrawn if the clearance is not effected withinthree years. If the clearance is effected without the necessarypermit, the land is nevertheless granted on application, and on thepayment of the tapu or sum paid by the proprietor to the state forthe value of the land.
General Dispositions.—By the “protocol of the 7th Sefer 1284A.H.” foreigners may enjoy the rights of proprietorship on thesame conditions as Ottoman subjects throughout the empire, savein the Hejaz. The transmission of property from a foreignerto his heirs is therefore governed by the Ottoman laws, and notthose of the country to which he belongs. The real property of aMussulman does not pass by inheritance to non-Mussulman heirs,but may pass to his Mussulman heirs of a foreign nationality,and vice versa. Property of an individual who has abandonedOttoman nationality without legal authority so to do does notpass to heirs, whether Ottoman or foreign, but devolves to thestate; if legal authority has been granted the government underwhich the foreign heirs live must have accepted the protocol abovecited. An heir who has voluntarily caused the death of the personfrom whom he should inherit loses all rights of succession. It isnot proposed to trace the formalities of transfer and transmissionof real property here; they will be found in vol. iii. of the Dustur(Ottoman Code). Minerals are worked according to the law of the14th Sefer 1324 (March 26, 1906). Mines can only be exploited invirtue of an imperial iradē. The concessions are to be for 99 yearswith the exception of chrome, emery, boracite and other mineralsfound only in the form of deposits, which may be granted for notless than 40 years or more than 99 years. They may be disposedof under certain conditions to third parties, and they may beinherited. Immovable property, working plant, tools and fixtures,cannot be seized for payment of debts. For the discovery of mines,special permits of research, on which there is a fee of £T5 to £T15,are necessary; full details of the requisite formalities are given inthe law. No researches are permitted in boroughs and villagesor in forests, pasturages, &c., if it be considered that they wouldinterfere with public convenience. Two permits are not grantedfor the same mineral within the same area, until the first has lapsed.Specimens may be sent to Europe for expert examination up toan aggregate weight of 2000 tons, on paying the requisite duties.Explosives are under the control of the local authorities. In orderto obtain permits foreigners must first have adhered to the lawof 1293 (A.H.). The original discoverer of a mine is entitled to acertain indemnity for “right of discovery” to be paid by theconcessionaire of that mine, should the discoverer be unable to workit. To obtain a concession, formalities detailed in the law must becomplied with, under a penalty of £T100 to £T1000. Should adifferent mineral from that specified in the imperial firman for amining concession be discovered in a free state, a fresh firmanis necessary to exploit it. Discovered mines not registered by thegovernment, or not worked for a period of 99 years before thepromulgation of the law of the 26th of March 1906, are considered asnon-discovered. On the promulgation of the firman for the exploitationof a mine, a fee of £T50 to £T100 becomes payable. Two categoriesof rent, fixed and proportional, are payable to the state bymine-owners. The fixed rent is 10 piastres per jerib (about 10,000square metres), to be paid whether the mine is worked or not. Theproportional rent is from 1% to 5% on the gross products of minesof vein formation, and from 10% to 20% on those of mines ofdeposit formation; the percentages are calculated on the value ofthe mineral after deduction of freight, &c. to Europe and oftreatment. The proportional rents are fixed by the Mines Administrationaccording to the wealth, area and facility of working ofthe mine, and are inserted in the imperial firman governing the mine,and must be paid before the minerals are exported. Yearly returns,under a penalty of £T5 to £T25, of the results of working have tobe rendered to the Mines Administration. If payments due to thegovernment are not made within two months of due date, the minesmay be seized by the authorities and sold to the highest bidder.The working of the mine must begin within two years of the date ofthe delivery of the mine to the concessionaire. Certain specifiedplans must be delivered annually, under penalty of £T5 to £T25,to the Mines Administration, and, under similar penalties, allinformation and facilities for visiting the mines in detail must beafforded to government inspectors. Should a mine-owner, in thecourse of developing his mine, damage the mine of a neighbouringowner, he must pay him an agreed indemnity. With the exceptionof the engineer and foreman, the employés must be Ottomansubjects. No part of the subterranean working of a mine may beabandoned without official permission obtained according toformalities specified in the law. Owners of the land in which amine is located have a prior right to work such mine under imperialfirman, on the obtention of which a duty of £T4 is payable; if theydo not work it the concession may be granted to others, on paymentof a certain compensation to the landowner. The research of amine in no way impairs the rights of ownership of the land in whichthe mine is located. If a mining concession is granted within landswhich are private property or which are “real vakuf lands”(arazi-i-mevkufē-i-sahiha) only one-fifth of the proportional rent is payableto the state, the other four-fifths reverting to the land-owner orthe vakufs, as the case may be. As to ancient coins, and all kindsof treasure of which the proprietor is unknown, reference must bemade to the Dustur, No. 4, p. 89.
Bibliography.—1. Topography, Travels, &c.: The works ofJ. B. Tavernier, of Richard Knolles and Sir P. Rycaut, of O. G. deBusbecq (Busbequius), Sir T. Hanway, the Chevalier Jean Chardin,D. Sestine and W. Eton (Survey of the Turkish Empire, 3rd ed.,1801) are storehouses of information on Turkey from the 16thcentury to the end of the 18th. More recent works of value arethose of J. H. A. Ubicini, Lettres sur la Turquie (1853–1854, Eng.trans., 2 vols., 1856); D. Urquhart, The Spirit of the East (2 vols.,1838); A. W. Kinglake (especially his Eothen, 1844); A. H. Layard,H. F. Tozer, E. Spencer, Ami Boué, A. Vambéry, W. M. Rameayand J. G. von Hahn (in “Denkschriften” of the K. Akad. derWissenschaften zu Wien for 1867–1869). Sir C. Elliot's Turkey inEurope (London, 1907) is comprehensive and accurate. See alsoP. de Laveleye, La Péninsule des Balkans (Brussels, 1886); V.Cuinet, La Turquie d'Asie (5 vols., Paris, 1891–1894, and index1900); id. Syrie Liban et Palestine (Paris, 1896–1898); W. Miller,Travels and Politics in the Near East (London, 1898); M. Bernard,Turquie d'Europe et Turquie d'Asie (Paris, 1899); M. von Oppenheim,Vom Mittelmeer zum persischen Golfe, &c. (2 vols., Berlin, 1899–1900);Lord Warkworth, Notes from a Diary in Asiatic Turkey(London, 1898); Mark Sykes, Dar-el-Islam (London, 1903); D.Fraser, The Short Cut to India (London, 1909); with the books citedunder Turks and in articles on the separate divisions of the empireand on Mahommedan law, institutions and religion.
2. Law, Commerce and Finance: F. Belin, Essais sur l'histoireéconomique de la Turquie (Paris, 1865); Aristarchi Bey, Législationottomane (8 vols., Constantinople, 1868–1876); R. Bourke, Reportto the British and Dutch Bondholders (London, 1882); O. Haupt,L'Histoire monétaire de notre temps (Paris, 1886); F. Ongley andH. A. Miller, Ottoman Land Code (London, 1892); Medjellé (OttomanCivil Code) (Nicosia, 1895); Kendall, Turkish Bonds (London,1898); V. Caillard, Babington-Smith and Block, Reports on the OttomanPublic Debt (London, 1884–1898, 1899–1902, 1903–1910);Annuaire oriental du commerce (Constantinople); Journal de lachambre de commerce (Constantinople, weekly); Annual Report ofthe Régie Co-intéressée des Tabacs (Constantinople); Annual Reportof the Council of Foreign Bondholders (London); C. Morawitz, LesFinances de la Turquie (Paris, 1902); G. Young, Corps de droit ottoman(7 vols., Oxford, 1905–1906); Pech, Manuel des sociétés anonymesfonctionnant en Turquie (Paris, 1906); Alexis Bey, Statistiquedes principaux résultats des chemins de fer de l'empire ottoman(Constantinople, 1909).
3. Defence: Djevad Bey, Etat militaire ottoman (Paris, 1885);H. A., Die türkische Wehrmacht (Vienna, 1892); L. Lamouche,L'Organisation militaire de l'empire ottoman (Paris, 1895);Lebrun-Renaud, La Turquie: puissance militaire (Paris, 1895); HauptmanRásky, Die Wehrmacht der Turkei (Vienna, 1905). (See alsoArmy.) (V. C.*)
History
Legend assigns to Oghuz, son of Kara Khan, the honour ofbeing the father of the Ottoman Turks. Their first appearancein history dates from A.D. 1227. In that year a horde, variouslyestimated at from two to four thousand souls, with their flocksand their slaves, driven originally from their Central Asian homesby the pressure of Mongol invasion, and who had sought in vaina refuge with the Seljukian sultan Ala-ud-din Kaikobad of Konia,were returning under their chief Suleiman Shah to their native land. They were crossing the Euphrates, not far from the castleof Jaber, when the drowning of their leader by accident threwconfusion into their ranks. Those who had not yet crossed theriver refused, in face of this omen, to follow their brethren; thelittle band, numbering 400 warriors (according to others, consistingof 2000 horsem*n) decided to remain under Ertoghrul, son ofErtoghrul,
1230–1288.the drowned leader. Ertoghrul first camped at Jessin,east of Erzerum; a second appeal to Ala-ud-din wasmore successful—the numbers of the immigrants hadbecome too insignificant for their presence to be a source of danger.The lands of Karaja Dagh, near Angora, were assigned to the newsettlers, who found there good pasturage and winter quarters.The help afforded by Ertoghrul to the Seljukian monarch on acritical occasion led to the addition of Sugut to his fief, withwhich he was now formally invested. Here Ertoghrul diedin 1288 at the age of ninety, being succeeded in the leadershipOsman I.,
1288–1326.of the tribe by his son Osman. When, exhaustedby the onslaughts of Ghazan Mahmud Khan,ruler of Tabriz, and one of Jenghiz Khan’slieutenants, the Seljukian Empire was at the point of dissolution,most of its feudatory vassals helped rather than hinderedits downfall in the hope of retaining their fiefs as independentsovereigns. But Osman remained firm in his allegiance, andby repeated victories over the Greeks revived the droopingglories of his suzerain. His earliest conquest was Karaja Hissar(1295), where first the name of Osman was substituted for thatof the sultan in the weekly prayer. In that year Ala-ud-dinKaikobad II. conferred on him the proprietorship of the lands hehad thus conquered by the sword, and presented him at the sametime with the horse-tail, drum and banner which constituted theinsignia of independent command. Osman continued hisvictorious career against the Greeks, and by his valour and alsothrough allying himself with Keussē Mikhal, lord of Harman Kaya,became master of Aīnēgeul, Bilejik and Yar Hissar. His marriagewith Mal Khatun, the daughter of the learned sheikh Edbali,has been surrounded by poetical legend; he married his sonOrkhan to the beautiful Greek Nilofer, daughter of the lord ofYar Hissar, whom he carried off from her destined bridegroom onher marriage-day; the fruits of this union were Suleiman Pashaand Murad. In 1300 the Seljukian Empire crumbled away, andmany small states arose on its ruins. It was only after the deathof his protector and benefactor Sultan Ala-ud-din II. that Osmandeclared his independence, and accordingly the Turkish historiandates the foundation of the Ottoman Empire from this event.Osman reigned as independent monarch until 1326. He pursuedhis conquests against the Greeks, and established good governmentthroughout his dominions, which at the time of his deathincluded the valleys of the Sakaria and Adranos, extendingsouthwards to Kutaiah and northwards to the Sea of Marmora.Infirmity had compelled him towards the end of his life todepute the chief command to his younger son Orkhan, by whomin 1326 the conquest of Brusa was at last effected after a longsiege.
Orkhan’s military prowess secured for him the succession,to the exclusion of his elder brother Ala-ud-din, who becamehis grand vizier. At that time a number ofprincipalities had replaced the Seljukian state.Though Yahsha Bey, grandson of Mahommed KaramanOrkhan,
1326–1359.Oghlu, had declared himself the successor of the Seljukiansultans, the princes of Aidin, Sarukhan, Menteshē, Kermian,Hamid, Tekkē and Karassi declined to recognize his authority,and considered themselves independent, each in his owndominions. Their example was followed by the Kizil AhmedliEmir Shems-ed-din, whose family was afterwards known as thehouse of Isfendiar in Kastamuni. The rest of the countrywas split up among Turcoman tribes, such as the Zulfikar inMarash and the Al-i-Ramazan in Adana. At his accessionOrkhan was practically on the same footing with these, andavoided weakening himself in the struggle for the Seljukianinheritance, preferring at first to consolidate his forces at Brusa.There he continued to wrest from the Greeks the lands whichtheir feeble arms were no longer able to defend. He took Aīdos,Nicomedia, Hērēkē, and, after a siege, Nicaea; Tarakli andGemlik fell to his arms, and soon the whole of the shore ofthe Marmora up to Kartal was conquered, and the Byzantinesretained on the continent of Asia Minor only Ala Shehr andBiga. These acquisitions were made between 1328 and 1338;in the latter year Orkhan achieved his first conquest fromMussulman hands by the capture of Karassi, the pretext beingthe quarrel for the succession on the death of the prince,Ajlan Bey.
At this period the state of the Byzantine Empire was such as torender its powers of resistance insignificant; indeed the lengthof time during which it held out against the Turks is to be attributedrather to the lack of efficacious means at the disposal ofits assailants than to any qualities possessed by its defenders.In Constantinople itself sedition and profligacy were rampant,the emperors were the tools of faction and cared but little forthe interests of their subjects, whose lot was one of hopelessmisery and depravity. On the death of the emperor AndronicusIII. in 1341 he was succeeded by John Palaeologus, aminor; and Cantacuzenus, the mayor of the palace, appealedto Orkhan for assistance to supplant him, giving in marriageto the Ottoman prince his daughter Theodora. Orkhan lentthe desired aid; his son Suleiman Pasha, governor of Karassi,crossed into Europe, crushed Cantacuzenus’s enemies, andpenetrated as far as the Balkans, returning laden with spoil.Thus the Turks learnt the country of the Greeks and theirweakness. In 1355 Suleiman crossed over from Aīdinjik andcaptured the fortress of Gallipoli, which was at once convertedinto a Turkish stronghold; from this base Bulaīr, Malgara,Ipsala and Rodosto were added to the Turkish possessions.Suleiman Pasha was killed by a fall from his horse near Bulaīr in1358; the news so affected his father Orkhan as to cause his deathtwo months later. The institution of the Janissaries (q.v.) holdsa prominent place among the most remarkable events of Orkhan’sreign, which was notable for the encouragement of learning andthe foundation of schools, the building of roads and other worksof public utility.
Orkhan was succeeded by his son Murad. After capturingAngora from a horde of Turkomans encamped there who wereattacking his dominions, at first with some success,in 1361 Murad prepared for a campaign in Europe.At that time the Greek emperor’s rule wasMurad I.,
1359–1389.confined to the shores of the Marmora, the Archipelago andThrace. Salonica, Thessaly, Athens and the Morea wereunder independent Greek princes. The Bulgarians, Bosniansand Servians had at different periods invaded and conqueredthe territories inhabited by them; the Albanians, originalnatives of their land, were governed by princes of theirown. When, on the death of Cantacuzenus, John Palaeologusremained sole occupant of the imperial throne, Muraddeclared war against him and conquered the country right up toAdrianople; the capture of this city, the second capital of theemperors, was announced in official letters to the various Mussulmanrulers by Murad. Three years later, in 1364, Philippopolisfell to Lala Shahin, the Turkish commander in Europe. Thestates beyond the Balkan now began to dread the advance of theTurks; at the instigation of the pope an allied army of 60,000Serbs, Hungarians, Walachians and Moldavians attacked LalaShahin. Murad, who had returned to Brusa, crossed over toBiga, and sent on Haji Ilbeyi with 10,000 men; these fell by nighton the Servians and utterly routed them at a place still known asthe “Servians' coffer.” In 1367 Murad made Adrianople hiscapital and enriched it with various new buildings. He continuedto extend his territories in the north and west; the king of Serviaand the rulers of Kiustendil, Nicopolis and Silistria agreed topay tribute to the conquering Turk. Lala Shahin Pasha wasappointed feudal lord of the district of Philippopolis, and TimurTash Pasha became beylerbey of Rumelia; Monastir, Perlepē,and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina were next taken, and theking of Servia consented to furnish to Murad a fixed contingentof auxiliary troops, besides paying a money tribute. In 1381Murad’s son Yilderim Bayezid married Devlet Shah Khatun, daughter of the prince of Kermian, who brought him in dowryKutaiah and its six dependent provinces. In the same year BeyShehr and other portions of the Hamid principality were acquiredby purchase from their ruler Hussein Bey, as the Karamanianprinces were beginning to cast covetous eyes on them; but theKaramanians were unwilling to resign their claims to be heirs ofthe Seljukian sultans, and not until the reign of Mahommed II.were they finally suppressed. Ali Bey, the prince at this time,took advantage of Murad's absence in Europe to declare waragainst him; but the Ottoman ruler returning crushed him atthe battle of Konia. Meanwhile the king of Bosnia, acting incollusion with the Karamanian prince, attacked and utterlydefeated Timur Tash Pasha, who lost 15,000 out of an army of20,000 men. The princes and kings who had consented to paytribute were by this success encouraged to rebel, and the Serviantroops who had taken part in the battle of Konia becameinsubordinate. Indignant at the severity with which they werepunished, Lazarus, king of Servia, joined the rebel princes. Muradthereupon returned to Europe with a large force, and sentChenderēli Zadē Ali Pasha northwards; the fortresses of Shumla,Pravadi, Trnovo, Nicopolis and Silistria were taken by him;Sisman III., rebel king of Bulgaria, was punished and Bulgariaonce more subjugated. Ali Pasha then joined his master atKossovo. Here Lazarus, king of Servia, had collected an army of100,000 Serbs, Hungarians, Moldavians, Walachians and others.On the 27th of August 1389 the greatest of the battles of Kossovowas fought. A lightning charge of Yilderim Bayezid's dispelledthe confidence of the enemy, scattering death and dismay intheir ranks. The king of Servia was killed and his army cut topieces, though the Turks numbered but 40,000 and had all thedisadvantage of the position. After the battle, while Murad wasreviewing his victorious troops on the field, he was assassinatedby Milosh Kabilovich, a Servian who was allowed to approachhim on the plea of submission.
Murad maintained a show of friendly relations with theemperor John Palaeologus, while capturing his cities. A reviewheld by him in 1387 at Yeni Shehr was attended by the emperor,who, moreover, gave one of his daughters in marriage to Muradand the other two to his sons Bayezid and Yakub Chelebi. Theseprinces were viceroys of Kermian and Karassi respectively; theyoungest son, Sauji Bey, governed at Brusa during his father'sabsence. Led away by evil counsellors, Sauji Bey plotted withAndronicus, son of the emperor, to dethrone their respectivefathers. The attempt was foiled; Andronicus was blinded byhis father's orders and Sauji was put to death (1387).
After being proclaimed on the field of Kossovo, Bayezid'sfirst care was to order the execution of his brother YakubBayezid I., 1389–1403.Chelebi, and so to preclude any repetition ofSauji's plot. The young prince Andronicus, whohad not been completely blinded, sent secretlyto Bayezid and offered him 30,000 ducats to dethronehis father John Palaeologus and make him emperor. Bayezidconsented; later on John Palaeologus offered an equivalentsum and, since he engaged to furnish an auxiliary force of12,000 men into the bargain, Bayezid replaced him on thethrone. By the aid of these auxiliaries the fort of Ala Shehrwas captured (1392), Manuel Palaeologus, son of the emperor,being allowed, in common with many other princes, the privilegeof serving in the Turkish army, then the best organized anddisciplined force extant. The principalities of Aīdin, Menteshē,Sarukhan and Kermian were annexed to Bayezid's dominionsto punish their rulers for having joined with the Karamanianprince in rebellion. The exiled princes took refuge with the KizilAhmedli, ruler of Kastamuni, who persuaded the Walachiansto rebel against the Turks. By a brilliant march to the DanubeBayezid subjugated them; then returning to Asia he crushedthe prince of Karamania, who had made head again and haddefeated Timur Tash Pasha. Bayezid now consolidated hisAsiatic dominions by the capture of Kaisarieh, Sivas andTokat from Tatar invaders, the relics of Jenghiz Khan's hordes.Sinope, Kastamuni and Samsun were surrendered by the princeof Isfendiar, and the conquest of Asia Minor seemed assured.
On the death of John Palaeologus in 1391 his son Manuel, whowas serving in the Turkish army, fled, without asking leave, toConstantinople, and assumed the imperial dignity. Bayeziddetermined to punish this insubordination: Constantinople wasbesieged and an army marched into Macedonia, capturingSalonica and Larissa (1395). The siege of the capital was,however, unsuccessful; the pope and the king of Hungary were ableto create a diversion by rousing the Christian rulers to a sense oftheir danger. An army of crusaders marched upon the Turkishborders; believing Bayezid to be engaged in the siege of Constantinople,they crossed the Danube without precaution and investedNicopolis. While the fortress held out with difficulty Bayezidfell upon the besiegers like a thunderbolt. The first onslaughtof the Knights of the Cross did indeed rout the weak irregularsplaced in the van of the Turkish army, but their mad pursuitwas checked by the steady ranks of the Janissaries, by whomthey were completely defeated (1396). King Sigismund ofHungary barely escaped in a fishing boat; his army was cut topieces to a man; among the prisoners taken was Jean Sans Peur,brother of the king of France. To the usual letter announcingthe victory the caliph in Egypt replied saluting Bayezid withthe title of “Sultan of the lands of Rum.”
After the victory of Nicopolis the siege of Constantinoplewas resumed, and the tower of Anatoli Hissar, on the Asiaticside of the Bosporus, was now built. However, by sendingheavy bribes to Bayezid and his vizier, and by offering to builda mosque and a Mussulman quarter, and to allow Bayezid to benamed in the weekly prayer, Manuel succeeded in inducingBayezid to raise the siege. The mosque was destroyed later onand the Mussulman settlers driven out. Between 1397 and 1399Bayezid overran Thessaly, while in Asia his lieutenant TimurTash was extending his conquests. Meanwhile Timur (Tamerlane)had started from Samarkand on his victorious career.With incredible rapidity his hosts spread and plunderedfrom Bagdad to Moscow. After devastating Georgia in 1401he marched against the Turks. Some of the dispossessedprinces of Asia Minor had repaired to Timur and begged himto reinstate them; accordingly Timur sent to Bayezid to requestthat this might be done. The tone of the demand offendedBayezid, who rejected it in terms equally sharp. As a resultTimur's countless hordes attacked and took Sivas, plunderingthe town and massacring its inhabitants. Then, to avenge aninsult sustained from the ruler of Egypt, Timur marched southwardsand devastated Syria, thence turning to Bagdad, whichshared the same fate. He then retraced his steps to the northwest.Bayezid had taken advantage of his absence to defeatthe ruler of Erzingan, a protégé of Timur. All attempts toarrange a truce between the two intractable conquerors were invain. They met in the neighbourhood of Angora. Timur'sarmy is said to have numbered 200,000, Bayezid's force to haveamounted to about half that figure, mostly seasoned veterans.The sultan's five sons were with the army, as well as all hisgenerals; 7000 Servian auxiliaries under Stephen, son ofLazarus, took part in the battle (1402). Prodigies of valouron the part of Bayezid's troops could not make up for the defectionof the newly-absorbed levies from Aīdin, Sarukhan andMenteshē who went over to their former princes in Timur'scamp. The rout of the Turkish army was complete. Bayezid,with many of his generals, was taken prisoner. Though treatedwith some deference by his captor, who even promised toreinstate him. Bayezid's proud spirit could not endure hisfall, and he died eight months later at Ak Shehr.
After the disaster of Angora, from which it seemed impossiblethat the Ottoman fortunes could ever recover, the princes fledInterregnum, 1403–1413.each with as many troops as he could induce tofollow him, being hotly pursued by Timur's armies.Only Mussa was captured. Timur reached Brusa,and there laid hands on the treasure of Bayezid; one afteranother the cities of the Turks were seized and plunderedby the Tatars. Meanwhile Timur sent letters after the fugitivesons of Bayezid promising to confer on them their father'sdominions, and protesting that his attack had been due merely to the insulting tone adopted towards him by Bayezid and tothe entreaties of the dispossessed princes of Asia Minor. Mostof the latter were reinstated, with the object of reducing theTurkish power. Timur did not cross into Europe, andcontented himself with accepting some trifling presents from theGreek emperor. After capturing Smyrna he returned toSamarkand (1405). Some years of strife followed between thesons of Bayezid, in which three of them fell; Mussa, seizingAdrianople, laid siege to Constantinople, and Manuel Palaeologus,the emperor, appealed for aid to Mahommed, the otherson, who had established himself at Brusa.
In 1413 Mahommed defeated Mussa, and thus remained soleheir to Bayezid 's throne; in seven or eight years he succeededMahommed I., 1413–1421.in regaining all the territories over which his fatherhad ruled, whereas Timur's empire fell to piecesat the death of its founder. Two years after hisaccession Mahommed overcame a rebellion of the prince ofKaramania and recaptured his stronghold Konia (1416), and then,turning northwards, forced Mircea, voivode of Walachia, who inthe dispute as to the succession had supported Prince Mussa, topay tribute. The Turkish dominions in Asia Minor wereextended, Amasia, Samsun and Janik being captured, and aninsurrection of dervishes was quelled. In 1421 the sultan died.His services in the regeneration of the Turkish power can hardlybe over-estimated; all agree in recognizing his great qualitiesand the charm of his character; even Timur is said to haveadmired him so much as to offer him his daughter in marriage.The honour was declined, and Mahommed took a bride from thehouse of Zulfikar. Amid the cares of state he found time forworks of public utility and for the support of literature andart; he is credited with having sent the first embassy to aChristian power, after the Venetian expedition to Gallipoli in1416, and the Ottoman navy is first heard of in his reign.
At the time of Mahommed's death his eldest son Murad was atAmasia; and, as the troops had lately shown signs of insubordination,Murad II., 1421–1451.it was deemed advisable to conceal the newsof the sultan's death and to send a part of the armyacross to Asia. The men, however, refused to marchwithout seeing their sultan, and the singular expedient wasresorted to of propping up the dead monarch's body in a darkroom and concealing behind it an attendant who raised the handsand moved the head of the corpse as the troops marched past.Shortly after Murad's accession the emperor Manuel, havingapplied in vain for the renewal of the annual subsidy paid himby the late sultan for retaining in safe custody Mustafa, analleged son of Bayezid, released the pretender. Adherentsflocked to him, and for a whole year Murad was engaged insuppressing his attempts to usurp the throne.
At last the armies of sultan and pretender met at Ulubad(Lopadion) on the Rhyndacus in Asia Minor; Mustafa's troopsfled at the first onset; Lampsacus, where the pretender tookrefuge, was captured with the aid of the Genoese galleys underAdorno. Mustafa, who had crossed the strait and fled northwards,was taken, brought to Adrianople, and hanged from atower of the serai (1422). Murad now laid siege to Constantinopleto avenge himself on the emperor, and on the 24th ofAugust the desperate valour of the defenders succeeded in drivingback an assault led by a band of fanatical dervishes. Thesiege was raised, however, not owing to the bravery of the defence,but because the appearance of another pretender, in the personof Murad's thirteen-year-old brother Mustafa, under theprotection of the revolted princes of Karamania and Kermian,called the sultan to Asia. Mustafa, delivered up by treachery,was hanged (1424); but Murad remained in Asia, restoring orderin the provinces, while his lieutenants continued the war againstthe Greeks, Albanians and Walachians. By the treaty signedon the 22nd of February 1424, shortly before his death, theemperor Manuel II., in order to save the remnant of his empire,agreed to the payment of a heavy annual tribute and to surrenderall the towns on the Black Sea, except Selymbria and Derkos,and those on the river Strymon. Peace was also made at thesame time with the despot of Servia and the voivode ofWalachia, on the basis of the payment of tribute. By 1426 theprinces of Kermian and Karamania had submitted on honourableterms; and Murad was soon free to continue his conquestsin Europe. Of these the most conspicuous was that of Salonica.Garrisoned only by 1500 Venetians, the city was carried by storm(March 1, 1428); the merciful precedent set by Mahommed I.was not followed, the greater part of the inhabitants beingmassacred or sold into slavery, and the principal churchesconverted into mosques.
The capture of Salonica had been preceded by renewed troubleswith Servia and Hungary, peace being concluded with both in1428. But these treaties, each of which marked a fresh Turkishadvance, were short-lived. The story of the next few yearsis but a dismal record of aggression and of reprisals leading tofresh aggression. In 1432 the Turkish troops plundered inHungary as far as Temesvar and Hermannstadt, while in Serviasem*ndria was captured and Belgrade invested. InTransylvania, however, the common peril evoked by the Turkishincursion and a simultaneous rising of the Vlach peasantry hadknit together the jarring interests of Magyars, Saxons andSzeklers, a union which, under the national hero, the voivodeJános Hunyadi (q.v.), was destined for a while to turn the tideof war. In 1442 Hunyadi drove the Turks from Hermannstadtand, at the head of an army of Hungarians, Poles, Servians,Walachians and German crusaders, succeeded in the ensuingyear in expelling them from sem*ndria, penetrating as far asthe Balkans, where he inflicted heavy losses on the Turkishgeneral. Meanwhile, again confronted by a rebellion of theprince of Karamania, Murad had crossed into Asia and reducedhim to submission, granting him honourable terms, in view ofthe urgency of the peril in Europe. On the 12th of July 1444a ten years' peace was signed with Hungary, whereby Walachiawas placed under the suzerainty of that country; and, weariedby constant warfare and afflicted by the death of his eldest son,Prince Ala-ud-din, Murad abdicated in favour of his son Mahommed,then only fourteen years of age, and retired to Magnesia(1444). The pope urged the king of Hungary to take advantageof this favourable opportunity by breaking the truce solemnlyagreed upon, and nineteen days after it had been concluded acoalition was formed against the Turks; a large army headed byLadislaus I., king of Hungary, Hunyadi, voivode of Walachia,and Cardinal Cesarini crossed the Danube and reached Varna,where they hoped to be joined by the Greek emperor. In thisemergency Murad was implored to return to the throne; to asecond appeal he gave way, and crossing over with his Asiaticarmy from Anatoli Hissar he hastened to Varna. The battlewas hotly contested; but, in spite of the prowess of Hunyadi,the rout of the Christians was complete; the king of Hungary andCardinal Cesarini were among the killed. Murad is said to haveabdicated a second time, and to have been again recalled to powerowing to a revolt of the Janissaries. In 1446 Corinth, Patrasand the north of the Morea were added to the Turkish dominions.The latter years of Murad's reign were troubled by the successfulresistance offered to his arms in Albania by Scanderbeg (q.v.).In 1448 Hunyadi, now governor of Hungary, collected the largestarmy yet mustered by the Hungarians against the Turks, but hewas defeated on the famous field of Kossovo and with difficultyescaped, while most of the chivalry of Hungary fell. Littlemore than two years later Murad died at Adrianople, beingsucceeded by his son Mahommed.
After suppressing a fresh revolt of the prince of Karamania,the new sultan gave himself up entirely to the realization ofMahomed II. the Conquerer, 1451–1481.the long-cherished project of the conquest ofConstantinople. He began by building on the Europeanside of the Bosporus the fort known as RumeliHissar, opposite that built by his grandfatherBayezid. Tradition avers that but forty days were needed for thecompletion of the work, six thousand men being employed nightand day; guns and troops were hurriedly put in, and all navigationof the Bosporus was stopped. After completing hispreparations, which included the casting of a monster cannonand the manufacture of enormous engines of assault, Mahommed began the siege in 1453. Constantine Palaeologus, the last occupantof the imperial throne, took every measure that the courageof despair could devise for the defence of the doomed city; buthis appeal to the pope for the aid of Western Christendom wasfrustrated through the bigoted, anti-Catholic spirit of the Greeks.The defenders were dispirited and torn by sedition and dissensions,and the emperor could rely on little more than 8000 fightingmen, while the assailants, 200,000 strong, were animated by thewildest fanatical zeal. The siege had lasted fifty-three dayswhen, on the 29th of May 1453, a tremendous assault wassuccessful; the desperate efforts of the Greeks were unavailing,Constantine himself falling among the foremost defenders of thebreach. The sultan triumphantly entered the palace of theemperors, and the next Friday's prayer was celebrated in thechurch of St Sofia (see Roman Empire, Later).
After some days' stay in Constantinople, during which hegranted wide privileges to the Greeks and to their patriarch,the sultan proceeded northwards and entirely subdued thesouthern parts of Servia. A siege of Belgrade was unsuccessful,owing to the timely succour afforded by Hunyadi (1456). Twoyears later internal dissensions in Servia brought about theconquest of the whole country by the Turks, only Belgraderemaining in the hands of the Hungarians. The independentprinces of Asia Minor were now completely subjugated and theirterritories finally absorbed into the Turkish dominions; Walachiawas next reduced to the state of a tributary province.Venice having adopted a hostile attitude since Turkey'sconquests in the Morea, greater attention was devoted to the fleet;Mytilene was captured and the entrance to the straits fortified.The conquest of Bosnia, rendered necessary by the war withVenice, was next completed, in spite of the reverses inflicted onthe Turks by the Hungarian king Matthias Corvinus, the sonof János Hunyadi. The Turks continued to press the Venetiansby land and sea; Albania, which under Scanderberg had fortwenty-five years resisted the Ottoman arms, was overrun;and Venice was forced to agree to a treaty by which she cededto Turkey Scutari and Kroïa, and consented to pay an indemnityof 100,000 ducats (Jan. 25, 1478). The Crimea was nextconquered and bestowed as a tributary province on the Tatarkhan Mengli Girai. Mahommed now endeavoured to strike ablow at Rhodes, the stronghold of the Knights of St John,preparatory to carrying out his long-cherished plan of conqueringItaly. A powerful naval expedition was fitted out, but failed,an armistice and treaty of commerce being signed with thegrand master, Pierre d'Aubusson (1479). But a land attack onsouthern Italy at the same time was successful, Otranto beingcaptured and held for a time by the Turks. In 1481 the sultanwas believed to be projecting a campaign against the Circassianrulers of Syria and Egypt, when he died at Gebzé. He is saidto have been of a merry and even jocular disposition, to haveafforded a generous patronage to learning, and, strange to sayfor a sultan, to have been master of six languages.
Mahommed II. was the organizer of the fabric of Ottomanadministration in the form which it retained practicallyunchanged until the reforms of Mahmud II. and Abd-ul-Mejid.He raised the regular forces of the country to a total exceeding100,000; the pay of the Janissaries was by him increased, andtheir ranks were brought up to an effective of upwards of 12,000.He established the system whereby the lands conquered by thearms of his troops were divided into the different classes of fiefs,or else assigned to the maintenance of mosques, colleges, schoolsand charitable institutions, or converted into common andpasturage lands. Many educational and benevolent foundationswere endowed by him, and it is to Mahommed II. thatthe organization of the ulema, or legist and ecclesiastical class,is due.
Upon Bayezid II. succeeding to his father a serious revoltof the troops took place, which led to the institution of theBayezid II., 1481–1512.regular payment of an accession donative to theJanissaries. At the outset of the reign Bayezid'sbrother, Prince Jem, made a serious attempt toclaim the throne; he was defeated, and eventually tookrefuge with the knights of Rhodes, whom Bayezid bribedto keep him in safe custody. The unfortunate prince was ledfrom one European stronghold to another, and, after thirteenyears' wandering, died at Naples in 1494 (see Bayezid II.).Freed from the danger of his brother's attacks, the sultan gavehimself up to devotion, leaving to his ministers the conduct ofaffairs in peace and war. But, though of an unambitious andpeace-loving temper, the very conditions of his empire madewar inevitable. Even when peace was nominally in existence,war in its most horrible forms was actually being waged. Onthe northern frontier border raids on a large scale were frequent.Thus, in 1492 the Turks made incursions into Carinthia as faras Laibach, and into Styria as far as Cilli, committing unspeakableatrocities; in 1493 they overran both Styria and Croatia.The Hungarians retaliated in kind, burning and harrying as faras sem*ndria, torturing and murdering, and carrying off thesaleable inhabitants as slaves. In 1494 a crushing victory ofthe emperor Maximilian drove the Turks out of Styria, whichthey did not venture again to invade during his reign. In 1496the temporary armistice between the Poles and Turks, renewedin 1493, came to an end, and John Albert, king of Poland, seizedthe occasion to invade Moldavia. The efforts of Ladislaus ofHungary to mediate were vain, and the years 1497 and 1498were marked by a terrible devastation of Poland by the Ottomans;only the bitter winter, which is said to have killed 40,000 Turks,prevented the devastation from being more complete. By thepeace concluded in 1500 the sultan's dominions were againextended. Meanwhile, in June 1499, war had again broken outwith Venice, mainly owing to the intervention of the pope andemperor, who, with Milan, Florence and Naples, urged the sultanto crush the republic. On the 28th of July the Turks gainedover the Venetians at Sapienza their first great victory at sea;and this was followed by the capture of Lepanto, at whichBayezid was present, and by the conquest of the Moreaand most of the islands of the archipelago. By the peacesigned on the 24th of December 1502, however, the status quowas practically restored, the sultan contenting himself withreceiving Santa Maura in exchange for Cephalonia.
Meanwhile in Asia also the Ottoman Empire had beenconsolidated and extended; but from 1501 onwards the ambitiousdesigns of the youthful Shah Ismail in Persia grew more andmore threatening to its security; and though Bayezid, intenton peace, winked at his violations of Ottoman territory andexchanged friendly embassies with him, a breach was sooneror later inevitable. This danger, together with the growinginsubordination of the aged sultan's sons, caused his ministersto urge him to abdicate in favour of Selim, the younger but morevaliant. This prince pushed his audacity so far as to attackhis father's troops, but the action merely increased hispopularity with the Janissaries, and Bayezid, after a reign of thirty-oneyears, was obliged to abdicate in favour of his forcefulyounger son; a few days later he died. This reign saw the endof the Mussulman rule in Spain, Turkey's naval power not beingyet sufficient to afford aid to her co-religionists. It also sawthe first intercourse between a Russian tsar and an Ottomansultan, Ivan III. exchanging in 1492 friendly messages withBayezid through the Tatar khan Mengli Girai; the first Russianambassador appeared at Constantinople three years later.
When he had ruthlessly quelled the resistance offered to hisaccession by his brothers, who both fell in the struggle for theSelim I., 1512–1520.throne, Selim undertook his campaign in Persia,having first extirpated the Shia heresy, the prevalentsect of Persia, in his dominions, where it threatenedto extend. After an arduous march and in spite of the mutinousbehaviour of his troops, Selim, crushed the Persians at Chaldiran(1515) and became master of the whole of Kurdistan. He nextturned against the Mameluke rulers of Egypt, crushed them,and entering Cairo as conqueror (1517), obtained from the lastof the Abbasidcaliphs,[30] Motawakkil, the title of caliph (q.v.) for himself and his successors (see Egypt: History; MahommedanPeriod). The sultan also acquired from him the sacred bannerand other relics of the founder of Islam, which have since beenpreserved in the Seraglio at Constantinople. Egypt, Syria andthe Hejaz, the former empire of the Mamelukes, were addedto the Ottoman dominions. Towards the end of Selim's reignthe religious revolt of a certain Jellal, who collected 200,000adherents, was the cause of much trouble; but he was eventuallyrouted and his force dispersed near Tokat. While preparingan expedition against Rhodes to avenge the repulse sustainedforty years before by Mahommed II., the sultan died at Orashkeui,near Adrianople, at the spot where he had attacked hisfather's troops. His reign of eight years had almost doubledthe extent of the Turkish dominions.
He was succeeded by his son Suleiman “the Magnificent,”in whose long and eventful reign Turkey attained the highestSuleiman I., 1520–1566.point of her glory. Selim's Asiatic conquests hadleft his successor free to enter upon a campaign inEurope, after the suppression of a revolt of thegovernor of Damascus, who had thought to take advantage ofthe new sultan's accession to restore the independent rule of theCircassian chiefs. In 1521 war was declared against the kingof Hungary on the pretext that he had sent no congratulationson Suleiman's accession. Belgrade was besieged and captured,a conquest which Mahommed II. had failed to effect. In thenext year an expedition was undertaken against Rhodes, thecapture of which had become doubly important since the acquisitionof Egypt. The siege, which was finally conducted by thesultan in person, was successful after six months' duration;the forts of Cos and Budrum were also taken. The Europeanwar was now renewed; in 1526 the sultan, marching fromBelgrade, crossed the Danube and took Peterwardein and Esseg;on the field of Mohács he encountered and defeated theHungarians under king Louis II., who was killed with the flowerof the Hungarian chivalry (see Hungary: History). Budapesthereupon fell to the Turks, who appointed John Zapolya kingof Hungary (1528). But the crown of Hungary was claimedby the archduke Ferdinand, brother of the emperor Charles V.,as being king Louis's brother-in-law. This brought Turkey intocollision with the great emperor. Moreover, Francis I. of France,who had just been defeated by Charles, sent to the sultanambassadors and messages dwelling on the danger of allowingCharles's power to become too great, and imploring the assistanceof Suleiman as the only means of preserving the balanceof power in Europe. Meanwhile Ferdinand's troops capturedBudapest, driving out Zápolya, who at once appealed to Suleimanfor aid. Suleiman decided against Charles, and marched north(1529). Zápolya joined the Turks at Mohács, and a joint attackwas made on Budapest. After five days' siege the Austrianswere driven out, and Zápolya was reinstated on the throne ofHungary. The Turks then marched on Vienna, which wasbombarded and closely invested, but so valiant was the resistanceoffered that after three weeks the siege was abandoned(Oct. 14, 1529). Suleiman now prepared for a campaignin Germany and sought to measure himself against Charles,who, however, withdrew from his approach, and little wasdone save to ravage Styria and Slavonia. In 1533 a trucewas arranged, Hungary being divided between Zápolya andFerdinand.
During the Hungarian campaign the Shia sectaries had beenencouraged to revolt, and the Persians had overrun Azerbäijänand recaptured Tabriz. Suleiman, therefore, turned his armsagainst them, reaching Bagdad in 1534, and capturing the wholeof Armenia. The naval exploits of Khair-ed-din Pasha (seeBarbarossa) are among the glories of the reign, and led tohostilities with Venice. After capturing Algiers, an attackby this famous admiral on Tunis was repulsed with the aidof Spain, but in the Mediterranean he maintained ahotly-contested struggle with Charles's admiral, Andrea Doria.Venice was in alliance with Charles, and her possessionswere consequently attacked by Turkey by land and bysea, many islands, including Syra and Tinos, falling beforeBarbarossa's assaults. Corfu was besieged, but unsuccessfully.At Preveza Barbarossa defeated the papal and Venetianfleets under Doria. In 1540 the fort of Castelnuovo, thestrongest point on the Dalmatian coast, was taken by theVenetians and recaptured by Barbarossa. Peace was then made onthe terms that Turkey should retain her conquests and Veniceshould pay an indemnity of 300,000 ducats. Friendly relationshad subsisted between Suleiman and Ferdinand during theexpedition to Persia; but on the death of Zápolya in 1539Ferdinand claimed Hungary and besieged Budapest with a largeforce. Suleiman determined to support the claims of Zápolya'sinfant son, John Sigismund, and in 1541 set out in person. Atthe end of August he appeared before Budapest, the siege ofwhich had already been raised by the defeat of the Austrians;the infant John Sigismund was carried into the sultan's camp,and the queen-mother, Isabella, was peremptorily ordered toevacuate the royal palace, though the sultan gave her a diplomain which he swore only to retain Budapest during the minorityof her son. On the 2nd of September Suleiman entered the city,and to the ambassadors of Ferdinand, who came to offer a yearlysum if the sultan would recognize his claim to Hungary, hereplied that he had taken possession of it by the sword andwould negotiate only after the surrender of Gran, Tata, Visegrádand Székesfehérvár. The war now continued vigorouslyby sea and land. The great expedition of the emperorCharles V. against Algiers ended in failure, his fleet beingdestroyed by a sudden storm (Oct. 31, 1541); and his diplomaticefforts to wean Barbarossa from his allegiance to thesultan fared no better. In 1542 a formal alliance was concludedbetween Suleiman and Francis I.; the Ottoman fleet was placedat the disposal of the king of France, and in August 1543, theTurks under Barbarossa, and the French under the duke ofEnghien, laid siege to Nice. The town surrendered; but thecitadel held out until, on the 8th of September, it was relievedby Andrea Doria. Meanwhile on land Suleiman had taken fulladvantage of the European situation to tighten his grip onHungary. The attempt of the imperialists, under Joachim ofBrandenburg, to retake Budapest (September 1542), failedignominiously; and in the following year Suleiman in personconducted a campaign which led to the conquest of Siklós, Gran,Székesfehérvár and Visegrád (1544). Everywhere the churcheswere turned into mosques; and the greater part of Hungary,divided into twelve sanjaks, became definitively a Turkishprovince. A truce, on the basis of uti possidetis, signed at Adrianopleon the 19th of June 1547 for five years, between the sultan,the emperor and Ferdinand I. king of Hungary, recognized theTurkish conquests in Hungary; while, for the portion left tohim, Ferdinand consented to pay an annual tribute of 30,000ducats. John Sigismund was recognized as independent princeof Transylvania and of sixteen adjacent Hungarian counties,Queen Isabella to act as regent during his minority.
Suleiman was now free to resume operations against Persia.In the spring of 1548 he set out on his eleventh campaign,which ended in the capture of Erzerum (August 16) and theconquest of Armenia and Georgia. But the Persian Wardragged on, with varying fortune, for years, till after Suleimanhad ravaged Persia it was concluded by the treaty—the firstbetween shah and sultan—signed at Amasia on the 29th ofMay 1555.
Meanwhile the war in Hungary had been resumed. Neither side had been careful to observe the terms of the treaty of 1547; the Turkish pashas in Hungary had raided Ferdinand's dominions, while Ferdinand had been negotiating with Frater Geörgy (see Martinuzzi) with a view to freeing Transylvania from the Ottoman suzerainty. When the sultan discovered that Martinuzzi, who was all-powerful in Transylvania, had actually arranged to hand over the country to Ferdinand, he threw the Austrian ambassador into prison, and in September 1551 sent an army, 80,000 strong, under Mahommed Sokolli over the Danube. Several forts, and the important town of Lippa on the Marosch, fell at once, and siege was laid to Temesvár. This was raised after two months, and Martinuzzi took advantage of the retirement of the Turks to raise an army andrecapture Lippa. Before the surrender of the city, however,he was murdered by Ferdinand’s orders on strong suspicionof treachery. The campaign of 1552 was disastrous for theAustrians; the Turks, under the command of Ahmed Pasha,defeated them at Szegedin and captured in turn Veszprém,Temesvár, Szolnok and other places. Their victorious careerwas only checked, in October, by the raising of the siege ofErlau. In the spring of 1553 the victories of the Persianscalled for the sultan’s presence in the East; a truce for sixmonths was now concluded between the envoys of Ferdinandand the pasha of Budapest, and Austrian ambassadors weresent to Constantinople to arrange a peace. But the negotiationsdragged on without result; the war continued with hideousbarbarities on both sides; and it was not until the 1st of June1562 that it was concluded by the treaty signed at Prague byFerdinand, now emperor. Suleiman kept the possessions hehad won by the sword, Temesvár, Szolnok, Tata and otherplaces in Hungary; Transylvania was assigned to John Sigismund,the Habsburg claim to interference being categoricallydenied; Ferdinand bound himself to pay, not only the annualtribute of 30,000 ducats, but all the arrears that had meanwhileaccumulated. Even this treaty, however, was but an apparentsettlement. A year passed before the Latin and Turkish textsof the treaty were harmonized; and meanwhile irregular fightingcontinued on all the borders. In 1564 Ferdinand died, and wassucceeded by Maximilian II. The new emperor attackedTokaj, which was in Turkish possession; the tribute had beenallowed again to fall into arrears; and to all this was addedthat Mahommed Sokolli, the new grand vizier (1565), pressedfor new war to wipe out the disgrace of the failure of theOttoman attack on Malta (May-September 1565). In May1566 the war broke out, Suleiman, now seventy-two years old,again leading his army in person. In August he laid siege toSzigetvár with 100,000 men; but on the 5th of September,while preparations were being made for a final assault, thesultan died. His death was, however, kept secret, and on the8th the fortress fell.
The reign of Suleiman the Magnificent marked the zenithof the Ottoman power. At the time of his death the TurkishEmpire extended from near the frontiers of Germany to thefrontiers of Persia. The Black Sea was practically a Turkishlake, only the Circassians on the east coast retaining theirindependence; and as a result of the wars with Persia the wholeEuphrates valley, with Bagdad, had fallen into the sultan’spower, now established on the Persian Gulf. The Venetianshad been driven from the Morea and the islands of theArchipelago; and, except a strip of the Dalmatian coast and the littlemountain state of Montenegro, the whole of the Balkan peninsulawas in Turkish hands. In the Mediterranean, Crete and Maltayet survived as outposts of Christendom; but the northerncoasts of Africa from Egypt to Morocco acknowledged thesupremacy of the sultan, whose sea power in the Mediterraneanhad become a factor to be reckoned with in European politics,threatening not only the islands, but the very heart of Christendom,Italy itself, and capable—as the alliance with Franceagainst Charles V. had shown—of being thrown with decisiveweight into the balance of European rivalries.
The power of the Ottomans at sea was maintained duringthis period by a series of notable captains, such as Khair-ed-dinThe Turkish
Sea Power.and his son Hassan, Pialé, Torgud, Sali Reis andPiri Reis. Of these the two first are separatelynoticed (see Barbarossa). Pialé, a Croatian whohad been brought up in the imperial harem and succeededSinan as capudan-pasha, crowned a series of victories over thegalleys of Andrea Doria by the capture of the island of Jerba,off Tripoli (July 31, 1560). For this he was rewarded withthe hand of one of the sultan’s grand-daughters. He laterbecame the second vizier of the empire, and, as a supporter ofSokolli, was in power till his death in 1575. Torgud, alsothe son of Christian parents, was a native of the sanjak ofMentesha in Asia Minor, and began his career as a soldier inthe Ottoman, sea service. After spending some time as aGenoese galley-slave, he turned corsair and became the terrorof the Mediterranean coasts. He seized Mahdia, a strong poston a tongue of land about 43 m. south of Susa in Tunisia, andmade this the centre of his piracies till, during his absenceraiding the Spanish coasts, it was bombarded and destroyedby an expedition sent by Charles V. (September 10, 1550).Torgud was now summoned to Constantinople to answer forpiracies committed on the friendly galleys of Venice; but hesailed instead to Morocco, and there for two years defied thesultan’s authority. But Suleiman, who needed the aid of thecorsairs against Malta, pardoned him, and he was given thecommand of the expedition against Tripoli, which he captured.He now turned against Corsica, captured Bastia (August 1553)and on his return to Constantinople, laden with booty andslaves, chastised the insurgent Albanians. He was rewardedby Suleiman with the governorship of Tripoli, which he heldtill his death. He was killed during the unsuccessful attack onMalta, which he commanded (1565). Sali Reis, also by birtha Christian of Asia Minor, was likewise successful as a corsair;he distinguished himself especially at the capture of Tunis,and succeeded Hassan Barbarossa as beylerbey of Algiers.
Other captains carried the Turkish arms down the Arabianand Persian gulfs far out into the Indian Ocean. Of these themost remarkable was Piri Reis, nephew of Kamil Reis, thefamous corsair who, under Bayezid II., had swept the Aegeanand Mediterranean. Piri sailed into the Persian Gulf, tookMuscat, and laid siege to Ormuz. But the approach of thePortuguese fleet put him to flight; some of his vessels werewrecked; and on his return by way of Egypt he was arrestedat Cairo and executed. He had compiled a sea-atlas (theBahrije) of the Aegean and Mediterranean seas, every nookand cranny of which he had explored, with an account of thecurrents, soundings, landing-places, inlets and harbours.
Another literary seaman of this period was Sidi Ali, celebratedunder his poetic pseudonym of Katibi (or Katibi Rumi, todistinguish him from the Persian poet of the same name).He was no more successful than Piri or his successor Muradin fighting the elements and the Portuguese in the Persian Gulf;but he was happier in his fate. Driven, with the remnant ofhis ships, into the Indian Ocean, he landed with fiftycompanions on the coast of India and travelled back to Turkey byway of Sind, Baluchistan, Khorassan and Persia. He wrotean account of this three years' journey, for which he wasrewarded by Suleiman with an office and a pension. He was theauthor also of a mathematical work on the use of the astrolabeand of a book (Muhit, “the ocean”) on the navigation of theIndian seas.
At the close of Suleiman’s reign the Turkish army numberednearly 200,000 men, including the Janissaries, whose total heReforms of
Suleiman I.almost doubled, raising them to 20,000. Heimproved the laws and institutions established byhis predecessors and adapted them to the requirementsof the age; to him are due important modifications inthe feudal system, aimed at maintaining the fiefs in a reallyeffective condition. The codes of law were by him revised andimproved, and he was the first sultan to enter into relationswith foreign states. In 1534 Jean de La Forêt, a knight ofSt John of Jerusalem, came to Constantinople as firstpermanent French ambassador to the Porte, and in February1535 were signed the first Capitulations (q.v.) with France.
A short sketch of the administration and state of the country at this time may find place here. Successively transferred from Brusa Ottoman Polity in the 16th Century. to Adrianople and thence to Constantinople, the seatof government was at first little more than the camp of a conqueror. After the conquest of the imperial city the sultans began to adopt the pomp and splendour century of eastern sovereigns, and largely copied the system, ready to hand, of the Byzantine emperors. Affairs of state were at first discussed at the imperial divan, where the great dignitaries were convened at appointed hours. Until the reign of Mahommed the Conqueror the sultan presided in person; but a rough Anatolian peasant penetrating one day to the council and exclaiming, “Which of you might be the sultan? I've come to make a complaint!” it was thought that in future it would be more consonant with theimperial dignity for the sovereign to remain concealed behind agrating where, unseen, he could hear all that was said. Towardsthe middle of Suleiman's reign even this practice was abandoned,and the sultans henceforth attended the divans only on thedistribution of pay to the troops or the reception of a foreignambassador, which occasions were usually made to coincide. The divanaccompanied the sultan on military expeditions.
As established by Mahommed II., the officials of the state weredivided into four classes: (1) administrative; (2) ecclesiastical;(3) secretarial and (4) military. The administration of kazas, orcantons, was usually entrusted to the cadis and the holders of themore important fiefs; the sanjaks, or departments, were ruled byalaï beys or mir-i-livas (colonels or brigadiers), pashas with onehorse-tail; the vilayets, or provinces, by beylerbeys or mir-i-mirans (lord oflords), pashas with two horse-tails; these were all originally militaryofficers, who, in addition to their administrative functions, werecharged with the duty of mustering and commanding the feudallevies in war time. Above them were the beylerbeys of Anatolia andRumelia, who served under the orders of the commander-in-chief.The title of vizier was borne by six or seven persons simultaneously;the grand vizier was the chief of these and exercised supremeauthority, being invested with the sultan's signet. He oftencommanded an army in person, and was then given the title ofserdar-i-ekrem (generalissimo); one of the subordinate viziers remainedbehind as kaïmmakam, or locum tenens. The duties of the otherviziers were limited to attending the divan; they were called kubbēor cupola viziers from the fact that the council met under a cupola;they were pashas with three horse-tails, and were attended by largeretinues, having generally achieved distinction as beylerbeys.These officers were usually chosen from among the more promisingof the youths selected by the devshurmē, or system of forced levyfor manning the ranks of the Janissaries: hence so many of thestatesmen of Turkey were of non-Mussulman origin. Besides thesemembers of the secretarial class, such as nishanjis and defterdars,as well as regular army officers, and occasionally members of theecclesiastical class, or ulema, rose to the rank of vizier.
The highest dignitaries of the ecclesiastical class were at first thekazaskers, or military judges, of Europe and Asia; later the officeof Sheikh-ul-Islam was created as the supreme authority in mattersrelating to the Church and the sacred law. Promotion was regular,but was obtainable only by entering at an early age one of themedressēs or colleges; the student, after passing through thesuccessive degrees of danishmend, mulazim and muderris, became firsta molla, then a judge, rising to the higher ranks as fortune andopportunity offered. In the time of Bayezid II. the post ofnakib-ul-eshrāf, or registrar of the sherīfs, or descendants of the Prophet,was created.
The secretarial class consisted of six categories: the nishanjis,the defterdars, the reïs, the defter emini, the shakk-i-sāni (or secondclass) defterdars and the shakk-i-sālis (or third class) defterdars.The first named were charged with the duty of revising and dulyexecuting the decisions of the divan respecting the assignment oflands to warriors and the apportioning of conquered territories.They were men of great culture, and many historians, poetsand writers belong to this class. The defterdar was practically theminister of finance. The reïs was the secretary-general of thedivan, and in more modern times became minister for foreignaffairs. The defter emini kept the registers for the nishanji,whose place he took on emergency, the others acted as secretariesand clerks.
The military class was divided into two categories: (1) the regularpaid troops who were quartered in barracks and were known as“slaves of the palace”; (2) the feudal levies who received no payand were called upon to serve only in war-time. The Janissaries(q.v.) belonged to the first category. The rigid regulations foradmission to their ranks were soon relaxed: at the close of the Persianwar in 1590 their total amounted to 50,000. The regular troopscomprised also armourers (jebeji), from 6000 to 8000 men, and sixsquadrons of cavalry; these were recruited in the same way as theJanissaries, and their numbers were raised by Murad III. to 20,000.There were also bostanjis, or forest-guards, numbering about 5000,besides local troops in distant and frontier provinces, and about20,000 akinjis, or light troops, in Europe, who carried out foraysin the enemies' country.
The fiefs were not hereditary, and were held directly from thesultan. On the conquest of a country the lands were apportionedby the nishanjis, who first computed the tithe revenue of each village,its population, woods, pasturage, &c.; and divided it into the threeclasses of fiefs (khās, ziamet and timar), or into vakŭf (piousendowments) or pasturage. Any estate with a revenue exceeding 100,000aspres was a khās, and was conferred on a prince or on a high dignitaryas long as he held his post; for each 5000 aspres of revenue one armedwarrior had to be furnished in war. Fiefs with a revenue of from20,000 to 100,000 aspres were called ziamets and were conferredon similar terms on inferior officers, usually for life or during goodbehaviour. Fiefs with a revenue of from 3000 to 20,000 aspreswere timars, furnishing one armed warrior for every 3000 aspres'revenue; the grant of a fief was conditional on obligatory residence.The peasants owning the land remained undisturbed in theirproprietorship, paying to their feudal lord the tithe, as well as the fixedduties on transfer, &c. Abuses in the system first began in the timeof Khosrev Pasha, Suleiman's grand vizier.
The governors of the more distant provinces enjoyed a considerableamount of independence, which in the case of the Barbarystates was more or less complete; these entered into treaties withforeign powers, and by their piratical outrages frequently causedthe Porte considerable embarrassment. The sherīf of the Hejaz,Abu-’l-berekāt, made submission to Sultan Selim I. After thesubjugation of the Yemen, the absorption of the holy placeswas also attempted, and in Suleiman's reign judges wereappointed thither from Constantinople. But it was found politicto continue the office of the grand sherīf of Mecca in the sherifianfamily.
The princes of the Crimea were invested with many of theprerogatives of independence, e.g. that of coining money; the ruler ofTransylvania was allowed to retain the royal title, nor were Turkishtroops quartered in the country. The Danubian principalitieswere also ruled by native princes until the Phanariote period (seePhanariotes).
On the 17th of February 1568, two years after the accessionof Suleiman's son Selim, peace was concluded with AustriaSelim II., 1566–1574.on the basis of the former terms, the emperorMaximilian having sent ambassadors to congratulatethe new sultan on his accession. A disastrousattack on Astrakhan, with the object of carrying out Sokolli'splan for uniting the Don and the Volga, first brought theTurks into collision with the Russians. Expeditions againstthe Yemen and Cyprus were successful, but the loss ofCyprus, accompanied as it was by the barbarous murder of theVenetian commander, Marco Antonio Bragadino, by the seraskierpasha Mustafa's orders, in violation of the terms of thecapitulation of Famagusta (August 1571), roused the bitterresentment of the Venetians, previously incensed by Turkishraids on Crete. Already, on the 25th of May, had been concludedthe holy league between the pope, Venice and Spain for a newcrusade against the infidel, in spite of the efforts of Franceto prevent the adhesion of the republic. Preparations werehurried on and at the end of September the great allied fleet,under Don John of Austria, sailed into the archipelago. Onthe 7th of October was fought the naval battle of Lepanto,which broke for ever the tradition of the invincibility of theTurks at sea. The immediate results of the battle were not,however, as decisive as might have been expected. In June1572 a fresh Ottoman fleet of 250 sail took the sea; and thejealousy of the allies and the incompetence of their commandersmade any repetition of their former victory impossible. Aftera series of indecisive engagements Venice broke from the leagueand, under the mediation of France, concluded a treaty withthe Porte practically on the basis of uti possidetis (March 7,1573). With Spain the war continued, and on the 24th ofAugust 1574 Tunis—which had been taken by Don John ofAustria in 1572—was recaptured by the Turks, who from thisnew base proceeded, under Sinan Pasha and Kilij Ali, to ravageSicily.[31] In the same year Selim II. died. Known in historyas the “Sot,” he had allowed his able grand vizier MahommedSokolli to rule the country.
The character of Murad III., who succeeded his father Selim II. at the age of twenty-eight, was not calculated to arrest Murad III., 1574–1595. the progress of decay within the Ottoman Empire. He was a weakling, swayed by his favourites in the harem, especially by his Venetian wife Safié; and, though he kept Sokolli in office, he was suspicious of the too powerful vizier, whose wise influence he allowed his minions to undermine. Thus eminent servants of the state such as Mustafa Pasha, Sokolli's nephew—who for twelve years had ruled the sanjak of Budapest with conspicuous enlightenment and success were deposed or executed to make way for the nominees of the harem. In even weightier matters the opinion of the grand vizier was slighted. Thus it was against his advice that, at the beginning of 1578, advantage was taken of the disorders arising on the death of Shah Tahmasp of Persia to attack that country. The war lasted for twelve years, duringwhich Tiflis, Shirvan and Daghestan were taken; finallyShah Abbas established himself on the Persian throneand in 1590 made peace with Turkey, who retained herconquests in Georgia, Azerbāijān and Shirvan. But thisshort-sighted policy is criticized by Turkish historians, who censureMurad III. for thus weakening the neighbouring Mussulmanstates such as Persia and Daghestan, thereby facilitating Russia'sfuture expansion at their cost. Sokolli's assassination, onthe 11th of October 1578, had meanwhile thrown the ccomtryinto disorder. There was now no authority left to hold incheck the corrupt influences of the harem. The avenues topower were through bribery and yet more unspeakable paths;the fiefs which formed the basis of the feudal array were bestowedon favourites' favourites, or sold to the highest bidder, and thesultan himself shared in the corrupt plunder. At last that finalexpedient of weak governments, the debasing of the coinage,led to a crisis. In 1589 mutinies of troops took place all overthe empire, and in the two following years there were severalrisings of the Janissaries at Constantinople, the pretext beingeverywhere that the soldiers were being robbed of their pay.At this juncture a fresh crisis in the relations with Austriaarose. The peace concluded in 1568 and thrice renewed (in1573, 1576 and 1584) had not prevented the continuance ofraids and forays, from either side of the frontier, that at timesassumed the dimensions of regular campaigns. The climaxcame in 1593. All through the preceding year Hassan “Tilli,”beylerbey of Bosnia, had raided in Croatia, taking borderfortresses and driving off the inhabitants into slavery. InJune 1593, with an army of 30,000 men, he laid siege to Sissek;the Austrian and Hungarian levies hurried to its relief; andon the 22nd the Turks were routed with immense slaughteron the banks of the Kulpa, Hassan himself, with many otherbeys and two of the imperial princes, being among the slain.Though not yet formally declared, the “long war” was nowin full progress. In August, Sinan Pasha, the grand vizier—noweighty years of age—took command of the troops for theHungarian War and left Constantinople, dragging with himthe Austrian ambassador in chains. The capture of Veszprémand of Raab (1594) and the failure of the archduke Matthiasto take Gran seemed to promise another rapid victory of theOttoman arms; but Sinan was ill-supported from Constantinople,the situation was complicated by the revolt ofWalachia and Moldavia, and the war was destined to last, withvarying fortunes, for fourteen years. On the 16th of January1595 Murad III. died.
In spite of the internal corruption which, under Murad III.,heralded the decay of the empire, the prestige of the Ottomansin Europe was maintained during his reign. Even the emperorhad to be content to be treated by the sultan as an inferiorand tributary prince; while France had to suffer, with nomore than an idle protest, the insult of the conversion ofCatholic churches at Constantinople into mosques. In spiteof frequent causes of friction, good relations were maintainedwith Venice, through the influence of the sultana Safié, and thecapitulations with the republic of St Mark were renewed in1589. Those with France were also renewed (July 6, 1581);and capitulations were signed for the first time with the grandduke of Tuscany (1578) and with England(1580).[32] In thefollowing year permanent diplomatic relations were establishedby England with the Porte by the despatch of William Hareboneas ambassador, Queen Elizabeth urging as her special claim tothe sultan's friendship their common mission to fight “idolaters.”
The new sultan, Mahommed III., Murad's son, succeededto the throne at a moment when the Turkish arms were sufferingreverses in Hungary and in the revolted Danubian provinces;Mahommed III., 1595–1603.the Janissaries, too, were ill-content and mutinous,and to put an end to their murmurings Mahommedwas persuaded by Sinan Pasha to lead them to thewar in person. The immediate effect was good; Erlau wascaptured in October 1596, and a three days' battle in the plainof Keresztes (Oct. 23 to 26) ended in the disastrousrout of the allied troops under the archduke Maximilian andSigismund, prince of Transylvania. But the Turks did notprofit much by their victory. The new grand vizier, Cicala,by his severity to the soldiers, mainly Asiatics, who had showncowardice in the battle, drove thousands to desert; and thesultan, who had himself little stomach for the perils ofcampaigning, returned to Constantinople, leaving the conduct ofthe war to his generals. The campaign of 1598 began with theloss of Raab, and continued unfavourable to the Turks, wholost Totis, Veszprém and Pápa, and were hard pressed inBudapest. In October want of supplies and a mutiny of theJanissaries compelled the commander-in-chief to retreat into winterquarters at Belgrade. In 1599 the first peace overtures weremade, but came to nothing; and the confused fighting of thisand the following year culminated in the capture of Kanizsaby the Turks (September 1600). The attempt of the archdukeFerdinand, at the head of 30,000 men, to retake it a year laterwas defeated. In August 1602 Székesfehérvár again fell intothe hands of the Turks; in November the siege of Buda by thearchduke Matthias, who had taken Pest by storm, was raisedby the grand vizier Hassan.
Trouble had, however, meanwhile broken out in other partsof the Ottoman dominions. The deserters from Cicala's army,distributed in armed bands throughout Asia Minor, had becomecentres round which all the elements of discontent gathered,and formed the mainstay of the Jellali sectaries who, at thistime, rose in insurrection and ravaged Anatolia. InConstantinople, early in 1603, there was, moreover, a serious risingof the spahis; and, finally, in September Shah Abbas of Persiatook advantage of what is known in Turkish history as “theyear of insurrections” to declare war and reconquer Tabriz.In the midst of this crisis, on the 22nd of December 1603, SultanMahommed III. died, and was succeeded by his elder son,Ahmed I., a boy of fourteen.
Though negotiations for peace were at once begun, it was nottill three years after Ahmed's accession that the peace ofAhmed I., 1603–1617.Sitvatorok, concluded on the 11th of November 1606, atlast put an end to the war in Europe. By thistreaty the annual tribute payable by Austria wasabolished, but an indemnity of 200,000 florins was paid “oncefor all” by the emperor, who was henceforth to be given hisproper imperial title (padishah) in Turkish official documents.The peace of Sitvatorok (or Zeideva, as it is also called) marksthe close of Turkey's period of conquest. No longer haughtilyimposed on the vanquished, as was the case with formertreaties, it was submitted to the examination and discussion ofboth parties before being signed. It freed Austria from thehumiliating tribute to which the treaty of 1547 had subjectedher, and established relations between the two monarchs ona footing of equality. It was thus the first manifest signof Turkey's decadence from the glory of Suleiman I.'s reign,when King Ferdinand stooped to call the sultan's vizierhis brother. For the remainder of the reign the PersianWar was continued fitfully, a treaty of peace, signed in 1611,not being observed.
In 1617 the sultan died, and was succeeded by his brother Mustafa; but the latter being declared incompetent to reign, Mustafa I., 1617–1618 and Osman II., 1618–1622. his brother Osman took his place on the throne. The war in Persia was terminated by the renewal in 1618 of the treaty of 1611, whereby all the conquests effected by Murad III. and Mahommed III. were given up. Peace, however, left the rebellious Janissaries leisure to engage in plots against the sultan, and in order to occupy them and to remove them from the capital advantage was taken of the king of Poland having intervened in the affairs of Transylvania and the principalities to declare war against him. Osman marched against Khotin, but failed to capture it, and his unpopularity with the army was increased by rumours that he designed to collect such troops as were loyal to him, under pretence of going on pilgrimage to Mecca, in order to destroy the Janissaries andreform the country. They therefore rose and dethroned him,soon afterwards putting him to death. For a few monthsMustafa was replaced on the throne; when he abdicated inMustafa I., 1622–1623, and Murad IV., 1623–1640.favour of nis nephew Murad IV. Turkey seemed tobe at the point of dissolution. Profiting by themutiny of the army, the Persians invaded Turkey,capturing Bagdad; at Constantinople and in theprovinces alike anarchy was everywhere prevalent.This continued until the new sultan had acquired age andexperience; but, nine years after his accession, he successfullycrushed the military rebels, and thereafter ruled with a severityamounting to bloodthirsty cruelty. In 1638 he marched inperson against the Persians and succeeded in recapturingBagdad. Peace was made in 1639, leaving the Turco-Persianfrontier practically as it now stands. In the next year thesultan died at the age of thirty-one, being succeeded by hisbrother Ibrahim. In his reign the Cossacks were driven fromAzov and the expedition against Crete was begun, the immediateIbrahim, 1640–1648.cause being the plunder of a Turkish vessel byMaltese corsairs who took their capture to Crete.War was therefore declared against Venice, towhom Crete belonged (1644), and continued in the island fortwenty-five years.
The anarchy and misgovernment of Turkey now reached sucha pitch that Ibrahim was dethroned and murdered, andMahomed IV., 1648–1687.his son Mahommed IV. was proclaimed in hisstead. For the first eight years of his reignsuccessive grand viziers were unable to restore orderto the country. In 1656 Mahommed Kuprili (q.v.) becamegrand vizier, and by dint of firmness and resolution repairedthe falling fortunes of the country. The fleet was restored,and recaptured Lemnos and other islands which had passedinto the hands of the Venetians; the revolts caused byKuprili's severity were put down, and tranquillity wasre-established in Transylvania. After five years' tenure of officethe grand vizier died and was succeeded by his son, AhmedKuprili. In 1663 the disturbances which had broken out againin Transylvania led to war with Austria. Ahmed Kupriliattacked the Austrians, at first with success, but was routed byMontecuculi at the battle of St Gotthard Abbey and eventuallyconsented to the treaty of Vasvár (Aug. 10, 1664), bywhich a twenty years' truce was agreed upon; Transylvaniawas evacuated by both parties, but remained tributary toTurkey. The Kuprilis, both father and son, had by theirhaughty and uncompromising demeanour done much to alienatethe old-standing friendship with France, and at the battle ofSt Gotthard 6000 French, under Coligny, fought on the Austrianside. The result was that the Turks in retaliation deprivedthe Catholics, always under the protection of France, of someof their privileges in connexion with the holy places, whichwere now granted to the Orthodox Church. Meanwhile theCretan campaign continued, and here also France lent her aidto the Venetians; this assistance could not, however, preventthe capture of Candia in 1669; on the 5th of September of thatyear Morosini, the Venetian commander, signed a treaty ofpeace with the Turks by which, after twenty-five years' warfare,they were placed in possession of the fortress of Candia, andwith it of the effective rule over the whole island, Venice retainingonly the fortresses of Suda, Grabusa and Spinalonga, andthe islets along the coast.
Dissensions among the Cossacks led to the recognition byTurkey of Doroshenko, the hetman of the Sari Kamish, as rulerof the Ukraine; the Zaporog Cossacks, his antagonists, appliedfor aid to Russia. However, Michael Wiesnowiecki, king ofPoland, considering the Ukraine as under his protection,sought to intervene, with the result that Turkey declared waragainst him (1672). The Turks captured Kamenets, Lembergand Lublin. Hereupon the Poles sued for peace, and a treatywas signed at Buczacs (Oct. 18, 1672) whereby Podolia wasceded to Turkey, the Ukraine was left to the Cossacks, andPoland agreed to pay to Turkey an annual tribute of 22,000sequins. But John Sobieski, who succeeded shortly afterwardsto the throne of Poland, refused to abide by the terms of thistreaty; the war was renewed and continued for four years,when the treaty of Buczacs was reaffirmed at Zuravno by bothparties, the tribute clause alone being abrogated (Oct. 16,1676). A few days later Ahmed Kuprili died.
Doroshenko now deserted the Turkish alliance for the Russian; in consequence an expedition was sent into the Ukraine which was both costly and useless. In 1678 the Turks succeeded in taking Cehrin, but their losses were very heavy, and on the 8th of January 1681 a treaty was signed at Radzyn whereby the territory in dispute was ceded to Russia. A revolt of the Hungarian Protestants, in consequence of the persecuting policy of the house of Habsburg, now led to a renewal of the war between Turkey and Austria, due in part to the overweening ambition of Kuprili's successor, Kara Mustafa, who desired to immortalize his tenure of office by some great exploit, and who cherished dreams of founding for himself a western Moslem Empire. The war is blamed by Turkish historians as unjustifiable and untimely, the country needing reform. A vast Turkish army marched to the walls of Vienna and closely beleaguered the imperial city, from which the emperor and his court fled. All hope seemed lost, when by a brilliant feat of arms John Sobieski, king of Poland, drove away the besiegers in hopeless confusion and saved the cause of Christianity, 1683. This was the signal for a general coalition against Turkey; Venice, Poland and the pope allied themselves with the Austrians; Russia, Tuscany and Malta joined in the attack. Turkey now sought for a rapprochement with France, and endeavoured to bring about her intervention in return for concessions as regards the holy places. But the French had just before bombarded Algiers and Tripoli, even menacing Chios (Scio), where some pirates had put in with French captives; and the mediation of France was not very actively exercised. One after another the Hungarian forts were captured by the Austrians; the Venetians were equally successful in Greece and the Morea; the Russians pressed on the Crimea, and Sobieski besieged Kamenets. The troops now mutinied and deposed the sultan, placing his brother Suleiman on the throne. But the disorder in the army and the administration continued, and the advance of the Austrians and the Venetians met Suleiman II., 1687–1691. with little opposition. In this emergency Mustafa Kuprili (q.v.) was appointed grand vizier (1689). His prudent measures at once re-established some degree of order in the army and the fleet, while he sought by a wise tolerance to improve the position and conciliate the sympathies of the non-Moslem subject races. At first eminently successful, he drove the Austrians across the Danube, recapturing Nish, Vidin, sem*ndria and Belgrade; repulses were also inflicted on the Venetians and the Russians. In the course of the campaign the sultan died, being succeeded by his brother Ahmed. The successes of the Turks were not maintained, the Austrians inflicting on them a crushing defeat at Slankamen, where Mustafa Kuprili was killed, and driving Ahmed II., 1691–1695. them from Hungary. After four years of disaster Ahmed died; he was succeeded by his nephew Mustafa. The tide of success now turned again in favour of the Turks, who recaptured Karansebes and Lippa, and at Lugos exterminated by the weight of overwhelming numbers an Austrian force under Field-marshal Count Friedrich von Veterani (1630–1695), the hero of many victories over the Turks, who was killed in the battle. Elsewhere, too, the Ottoman arms were victorious; in February the Venetians suffered a double defeat in the roadstead of Chios, and the island fell into the hands of the Turks. But Prince Eugene's genius restored the Austrian fortunes, Mustafa II., 1695–1703. and the Turks were utterly routed at Zenta on the Theiss, losing more than 15,000 men (1697). Russia, driven from Azov in 1695, succeeded in capturing it in the following year; Venice continued to press the Turks; in this condition of affairs Hussein Kuprili (q.v.) was called to office; England and Holland urged Turkey to make peace, and after long negotiations a series of treaties wereconcluded in January 1699 at Karlowitz, that with Polandbeing signed on the 16th and those with Austria and Veniceon the 26th. The main provisions of these were, thatTurkey retained the Banat, while Austria kept Transylvania;Poland restored the places captured in Moldavia,but retained Kamenets, Podolia and the Ukraine; Venicerestored her conquests north of Corinth, but kept those inthe Morea and Dalmatia. On the 4th, Russia concludeda two years' armistice, but remained in possession of Azov,which was formally ceded to her by the definitive treatyof peace signed at Constantinople on the 13th of June1700. The peace of Karlowitz marks the definitive terminationof Turkey's power of offence in Europe. Apart fromthe heavy losses which it imposed on her, it constitutes a freshdeparture in her history, as putting an end to her splendidisolation and rendering her dependent on the changes of Europeanpolitics. It is noteworthy also as being the first occasionon which representatives of the mediating powers took partin the peace negotiations. The grand vizier's efforts to takeadvantage of the peace to introduce order in the country wereunavailing; he was driven from office, and disorders ensuedwhich led to the sultan's abdication.
The troubles were not ended by the accession of Ahmed III.,and many high dignitaries of state were sacrificed to theAhmed III., 1703–1730.lawlessness and insubordination of the Janissaries.Meanwhile Turkey found herself again involvedwith Russia. After the defeat of Charles XII.of Sweden at Poltava, this monarch took refuge in Turkey,and was allowed to reside at Bender. The Russians pursuedhim into Turkish territory; which led to a Turkish declarationof war (1710). The Turks succeeded in surroundingPeter the Great near the Pruth, and his army was menacedwith total destruction, when the Turkish commander, thegrand vizier Baltaji Mahommed Pasha, was induced by thepresents and entreaties of the empress Catherine to sign thepreliminary treaty of the Pruth (July 21, 1711), granting termsof peace far more favourable than were justified by the situationof the Russians. These were: the cession to Turkey of Azovwith all its guns and munitions, the razing of all the forts recentlybuilt on the frontier by Russia, the renunciation by the tsarof all claim to interfere with the Tatars under the dominionof the Crimea or Poland, or to maintain a representative atConstantinople, and Russia's consent to Charles's return toSweden.[33] It was long, however, before the latter relievedTurkey of his presence. During the campaign Peter had enteredinto alliance with the hospodars of Moldavia and Walachia,respectively Demetrius Cantemir and Constantine Brancovano,from whom he had received material assistance. These werenaturally dismissed after the defeat of the Russians; the formermade good his escape to Russia, the latter was executed. Thesultan determined henceforth to appoint Greeks to theprincipalities as more likely to be subservient to his will than thenatives hitherto appointed. This system was continueduntil the Greek insurrection of 1821.
Russia having thus lost all the advantage gained by the peaceof Karlowitz, Venice was next taken in hand, she havinginvaded the Bosnian frontier and incited the Montenegrins torevolt, besides capturing Turkish ships in the Mediterranean.These acts were held to be infractions of the treaty, and warwas declared (1715). The result was the stamping out of theinsurrection in Montenegro and the capture of the whole ofthe Morea. The fleet also took Tinos and Cerigo, as well as thethree forts still remaining to the Venetians in Crete. Turkey'saction, and the preparations being made for the siege of Corfu,now brought about the intervention of Austria. Charles VI.,weary of the war for the Spanish succession, had shortly beforeconcluded the peace of Rastadt (1715) and was anxious thatVenice should not be too hardly pressed. He therefore urgedTurkey to give up to Venice certain places in Dalmatia as acompensation for the loss of the Morea. The Porte was atfirst disposed to comply, but the party of resistance finallyprevailed. War was declared against Austria (1716); the fleetsailed for Corfu and the army crossed the Save from Belgradeto Semlin. Near Peterwardein a great battle was fought,in which the Austrians completely routed the Turks; pursuingtheir advantage they took Temesvàr and overran the Banat;in 1717 they captured Belgrade, the Turks retreating to Adrianople.England and Holland now urged their mediation, andafter negotiations the treaty of Passarowitz (Pozharevats inServia) was signed (July 21, 1718); Venice ceded the Morea toTurkey but kept the strongholds she had occupied in Albaniaand Dalmatia; Belgrade, Temesvar and Walachia as far asthe Olt were retained by Austria.
Meanwhile relations with Russia continued strained. Thepeace of 1712 had been concluded only for a term of years,and the neglect of the tsar to carry out its provisions had allbut led to a fresh outbreak of hostilities when the interventionof the other powers led in 1713 to the renewal of the treaty;and in November 1720 it was superseded by a treaty of“perpetual peace,” signed at Constantinople. But, though thequestions at issue between Russia and Turkey in Poland and thenorthern littoral of the Black Sea were thus for the time settled,the aggressive designs of Russia in the Caucasus and in Persiasoon caused a renewal of anxiety at Constantinople. Againwar all but broke out; but, through the intervention of France,a treaty of partition was signed at Constantinople on the 23rdof June 1724, whereby the shores of the Caspian from thejunction of the Kur and the Arras (Araxes) northwards shouldbelong to Russia, while the western provinces of Persia shouldfall to the share of Turkey. These provinces had not yetbeen conquered by Turkey; and, when a part of them hadbeen taken, a treaty was concluded with the Afghan AshrafShah, who had risen to supreme power in Persia, by whichTurkey should retain them on condition of recognizing himas shah (Oct. 23, 1727). But Nadir Kuli Khan came forwardas the champion of Shah Tahmasp II., the rightful ruler,and drove the Turks from these provinces, capturing Tabriz.This news caused consternation at Constantinople; the inevitablerevolt of the Janissaries followed, headed this time byone Patrona Khalil, and the sultan was forced to abdicatein favour of his nephew Mahmud. With difficulty the rebellionMahmud I., 1730–1734.was suppressed; in 1733 the war with Persia wasresumed, and after three years of fighting Nadirsucceeded in 1736 in inducing Turkey to recognizehim as shah of Persia and to restore the territory capturedsince the reign of Murad IV.
Russia's designs on Poland now brought about war. On the death of Augustus II., king of Poland (1733), France had War of Polish Succession. put forward as candidate Stanislaus Leszczynski, Louis XV.'s father-in-law. Austria and Russia supported Augustus III., elector of Saxony, and the empress Anne marched an army into Poland and compelled the election of her candidate, though Russia had bound herself by the treaty of 1711 and again by that of 1720 to abstain from all interference with Poland. France thereupon declared war against Russia and her ally Austria, and her envoy, the marquis de Villeneuve, urged Turkey to join by representing the danger of allowing Russian influence to extend. Turkey had cause of complaint against Russia for refusing to allow the Crimean troops to march through Daghestan during the Persian campaign, and on the 28th of May 1736, warwas declared, in spite of the efforts of England and Holland. The Russians had not waited for the formal declaration of war; and on the very day that this was notified by the hanging out of the horse-tails before the Seraglio at Constantinople a Russian army under Marshal Münnich stormed the ancient wall that guarded the isthmus of the Crimea. While Münnich conducted a systematic devastation of the peninsula, forces were detached under his lieutenants Leontiev and Lascy to attack Kinburn (Kiiburun) and Azov. Both these places fell;and in July of the following year Münnich captured Ochakov. Meanwhile the western sea-powers had made earnest effortsto restore peace, and in August 1737 the plenipotentiariesof the combatant powers met at Niemirov to arrange termsunder their mediation. But Austria, which had made a greatshow of seconding their efforts, now began to unmask her realaims, which were to take advantage of Turkey's embarrassmentsto push her own claims in the principalities and theBalkan Peninsula. To the refusal of the sultan's representativesto concede any of her demands, Austria replied by revealingthe existence of an alliance with Russia, which she threatened tomake actively offensive if her terms were refused. In Novemberthe conferences broke up; in the spring of the following yearAustrian divisions advanced simultaneously into Bosnia, Serviaand Walachia; and in July the main army, under the princeof Lorraine, crossed the frontier and captured Nish. In spiteof this initial success, however, the campaign proved disastrousto the Austrians; and France, which had meanwhile come toterms with the emperor, endeavoured to mediate a peace inconjunction with Sweden and Holland. But the Ottomans,though the negotiations continued throughout 1738, were inno hurry to come to terms; for the tide of war had turnedagainst both Austrians and Russians; Ochakov and Kinburnwere recaptured; and the victorious Turks crossed the Danubeand penetrated far into the Banat. Not till the middle of 1739would they consent to negotiate seriously for peace. Theconferences were opened at the close of July in the camp of thegrand vizier, who was pressing Belgrade hard and demandedthe surrender of the city as a sine qua non. This was conceded;on the 1st of September, under the mediation of the Frenchambassador Villeneuve, the preliminaries were signed; onthe 4th the grand vizier made his formal entrance into the city,where on the 18th the definitive treaties with Austria andRussia were signed. By the former Austria gave up Belgradeand the places on the right bank of the Save and the Danubewhich she had gained by the treaty of Passarowitz, togetherwith the Austrian portions of Walachia. The treaty withRussia provided that Azov should be razed and its territorydevastated to form a barrier, Russia having the rightto erect a new fortress at Cherkask, an island in the Don,near Azov, and Turkey to build one on the border ofKuban near Azov. But Taganrog was not to be refortified,and Russia was to have no war-ships on the sea of Azov or theBlack Sea. The Kabardias, great and little, were to remainindependent, to serve as a barrier between the two empires.By the 12th article the Ottoman government agreed “amicablyto discuss” the question of recognizing the tsar's claim to theimperial title, and by the 13th admitted his right to send toConstantinople representatives of whatever rank he mightjudge fitting (Noradounghian, Recueil, i. 258).
Scarcely two years after the signature of the treaty ofBelgrade sinister rumours reached Constantinople from Persia,where Nadir Shah, on his return from India, was planningan attack on Mesopotamia. The war, which broke out in1743, was waged with varying fortunes, and the peace by whichit was concluded on the 5th of September 1746, beyond stipulatingfor a few privileges for Persian pilgrims to the holyplaces, altered nothing in the settlement arranged ten yearsbefore with Murad IV. In the war of the Austrian Succession,which followed the accession of Maria Theresa to the Habsburgthrone, Turkey, in spite of the urgency of France, wouldtake no share, and she maintained the same attitude in thedisorders in Persia following the death of Nadir Shah.
In 1754 the Sultan Mahmud died. He was succeeded byOsman III., 1754–1757.his brother Osman, whose three years' reignwas marked by no political event of specialimportance. Osman III. was succeeded by hiscousin Mustafa. At the outset of his reign negotiationsMustafa III., 1757–1773.were actively pursued for the conclusion of atreaty with Prussia, to counteract the alliancebetween France and Austria contracted in 1756;and these resulted in the signature of Capitulations, or a treatyof friendship and commerce (March 22, 1761). The attitudeof the northern powers, however, and especially of Russia,towards Poland was beginning to excite the sultan's liveliestsuspicions; and these the accession, in 1762, of the masterfulCatherine II. to the Russian throne was not calculated to allay.In 1763, Catherine took advantage of the death of Augustus III.of Poland to force her favourite, Stanislaus Poniatowski, on tothe vacant throne. From the committee of patriots at Warsawcomplaints and warnings were carried to Constantinople; andthe cession of Podolia was offered as the price of a Turkishattack on Russia. The sultan, though inclined to take up thecause of the Polish dissidents, was slow to move, andcontented himself for a while with protests and threats. Butthe aggressive policy of Russia in the direction of the Caspianand Black Seas became more and more evident; complaintsreached the Porte of a violation of the neutrality of Kabardia,of a seditious propaganda in Moldavia by Russian monks,and of Russian aid given to the malcontents in Servia andMontenegro. Added to all this was the news of the continualRussian military aggressions in Poland, against which theCatholic confederation of Bar continued to appeal for aid.At last, on the 6th of October 1768, on the refusal of theRussian minister to give guarantees for the withdrawal ofthe Russian troops from Poland and the abandonment ofRussia's claim to interfere with the liberties of the republic, warwas declared and the Russian representative was imprisonedin the Seven Towers.
The war that followed marks an epoch in the decay of theOttoman Empire and in the expansion of Russia. When, inthe spring of 1769, the first serious campaign was opened bya simultaneous attack by three Russian armies on theprincipalities, the Crimea and the buffer state of Kabardia, theTurks, in spite of ample warning, were unprepared. Theywere hampered, moreover, by an insurrection in the Morea,where a Russian expedition under Orlov had stirred up theMainotes, and by risings in Syria and Egypt. It was not,however, till September that the fall of Khotin in Bessarabiamarked the first serious Russian success. The following yearwas more fatal. In May the Ottoman fleet was attacked anddestroyed off Cheshme, and the Russian war-ships threatenedto pass the Dardanelles. In June Romanzov's victory atKartal made him master of the principalities, and by Novemberthe fortresses of Izmail and Kilia, guarding the passage of theDanube, and those of Akkerman and Bender on the Dniesterhad fallen into the hands of the Russians. The campaignof 1771, which opened with a gleam of success in the captureof Giurgevo, proved yet more disastrous to the Turks, theRussians passing the Danube and completing the conquest ofthe Crimea. Prussia and Austria now offered their mediation;and in June conferences were opened at Focshani, which ledto no result. In the following year a conference, from whichthe Austrian and Prussian representatives were excluded,was opened at Bucharest (November 1772). In February1773 the Russian plenipotentiary delivered his ultimatum,of which the most important demands were the cession ofKerch, Yenikale and Kinburn, the free navigation of the BlackSea and Archipelago for Russian trading and war vessels, andthe recognition of the tsar's right to protect the Orthodoxsubjects of the sultan. These conditions were submittedto Constantinople, and rejected after a stormy debate in thedivan. The conference of Bucharest now broke up, and thewar continued. The successful defence of Varna and Silistriaseemed to justify the stubbornness of the Porte.
On the 24th of December 1773 Mustafa III. died, and was succeeded by his brother Abd-ul-Hamid I., a weakling, from Abd-ul-Hamid I., 1773–1789. whose character nothing could be expected to retrieve the now desperate fortunes of the war. The exhaustion of the treasury was evidenced by the absence of the usual donative to the troops; and the demoralization in both army and court made further resistance useless. At the beginning of July the Russians, under Kamenskiy, were before Shumla; and a few days later the grand vizier and his army, their communications with the capital severed, were surrounded in the fortress. Negotiationsfor peace were now opened and on the 21st of July—chosenby the Russian plenipotentiary as the anniversaryof the humiliating convention of the Pruth—the treaty ofKuchuk Kainarji was signed. Its terms were the mostonerous as yet imposed on the Ottoman sultans. The TatarsTreaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, 1774.from the frontier of Poland to the shores of theCaspian, including those of the Crimea and Kuban,were declared independent under their own khanof the race of Jenghiz, saving only the religiousrights of the sultan as caliph of Islam. Russia, however,retained the fortresses of Kerch, Yenikale and Kinburn, withthe desert country between the Bug and the Dnieper, whileOchakov was left to the Turks. Bessarabia, with the fortresses ofAkkerman, Izmail and Kilia, was restored to Turkey. Moldaviaand Walachia were likewise restored, but under conditions whichpractically raised them to the position of semi-independentprincipalities under Russian protection (art. xvi.). Azov andits district were annexed to Russia, and the two Kabardiaswere transferred subject to the consent of the khan of the Crimea.Russia undertook to evaluate Mingrelia and Georgia. Therecognition of the imperial title (padishah) was at last concededto the Russian tsars.
Commerce and navigation in the Black Sea and the Mediterraneanwere free to both countries. Turkey was to pay awar indemnity of 15,000 purses, the Russian fleet was towithdraw and the islands captured by it to be restored. Byarticle vii. of the treaty the Sublime Porte undertook “toprotect the Christian religion and its churches” and conceded to theministers of Russia the specific right to “make representationsin favour of the new church” which, under article xiv. of thesame treaty, the Russian government was empowered to build,in addition to the embassy chapel “in the street named BeyOglu.” This article is of great historical importance as formingthe basis of the later claim of Russia to possess by treaty theright to protect the Orthodox subjects of thePorte.[34] Poland,the original cause of the war, was not even mentioned in thetreaty, having been partitioned in 1772.
After yielding to these hard conditions, Turkey took advantageof her respite to strengthen the frontier defences and toput down the rebellions in Syria and Egypt; some effort wasalso expended on the hopeless task of reforming the Janissaries.It was not long before Russia showed that it was not theindependence but the absorption of the Crimea which she desired.In 1779 a rupture on this account was only averted throughthe mediation of the French ambassador, coupled with thefact that Turkey was in no condition to enter upon hostilities,owing to the outbreak of plague in her army. The Porte,unable to resist, was obliged to consent to the convention ofAinali Kavak (March 10, 1779) whereby the Russian partisan,Shahin Girai, was recognized as khan of the Crimea, theadmission of Russian vessels to navigate Turkish waters wasreaffirmed and Russia's right of intervention in the affairsof the Danubian principalities was formally recognized. Fiveyears later Potemkin induced the chiefs of the Crimea andKuban to hold a meeting at which the annexation of theircountry to Russia was declared, Turkey giving her consentby a convention, signed at Constantinople, on the 8th ofJanuary 1784, by which the stipulations as to the liberty of theTatars contained in the treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji and theconvention of Ainali Kavak were abrogated. In 1786 Catherinemade a triumphal progress through the Crimea in companywith her ally, Joseph II., who had succeeded to the imperialthrone on the death of his mother. These events and the frictioncaused by mutual complaints of infringements of the treatystirred up public opinion in Turkey, and the British ambassadorlent his support to the war party. In 1788 war was declared,but Turkey's preparations were inadequate and the momentwas ill-chosen, now that Russia and Austria were in alliance,a fact of which Turkey became aware only when thehorse-tailswere planted for the campaign. The Turks drove backthe Austrians from Mehadia and overran the Banat (1789);but in Moldavia Romanzov was successful and captured Jassyand Khotin. After a long siege Ochakov fell to Potemkin,and all its inhabitant's were massacred. This news affectedthe sultan so deeply as to cause his death.
Selim, the late sultan's nephew, who succeeded, madestrenuous preparations for continuing the war, but hisSelim III., 1789–1807.generals were incompetent and his army mutinous;expeditions for the relief of Bender and Akkermanfailed, Belgrade was taken by the Austrians,Izmail was captured by Suvorov, and the fall of Anapacompleted the series of Turkey's disasters. Sultan Selim wasanxious to restore his country's prestige by a victory beforemaking peace, but the condition of his troops rendered thishope unavailing; while Prussia, though on the 31st of January1790 she had signed an offensive treaty withTurkey,[35] gaveher no help during the war. Accordingly a treaty was signedwith Russia at Jassy (Jan. 9, 1792) by which the Crimeaand Ochakov were left to Russia, the Dniester was made thefrontier in Europe, and the Asiatic frontier remained unchanged.Joseph II. had died, and his successor, Leopold II., was aversefrom the Russian alliance. Through the mediation of England,Holland and Prussia, Turkey and Austria concluded on the4th of August 1791 the treaty of Sistova, by which Belgradeand the other conquests made by Austria were restored.
The conclusion of peace was welcomed by Selim as theopportunity for carrying out reforms, of which he thoroughly realizedthe necessity in every branch of the administration, and especiallyin the army, to whose defects the disasters of the statewere due. Accordingly it was decided to form troops knownas nizam-i-jedid, affiliated to the Janissaries so as to disarmthe jealousy of the latter, properly drilled and wearing adistinctive uniform. The fleet was reorganized, military schoolswere established, and skilled instructors were obtained fromEurope. These reforms excited much opposition, which wasat first unheeded. Meanwhile Turkey came into conflict withThe War with France.France. Throughout all the vicissitudes of theRevolution the relations between the two states hadremained unimpaired, and Turkey had been oneof the first countries to recognize the republic. Bonaparte'ssudden occupation of Egypt (1798) came therefore as a completesurprise. This expedition was in reality directed against Englishrule in India. Nelson's destruction of the French fleet at thebattle of the Nile disconcerted Bonaparte's plans; he hoped topursue his designs through Syria, and laid siege to Acre,which, however, successfully held out. Turkey now joinedGreat Britain and Russia againstFrance.[36] The Russianand Turkish fleets attacked and took the Ionian Islands,which had become French by the treaty of Campo Formio,and certain towns, hitherto unconquered, on the Albaniancoast. An expeditionary force was also sent againstBonaparte, now practically blockaded in Egypt. This was routedand driven into the sea at Abukir (July 15, 1799). For thesubsequent operations in Egypt, which ended in its evacuationby the French after the British victory at Alexandria, seeEgypt: History.
Meanwhile in Turkey disorder prevailed in almost every province of the empire, and the local governors in many Servian Rising. places became entirely independent, oppressing the people under their rule and often driving them to revolt. This was notably the case in Servia, where the temporary domination of Austria, to which the treaty of Sistova (1791) put an end, had had the effect of awakening the national spirit of the people. But no armed manifestation of revolt had taken place until the lawless and savage conduct of the Janissaries, who had made themselves masters of the country, assisted by the notorious governor of Vidin, Pasvan Oglu, and his band of outlaws, drove the peaceful rayas to rebel.The insurgents chose as their captain one George Petrovich,nicknamed Kara Georgi (i.e. Black George), and under hisable leadership succeeded in capturing Belgrade and in breakingthe power of the Janissaries. The Porte also sent an armyagainst Pasvan Oglu, but after reducing him to submissionreinstated him in his government. A serious outbreak tookplace at Adrianople in 1804, where 20,000 of the new troopshad been sent, ostensibly to put down the revolt in Servia,but really to try to bring about the reform of the Europeanprovinces. So strong was the opposition that the troops wererecalled, and the anti-reform party was greatly strengthened.The Wahhābi movement in Nejd now began to assume seriousproportions. These religious sectaries attacked and plunderedall Mussulmans not conforming to their peculiar tenets; theyoverran Kerbela and the Hejaz, sacking the holy cities andclosing the pilgrim routes. Only in the reign of Mahmud II.were they put down (see Wahhabis).
In 1802, by a treaty of peace signed at Paris on the 25th ofJune, France resumed her former terms of friendship withComplications with Russia.Turkey. Russia, desirous of deriving some returnfor the support which she had given the sultanduring his rupture with the French, induced thePorte to address to her a note in which the right of interventionin the affairs of the principalities, conferred on her by thetreaty of Kainarji and reaffirmed in the convention of AinaliKavak, was converted into a specific stipulation that thehospodars should be appointed in future for seven years andshould not be dismissed without the concurrence of the Russianambassador at Constantinople. In pursuance of this agreementConstantine Ypsilanti was appointed to Walachia andAlexander Muruzi to Moldavia—both devoted to Russian interests.Their intrigues in favour of the Greek and other revolutionarymovements induced the Porte to dismiss them in 1806,contrary to the arrangement of 1802. Russia and Englandhereupon used threatening language, and Turkey replaced thehospodars. But war was nevertheless declared on the 27th ofDecember 1806, and Russia occupied the principalities. TheBritish ambassador sought by every means in his power to induceTurkey to give way to Russia, going so far as to guaranteethe withdrawal of the Russian troops from Moldo-Walachia ifthe Porte remained at peace, and threatening that if Turkeypersisted in her opposition England would join with Russiaagainst her. But France's influence, backed by the strongpersonality of her ambassador, General Sebastiani, was sufficientto enable the sultan to withstand these arguments, andthe British ambassador broke off relations and withdrew to thefleet at Tenedos (February 1807). Helped by a strong southwind, the British war-ships passed up the straits and anchoredoff the Seven Towers. An ultimatum was presented orderingTurkey within twenty-four hours to dismiss the Frenchambassador, hand over the Turkish fleet, and make peace withRussia. With Sebastiani's encouragement the Porte resistedthese demands; in one day a thousand guns were ranged alongboth sides of the Bosporus; and after a stay of ten days theBritish fleet was ordered to leave, and was considerably damagedby the fire of the forts while passing down.
Meanwhile the sultan's whole efforts were directed towardsthe reform of the country; the newly-instituted militia wasRevolt against Selim.in every respect a success; it grew in numbers,and hopes were entertained that it would gainpopularity. But the Janissaries and the corruptofficials were fundamentally opposed to the scheme, and theconservatives joined with them against such reforms ofEuropean origin. The rulers of the provinces shared theseviews; the consequence was disquiet and confusion throughoutthe empire. At this difficult moment the army was obliged tomarch to the Danube, leaving the government in the hands ofmen hostile to reform. In 1807 the garrisons of the Black Seaforts at the entrance of the straits rose in rebellion, headed byone Kabakji Mustafa, and killed their officers. The sultansought to appease them by pacific means, but the movementspread to the Janissaries, who insisted upon the abolition ofthe new troops. But even this concession did not satisfy them;they dethroned Selim and proclaimed his nephew Mustafa.Mustafa IV., 1807–1808.The new sultan was obliged to abolish all thereforms, and during practically the whole of hisfourteen months' reign the Janissaries were inrebellion, even while facing the Russians. All officers whowere partisans of the reforms were obliged to take refuge inflight; and Turkey's position would have been desperate butfor the conclusion of the peace of Tilsit (July 7, 1807) betweenRussia and France, to which Turkey also became a party. Thearmy hereupon retired to Adrianople, and the powerful pashaof Rustchuk, Mustafa Baïrakdar, who had distinguished,himself by his resistance to the Russians, and who thoroughlyshared Selim's desire for reform, was now induced by the manyofficers who held similar views to march on Constantinople torestore Selim to the throne. But he arrived too late; Selimhad already been killed; the unworthy Mustafa was put toMahmud II., 1808–1839.death, and Mahmud, the sole survivor of the houseof Osman, became sultan. Mustafa Baïrakdar,was now raised to the dignity of grand vizier,succeeded in inspiring the Janissaries with a wholesome respect,due to their dread of the 10,000 irregulars known as kirjalis bywhom he was accompanied. The remnants of the abolishednew troops were collected and formed into regiments affiliatedto the Janissaries under the name of seymen-i-jedid; thedignitaries of state were called upon to take an oath of fidelityand loyalty. The feast of Ramazan hereupon occurring,the grand vizier unwisely allowed his own troops to disperse.Taking advantage of this opportunity, the Janissaries rose bynight and besieged the house of the grand vizier, whoeventually blew himself up in the arsenal. Fighting became generaland extended to the fleet, which bombarded the capital. TheJanissaries slaughtered all the “new troops” whom they met,and finally extorted an amnesty from the terrified government.
After the peace of Tilsit an armistice had been agreed uponwith Russia (Aug. 24, 1807). Turkey was at this time theTreaty of Bucharest; Troubles in Servia.only neutral state in Europe; it was of vitalimportance that she should not be absorbed into theNapoleonic system, as in that case Russia wouldhave been exposed to a simultaneous attack fromFrance, Austria, Turkey and Persia. Accordingly, thoughFrance made every attempt to induce Turkey to adopt herside, the young Stratford Canning succeeded in causing theresumption of the peace negotiations at Bucharest, broken offthrough Russia's terms being considered too onerous, andfollowed by the capture of Izmail and Bender. The Britishdiplomatist secured his first triumph in the signature of thetreaty of Bucharest (May 28, 1812) whereby Khotin, Bender,Kilia and Akkerman were left to Russia; the frontier was fixedat the Pruth; the Asiatic boundary was slightly modified. Thetreaties as to the principalities were renewed; and thoughServia was restored to the direct rule of Turkey it was stipulatedthat clemency was to be observed in the Forte's dealingswith the country, which was given the power of regulating itsown affairs.
The vagueness of these latter provisions at once gave rise todisputes, and in 1813 the Turkish troops occupied the country.The new pasha of Belgrade appointed one Milosh Obrenovichheadman of his own district, but a few years later Milosh raised asuccessful revolt, drove out the Turks, and re-established Serviansemi-independence. Karageorge, who had fled to Austria in1812, was induced to return, but Milosh caused him to bemurdered, and in 1817 was by a popular vote named hereditaryprince of Servia.
The affairs of Servia, however, were not the only question left unsettled by the treaty of Bucharest. In the course of the war with Persia Russia had received permission from the Ottoman government to use, for a limited time, the easy road from the Black Sea to Tiflis by way of the valley of the Rion (Phasis) for the transport of troops and supplies, and this permission had been several times renewed. Wishing to make this important privilege permanent, Russia by secret articlesof the Treaty of Bucharest had secured the cession of thisdistrict, in return for an undertaking to destroy the forts of Kiliaand Izmail on the Danube. But the sultan refused to ratifythese articles, and the relations between Russia and Turkeywere therefore determined by the patent treaty only, whichpositively stipulated for the evacuation by the Russians ofevery spot occupied by them on Turkish soil in Asia. When theRussians showed no signs of withdrawing from the valley ofthe Rion, the sultan threatened to renew the war, the soleresult of which was to reveal the determination of the tsarnot to be bullied into concessions. The dispute, at first oflittle importance, developed in seriousness during the nextyear or two, owing to the avowed intention of Russia, which byconquest or treaties with independent chiefs had acquired allthe high land between the Caspian and the Black Sea, totake possession of the low lands along the coast, between Anapaand Poti, of which the sultan claimed the sovereignty.
Such was the situation when the question of a Europeanguarantee of Turkey was raised at the Congress of Vienna.Congress of Vienna.In view of the multiple dangers to which the OttomanEmpire was exposed, both from without andfrom within, and of the serious consequences tothe world's peace which would result from its break-up, therewas a strong feeling among the powers in favour of such aguarantee, and even the emperor Alexander was willing toagree to it in principle. But nothing could be done until thePorte should have come to terms with Russia as to the Treatyof Bucharest; for, as the British ambassador, Sir Robert Listen,was instructed to point out to the Ottoman government, “it isimpossible to guarantee the possession of a territory of whichthe limits are not determined.” With the consent of the tsar,it was proposed to submit the questions at issue to the decisionof Great Britain, France and Austria; and the Porte wasinformed that, in the event of its accepting this arrangement,the powers would at once proceed to guarantee the integrityof the Ottoman Empire. But the sultan could not bend hispride to suffer foreign intervention in a matter that touchedhis honour, and the return of Napoleon from Elba threw theEastern Question into the background. The Ottoman Empirethus remained outside the European concert; Russiamaintained her claim to a special right of isolated intervention inits affairs; and the renewal of war between Russia and Turkeywas only postponed by the preoccupation of Alexander withhis dream of the “Confederation of Europe.”
Meanwhile, within the Ottoman Empire there was everysign of a rapidly approaching disintegration. In Egypt MehemetEgypt.Ali had succeeded in establishing himself asquasi-independent ruler of the country. By his actionduring Napoleon Bonaparte's invasion, and later when theBritish fleet after leaving Constantinople in 1807 proceeded toEgypt, he had to some extent acquired the goodwill of theTurkish government. In 1811 he was called upon by the Porteto put down the Wahhābi insurgents (see Arabia, vol. ii. p. 268),his success in this matter, and especially in the recovery of theholy cities, adding greatly to his prestige.
Sultan Mahmud now devoted himself to breaking theovergrown power of the local governors, which had for many yearspractically annihilated that of the central authority. Theirextortions impoverished the whole country, yet the abolition ofthe system might perhaps have been carried out more graduallyand with greater precaution, and Turkey more than once feltthe want of their aid, questionable as its value often was. ThusGreek Revolt.Ali (q.v.), Pasha of Iannina, the most famous ofthese, though insubordinate and inclined to intriguewith foreign powers in the hope of making himself independent,had used his influence to keep the Greeks quiet; and itwas only after his power had been broken in 1821 that theagitation of the Hetairia issued in widespread dangerousrevolt. The first hope of emancipation from the Turkish yokehad been founded by the Greeks on Peter the Great, who hadplanned the expulsion of the Turks from Europe and hadcaused the inscription “Petrus I., Russo-Graecorum Monarcha”to be placed beneath his portrait engraved at Amsterdam.Catherine II. following in his footsteps, aspired to found aGreek empire, the throne of which was to be occupied by hernephew, Constantine, specially so baptized, and brought upby Greek nurses (see Constantine Pavlovich). During thewar of 1770 the Greeks had risen in an abortive rebellion,promptly crushed by the Turks. But the idea of liberationcontinued to grow, and about 1780 the Society of Friends(Ἑταιρία τῶν φιλικῶν) was founded at Bucharest by thefervent patriot and poet, Constantinos Rhigas (q.v.). Thesecret organization, temporarily checked by Rhigas's arrest andexecution in 1798, was revived at Odessa in 1814; it extendedthroughout Turkey, and in 1820 the insurrection took shape,a favourable opportunity being afforded by the outbreak ofhostilities between Ali Pasha and the Porte. (SeeGreek Independence, War of.)
On the 6th of March 1821 Prince Alexander Ypsilanti, sonof the hospodar Constantine, and a general in the Russianservice, crossed the Pruth, proclaiming the revolt of the Greeksagainst the sultan and the intention to restore the Greek Empireof the East. But in the principalities, where the Vlach peasantsregarded the Phanariots as worse oppressors than the Turks,the movement had little chance of success; it was doomedfrom the moment that the emperor Alexander disavowedYpsilanti's claim to his support (see Alexander I.). Aftersome initial successes the Greeks were finally routed at thebattle of Dragashani (June 19, 1821). It was far otherwisewith the insurrection which broke out at the beginning of Aprilin the Morea. The Mussulman population of the Morea, takenunawares, was practically exterminated during the fury of thefirst few days; and, most fatal of all, the defection of theGreeks of the islands crippled the Ottoman navy by deprivingit of its only effective sailors. The barbarous reprisals intowhich Sultan Mahmud allowed himself to be carried awayonly accentuated the difficulty of the situation. The executionof the patriarch Gregorios, as technically responsible for therevolt, was an outrage to all Christendom; and it led at onceto a breach of diplomatic relations with Russia.
To prevent this breach developing into war was now thechief study of the chanceries. Public opinion throughoutEurope was violently excited in favour of the Greeks; and thisPhilhellenic sentiment was shared even by some of the statesmenwho most strenuously deprecated any interference in theirfavour. For at the outset Metternich was not alone inmaintaining that the war should be allowed to burn itself out “beyondthe pale of civilization.” The mutual slaughter of barbariansin the Levant seemed, even to George Canning, a lesser evilthan a renewed Armageddon in Europe; and all the resourcesof diplomacy were set in motion to heal the rupture betweenTurkey and Russia. In spite of the emperor Alexander'sengagements to the Grand Alliance and the ideal of Europeanpeace, this was no easy matter; for the murder of the patriarchwas but the culmination of a whole series of grievances accumulatedsince the Treaty of Bucharest. Moreover, the Portewas thrown into a suspicious mood by the contrast betweenthe friendly language of the western powers and the activesympathy of the western peoples for the Greeks, who weresupported by volunteers and money drawn from all Europe.But, though the sultan remained stubborn, the emperorAlexander, who since the Congress of Laibach had been whollyunder Metternich's influence, resisted the clamour of his peoplefor war, and dismissed his Greek minister Capo d'Istria (q.v.).The Congress of Verona (1822) passed without any seriousdevelopments in the Eastern Question.
The stubborn persistence of the Greeks, however, dashed Metternich's hope that the question would soon settle itself, and produced a state of affairs in the Levant which necessitated some action. In the instructions drawn up, shortly before his death, for his guidance at Verona, Castlereagh had stated the possibility of the necessity for recognizing the Greeks as belligerents if the war continued. The atrophy of the Ottoman sea-power had left the archipelago at the mercy of the Greekwar-brigs; piracy flourished; and it became essential in theinterests of the commerce of all nations to make some powerresponsible for the policing of the narrow seas. On the 25thof March 1823 accordingly, Canning announced the recognitionby Great Britain of the belligerent character of the Greeks.
This roused the emperor Alexander to action, since it seemedas though Great Britain was aiming at ousting Russian influencein the Levant. He suggested a joint intervention of thepowers; but the conference, which met at St Petersburgin April 1824, came to nothing, since Turkey and the Greeksalike refused to be bound by its decisions, and Canning wouldnot hear of coercion being applied to either. The sole outcomeof the conference was the offer in March 1825 of the jointmediation of Austria and Russia, which the Porte rejected.
Meanwhile Mahmud, realizing the impossibility of crushingthe Greek revolt unaided, had bent his pride to ask the helpof Mehemet Ali, who was to receive as his reward Crete,the Morea and the pashaliks of Syria and Damascus. TheEgyptian fleet and disciplined army were now thrown into thescale; and from the moment when Ibrahim Pasha landed atModon (Feb. 24, 1825), the fate of the Greeks seemed sealed.The Morea was quickly overrun; in April 1826 Missolonghifell, after a heroic defence; in June 1827 Athens was once morein the hands of the Turks. Crowds of Greek captives were beingsent as slaves to Cairo; and, should the powers not intervene,there was every prospect of Greece being depopulated andcolonized with Mussulman negroes and fellahin.
At the close of 1825 an isolated intervention of Russia hadseemed probable. A great army was assembled in the southof Russia, and the emperor Alexander had gone to place himselfat its head when he died (Dec 22, 1825). It was to preventsuch an intervention that Canning seized the opportunity ofthe accession of Nicholas I. to send the duke of Wellington toSt Petersburg in order to concert joint measures. The resultwas the protocol of St Petersburg of the 4th of April 1826, bywhich Great Britain was empowered to offer to the Ottomangovernment a settlement of the Greek question based on theestablishment of Greece as a vassal and tributary state. Shouldthe Porte refuse, the two powers were to take the earliestopportunity, either separately or in common, of establishing areconciliation on the basis of the protocol.
Russia, meanwhile, had seized the occasion to send toConstantinople an ultimatum demanding satisfaction for her ownparticular grievances; the Porte resented the intrusion of newConvention of Akkerman.demands before the others had been dealt with,and hurried on preparations for war. The reformof the army, however, involved the destruction ofthe Janissaries (q.v.), and though their massacre on the 15thof June left the sultan free to carry out his views withregard to the army, it left him too weak to resist theRussian demands. On the 7th of October, accordingly, thesewere conceded by the Convention of Akkerman. Its termswere: the confirmation of the Treaty of Bucharest and theopening of the navigation of the Black Sea to the Russian flag;a stipulation that the hospodars of Walachia and Moldaviashould be elected by the boyars for seven years, their electionbeing confirmed by the Porte which, however, had no powerto dismiss them without the concurrence of the Russianambassador at Constantinople; finally, Servia's autonomy wasrecognized, and, save in the fortresses, no Mussulman mightreside there.
The Greek question was however, not yet settled. Monthspassed without any action being taken under the protocolAgreement of the Powers as to Greece.of the 4th of April; and Russia suspected GreatBritain of merely using the protocol to prevent herown isolated intervention. The situation washowever materially altered by the end of August1826; for the Greeks, driven to desperation, had formallyinvited the mediation of England, thereby removing Canning'sobjection to an unasked intervention. He now invited theco-operation of Russia in representations to the Porte onthe basis of the protocol, and, in the event of its refusalto come to terms, suggested certain measures of coercion.The tsar consented, and proposed that the coercion should takethe form of a pacific blockade of the Morea, so as to forceIbrahim, by cutting off his supplies, to evacuate the country.To this Great Britain agreed in principle; for Canning clearlysaw the need for yielding on the question of a joint intervention,if the isolated intervention of Russia were to be prevented. Inthe conference of the five powers of the Grand Alliance openedat London in the early summer of 1827, however, a divergenceof views at once became apparent. Austria and Prussiaprotested against any coercion of the Porte “to serve revolutionaryends” and, failing to carry their views, withdrew from theconference. France thereupon proposed to convert the protocolof the 4th of April into a treaty; Russia and Great Britainagreed; and on the 6th of July the Treaty of London was signedby the three powers.
By the patent articles of the treaty the powers agreed tosecure the autonomy of Greece under the suzerainty of thesultan, but without any breach of friendly relations with Turkey.By additional secret articles it was agreed that, in the eventof the Porte not accepting the offered mediation, consuls shouldbe established in Greece, and an armistice proposed to bothbelligerents and enforced by all the means that should “suggestthemselves to the prudence” of the high contracting powers.In general it was allowed that these means should be the“pacific blockade” proposed by the tsar. Instructions tothis effect were sent to the admirals commanding in theLevant.
The armistice, accepted by the Greeks, was refused byIbrahim, pending instructions from Constantinople, though heNavarino.consented to keep his ships in the harbour of Navarino.The Greeks, having put themselves in theright with the powers, were free to continue the war; andthe destruction of a Turkish flotilla off Salona on the 23rd ofSeptember followed. Ibrahim, taking this as a breach of theconvention, set sail from Navarino northwards, but was turnedback by Sir Edward Codrington, the British admiral. Then,the Russian and French squadrons having joined, it was determinedto put further pressure on the Egyptian commander,and the allied fleets, on the morning of the 20th of October,stood into the bay of Navarino. A chance scuffle led to abattle, and by the evening the Turkish and Egyptian fleetshad ceased to exist (see Navarino, Battle of).
The effect on the passionate sultan of this “unparalleledoutrage on a friendly power in time of peace” is easy to imagine.In spite of the weak efforts of the British government to palliatethe significance of this “untoward incident,” Turkey broke offdiplomatic relations with the three powers concerned, and onthe 20th of December Mahmud, giving full vent to his rage,issued a hatt-i-sherīf denouncing the cruelty and perfidy of theChristian powers, declaring the convention of Akkerman nulland void, and summoning the faithful to a holy war. Thestruggle that followed was, however, destined once more tobe a duel between Russia and Turkey. Great Britain, whenCanning was no longer at the helm of state, had reverted tothe traditional policy of preserving Ottoman integrity at all costs;the invitation of the tsar to accept the logical consequencesof Navarino was refused; and Russia was left to settle heraccount with Turkey.
The war that followed proved once more the wonderful resisting power of the Turks. In spite of the confusion due War with Russia. to the destruction of the Janissaries and army reforms as yet hardly begun, it cost the tzar two hardly fought campaigns before the audacious strategy of General Diebitsch enabled him to dictate the terms of the treaty of Adrianople (Sep. 14, 1829). Meanwhile the other powers had taken advantage of the reverses of the Russian arms to discount the effect of their ultimate victory by attempting to settle the Greek question. In July 1828 France had been commissioned to oust Ibrahim from the Morea; and though by a convention, concluded on the 9th of August by Codrington with Mehemet Ali, the principle ofevacuation by the Egyptian troops had already been settledbefore the arrival of the French expedition, the Morea remainedfor the time in French occupation. On the 16th of Novembera protocol of the London conference placed the Morea, withthe neighbouring islands and the Cyclades, under the guaranteeof the powers; and on the 22nd of March 1829 anotherprotocol extended the frontier thus guaranteed to the lineArta-Volo and included the island of Euboea. According tothis instrument Greece was to be erected into a tributary state,but autonomous, and governed by an hereditary prince chosenby the powers.
The Treaty of Adrianople, by which the Danubian principalitieswere erected into practically independent states, the treatyGreek independence.rights of Russia in the navigation of the Bosporusand Dardanelles confirmed, and the districts ofAnapa and Poti in Asia ceded to the tsar, includedalso a settlement of the Greek question on the terms of theprotocol of the 22nd of March. This fact, which threatenedto give to Russia the whole prestige of the emancipation ofGreece, spurred the other powers to further concessions. Theacceptance of the principle of complete independence, oncemore warmly advocated by Metternich, seemed now essentialif Greece was not to become, like the principalities, a meredependency of Russia. On the 3rd of February 1830 wassigned a protocol embodying the principle of an independentGreece under Leopold of Coburg as “sovereign prince.” Thiswas ultimately expanded, after the fall of the Wellingtonministry, into the Treaty of London of the 7th of May 1832,by which Greece was made an independent kingdom underthe Bavarian prince Otto. (See Greece: History.)
Before the final settlement of the Greek question a freshcrisis had arisen in the affairs of Turkey. Her lessened prestigeSyria.had already received a severe blow from thebombardment and capture of Algiers by the French in1830, and her position was further embarrassed by revolts inBosnia and Albania, when news reached Constantinople thatMehemet Ali had invaded Syria (Nov. 1, 1831), nominallyin order to punish his enemy Abdullah, pasha of Acre, reallyin order to take by force of arms the pashaliks of Syria andDamascus promised as a reward for his services in Greece.An account of the collapse of the Turkish power beforeMehemet Ali, and of the complicated diplomatic developmentsthat followed, is given in the article Mehemet Ali. Here itmust suffice to say that the recognition of Mehemet Ali'sclaims, forced on the sultan by France and Great Britain, wasfollowed in 1833 by the signature cf the Treaty of UnkiarSkelessi, which seemed to place Turkey wholly in the powerof Russia, after which Sultan Mahmud concentrated hisenergies on creating a force strong enough to crush hisrebellious vassal.
At last, in 1839, his eagerness would no longer be restrained,and without consulting his ministers, and in spite of thewarnings of all the powers, he determined to renew the war.On the 21st of April the Ottoman army, which had beenmassed under Hafiz Pasha at Bir on the Euphrates, crossedthe stream, by the sultan's orders, and advanced on Damascus.On the 23rd of June it was attacked by Ibrahim at Nezib andannihilated. As for Mahmud, the news of the disaster reachedConstantinople when he was unconscious and dying. Earlyon the 1st of July he was dead, and his son Abd-ul-Mejid, alad of eighteen, reigned in his stead (see Mahmud II.).
The Eastern Question had now suddenly once more enteredan acute phase. The news of Nezib was immediately followedAbd-ul-Mejid, 1839–1861.by that of the treason of Ahmed Pasha, the Ottomanadmiral, who, on the plea that the sultan'scounsellors were sold to Russia, had sailed to Alexandriaand handed over the fleet to Mehemet Ali. With aninexperienced boy on the throne, divided and untrustworthy counselsin the divan, and the defences of the empire shattered, thehouse of Osman seemed doomed and the Turkish Empireabout to dissolve into its elements. If Russia was to beprevented from using the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi for herown purposes, it was essential that the powers shouldconcert measures to deal with the situation. The story of thediplomatic negotiations that followed is told elsewhere (seeMehemet Ali). Here it may suffice to say that the desire ofthe emperor Nicholas to break the entente between GreatBritain and France led him to waive his special claims underthe Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, and that in the ultimate concertby which the question was settled France, which throughoutsupported Mehemet Ali, had no part. The intervention of thepowers, based on the convention of London of the 15th of July1840, led to the withdrawal of Ibrahim from Syria, and theestablishment by the firman of the 13th of February 1841 ofMehemet Ali as hereditary pasha of Egypt under conditionsintended to safeguard the sovereign rights of the Ottomansultan. On the 10th of July the four signatory powers of theconvention of London signed a protocol recording the closureof the incident (protocole de clôture), and on the 13th Franceunited with them in signing another protocol (protocole desdétroits) by which the powers engaged to respect the principleproclaimed by the sultan as to the closing of the Dardanelles toforeign warships.
The severe crisis through which the Ottoman Empire had passed accentuated the need for strengthening it by a drastic Reform Policy in Turkey. The Tanzimāt. reform of its system. For such an experiment, though hampered by continual insurrections within and troubles without, Mahmud had done something to pave the way. The destruction of the Janissaries and the suppression of the quasi-independent power of the dérébeys had removed the worst disturbing elements; the government had been centralized; a series of enactments had endeavoured to secure economy in the administration, to curb the abuses of official power, and ensure the impartiality of justice; and the sultan had even expressed his personal belief in the principle of the equality of all, Mussulman and non-Mussulman, before the law. It was therefore no sudden revolution when, on the 15th of November 1839 Abd-ul-Mejid signalized his accession by promulgating the Tanzimāt, or Hatt-i-Sherīf of Gulhané, a decree abolishing the arbitrary and unlimited power hitherto exercised by the state and its officials, laying down the doctrine of the perfect equality of all Ottoman subjects of whatever race or creed, and providing for the regular, orderly and legal government of the country and the security of life, property and honour for all its inhabitants. Yet the feelings of dismay and even ridicule with which this proclamation was received by the Mussulmans in many parts of the country show how great a change it instituted, and how strong was the opposition which it encountered among the ruling race. The non-Mussulman subjects of the sultan had indeed early been reduced to such a condition of servitude that the idea of their being placed on a footing of equality with their Mussulman rulers seemed unthinkable. Preserved merely as taxpayers necessary to supply the funds for the maintenance of the dominant and military class, according to a foreign observer in 1571, they had been so degraded and oppressed that they dared not look a Turk in the face. Their only value was from a fiscal point of view, and in times of fanaticism or when anti-foreign sentiment ran high even this was held of little account, so that more than once they very nearly became the victims of a general and state-ordered massacre. Thus Sultan Ibrahim was dissuaded from such a step in 1644 only by the refusal of the Sheikh-ul-Islam to sanction the proceeding. The humane and tolerant measures provided for in the “nizam-i-jedīd,” or new regulations for the better treatment of the Christians enacted by Mustafa Kuprili during his grand vizierate (1689–1691), did for a time improve the position of the rayas. But the wars with Russia and other Christian powers, and the different risings of the Greeks and Servians, helped to stimulate the feelings of animosity and contempt entertained towards them by the ruling race; and the promulgation of the Tanzimāt undoubtedly heralded for the subject nationalities the dawn of a new era.
The reforms introduced by Sultan Mahmud and by the Tanzimātnecessitated the remodelling of nearly all the departmentsRemodelling of the Administration.of state. Towards the end of Mahmud II.'s reignministries had been instituted, and a council ofministers had been established, presided over bythe grand vizier. In 1837 the “council of theSublime Porte” and the “supreme council of legal affairs”were established: the latter was the tribunal to which werereferred all complaints against officials or claims pendingbetween the state and private individuals; the council ofthe Sublime Porte was in 1839 transferred to the ministry ofcommerce; the supreme council of legal affairs afterundergoing various modifications was in 1868 absorbed in the councilof state. In 1837 a “council of public works” was instituted,converted ten years later into a separate ministry. In 1835 the“ministry of administration” was formed; two years laterits title was changed to ministry of the interior. Regulationsprescribing the duties of the local governors and officials of allranks were drawn up only in 1865 and 1870, but since Mahmud'stime their functions were exclusively civil and administrative.A regular hierarchical order was elaborated for the officialclasses, both civil and military, whereby the rank of each personwas clearly defined.
The military reorganization dates from the destruction of theJanissaries (June 15, 1826). On that day Aga Hussein Pashawas appointed “Seraskier (commandant) of the victoriousMahommedan troops”; at first only two divisions wereestablished, quartered respectively at Constantinople and Scutari.In 1833 the reserves were instituted, and three years laterreserve commandants were appointed in six principal provinces.In 1843 the corps d'armée of Constantinople, Rumelia, Anatoliaand Arabia were formed, and a military council was appointed.In 1847 a recruiting law was promulgated, reducing the periodof service (until then unlimited in point of time), to five years.Military schools were founded. For the reorganization carriedout from 1908 to 1910 see section Army, above.
After the Greek revolution the system of manning the navyfrom the Christian natives of the archipelago and the Mediterraneanlittoral was abandoned, and recruits for the navy arenow selected under the ordinary law. A naval school and amodern factory and arsenal were established. The directionof the police, formerly left to the Janissaries, was formed into aministry, and a body of gendarmerie was instituted. For thefinancial reforms see the section Finance, above.
The ministry of public instruction was established in 1857; untilthe reign of Selim III. (when a few military schools were established)Education.the only schools had been the colleges of the Ulema andsuch preparatory schools as had been founded by privatemunificence. In 1838 the council of education had been createdand several secondary state schools were founded. In 1860 theregulations for public education were promulgated; schools wereeverywhere opened, and in 1882 a portion of the receipts from certainvakufs were appropriated to their maintenance. As all the preparatoryschools founded by the state were for Mussulman childrenonly (the various Christian communities maintaining their ownschools), idadi or secondary schools were established in 1884 forthe instruction of children of all confessions. In 1868 the ImperialLycée of Galata Serai was founded; most of the later generationof officials received their education there. Special state schoolsof medicine, arts, science, crafts, &c., have been created successively,and in 1901 a university was founded. Educational affairs in theprovinces are now superintended by special officials.
After the promulgation of the reforms, the judicial duties of theImperial Divan, which with other functions also exercised thoseJustice.of a kind of supreme court of appeal, were transferredto the Sheikh-ul-Islam. The codification of the civillaw, which soon became necessary, was effected by the promulgationin 1859 of the Mejellé, or civil code. Commercial and criminalcodes, as well as codes of procedure, were drawn up, largely on thebasis of the Code Napoléon. The rules regulating the Ulema wereamended, a school for judges was formed, and the Sheikh-ul-Islamwas charged with the duty of revising all judgments. In 1865 thecourt of cassation was founded.
In 1835 the Reis-ul-Kuttab, to whom the superintendence offoreign affairs was entrusted, received the designation of ministerForeign Relations.for foreign affairs. Turkey had originally maintainedno representatives abroad, and appointed such onlyfor special occasions as e.g. the signature of a treaty orthe announcement of a new sultan's accession. Selim III. was thefirst sultan who entered into regular relations with foreign powers, andemployed permanent ambassadors; the practice was discontinuedat the time of the Greek revolution and the consequent rupture withthe powers. Later, during the Egyptian negotiations, ambassadorswere accredited to London, Paris and Vienna. Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz'sjourney to Europe and the return visits paid by foreign princesstrengthened Turkey's relations with foreign states.
The ministry of the Evkaf or pious foundations was establishedn 1827 and extended ten years later. Such foundations had beencreated from the earliest times, and the execution of the testator'swishes was generally left to his descendants, under the supervisionof some high official designated in the act of endowment. In caseof failure in the line of succession an administrator was appointedby the state. But many such foundations fell into disorder, andthe ministry was created to exercise the requisite supervision.
Though the provisions of the Tanzimāt were not fullyobserved, they afforded convincing proof that reform was entirelyResults of Reforms.practicable in Turkey. Reforms were effected inevery direction; the finances and the army werereorganized, military instructors being procured fromEurope; the administration was gradually centralized, andgood relations were cultivated with the powers, the onlyserious international controversy arising in 1848–1849 overthe refusal by Turkey, with the support of England, tosurrender the Hungarian and Polish insurgents who hadtaken refuge within her borders. It cannot indeed besaid that complete tranquillity prevailed throughout thecountry meanwhile; disturbances in the principalities and inthe Lebanon gave serious trouble, while in 1842 the unsettledstate of the Turco-Persian frontier nearly led to war. Bythe mediation of England and Russia the Treaty of Erzerumwas signed (1847) and a frontier commission was appointed.But as the frontier was not definitely demarcated the doorwas left open for controversies which have occurred frequentlyup to the present day.
Turkey's progress in the path of reform was viewed withsome uneasiness in Russia, the cardinal principle of whoseRussian Policy since l829.policy since 1829 had been to maintain her owninfluence at Constantinople by keeping the Ottomangovernment weak. In favour of this viewthe traditional policy of Peter the Great and Catherine II. hadbeen deliberately given up, and by the secret conventionsigned at Münchengrätz on the 18th of September 1833 theemperor Nicholas had agreed with his brother sovereignsof the revived “Holy Alliance” to maintain the integrity ofTurkey, where Russian influence seemed to have been renderedsupreme and permanent by the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi.The crisis which ended in 1841, however, materially alteredthe situation from the Russian point of view. By his concertwith the other powers in the affair of Mehemet Ali, the tsarhad abdicated his claim to a unique influence at Constantinople,and he began to revive the idea of ending the Ottoman rulein Europe, an idea which he had only unwillingly abandonedin 1829 in response to the unanimous opinion of his advisers. In1844 he took advantage of his visit to England to proposeto British ministers a plan of partition, under which GreatBritain was to receive Egypt and Crete, Constantinople wasto be erected into a free city, and the Balkan states were tobecome autonomous under Russian protection. Thisproposal, as might have been expected, only served to rousesuspicions as to Russia's plans; it was politely rejected, and thewhole Eastern Question slumbered, until, early in 1850, it wasawakened by an incident trivial enough in itself, but pregnantwith future trouble: a quarrel of Catholic and Orthodox monksabout the holy places in Palestine.
By the Capitulations signed on the 28th of May 1740 on behalf of Sultan Mahmud I. and Louis XV. “emperor of France,” The Holy Places. not only French pilgrims to Jerusalem, but all members of “Christian and hostile nations” visiting the Ottoman Empire, had been placed under the protection of the French flag, and by a special article the Frank, i.e. Roman Catholic, ecclesiastics had been guaranteed certain rights in the holy places. These stipulations of the treaty, which were in effect a confirmation of the firman granted in 1620 by Murad IV. to Louis XIII., had fallen into oblivion during the age of Voltaire and the turmoil of the Revolution;and meanwhile, every advance of Russia had been marked byfurther encroachments of the Orthodox clergy in Palestine onthe ancient rights of their Latin rivals. The quarrels of thesemonks might have been left to the contempt they deserved,had not Napoleon III. seen in the situation an opportunity atonce for conciliating the clericals in France and for humiliatingRussia, which had given to his title but an equivocalrecognition. His ambassador, accordingly, handed in atConstantinople a formal demand for the restitution of the Catholicsin all their property and rights. The Ottoman government,seeking to gain time, proposed a “mixed commission” of inquiry;and to this France agreed, on condition that no documentslater than 1740 should be admitted as evidence. To thissuggestion, which would have excluded the Treaty of KuchukKainarji, the emperor Nicholas replied by a haughty demandthat nothing should be altered in the status quo. It was nowclear that no less an issue was involved than a contest betweenFrance and Russia for paramount influence in the East, acontest into which Great Britain would inevitably be dragged.The British government did its best to help the Porte to evolvea compromise on the questions immediately at issue, and inMarch 1852 a firman was issued, which to Protestants andMahommedans might well seem to have embodied a reasonablesettlement. Concessions were made to one side and the other;and the question of the right of “protection” was solved bythe Turkish government itself undertaking the duty. Butneither Napoleon nor Nicholas desired a settlement. The Frenchemperor wanted a war for dynastic reasons, the tsar becausehe conceived his honour to be involved, and because hejudged the moment opportune for expelling the infidel fromEurope. France, he believed, would never come single-handedto the assistance cf Turkey; Austria would be bound at leastto benevolent neutrality by “gratitude” for the aid givenin 1849; the king of Prussia would sympathize with aChristian crusade; Great Britain, where under the influenceof John Bright and Richard Cobden the “peace at any price”spirit seemed to be in the ascendant, would never intervene.Nicholas even hoped for the active sympathy of Britain. LordAberdeen made no secret of his dislike for the Turks, andopenly expressed his disbelief in the reality of their reforms;and in January 1853 the tsar, in conversation with Sir HamiltonSeymour, the British ambassador at St Petersburg, spokeof the Ottoman Empire as “the Sick Man,” and renewed theproposals for a partition made in 1844.
Early in 1853 the Russian army was mobilized, and PrinceMenshikov, a bluff soldier devoted to the interests of Orthodoxyand tsardom, was sent to present the emperor's ultimatumat Constantinople. He demanded the recognition of the statusquo in the holy places, and of the tsar's right, under the Treatyof Kuchuk Kainarji, to the protectorate of all Orthodox Christiansin the Ottoman dominions. The Porte, in alarm, turnedto Great Britain for advice and assistance. Lord Stratfordde Redcliffe, who reached his post at Constantinople shortlyafter the arrival of Menshikov, at once grasped the essentialfacts of the situation. The question of the holy places wasinsignificant in itself—it might be settled if France were grantedpolitical compensation elsewhere; that of the protectorateclaimed by Russia over the Christians involved the integrityof the sultan's sovereignty. With great address he succeededin persuading Menshikov to present the two demands separately.On the 22nd of April the French, Russian and British ministerscame to an agreement on the question of the holy places;with the result that, when the question of protectorate wasraised, Menshikov found himself opposed by the ambassadorsof all the other powers. On the 5th of May, nevertheless,in obedience to his peremptory instructions, he presented hisultimatum to the Ottoman government, which, backed nowby all the other powers, rejected it. On the 22nd Menshikovand the whole of the Russian diplomatic staff left Constantinople;and it was announced that, at the end of the month,the tsar's troops would enter the Danubian principalities. Onthe 22nd of June the Russian army, under Prince Gorchakov,crossed the Pruth, not—as was explained in a circular to thepowers—for the purpose of attacking Turkey, but solely toobtain the material guarantees for the enjoyment of theprivileges conferred upon her by the existing treaties. Thenews of this aggression roused intense excitement in England;but the British government still exerted itself to maintainpeace. In August a conference of the four powers assembledat Vienna, but the settlement they proposed, which practicallyconceded everything demanded by Russia except the claimto the protectorate, though accepted by the tsar, was rejectedby the Porte, now fallen into a mood of stubborn resentmentat the Russian invasion. At the beginning of October Turkeyformally declared war; on the 22nd the French and Britishfleets passed the Dardanelles. Lord Aberdeen still hoped tosecure peace, and the Russian government was informed thatno casus belli would arise so long as Russia abstained frompassing the Danube or attacking a Black Sea port. To theemperor Nicholas this was tantamount to a declaration ofwar; and in effect it was so. On the 30th of November theRussian fleet attacked and destroyed a Turkish squadronin the harbour of Sinope; on the 3rd of January the combinedFrench and British fleets entered the Black Sea, commissionedto “invite” the Russians to return to their harbours.
The emperor Nicholas had been singularly misled as to thestate of public opinion in Europe. The news of the affair ofCrimean War.Sinope, rather wanton slaughter than a battle,raised excitement in England to fever heat; whilethe excellent bearing and consistent successes of the Turkishtroops during the first months of the campaign on land excitedthe admiration of all Europe. The belief in the rejuvenation ofTurkey seemed to be justified; and when, on the 27th of March1854, Great Britain and France declared war on Russia, theaction of the governments was supported by an overwhelmingpublic opinion. As regards Austria, too, the emperor Nicholaswas no less mistaken. If she maintained neutrality, it was dueto no impulse of gratitude, and it was far from “benevolent.”As the Russians withdrew from the Danubian principalities,Austrian troops occupied them, and by a convention with thePorte the Austrian government undertook to resist by arms anyattempt of the Russians to return. So far as the extreme claimsof the tsar were concerned, neither Austria nor Prussia waswilling to concede them, and both had joined with France andGreat Britain in presenting, on the 12th of December 1853, anidentical note at St Petersburg, drawn up at the Conference ofVienna, reaffirming the principles of the treaty of 1841. Savefor the benevolent neutrality of Prussia, therefore, which enabledher to obtain supplies from the north, Russia was pitted single-handedagainst a coalition of Turkey, Great Britain and France,to which Sardinia was added later.
The events of the war that followed are told elsewhere (seeCrimean War). The main operations were confined to the Crimea, where the allied troops landed on the 14th of September1854, and they were not concluded, in spite of the terrible exhaustion of Russia, till in December 1855 the threatened active intervention of Austria forced the emperor Alexander II. to come to terms. These terms were ultimately embodied in the Treaty of Paris of the 30th of March 1856. Its provisions, held by some to be so unduly favourable to Russia as to justify the question whether she had not been victorious in the war, were as follows: Russia abandoned all pretensions to exercise a protectorate over the Christians in Turkey, or to an exclusive right of interference in the Danubian principalities, to which Bessarabia was restored; the navigation of the Danube was made free and placed under the supervision of an international commission; the Black Sea was closed to warships, while open to the commercial flags of all countries; the Asiatic frontier between the two empires remainedunchanged; Turkey was admitted to the concert of Europe, and all the contracting parties agreed to respect her independence and the integrity of her territory; moreover, the provisions of the Tanzimāt were reaffirmed in a fresh decree of the sultan, which was incorporated in the treaty, and further provided for a large measure of local autonomy for the Christian communities.It was stipulated that Turkey's promises of reform gave nopower the right of interference on behalf of the Christians.
The Treaty of Paris was regarded as opening a new era in theprogress of Turkey. Admitted on equal terms to the EuropeanThe New Era.family of nations, the Ottoman government hadgiven a solemn guarantee of its intention to makethe long-promised reforms a reality. But it soonbecame apparent that the time was scarcely come for liberalmeasures; and fanatical outbreaks at Jidda (1858) and inSyria (1860) gave proof that the various sections of thepopulation were not yet prepared to act together in harmony.The Syrian disturbances brought about a French occupation,which Fuad Pasha, ably seconded by Ahmed VefykEffendi, the Turkish ambassador in Paris, contrived to restrict,and to terminate as soon as possible. The immediate localresult was the institution, by arèglement,[37] signed atConstantinople on the 6th of September 1864, of autonomy for theLebanon under a Christian governor appointed by the powerswith the concurrence of the Porte, an arrangement which hasworked satisfactorily until the present day. In 1859 the Danubianprincipalities, deliberately left separate by the Congress ofParis, carried out their long-cherished design of union by electingPrince Cuza both in Moldavia and in Walachia, a contingencywhich the powers had not taken into account, and to which inthe end they gave a grudging assent (see Rumania).
On the 25th of June 1861 Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid died, beingsucceeded by his brother Abd-ul-Aziz. The new sultan's reignAbd-ul-Aziz, 1861–1876.marked, if not the beginning, at least the high tideof that course of improvident and unrestrainedexpenditure, facilitated by the enthusiasm createdin Europe by Turkey's admission to the ranks of the powerswhich loosened for her the purse-strings of the foreigninvestor. The viceroy of Egypt, Ismaïl Pasha, followed hissuzerain's example in this respect, and was lavish in his bribesto his imperial overlord to obtain the extension of his ownprivileges and the establishment in Egypt of succession fromfather to son; these concessions were granted to him by thefirmans of the 27th of May 1866 and the 8th of June 1867,in the latter of which the viceroy is addressed for the first timeas “khedive.” Abd-ul-Aziz is said to have yielded the morereadily as being desirous of bringing about a similar alterationin the succession in Turkey, in favour of his own eldestson, Prince Yussuf Izz-ed-din; public opinion was, however,opposed to so sweeping a change, and the succession to thethrone in Turkey still goes to the eldest surviving member ofthe house of Osman. Though the foreign relations of Turkeyremained untroubled, disturbances in Servia, Montenegro andCrete continued throughout the “sixties.” Servia had longresented the occupation of her fortresses by Turkish troops;frequent collisions arising from this source resulted in June 1862in the bombardment of Belgrade; some slight concessions werethen made to Servia, but it was not until 1867 that, through themediation of England and other powers, she succeeded in obtainingthe withdrawal of the Turkish garrisons. The Cretaninsurrection rose to a formidable height in 1868–69, and theactive support given to the movement by Greece brought about arupture of relations between that country and Turkey. Therevolt was suppressed, the Turko-Greek conflict was settled by aconference of the powers in Paris, and Crete received a charterof local self-government which for a time pacified theisland.[38]Abd-ul-Aziz had visited the Paris Exhibition of 1867 and hadpaid his respects to Queen Victoria, who conferred on him theorder of the Garter. In 1869 the visit was returned by manysovereigns and princes on their way to the opening of the SuezCanal, among these being the empress Eugénie. An importantevent not to be passed over without mention is the granton the 10th of March 1870 of the firman instituting theBulgarian exarchate, thus severing the Bulgarian Church fromthe jurisdiction of the Greek patriarch of Constantinople. Thisconcession, given under strong pressure from Russia, arousedthe deepest resentment of the Greeks, and was the principalfactor in the awakening of the Bulgarian national spirit whichsubsequent events have done so much to develop. Russianinfluence at Constantinople had been gradually increasing, andtowards the end of 1870 the tsar took advantage of thetemporary disabling of France to declare himself no longerbound by those clauses of the Treaty of Paris which restrictedRussia's liberty of possessing warships on the Black Sea.An international conference convoked in London early in 1871laid down the principle that treaty engagements were binding,and then proceeded to abrogate this particular engagement.Russia and Turkey thus regained full liberty as regards theirnaval forces and armaments in the Euxine; the passage of thestraits remained interdicted to ships of war.
A reform not unworthy of notice was effected by the lawpromulgated on the 18th of June 1867 whereby foreigners werefor the first time allowed to hold landed property throughoutthe Ottoman Empire (save in the Hejaz) on condition of theirbeing assimilated to Ottoman subjects, i.e. divested of theirright to the protection of their own authorities in every respectconcerning such property.
Meanwhile in Turkey national bankruptcy was broughtwithin measurable distance by the sultan's extravagance andthe incompetence of his ministers; it was staved off only byloans contracted almost annually to pay the interest on theirpredecessors. External influences and latent fanaticism wereactive; a serious insurrection broke out in Bosnia andHerzegovina in 1875, and the efforts to quell it almost exhaustedTurkey's resources; the example spread to Bulgaria, where abortiveoutbreaks in September 1875 and May 1876 led to thosecruel measures of repression which were known as “the Bulgarianatrocities,”[39] Mussulman public feeling was inflamed, and anattempt at Salonica to induce a Christian girl who had embracedIslam to return to her faith caused the murder of two foreignconsuls by a fanatical mob. The finances of Turkey nowcollapsed, and the inevitable bankruptcy was declared, wherebyDeposition of Abd-ul-Aziz.more than through any other cause she lost suchsympathies as she possessed in western Europe.Turkey's distress was Russia's opportunity; thesultan fell entirely under the influence of General Ignatiev, thetsar's ambassador, and it became evident that the country washastening to its dissolution. A conspiracy to bring about a changewas hereupon formed by certain prominent statesmen, whoseleaders were Midhat Pasha, Mehemed Rushdi Pasha andMahmud Damad Pasha, the husband of a princess of the blood,sister to Prince Murad. These succeeded in gaining over theSheikh-ul-Islam, and in obtaining from him a fetva for thedeposition of Abd-ul-Aziz.
In virtue of this judgment of the supreme legal authority,and with the aid of the fleet, Abd-ul-Aziz was deposed, beingshortly afterwards found dead, apparently by his own hand.Murad V. reigned in his stead. But the change of sultans broughtno relief to the troubled state: Servia and Montenegro declaredwar, and in less than three months it had become evident thatMurad was incapable of governing.
Murad 's brother Abd-ul-Hamid was accordingly proclaimed sultan on the 31st of August 1876. The diplomacy of Accession of Abd-ul-Hamid II., 1876. Europe had been searching in vain since the autumn of 1875 for the means of inducing Turkey to institute effective administrative reforms and to grant to its European provinces that autonomy which now appeared essential. But the new sultan was as averse from accepting any of the formulae proposed as were his predecessors: Servia and Montenegro were with great difficulty pacified, but it was plain that Russia, whose Slavonic and Orthodox sympathies had been strongly aroused, would soon begin hostilities herself. Turkey now made a show of going even beyond the demands formulated by Europe, and the international conference which met at Constantinople during the last days of 1876 was startled by the salvo of artillery whichheralded the promulgation of a liberal constitution, not for theEuropean provinces only, but for the whole empire, and theinstitution of a Turkish parliament. The decisions of theconference, moderate though they were, in the end requiringmerely the nomination of an international commission toinvestigate the state of the European provinces of Turkey,and the appointment by the sultan, with the approval of theRusso-Turkish War.powers, of governors-general for five years, wererejected by the Porte. The statesmen of Europestill continued their efforts to avert a conflict, butto no purpose. On the 24th of April 1877 Russia declared warand her troops crossed the Turkish frontiers. Hostilities wereconducted both in Europe and Asia for nearly a year. Rumaniajoined the Russians, and in Europe no effective opposition wasencountered by the invaders until the assaults on Plevna andthe Shipka Pass, where the valiant resistance of the Turks wonfor them the admiration of Europe. By November the defenceof the Turks in Asia Minor had entirely collapsed. Plevnasurrendered on the 9th of December 1877 after a heroic struggleunder Osman Pasha. Thereafter the Russians advancedpractically unchecked (see Russo-Turkish Wars). An armisticeand preliminaries of peace were signed on the 31st of January1878 at Adrianople, and a definitive treaty was concluded atTreaty of San Stefano.San Stefano on the 3rd of March 1878. Its termswere: the creation of an autonomous tributaryprincipality of Bulgaria extending from the BlackSea to the Aegean; the recognition by Turkey of the independenceof Rumania, Servia and Montenegro, with increased territories;the payment of a war indemnity; the introduction of reformsin Bosnia and Herzegovina; the cession to Russia of Bessarabiaand the Dobruja; the opening of the passage of the straits atall times to the merchant vessels of neutral states; and therazing of the fortresses on the Danube.
Great Britain had throughout the war preserved strictneutrality, but, while making it clear from the outset that she couldnot assist Turkey, had been prepared for emergencies. Turkey'sseverity in repressing the Bulgarian insurrection had raised upin England a storm of public opinion against her, of which theLiberal opposition had taken the fullest advantage; moreoverthe suspension of payments on the Ottoman debt had dealtTurkey's popularity a blow from which it had never recovered.But upon the approach of the Russians to Constantinople theBritish reserves were called out and the fleet was despatched tothe Bosporus. Accordingly, and as her line of retreat mightbe threatened by Austria, Russia consented to a revision ofthe Treaty of San Stefano at a congress to be held at Berlin.Congress of Berlin, 1878.Before the meeting of this congress, which assembledon the 13th of June 1878, the powers principallyinterested had arrived at an understanding as tothe modifications to be introduced in the treaty, and by a conventionconcluded with Turkey on the 4th of June 1878 Englandhad undertaken to defend the Asiatic dominions of the sultanby force of arms, provided that his majesty carried out all thenecessary reforms, to be agreed upon later, and assigned toEngland the island of Cyprus, which was however to be restoredif Turkey fulfilled her engagements as to reforms and if Russiagave back to her Kars, Ardahan and Batum. On the 13th ofJuly 1878 the Treaty of Berlin was signed: the Great Bulgariaof the San Stefano Treaty was diminished to an autonomousprovince north of the Balkans, the south-eastern portion, nolonger extending to the Aegean, was formed into a self-governingtributary province styled Eastern Rumelia; Turkey abandonedall pretension to suzerainty over Montenegro; Servia andRumania received their independence (but the last namedwas made to cede Bessarabia to Russia, receiving instead theDobruja); the Asiatic frontier was readjusted, Kars, Ardahan andBatum becoming Russian. It was further provided that Bulgariashould pay to Turkey an annual tribute, and should moreover(as well as the other Balkan states receiving accessions of territoryat Turkey's expense) bear a portion of the Ottoman debt.The sums payable by the different countries were to be fixedby the powers; but no effect has so far been given to this reasonablestipulation, which may now be looked upon as null andvoid. Turkey undertook to pay to Russia a war indemnity of300,000,000 roubles, and the status of the straits remainedunchanged. Measures of reform in Armenia were also providedfor, as also the convocation of an international commissionfor drawing up a reform scheme for the European provincesleft to Turkey. The organic law for Crete was to be carriedout, and special laws enacted for other parts of Turkey. Bosniaand Herzegovina were handed over to the administration ofAustria; Montenegro and Greece received accessions of territoryto which only strong pressure coupled with a naval demonstrationinduced Turkey to consent three years later.
Peace once restored, some attempt was made by Turkey inthe direction of complying with her engagements to institutereform. Financial and military advisers were procured fromGermany. English officers were engaged to reform thegendarmerie, and judicial inspectors of foreign nationality were totravel through the country to redress abuses. It was not longbefore the unsubstantial character of all these undertakingsbecame apparent; the parliament was dissolved, the constitutionwas suspended and its author exiled. Egyptian affairs nextthreatened complications. In May 1879 the misgovernmentof Ismail Pasha and the resulting financial crisis rendered thedeposition of the khedive inevitable; in order to anticipatethe action of England and France, who would otherwise haveexpelled the erring viceroy, the sultan deposed him himself;the succession devolved upon his son Mahommed Tewfik Pasha.The Egyptian Question.(For the subsequent history of the Egyptian questionsee Egypt: History.) The revolt of Arabi Pashain 1881 broke up the Anglo-French condominium inEgypt and led to outrages at Alexandria followed by a bombardmenton the 11th of July 1882. The occupation of the countryby Great Britain gradually took a more permanent form, andthough negotiations were more than once entered into withTurkey with a view to its termination, these either provedabortive or were rendered so (as e.g. the Drummond-Wolffconvention of 1887) by the action of other powers. The Anglo-Frenchagreement of 1904 left England in undisputed mastery.
The financial straits of Turkey after the war became so acutePublic Debt.that the sultan was compelled to consent to a measureof foreign control over the finances of the country;the administration of the public debt being established inDecember 1881. (See Finance, above.)
In 1885 the practically bloodless revolution of Philippopolison the 18th of September united Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia,severed by the Treaty of Berlin. A conference held at Constantinoplesanctioned the union on terms which were renderedacceptable to the sultan; but Said Pasha, who had assisted thesultan in centralizing at Yildiz Kiosk the administration of thecountry, and who had become grand vizier, was a strong adherentof the policy of armed intervention by Turkey, and the consequencewas his fall from office. His successor in the grandvizierate, Kiamil Pasha, was soon called upon to deal withArmenian unrest, consequent on the non-execution of thereforms provided for in the Treaty of Berlin and the CyprusConvention, which first found vent about 1890. But KiamilPasha was not subservient enough to his imperial master'swill, and his place was taken by a military man, Jevad Pasha,from whom no independence of action was to be apprehended.
It is from this period that the German ascendancy inConstantinople is noticeable. Railway concessions were given toGerman Activity in Turkey.Germans over the heads of British applicants alreadyin possession of lines from which they wereexpropriated, thus affording the nucleus of the Bagdadrailway (of which Germany obtained the concession in November1899). (See Bagdad, vol. iii. p. 197.)
From 1890 Crete was frequently the scene of disturbance; the Christian communities in other parts of Turkey began to chafe under the attempted curtailing of their privileges; about Christmas 1893 the Greek patriarch caused all the Orthodox churches to be closed as a protest; and the Armenian agitation entered upon a serious phase. The Kurds, the constantoppressors of that people, had received official recognitionArmenian Troubles.and almost complete immunity from the controlof the civil law by being formed into ayeomanry frontier-guard known as the Hamidiancavalry. The troubles arising from this cause and fromgreater energy in the collection of taxes led the Armeniansin outlying and mountainous districts to rise against theauthorities. The repression of these revolts in the Sassundistrict in the autumn of 1894 was effected under circ*mstancesof great severity by Turkish troops and Kurdish irregulars.A commission composed of British, French and Russian officialsheld an inquiry into the events which had occurred, and early in1895 England, France and Russia entered actively into negotiationswith a view to the institution of reforms. The schemepropounded by the three powers encountered great objectionsfrom the Porte, but under pressure was accepted in October 1895.Its acceptance was however the signal for a series of massacresin almost every town of importance throughout Asia Minor,which there is but too strong evidence for suspecting werecommitted with the connivance of the authorities, and in whichupwards of 200,000 persons are computed to have perished. In1896 Lord Salisbury induced the other powers to unite in urgingthe execution of the reforms, but no agreement could be come tofor the use of coercion, and Europe could but look on and protest.Changes of ministry at Constantinople were powerless to bringabout an improvement, and early in 1896 Cretan affairs becameso serious as to call for the intervention of the powers. InSeptember yet another Cretan charter of self-government waspromulgated. Shortly before, a revolutionary attack by anArmenian band on the Ottoman bank at Constantinople broughtabout a general massacre of Armenians in the capital (where awidespread revolutionary organization undoubtedly existed), inwhich at least 3000 victims fell, and the persecution of Armeniansbecame the order of the day.
The neglect of the Porte to carry out all the stipulations of theCretan arrangement of 1896 led to a renewal of the disturbances,Greek War of 1897.and Greece began to take steps for the invasion ofthe island; in February 1897 Colonel Vassos sailedfrom the Piraeus with an armed force, intendingto proclaim the annexation of Crete to Greece, and Greektroops were massed on the Thessalian frontier. Diplomacybusied itself with fruitless attempts to avert hostilities; onthe 17th of April 1897 war was declared by Turkey. Theresistance offered by Greece was feeble in the extreme: Europewas obliged to intervene, and Turkey gained a rectificationof frontier and a war indemnity of £4,000,000, besidesthe curtailment by the treaty eventually signed of many privilegesh*therto enjoyed by Hellenic subjects in Turkey. ButEurope was determined that the Cretan question should bedefinitely settled, at least for a period of some years, and, after anoutbreak at Candia, in which the lives of British troops weresacrificed, the four powers (Germany and Austria havingwithdrawn from the concert) who had taken over the island endépôt handed it over in October 1898 to Prince George of Greeceas high commissioner (see Crete: History).
Crete being thus removed from the scope of her action, Turkeyfound ample occupation in the almost constant turbulence ofRevolts in Arabia.the Yemen, of Albania and of Macedonia. After1892 the revolts, frequently renewed, of the so-calledimam of Sana, necessitated the despatch of large andcostly expeditions to Arabia, in which thousands of Turkishtroops have fallen in guerrilla warfare or through the inhospitableclimate; in Albania disturbance became almost endemic,owing to the resistance offered by the intractable populationto successive attempts of the central authorities to subjectthe country to regular taxation and the operation of the laws.
Unsettled claims by French citizens led to a breaking off ofrelations and the occupation of Mitylene by France in November1901; the rupture was of short duration and Turkey soon gaveway, according complete satisfaction both in this matter andon certain other French demands. In 1901 and 1902 Turkishencroachments on the hinterland of Aden brought about adangerous state of tension between Great Britain and Turkey,Disputes with France and Britain.which had its parallel in 1906 in similar trespassesby the Ottoman authorities on the Egyptian landfrontier near Akaba. In both cases Turkey eventuallyyielded; a similar question arose in 1906 with France over theboundaries of the African possessions of the two countries.
But Macedonia was Turkey's chief source of anxiety. Thatcountry, left by the Treaty of Berlin with its status unaltered, wasMacedonian Question.in a continued condition of disturbance. The Christianpopulation, who in common with their Mussulmanfellow subjects suffered from the defectivemethods of government of their rulers, had at least beforethem the example of their brethren—Greeks, Bulgarians orServians—dwelling in independent kingdoms under Christiangovernments on the other side of the frontier. The hopeof eventual emancipation was stimulated by sedulouspropagandists from each of these countries; from time to timearmed bands of insurgents were manned and equipped inthe small neighbouring states, with or without the co-operationof the governments. So long as Stambolov, the energeticBulgarian statesman, was alive he succeeded in keepingthe Bulgarian element quiet, and the peace of the countrywas less liable to disturbance. But for some years the threerivals in Macedonia, to which a fourth, the Rumanian element,must be added, were in constant strife (see Macedonia). Aserious Bulgarian insurrection in Macedonia in the autumn of1903 induced Austria and Russia to combine in formulating theMürzsteg reform programme, tardily consented to by Turkey,by which Austrian and Russian civil agents were appointed toexercise a certain degree of control and supervision over the threevilayets of Salonica, Monastir and Kossovo. It was also arrangedthat foreign officers should be named to reorganize thegendarmerie. An Italian officer, General De Giorgis, was appointedto the chief command in the reorganization, and the threevilayets were apportioned among the great powers into districts,in each of which was appointed a staff officer with a number ofsubordinate officers of his nationality under his orders. Thework of reorganization was efficiently carried out, and thegendarmerie school at Salonica, under British supervision, showedexcellent results. But the achievements of the two civil agentswere less noteworthy; and in 1905 it was agreed that, in view ofthe financial necessities of the provinces, the other great powersshould each appoint delegates to a financial commission withextensive powers of control in fiscal matters. The Porte opposedthe project, and an international naval demonstration and theoccupation of Mytilene by the powers became necessary beforeTurkey gave way in December 1905. Even so it provedimpossible to fulfil the Mürzsteg programme, though the attemptwas prolonged until 1908. The Austro-Russian entente hadthen come to an end; and after a meeting between KingEdward VII. and the tsar Nicholas II. at Reval, a new schemeof reforms was announced, under the name of the “Revalprogramme.” The enforcement of these reforms, however, waspostponed sine die owing to the revolution which transformedthe Ottoman Empire into a constitutional state; and thepowers, anticipating an improvement in the administration ofMacedonia by the new government, withdrew their militaryofficers in the summer of 1908.
The Young Turkish party had long been preparing for the overthrow of the old régime. Their central organization was in The Young Turks. Paris and their objects were known throughout Europe, but except at Yildiz Kiosk their power was almost everywhere underrated. The Porte strove by every means at its disposal to thwart their activity; but elsewhere they were regarded as a body of academic enthusiasts, more noisy than dangerous, who devoted their scanty funds to the publication of seditious matter in Paris or Geneva, and sought to achieve the impossible by importing western institutions into a country fit only to be ruled by the sheriat and the sword. Such was the opinion held even by experienced diplomatists and by historians. It was strengthened by the fact that the Young Turks had deliberately abstained from violent action. They had,in fact, learned from events in Russia and Poland that sporadicoutbreaks on a small scale would inevitably discredit their cause,and that a successful revolution would require the support of thearmy. To gain this, an extensive propaganda was carried on bysecret agents, many of whom were officers. At the beginning of1908 a favourable opportunity for action arrived. The Ottomantroops in Arabia were mutinous and unpaid; the Albanians,long the mainstay of Turkish military power in the west, had beenirritated by unpopular taxes and by the repressive edicts whichdeprived them of schools and a printing-press; foreigninterference in Crete and Macedonia was resented by patriotic Moslemsthroughout the empire. In these circ*mstances theheadquarters of the Young Turks were transferred from Paris toSalonica, where a central body, known as the committee of unionand progress, was established (1908) to organize the revolution.Most of its members were military officers, prominent amongthem being Majors Enver Bey and Niazi Bey, who directed thepropaganda in Albania and Macedonia. By midsummer theAlbanian leaders and the greater part of the Turkish army inEurope had sworn fidelity to the constitution.
On the 25th of May an insurrection broke out in Samos,owing to a dispute between the Samian Assembly and KopassisEffendi, “prince,” or governor of the island. After the port ofVathy had been bombarded by Ottoman war-ships the revoltwas easily crushed.
This affair however was of little more than local importance,and the Young Turks were not directly concerned in it. TheyThe Revolution of 1908.struck their first blow on the 22nd of July 1908,when Niazi Bey and his troops raised the standardof revolt at Resna, a town on the road from Monastirto Ochrida. On the 23rd the committee of union and progress,under the presidency of Enver Bey, proclaimed the constitutionin Salonica, while the second and third army corps threatenedto march on Constantinople if the sultan refused to obey theproclamation. On the 24th the sultan yielded, and issuedan iradē, restoring the constitution of 1876, and ordering theelection of a chamber of deputies. Various other reforms,notably the abolition of the spy system and the censorship,were announced soon afterwards. Some of the more unpopularofficials associated with the old régime were assassinated,among them Fehim Pasha, the former head of the espionagedepartment, who had been exiled to Brusa in 1907 at therequest of the British and German ambassadors. Otherwisethe revolution was effected almost without bloodshed; for atime the insurgent bands disappeared in Macedonia, and therival “nationalities”—Greek, Albanian, Turk, Armenian,Servian, Bulgarian and Jew—worked harmoniously togetherfor the furtherance of common constitutional aims. On the6th of August Kiamil Pasha, an advanced Liberal, becamegrand vizier, and a new cabinet was formed, including a Greek,Prince Mavrocordato, an Armenian, Noradounghian, and theSheikh-ul-Islam.
The success of the Young Turks created a serious situationfor the statesmen of Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. A regeneratedBosnia and Bulgaria.Ottoman Empire might in time be strong enoughto demand the evacuation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,and to maintain or extend the nominal suzeraintyover Bulgaria which the sultan had exercised since 1878. Accordingly,at the beginning of October 1908, the emperor FrancisJoseph informed the powers signatory to the treaty of Berlinthat the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the DualMonarchy had become necessary, and this decision was formallyannounced in an imperial rescript dated the 7th of October.The independence of Bulgaria was proclaimed on the 5th. TheOttoman government protested to the powers, but it wiselylimited its demands to a claim for compensation. Austria-Hungaryhad from the first undertaken to withdraw its garrisonsfrom the sanjak of Novibazar—an important concession;after prolonged negotiations and a boycott of all Austriangoods exported to Turkey, it also agreed to pay £2,200,000 ascompensation for the Turkish crown lands seized in Bosniaand Herzegovina. This arrangement was sanctioned by theOttoman parliament, which assented to the annexation on the6th of April 1909 and recognized the independence of Bulgariaon the 19th of April, the Russian government having enabledBulgaria to pay the indemnity claimed by Turkey on accountof the Eastern Rumelian tribute and railways (see Bulgaria:History). On the 3rd of February 1910 the Porte accepted aBulgarian proposal for a mixed commission to delimit disputedsections of the Turco-Bulgarian frontier, and in March KingFerdinand visited Constantinople.
Meanwhile the Young Turks were confronted with manydifficulties within the empire. After the first fervour of enthusiasmThe Reaction in the Provinces.had subsided the Christian nationalitiesin Macedonia resumed their old attitude of mutualjealousy, the insurgent bands began to reappear,and the government was in 1909–1910 forced to undertakethe disarmament of the whole civil population of the threevilayets. In Albania serious discontent, resulting in aninsurrection (May-September 1909), was caused by the politicalrivalry between Greeks and Albanians and the unwillingnessof the Moslem tribesmen to pay taxes or to keep the peace withtheir neighbours, the Macedonian Serbs. In Asia Minor theKurdish troops under Ibrahim Pasha revolted, and, althoughthey were defeated with the loss of their commander, the Kurdscontinued to attack indiscriminately the Turks, Nestorians andArmenians; disturbances also broke out among the otherreactionary Moslems of this region, culminating in a massacreof the Armenians at Adana. In Arabia Ratib Pasha, theTurkish commander-in-chief, joined the enemies of the newrégime; he was defeated and captured in the autumn of 1908,but in the following year frequent raids upon the Hejaz railwaywere made by Bedouin tribesmen, while a Mahdist rebellionbroke out and was crushed in Yemen.
More serious than any of these local disturbances was thecounter-revolution in Constantinople itself, which began withThe Constantinople Counter-revolution.the revolt of Kiamil Pasha, the grand vizier, againstthe authority of the committee of union andprogress. Kiamil Pasha was forced to resign (Feb. 14,1909) and was succeeded by Hilmi Pasha, ex-highcommissioner of Macedonia. Strife then arose betweenthe committee and the Liberal Union, a body which mainlyrepresented the Christian electorate, and on the 5th of AprilHassan Fehmi Effendi, who edited the Serbesti, the officialorgan of the union, was assassinated. He was an Albanian,and his fellow countrymen in the Constantinople garrison atonce made common cause with the opponents of the committee.Mutinous troops seized the parliament house and the telegraphoffices; the grand vizier resigned and was succeeded by TewfikPasha (April 14); and delegates were sent by the Liberal Union,the association of Ulema and other bodies to discuss termswith the committee. But Abd-ul-Hamid had issued a freepardon to the mutineers, and the committee had now decidedthat the new régime would never be secure while the sovereignfavoured reaction. They refused to treat with the delegates,and despatched 25,000 men under Mahmud Shevket toConstantinople.
The senate and chamber met at San Stefano, and, sitting jointly as a National Assembly, issued a proclamation in favour The New Régime. of the committee and its army (April 22, 1909), by which Constantinople was now invested. Part of the garrison remained loyal to the sultan, but after five hours of severe fighting Shevket Pasha was able to occupy the capital (April 25). The National Assembly met in secret session two days later, voted unanimously for the deposition of Abd-ul-Hamid II., and chose his younger brother Mahommed Reshad Effendi (b. Nov. 3, 1844) as his successor, with the style of Mahommed V. Abd-ul-Hamid II. was removed to Salonica on the 28th, and on the 10th of May the new sultan was formally invested with the sword of Osman. Hilmi Pasha again became grand vizier, but resigned on the 28th of December 1909, when he was succeeded by Hakki Bey. On the 5th of August 1909 the new constitution described above was promulgated by imperial iradē; parliament was prorogued forthree months on the 27th, and during the recess the committeeof union and progress met at Salonica and modified its ownrules (Oct. 23), ceasing thenceforward to be a secret association.This was regarded as an expression of confidence in the reformedparliament, which had laid the foundation of the importantfinancial and administrative reforms already described. Onthe 13th of September 1909 the Macedonian internationalcommission of finance met for the last time; its members werereappointed to a higher finance board for the whole empire,under the presidency of Djavid Bey. Ch. Laurent had alreadybeen nominated financial adviser to the empire (Sept. 16, 1908),while Sir William Willco*cks became head of the irrigationdepartment; the reorganization of the army was entrusted tothe German General von der Goltz, that of the navy to AdmiralSir Douglas Gamble (resigned Feb. 1, 1910).
The evacuation of Crete by the four protecting powers wasfollowed in 1909 by renewed agitation. Turkey was willingCrete, Greece and Rumania.to concede the fullest local autonomy, but not toabandon its sovereign rights over the island. InJuly 1909, however, the Greek flag was hoisted inCanea and Candia, and it was only lowered again after thewar-ships of the protecting powers had been reinforced and hadlanded an international force. The Cretan administrativecommittee swore allegiance to the king of the Hellenes in August,and again, after a change of government, at the end of December1909. This situation had already given rise to prolongednegotiations between Greece and Turkey. It also contributedtowards the conclusion of an entente between Turkey andRumania in the summer of 1910. Both of these powers wereinterested in preventing any possible accession of territoryto the Bulgarian kingdom; and Rumania (q.v.) had for manyyears been a formidable opponent of Hellenism among theMacedonian Vlachs. Greece and Crete were thus confrontedwith what was in effect a defensive alliance between Turkeyand Rumania. The Cretans had insisted upon their demandfor union with Greece and had elected three representatives tosit in the Greek national assembly. Had this act been ratifiedby the government at Athens, a war between Greece and theOttoman Empire could hardly have been avoided; but a royalrescript was issued by the king of the Hellenes on the 30th ofSeptember 1910, declaring vacant the three seats to which theCretan representatives had been elected; the immediate dangerwas thus averted.
Bibliography.—(1) General Historical Works: The monumentalGeschichte des Osmanischen Reiches, by J. von Hammer Purgstall(1st ed., 10 vols., Vienna, 1827–1835; 2nd ed., 4 vols., Pest, 1840;French trans., by J. J. Hellert, 18 vols., Paris, 1835–1843), is stillthe standard work until the conclusion of the treaty of KuchukKai'narji (1744), at which date it stops. Founded upon it are SirE. S. Creasy’s History of the Ottoman Turks (London, 1878) and S.Lane-Poole's Turkey in the “Story of the Nations Series” (London,1888); Sutherland Menzies’s Turkey, Old and New (2 vols., 1880)is derived chiefly from French sources and is less accurate andunbiased. An excellent and impartial history in Turkish is theTarikh-i-devlet-i-osmanié, by Abdurrahman Sheref (Constantinople,A.H. 1315–1318 = A.D. 1897–1900). The Balkans, by W. Miller(London, 1899), in the “Story of the Nations Series,” deals withTurkey’s relations with the Balkan states. Halil Ganem’s Les Sultansottomans (2 vols., Paris, 1902) contains much that is interesting, ifnot always entirely trustworthy.
2. Monographs: Much information on modern Turkish historyand politics will be found in the works dealing primarily withtopography, finance, law and defence, which have been cited above.See also S. Lane-Poole, Life of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe (2 vols.,London, 1888); A. Vandal, Mémoires du marquis de Nointel (Frenchambassador at Constantinople from 1670 to 1678); E. Engelhardt,La Turquie et le Tanzimat (Paris, 1882); E. Driault, La Questiond'orient depuis ses origines jusqu'à nos jours (Paris, 1898); V.Berard, La Turquie et l'Hellénisme (Paris, 1897); idem, Le Sultan,l'Islam et les Puissances (Paris, 1907); idem, La Révolution turque(1909).
3. Official Publications and Collections of Treaties: Sir E. Hertslet’sTreaties Regulating the Trade, &c., between Great Britain andTurkey (London, 1875) presents a summary of all the principaltreaties between Turkey and other states; see also Gabriel EffendiNoradounghian, Recueil d'actes internationaux de l'empire ottoman,1300–1789, t. i. (Paris, 1897). Much valuable information is tobe obtained from parliamentary papers. These are too numerousfor detailed mention, but the following periods may be cited as themost interesting: 1833–1841 (Egyptian question); 1849–1859(Crimean War and the events by which it was preceded and followed);1868–1869 (Cretan insurrection); 1875–1881 (Bosnian and Herzegovinianinsurrection, Russo-Turkish War, Berlin treaty and subsequentevents); 1885–1887 (union of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria);1889–1890 (Cretan disturbances); 1892–1899 (Armenian and Cretanaffairs); 1902–1907 (Macedonia); 1908–1910 (revolution and reform).Some analysis of the unpublished documents in the record office,for the period 1815–1841, by W. Alison Phillips, will be found inthe bibliographies to chs. vi. and xvii. of vol. x. of the CambridgeModern History. (X.)
Literature.
In all literary matters the Ottoman Turks have shownthemselves a singularly uninventive people, the two great schools,the old and the new, into which we may divide their literature,being closely modelled, the one after the classics of Persia, theother after those of modern Europe, and more especially ofFrance. The old or Persian school flourished from the foundationof the empire down to about 1830, and still continues todrag on a feeble existence, though it is now out of fashion andcultivated by none of the leading men of letters. These belongto the new or European school, which, in spite of the bitteropposition of the partisans of the old Oriental system, hassucceeded, partly thiough its own inherent superiority and partlythrough the talents and courage of its supporters, in expellingits rival from the position of undisputed authority which it hadoccupied for upwards of five hundred years. For the presentOld School.purpose it will be convenient to divide the old schoolinto three periods, which may be termed respectivelythe pre-classical, the classical and the post-classical. Of thesethe first extends from the early days of the empire to the accessionof Suleimān I., 1301–1520 (700–926); the second from that eventto the accession of Maḥmūd I., 1520–1730 (926–1143); and thethird from that date to the accession of ‛Abd-ul-‛Azīz, 1730–1861(1143–1277).
The works of the old school in all its periods are entirely Persian in tone, sentiment and form. We find in them the same beauties General Character of Ottoman Literature. and the same defects that we observe in the production of the Iranian authors. The formal elegance and conventional grace, alike of thought and of expression, so characteristic of Persian classical literature, pervade the works of the best Ottoman writers, and they are likewise imbued, though in a less degree, with that spirit of mysticism which runs through so much of the poetry of Irān. But the Ottomans did not stop here: in their romantic poems they chose as subjects the favourite themes of their Persian masters, such as Leylī and Mejnūn, Khusrev and Shīrīn, Yūsuf and Zuleykhā, and so on; they constantly allude to Persian heroes whose stories occur in the Shāh-Namā and other storehouses of Iranian legendary lore; and they wrote their poems in Persian metres and in Persian forms. The mesnevī, the ḳasīda and the ghazel—all of them, so far at least as the Ottomans are concerned, Persian—were the favourite verse-forms of the old poets. A mesnevī is a poem written in rhyming couplets, and is usually narrative in subject. The ḳasīda and the ghazel are both monorhythmic; the first as a rule celebrates the praises of some great man, while the second discourses of the joys and woes of love. Why Persian rather than Arabian or any other literature became the model of Ottoman writers is explained by the early history of the race (see Turks). Some two centuries before the arrival of the Turks in Asia Minor the Seljūḳs, then a mere horde of savages, had overrun Persia, where they settled and adopted the civilization of the people they had subdued. Thus Persian became the language of their court and government, and when by-and-by they pushed their conquests into Asia Minor, and founded there the Seljūḳ Empire of Rūm, they carried with them their Persian culture, and diffused it among the peoples newly brought under their sway. It was the descendants of those Persianized Seljūḳs whom the early Ottomans found ruling in Asia Minor on their arrival there. What had happened to the Seljūḳs two centuries before happened to the Ottomans now: the less civilized race adopted the culture of the more civilized; and, as the Seljūḳ Empire fell to pieces and the Ottoman came gradually to occupy its place, the sons of men who had called themselves Seljūḳs began thenceforth to look upon themselves as Ottomans. Hence the vast majority of the people whom we are accustomed to think of as Ottomans are so only by adoption, being really the descendants of Seljūḳs or Seljūḳian subjects, who had derived from Persia whatever they possessed of civilization or of literary taste. An extraordinary love of precedent, the result apparently of conscious want of original power, was sufficient to keep their writers loyal to their early guide for centuries, till at length the allegiance, though not the fashion of it, has been changed in our own days, and Paris has replaced Shīrāz as the shrine towards which the Ottoman scholar turns. While conspicuously lacking in creative genius, the Ottomans have always shown themselves possessed of receptive and assimilative powers to a remarkable degree, the result being that the number of their writers both in prose and verse is enormous. Of course only a few of the most prominent, either through the intrinsic merit of their work or through the influence they have had on that of their contemporaries, can be mentioned in a brief review like the present. It ought to be premised that the poetry of the old school is greatly superior to the prose.
Ottoman literature may be said to open with a few mystic lines,the work of Sultān Veled, son of Maulānā Jelāl-ud-Dīn, the authorPre-classical Period.of the great Persian poem the Mathnawī. Sultān Veledflourished during the reign of ‛Osmān I., though hedid not reside in the territory under the rule of thatprince. Another mystic poet of this early time was‘Āshiḳ Pasha, who left a long poem in rhyming couplets, which iscalled, inappropriately enough, his Dīvān. The nocturnalexpedition across the Hellespont by which Suleimān, the son ofOrkhan, won Galipoli and therewith a foothold in Europe for hisrace, was shared in and celebrated in verse by a Turkish noble orchieftain named Ghāzī Fāzil. Sheikhī of Kermiyān, a contemporaryof Maḥommed I. and Murād II., wrote a lengthy and still esteemedmesnevī on the ancient Persian romance of Khusrev and Shīrīn; andabout the same time Yaziji-oghlu gave to the world a long versifiedhistory of the Prophet, the Muḥammedīya. The writers mentionedabove are the most important previous to the capture of Constantinople;but there is little literature of real merit prior to that event. Themost notable prose work of this period is an old collection of stories,the History of the Forty Vezirs, said to have been compiled by a certain Sheikh-zāda and dedicated to Murād II. A few years after Constantinoplepassed into the hands of the Ottomans, some ghazels, the workof the contemporary Tatar prince, Mīr ‛Alī Shīr, who under the nomde plume of Nevāyī wrote much that shows true talent and poeticfeeling, found their way to the Ottoman capital, where they were seenand copied by Aḥmed Pasha, one of the viziers of Maḥommed II.The poems of this statesman, though possessing little merit of theirown, being for the most part translations from Nevāyī, form one ofthe landmarks in the history of Ottoman literature. They set thefashion of ghazel-writing; and their appearance was the signalfor a more regular cultivation of poetry and a greater attentionto literary style and to refinement of language. In Sinān Pasha(d. 1420), another minister of Maḥommed the Conqueror, Ottomanprose found its first exponent of ability; he left a religious treatiseentitled Tazarru‛āt (Supplications), which, notwithstanding a toolavish employment of the resources of Persian rhetoric, is as remarkablefor its clear and lucid style as for the beauty of many of thethoughts it contains. The most noteworthy writers of the Conqueror’sreign are, after Aḥmed and Sinān, the two lyric poets Nejātī and Zātī,whose verses show a considerable improvement upon those of AḥmedPasha, the romantic poets Jemālī and Hamdī, and the poetessesZeyneb and Mihrī. Like most of his house, Maḥommed II. was fondof poetry and patronized men of letters. He himself tried versification,and some of his lines which have come down to us appear quiteequal to the average work of his contemporaries. Twenty-one outof the thirty-four sovereigns who have occupied the throne of‛Osmān have left verses, and among these Selīm I. stands out, notmerely as the greatest ruler, warrior and statesman, but also as themost gifted and most original poet. His work is unhappily for thegreater part in the Persian language; the excellence of what he hasdone in Turkish makes us regret that he did so little. The mostprominent man of letters under Selīm I. was the legist KemālPasha-zāda, frequently called Ibn-Kemāl, who distinguished himselfin both prose and verse. He left a romantic poem on the loves ofYūsuf and Zuleykhā, and a work entitled Nigāristān, which ismodelled both in style and matter on the Gulistān of Sa‛dī. Hiscontemporary, Mesīhī, whose beautiful verses on spring are perhapsbetter known in Europe than any other Turkish poem, deserves apassing mention.
With the accession of Selīm’s son, Suleimān I., the classicalperiod begins. Hitherto all Ottoman writing, even the most highlyClassical Period.finished, had been somewhat rude and uncouth; butnow a marked improvement becomes visible alike in themanner and the matter, and authors of greater abilitybegin to make their appearance. Fuzūlī (d. 1563), one of the fourgreat poets of the old school, seems to have been a native of Bagdador its neighbourhood, and probably became an Ottoman subjectwhen Suleimān took possession of the old capital of the caliphs.His language, which is very peculiar, seems to be a sort of mixtureof the Ottoman and Āzerbaijān dialects of Turkish, and was mostprobably that of the Persian Turks of those days. Fuzūlī showedfar more originality than any of his predecessors; for, although hiswork is naturally Persian in form and in general character, it is farfrom being a mere echo from Shirāz or Isfahān. He struck out a newline for himself, and was indebted for his inspiration to no previouswriter, whether Turk or Persian. An intense and passionate ardourbreathes in his verses, and forms one of the most remarkable as wellas one of the most attractive characteristics of his style; for, whilefew even among Turkish poets are more artificial than he, few seemto write with greater earnestness and sincerity. His influence uponhis successors has scarcely been as far-reaching as might have beenexpected—a circ*mstance which is perhaps in some measure owingto the unfamiliar dialect in which he wrote. Besides his Dīvān,he left a beautiful mesnevī on the story of Leylī and Mejnūn, aswell as some prose works little inferior to his poetry. Bāḳī (d. 1599)of Constantinople, though far from rivalling his contemporaryFuzūlī, wrote much good poetry, including one piece of greatexcellence, an elegy on Suleimān I. The Ottomans have as a rule beenparticularly successful with elegies; this one by Bāḳī has never beensurpassed. Rūhi, Lāmi‛ī, Nev‛ī, the janissary Yahya Beg, the muftīEbū-Su‛ūd and Selīm II. all won deserved distinction as poets.During the reign of Aḥmed I. arose the second of the great poetsof the old Ottoman school, Nef‛ī of Erzerūm, who owes hispre-eminence to the brilliance of his ḳasīdas. But Nef‛ī could revileas well as praise, and such was the bitterness of some of his satiresthat certain influential personages who came under his lash inducedMurād IV. to permit his execution. Nef‛ī, who, like Fuzūlī, formeda style of his own, had many to imitate him, of whom Ṣabrī Shākir,a contemporary, was the most successful. Nā‛ilī, Jevrī and Fehīmneed not detain us; but Nābī (d. 1712), who flourished under Ibrāhīmand Maḥommed IV., calls for a little more attention. This prolificauthor copied, and so imported into Ottoman literature, a didacticstyle of ghazel-writing which was then being introduced in Persiaby the poet Ṣā‛ib; but so closely did the pupil follow in the footstepsof his master that it is not always easy to know that his lines areintended to be Turkish. A number of poets, of whom Seyyid Vehbī,Rāghib Pasha, Raḥmī of the Crimea, Kelīm and Sāmī are the mostnotable, took Nābī for their model. Of these, Sāmī is remarkablefor the art with which he constructed his ghazels. Among the writersof this time who did not copy Nābī are Sābit, Rāsikh and Ṭālib, eachof whom endeavoured, with no great success, to open up a new pathfor himself. We now reach the reign of Aḥmed III., during whichflourished Nedīm, the greatest of all the poets of the old school.Little appears to be known about his life further than that he residedat Constantinople and was alive in the year 1727 (A.H. 1140). Nedīm stands quite alone: he copied no one, and no one has attempted tocopy him. There is in his poetry a joyousness and sprightlinesswhich at once distinguish it from the work of any other Turkishauthor. His ghazels, which are written with great elegance andfinish, contain many graceful and original ideas, and the wordshe makes use of are always chosen with a view to harmony andcadence. His ḳasīdas are almost equal to his ghazels; for, whilethey rival those of Nef‛ī in brilliancy, they surpass them in beauty ofdiction, and are not so artificial and dependent on fantastic andfar-fetched conceits. The classical period comes to an end with Nedīm;its brightest time is that which falls between the rise of Nef‛ī andthe death of Nedīm, or, more roughly, that extending from theaccession of Aḥmed I. 1603 (1012), to the deposition of Aḥmed III.,1730 (1143).
We will now glance at the prose writers of this period. Underthe name of Humāyūn Nāma (Imperial Book) ‛Alī Chelebi madeClassical Prose Writers.a highly esteemed translation of the well-known Persianclassic Anvār-i Suheylī, dedicating it to Suleimān I. ClassicalSa‛d-ud-Dīn (d. 1599), the preceptor of Murād III.,wrote a valuable history of the empire from the earliesttimes to the death of Selīm I. This work, the Tāj-ut-Tevārīkh(Crown of Chronicles), is reckoned, on account of its ornate yet clearstyle, one of the masterpieces of the old school, and forms the firstof an unbroken series of annals which are written, especially the lateramong them, with great minuteness and detail. Of Sa‛d-ud-Dīn’ssuccessors in the office of imperial historiographer the most remarkable for literary power is Na‛īmā. His work, which extends from1591 (1000) to 1659 (1070), contrasts strongly with that of the earlierhistorian, being written with great directness and lucidity, combinedwith much vigour and picturesqueness. Evliyā, who died during thereign of Maḥommed IV., is noted for the record which he has left ofhis travels in different countries. About this time Ṭash-köpri-zādabegan and ‛Aṭā-ullāh continued a celebrated biography of thelegists and sheikhs who had flourished under the Ottoman monarchs.Ḥājī Khalīfa, frequently termed Kātib Chelebi, was one of the mostfamous men of letters whom Turkey has produced. He died in1658 (1068), having written a great number of learned works onhistory, biography, chronology, geography and other subjects. ThePersianizing tendency of this school reached its highest point in theproductions of Veysī, who left a Life of the Prophet, and of Nergisī,a miscellaneous writer of prose and verse. Such is the intentionalobscurity in many of the compositions of these two authors thatevery sentence becomes a puzzle, over which even a scholarly Ottomanmust pause before he can be sure he has found its true meaning.The first printing-press in Turkey was established by an Hungarianwho had assumed the name of Ibrāhīm, and in 1728 (1141) appearedthe first book printed in that country; it was Vanḳuli’s Turkishtranslation of Jevheri’s Arabic dictionary.
Coming now to the post-classigal period, we find among poets worthy of mention Belīgh, Nevres, Ḥishmet and Sunbuli-zāda Vehbī, each of whom wrote in a style peculiar to himself. Three poets of note—Pertev, Neshet and Sheikh Ghālib—flourished under Selīm III. The last-named is the fourth great poet of the old school. Ḥusn u ‛Ashḳ (Beauty and Love), as his great poem is called, is an allegorical romance full of tenderness and imaginativePost-
classical Period.power. Ghālib’s style is as original as that of Fuzūlī, Nefī or Nedīm. The most distinguished prose writers of this period are perhaps Rāshid, the imperial historiographer, ‛Āsim, who translated into Turkish two great lexicons, the Arabic Ḳāmus and the Persian Burhān-i Ḳāṭi‛, and Kānī, the only humorous writer of merit belonging to the old school.
When we reach the reign of Maḥmūd II., the great transitionperiod of Ottoman history, during which the civilization of theWest began to struggle in earnest with that of the East,we find the change which was coming over all thingsTurkish affecting literature along with the rest, andpreparing the way for the appearanceTransition Period. of the new school. Thechief poets of the transition are Fāzil Bey, Wāṣif, notable for hisnot altogether unhappy attempt to write verses in the spokenlanguage of the capital, ‛Izzet Molla, Pertev Pasha, ‛Ākif Pasha, andthe poetesses Fitnet and Leylā. In the works of all of these, althoughwe occasionally discern a hint of the new style, the old Persianmanner is still supreme.
More intimate relations with western Europe and a prettygeneral study of the French language and literature, together withthe steady progress of the reforming tendency fairlystarted under Maḥmūd II., resulted in the birth of thenew or modern school, whose objects are truth andModern School.simplicity. In the political writings of Reshīd and ‛Ākif Pashas wehave the first clear note of change; but the man to whom morethan to any other the new departure owes its success is ShināsīEffendi, who employed it (1859) for poetry as well as for prose.The European style, on its introduction, encountered the mostviolent opposition, but now it alone is used by living authors ofrepute. If any of these does write a pamphlet in the old manner,it is merely as a tour de force, or to prove to some faithful butclamorous partisan of the Persian style that it is not, as hesupposes, lack of ability which causes the modern author to adoptthe simpler and more natural fashion of the West. The wholetone, sentiment and form of Ottoman literature have beenrevolutionized by the new school: varieties of poetry hithertounknown have been adopted from Europe; an altogether newbranch of literature, the drama, has arisen; while the sciencesare now treated and seriously studied after the system of theWest. Among writers of this school who have won distinctionare Ziyā Pasha, Jevdet Pasha, the statesman and historian,Ekrem Bey, the author of a beautiful series of miscellaneouspoems, Zemzema, Ḥāmid Bey, who holds the first place amongOttoman dramatists, and Kemāl Bey (d. 1878), the leader of themodern school and one of the most illustrious men of letterswhom his country has produced. He wrote with conspicuoussuccess in almost every branch of literature—history, romance,ethics, poetry and the drama; and his influence on the YoungTurk party of later days was profound. (For the Turkishlanguage see Turks.) (E. J. W. G.)
The magnum opus in English on Turkish poetry is E. J. W. Gibb’sHistory of Ottoman Poetry (5 vols., 1900–8, vol. v. ed. E. G. Browne).
- ↑ Hudavendighiar, Aidin, Konia, Angora, Kastamuni, Trebizond, Sivas, Adana Syria, Aleppo, Sanjak of Jerusalem.
- ↑ Bitlis, Van, Mamuret-ul-Aziz, part of Mosul and certain islands of Vilayet of the Archipelago
,of Cyprus, Crete. - ↑ Vilayet of Beirut.
- ↑ Syrochaldaic in their churches.
- ↑ Greek in feeling, speaking Arabic.
- ↑ Syrian in their churches.
- ↑ Speaking Arabic and in their churches Syrian.
- ↑ Catholic monothelite.
- ↑ Or Ben-i-Yahya.
- ↑ Or of the sect of the son of John the Baptist (Ben-i-Yahya) whom they regard as their only prophet.
- ↑ Mahommedan sect.
- ↑ 1905–1906.
- ↑ 1905–1906.
- ↑ Steamships and Sail-Boats; 1908–1909.
- ↑ 1908–1909.
- ↑ As Dedeagatch is gaining, and will gradually gain, importance, it has been included in this table.
- ↑ It should be noted that the classification of the revenues includedrespectively under the “direct” and “indirect” categories has nowbeen quite properly changed, the sheep-tax, tithes, mining royaltiesand forest royalties being comprised under “direct taxes”; stampsand registration duties are placed in a special category, and salt andtobacco under “monopolies.”
- ↑ On the 25th of June 1910 the chamber finally passed the budgetfor 1910–1911. The figures were as follows:—
Ordinary expenditure, £T32,997,000; extraordinary expenditure,£T2,696,000; revenue £T26,015,000, leaving a deficit of £T9,678,000,which was brought up to over £T10,500,000 by special creditsfor the pension fund, the payment of debts incurred byAbd-ul-Hamid and indemnities to officials. On the other hand, theminister of finance reckoned that the revenue would probably showan increase of £T1,500,000, while about £T2,000,000 of expenditurewould remain undisbursed, which, with a reserve of £T2,000,000 from1909, would reduce the deficit to roughly £T5,000,000.
- ↑ For simplicity's sake, the lottery bonds having a special treatmentdifferent from that of the rest of the loans, these groups, whenthe new bonds of the reduced debt were exchanged against the oldbonds of the original loans, became “series” thus: Series A, group i.;series B, group ii.; series C, group iii.; series D, group iv. and lotterybonds.
- ↑ Exclusive of £T50,000 representing the retrocession of the reftish (Egyptian tax, abolished in 1895) to the régie.
- ↑ Up to 1902–1903 the extra-budgetary receipts and fines had been carried to account of the respective revenues concerned; after that date they were placed under a special heading. After 1905–1906 extra-budgetary receipts relating to expenditure previously effected have been deducted from “General Expenses.”
- ↑ The 3% customs surtax is not included in this table. It came into force on the 13th of July 1907, and produced during the remainder of the financial year £T544,987; 25% of this revenue is ceded to the public debt; the remainder reverts to the government.
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 The capital in circulation for these loans, established on the 1st of March 1326 (1910), is approximate.
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 There was a heavy fall in the receipts in the four years 1895–1896to 1898–1899 inclusive. The climax was reached in 1897–1898 whenthe net revenue amounted to only 63,975 as compared with£T352,000 in 1894–1895, and it did not revert to its previous leveluntil 1902–1903. This was the result of the Armenian massacres,the wholesale emigration of Armenians of all classes, the accompanyingprofound political unrest throughout the country, and the greatextension of contraband which ensued from it.
- ↑ Specially formed by the Anatolian railway group for the execution,which the Anatolian Railway Company guarantees under theBagdad Railway Convention, of the Bagdad railway concession.
- ↑ The line from Mustafa-Pasha to Vakarel now lies in the kingdomof Bulgaria.
- ↑ Constructed and worked by the State.
- ↑ Extension of Anatolian Railway.
- ↑ The Anatolian Railway group (German) has obtained controlof this little railway, which was originally British.
- ↑ After the fall of the caliphs of Bagdad (1258), descendants ofthe Abbasids took refuge in Cairo and enjoyed a purely titularauthority under the protection of the Egyptian rulers.
- ↑ It was ten years before a formal truce was signed with Spain(1584); two hundred years passed before the signature of a definitivetreaty of peace and commerce (Sept. 14, 1782).
- ↑ They were renewed with England in 1593, 1603, 1606, 1622,1624, 1641, 1662 and 1675.
- ↑ The definitive treaty was signed at Constantinople on the 16thof April 1712 (renewed June 5, 1713).
- ↑ See G. F. de Martens, Recueil des traités, 1st series, vol. ii.p. 286, also Noradounghian, Recueil, p. 319.
- ↑ Text in Martens, Recueil, 2nd series, vol. iv. p. 466.
- ↑ The treaty of alliance with Russia was signed on the 23rd ofDecember 1798, that with Great Britain on the 5th of January1799.
- ↑ Text in Holland, p. 212.
- ↑ “Correspondence . . . respecting the rupture of diplomaticrelations between Turkey and Greece, &c.,” in State Papers,lix. 584., &c., Protocols of Conferences, p. 813, &c.
- ↑ See Mr Baring's reports in Parl. Papers (1878), lxxxi.
