tian empire, to be able to say, "I have the north of Africa under my control. Algiers is mine: Tunis is mine: Tripoli is mine. It is now time that Egypt should be mine also; and that thus both coasts of the Mediterranean should be subject to my sway, and obey my domination." And is this a new project on the part of France? Is this the policy of 1839 only? No, it was the policy of the Directory, of the Consulate, and of the Empire; and if we may believe the declarations of the opponents of the Restoration, it was not foreign to the views of those who undertook, in 1830, the expedition against Algiers.

The French politicians, and the best French writers on this Oriental question, are perpetually speaking of the "interior regeneration of the Ottoman empire!" What does this mean? What has France to do with the interior regeneration of the Ottoman empire? Let us see. Has this "regeneration," as it is termed, been productive of weakness or of strength to the Ottoman Porte? Has it attached the populations of Turkey in Europe, Turkey in Asia, or Turkey in Africa, to the Ottoman government? No. Have the changes introduced fortified the alliances of the Sultan, concentrated the national spirit, bound the Mussulmans together as one man, and given life and vigour to a decaying frame? Just the reverse. We speak not as amateurs when we say this, but on the information of the most able and enlightened travellers and residents of modern days. The bankrupt noble, who has no longer his chests filled with guineas and his title-deeds free from mortgage-who can no longer meet the pressing demands of enraged creditors with a diminished revenue and lessened estates-will perhaps inveigh against the extravagance of former years, and the villainy of his dismissed stewards. The banquets of gone-by days will be condemned as absurd, and the splendours of his more wealthy years as madness and folly. But why did not the nobleman entertain these opinions when his resources were vast, and his means of existence and happiness indubitable? No, no; he is still a spendthrift by choice, and reformed only from necessity. Thus it is with the Sultan Mahmoud and his Turkish subjects. They have no taste for the penury, the reductions, theocci

dentalism, the journalism, the budgetism, the parliamentaryism of the 19th century. The times of Soliman are still those to which they look back, and refer with Ottoman pride and Eastern delight. They know and feel that Turkey is fallen. They know and they feel that the Turkey of 1839, is but the shadow of the Turkey of former generations. The "regeneration" of the Ottoman empire, to which French writers so often refer, is nothing more than the expedient of the bankrupt noble-the disgust of a wornout voluptuary-the affected disapprobation of lust, which time and circumstances no longer allow to be enjoyed. The "regeneration" in question is the evidence of weakness, not of power - of fallen grandeur, and not of rising glory. When France thus proposes that Turkey shall be left to herself - she places the escutcheon beforehand on the gates of that once mighty empire, and inscribes on the sign of dissolution, "REQUIESCAT IN PACE!" When France proposes that the treaty of Kutahia shall be maintained, and that Turkey shall be left to pursue the work of her own regeneration, she merely seeks to gain time for the working of her own policy, which is that of suffering Turkey to expire, that Algiers in the mean time may become a wide and a mighty colony, and that, when the East shall have to be divided, her share may be Egypt. With such convictions as to the nature of French policy in the East, we have undertaken the preparation of the preceding and following observations on the Eastern question; and we now propose to examine, deliberately but briefly, the present state of the Eastern crisis.

The history of Turkey has shown us, that in all ages Russia has been the enemy of the Ottoman Porte. This is a fact of vast importance.

The history of Egypt has shown us, that the Porte has never voluntarily abandoned that province of its mighty dominions; and that Mehemet Ali is still in revolt against his legitimate sovereign.

The history of Syria has shown us, that never did it belong to Egypt; that for centuries it belonged to Turkey; and that, at this very moment, the Syrian Christians have decidedly less partiality for Ibrahim Pacha than even for the Porte and the Crescent,

Yet what is the present state of things in Turkey, Egypt, and Syria? Why, that Turkey is "protected" by her bitterest foe; - that Egypt is encouraged in her rebellion against the Porte, even by those who profess (as does France) to maintain the status quo ;and that Syria is to be required, and if necessary compelled, to submit to the domination of Egypt; and the mere advance of a Turkish corps to the frontiers of that province, is to be magnified into a cause for legitimate war on the part of all Europe against the Sultan.

We have said that Egypt is encouraged in her rebellion against the Sultan, and we say so advisedly. The French Government never protested against the treaty of Kutahia. The French Government has encouraged the Pacha of Egypt in his Syrian victories. The French Government now, to this day, requires that Syria shall remain attached to the territories of the victorious Ibrahim. But more than this: the Pacha of Egypt claims to be "independent" of the Sultan, and France encourages him in his am

bitious projects. We know well that

we shall be told that, in August last, when Mehemet Ali announced his intention of asserting that independence, the French Consul was the first to protest to the Pacha against the adoption of such a resolution; and that the Consul-General of France represented to the Viceroy, that to proclaim his independence " at that time" would be to rekindle war, and that, if necessary, the powers of Europe would oppose it by force. But what did this protest mean? The words, "at that time," embody all its sense and application; and the reply of the Pacha proved that he well understood his position.

"The Pacha," said the diplomatic note, "fully relies on the excellent intentions of the four powers with respect to him. He regrets to see them opposed to his views; but be predicts that the time is not far removed when they will change their opinion. He hopes, above all, that the hereditary question of the throne will be resolved in his favour. He will be satisfied if it shall be terminated without war, and by means of negotiations; but if he cannot thus succeed, and if he shall be forced to have recourse to arms, he will then proclaim not only

He

the hereditary rights of his crown, but the entire independence of Egypt. He is firmly resolved not to allow himself to be delivered up to the Porte by the European powers. He is old, and perhaps there is nothing better for him to do than to fall honourably in the conflict, rather than to leave his family, his servants, and his people, to the hazard of events. has, in the course of his life, been obliged to shed much blood, in order to establish that which he has done, to obtain that which he possesses. He is resolved that such blood shall not have been shed in vain. Besides this, his views are in harmony with the in. terests and the policy of Europe. Why then sacrifice them? He is not of their religion-but he is a man like themselves, and he should be treated like a man; that is to say, he should be allowed to provide for the destiny of his children, for whose future fortunes he would provide. If the great powers of Europe do not approve of these reasons if they will not give him any guarantee for the stability of the state of things existing in Egypt - if they reduce him to the necessity of following only his own inspirations, and of taking counsel only of himself-he is decided on sacrificing the rest of his life and of his strength to put an end to a state of uncertainty which is unsupportable, because, above all, it weighs down upon his children. Besides this, he knows well, that if the great powers are agreed on oppressing him, he must succumb; but these powers are already so powerful and great, that such a victory will add nothing to their renown, and that even the consequences of that victory may embarrass them. As to himself, there are ninety-five against, and but five for him; but that is of no moment. In war the dice are always uncertain; and if hazard should cause them to be favourable to him, he leaves to the great powers the duty of considering the consequences of a victory which no one then will have the right to con. trol or to moderate."

And what says France to this protest of the Pacha? Does she remind him of the conditions of Selim, of the character of all pachalick governments, of the impossibility of Europe to encourage revolt, and of the fact that the Porte, who conquered Egypt, and instituted a pacha there, has alone the right of altering the form and direction of the government? No such thing.

"The hereditary rights of Mehemet Ali," cries the French Government organ, is an acquired right. It could not be disputed. We must desire ourselves to see civilisation by degrees gain possession, little by little, of all the coasts of the Mediterranean! Thanks to our arms! civilisation has regained a footing in Africa; in Egypt, thanks to Mehemet Ali; in Greece, thanks to the Treaty of London; and at Constantinople, thanks to the reforms attempted by the Sultan!!"

Thus France has settled for herself the "hereditary" question of the throne of Egypt; and until the future events in the East shall enable her to take possession of that country for herself, she proclaims to Europe the necessity for changing the form of Government in the Egyptian dominions of the Sultan. Thus are whispered away the "rights" of the Ottoman Porte, and "civilisation" and "the progress of reform" are the cant phrases of the French politicians. But that the whole of the views and reasonings of France on this important question of the hereditary throne of Mehemet may be fully understood, we transcribe the following observations from the Government organ of that country.

" It would be painful to think that Egypt, after the death of Mehemet Ali, was to be restored to barbarism. Thus the hereditary throne of Egypt, in the family of Mehemet Ali, is an acquired fact. His children will endeavour to maintain it. Who is the pacha that would dispute their rights? We add, that this regular and peaceable manner of creating new states, appears to be one of the maxims of our times. It is thus that Greece became, by little and little, an independent kingdom. It is thus that Walachia and Moldavia have acquir ed, by a series of treaties, an independence certainly greater with regard to the Sultan, their former master, than with regard to the Czar, their new protector. The recognition of the hereditary throne of Egypt, in the family of Mehemet Ali, will be thus one of those regular and peaceable acts which prepare the way for the new life of states."

This is open and undisguised propagandism and democracy. There is no revolution, however unjust-no revolt, however savage or blind that may not be vindicated and approved on such principles as these. At this rate the Belgian insurrection may be defended, because it is succesful, as one of the "regular and peaceable means" of creating new states.

But what says the organ of the French Cabinet as to the rights of the Ottoman Porte? Are they actually neglected or passed over by the writers in question? Certainly not; but the manner in which they are treated is at once anarchical and deplorable.

"The Porte will preserve its suzeraineté, and it will, assuredly, be stronger, aided by the power of its hereditary vassal, than it is to-day; for to-day the force of Egypt is injurious to Turkey, and hereafter it will, on the contrary, serve it."

This short paragraph contains as many errors as it does words;-and each of those errors is dangerous and insidious. 1st, When the Porte shall no longer have a voice in the appointment of a pacha, its suzeraineté in Egypt will be at an end, except so far as the khazneh or tribute-money may be concerned. 2nd, When Egypt shall be governed by an hereditary pacha independent of the Porte, except perhaps the simple payment of the khazneh, not only will that pacha not be the vassal of the Sultan, but he will be his equal. 3rd, The force of Egypt to day, is only injurious to Turkey, because it has usurped a force which does not belong to it, and has annexed to it dominions belonging to the Ottoman empire. 4th, The Pacha of Egypt has already announced three conditions of peace with the lifeless remains of the once-powerful Ottoman Porte, which are-1st, The annexation of the whole of Syria to Egypt; 2nd, The hereditary throne of Egypt secured to his family for ever; and 3rd, The eventual total independence of Egypt. How, then, would the mere recognition of the hereditary throne of Egypt, in the family of Mehemet Ali, secure the force of Turkey? And, finally, the erection of Egypt into a powerful, independent, and hereditary monarchy, must necessarily terminate, not in the force and progress, strength and vi

gour of Turkey, but, on the contrary, in its final if not early destruction.

But France has a project of her own, as idle and chimerical as it is false and flimsy. She takes much pains to enforce one dogma, which is this, "that the questions of the East should be decided by the East," for the purpose of hiding from the public eye her real intentions. She proclaims that Europe ought not to interfere in Oriental questions. Why? Because it does not yet suit her to interfere herself. "Hereafter," she says, "that interference may become necessary," -and then, when her Algiers shall be extensive and mighty when Tunis and Tripoli shall be levelled to the dust-when nothing shall stand in the way of a French attack on Egypt, -when Asia Minor or Cyprus shall be valuable and gainable acquisitions, -then France will discover that the Eastern question is European as well as Asiatic, and the ports of Toulon, Marseilles, Bona, Algiers, Tunis, &c., will pour forth her vassals to the Mediterranean war. As, however, the projects of France for the future "settlement" of the affairs of the East it was necessary to keep from public observation, and as every one feels that the Eastern question is now, in 1839, one that admits not of delay, France has invented the following scheme or project, which we have called flimsy, idle, chimerical, and false. It is that of an EASTERN CON

FEDERATION.

"An Oriental confederation, which shall unite under the hardy and decided protection of Western Europe all the scattered members of the ancient Ottoman empire; - Egypt, by the title of hereditary pachalick; Greece, as an independent kingdom; Walachia and Moldavia by the title of Hospodorates; with Constantinople for the centre and the capital, and the Sultan Mahmoud for suzerain and president;-aconfederation of this sort would certainly be infinitely better than the impossible resurrection of the integrity of Ottoman empire."

This is the scheme of the French Government, court, and perhaps dydasty. One more senseless could not be devised and an élève of the college of Henri IV. would have merited dry bread and close confinement had such been his plan in reply to the question of his historical professor, What

{

are the best means to be pursued for preserving the integrity of Ottoman empire?" We are friends of peace, we are supporters of the French conservatives, and we have made many sacrifices of our sympathies and tastes to assist the government of LouisPhilippe; but we did expect some better "programme" than this.

This is indeed expecting order to spring out of disorder, and conflicting interests to co-operate for the same object. The Sultan-the robbed, spoliated, insulted Sultan-unable to open the Dardanelles without the permission of the Czar-unable to obtain the payment of the tribute of centuries from Egypt-cajoled out of Walachia and Moldavia, and tricked out of Syria, Greece, and Egypt-reduced by the treaty of Kutahai to a mere fourthrate European power-and by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi to play the part of a municipal governor at Constantinople; - this Sultan is to be the suzerain and president of an Oriental confederation.

From the pretensions and policy of FRANCE, if we turn to those of RUSSIA with regard to the Porte and to the question of the East, we shall find nothing to encourage or to cheer.

"Russia," said M. de Boutenief (the Russian ambassador at Constantinople)" Russia had no middle course to take between these two parts-either to be the first friend or the first enemy of the Porte." And feeling this to be her position, Russia is equally ready to play either part, as her interests and as circumstances may point out: for in the Crimea and at Odessa she has always a fleet and an army, ready to hasten to protect, or equally to hasten to crush, the dying remains of the Ottoman Porte. But what means M. de Boutenief by Russia being the "first friend of the Porte?" What has been the avowed policy of Russia towards the Ottoman empire from the time of Peter the Great downwards? The policy of encroachment. "Yes," says M. Pozzo di Borgo, "but not that of the encroachment of others-only of her own." This is not strictly true-for if so, how happened it that Russia consented to the treaty of Kutahia. The alphabet is not so commonly known in Russia as the fact, that the Government of that country has for centuries kept one object steadily in view-the making Constantinople the southern capital of the Russian empire. The policy of Russia has been to weaken Turkey, since by so acting it rendered, on the one hand, resistance to her plans impracticable, and, on the other hand, it got rid of the chance of one day being opposed by a rival empire.

And if we look at the histories of the wars of Russia with the Ottoman Porte, one prominent fact will strike us, and that is, that she always undertook and carried on these wars when Europe was engaged with other and more pressing subjects. The reason was evident. Her wars with the Porte have not been those of vengeance, of sudden and quick quarrel, of the wrath of an enemy who has been provoked to combat, and who seeks to satisfy the demands of his dignity and his honour. Nothing of the sort. The wars of Russia against the Porte, especially those of the last hundred years, have been those of deliberate encroachment on its territory-ofasystematic resolution to weaken its power and diminish its influence; not all at once, so as to create anxiety or alarm, but by degrees-now a little and then a little sometimes laying by for a series of years, but always returning to the charge. The policy of Russia towards Poland has been of a similar character. Thus Russia has, by degrees, destroyed the nationality of both countries. In pursuance of this system of gradual destruction, or of gradual incorporation, Russia obtained the treaty of Adrianople, and subsequently that of Unkiar Skelessi. From that moment she proclaimed herself the guardian of the Porteand Turkey became not the ward but the vassal of the Russian empire. Since the signature of the last-named treaty, six years have passed awayand we now approach the consideration of the present position of affairs. Turkey, bound down, fettered, and feeling her chains, has been, on the one hand, solicitous of destroying the treaty of Kutahia, whilst Egypt has been endeavouring to extend its effects and advantages. England has been anxious to diminish the evil consequences of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, whilst Russia has sought to fortify it. France and Austria, supremely anxious to avert a general war, as neither power was prepared to engage in it, have exerted all their in

fluence to prevent a collision between Great Britain and Russia. Thus the labour of six years has been, on the part of France, England, Austria, and Turkey, to gain time; and on that of Russia and Egypt to push on the advantages secured by their respective treaties. Turkey has endeavoured in vain, single-handed, to regain possession of Syria by means of the revolt of the Druses. Ibrahim Pacha has preserved his conquests; and his father Mehemet Ali has been willing to make every sacrifice to preserve Syria. Two thousand years ago, says Mehemet, Alexander the Great marched against Egypt before proceeding to submit Upper Asia to his dominions. There is a mysterious connexion, he maintains, between Syria and Egypt. The Lagides of Alexandria and Seleucides of Antioch were ceaselessly at war, he will tell you, for the same reason. "Egypt is only an empire when she has Syria," exclaimed Ibrahim. "My father was the Pacha of the Sultan till I was master of Aleppo," cried this same mighty warrior; "but now he is the Emperor of the East!"

When Russia was informed of the intention of Mehemet Ali to proclaim the independence of Egypt, her reply was just such as might have been anticipated. If, said the Russian Government, this event shall occur, and the fleets of France and of England shall blockade the coasts of Egypt and Syria, and shall obtain the revocation of their independence, Russia will make no demonstration to succour the Porte; but, on the contrary, if the fleets of England and of France shall remain neutral, Russia will find herself obliged, in conformity with the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, to afford her aid. Thus faithful to her immemorial policy of considering the affairs of the East as independent of those of Europe, she separated her cause and her policy from those of the other powers, resolved, as she was, to pursue her course of gradual but effective encroachment, until the moment should arrive when Constantinople should become the southern residence of the Czar. In the East, Russia will be ambitious at her ease; always ambitious, and always progressing, but by degrees-slowly-surely-and never for one moment deviating from her purpose. It was, therefore, that in 1828, in her famous manifesto, she proclaimed" Que nul pacte de ga