Sir, I feel very thankful for having the opportunity to express in this
place my everlasting gratitude to the Sultan of Turkey and to his noble
people. I am not a man to flatter any one. Before God, nations, and
principles I bow--before none else. But I bow with warm and proud
gratitude, before the memory of the generous conduct I met in Turkey.
And I entreat your kind permission to state some facts, which perhaps
may contribute something to a better knowledge of that country, because
I am confident that, when it is once better known, more attention will
be bestowed on its future.
Firstly, as to myself. When I was in that country, and Russia and
Austria, in the full pride of their victory, were imposing their will
upon the Sultan, and claiming the surrender of me and my associates, it
is true that a grand divan was held at Constantinople, and not very
favourable opinions were pronounced by a certain party opposed to the
existing government in Turkey, whereby the Sublime Porte itself was led
to believe that there was no help for us poor exiles, but to abandon our
faith and become Mohammedans, in order that Turkey might be able to
protect us. I thereupon made a declaration, which I believe I was bound
in honesty to make. But I owe it to the honour of the Sultan to say
openly, that even before I had declared that I would rather die than
accept this condition--before that declaration was conveyed to
Constantinople, and before any one there could have got knowledge that I
had appealed to the public opinion of England in relation
thereto--before all this was known at Constantinople, when the decision
of that great divan was announced to the Sultan to be unfavourable to
the exiles, he out of the generosity of his own heart, without knowing
what we were willing to accept or not to accept, declared: "They are
upon the soil; they have trusted to my honour, to my justice--to my
religion--and they shall not be deceived. Rather will I accept war than
deliver them up." That is entirely his merit. But notwithstanding these
high obligations which I feel towards Turkey, I never will try to engage
public sympathy and attention towards a country--towards a power--upon
the basis of one fact. But there are many considerations in reference to
Turkey which merit the full attention of the United States of America.
When we make a comparison between the Turkish Government and that of
Austria and Russia in respect to religious liberty, the scale turns
entirely in favour of Turkey. There is not only toleration for all
religions, but the government does not mix with their religious affairs,
but leaves these entirely to their own control; whereas under Austria,
although self-government was secured by three victorious revolutions, by
treaties which ensured these revolutions, and by hundreds of laws; still
Austria has blotted out from Hungary the self-government of the
Protestant church, while Turkey accords and protects the self-government
of every religious denomination. Russia (as is well known) taking
religion as a political tool, persecutes the Roman Catholics, and indeed
the Greeks and Jews, in such a manner that the heart of man must revolt
against it. The Sultan, whenever a fanatic dares to encroach on the
religious freedom of any one at all in his wide dominions, is the
inexorable champion of that religious liberty which is permitted
everywhere under his rule.
Again, I must cite from the history of Hungary this fact; that when
one-half of Hungary was under Turkish dominion, and the other half under
Austrian, religious liberty was always encouraged in that part which was
under the Turkish rule; and there was not only a full development of
Protestantism, but Unitarianism also was protected; yet by Austria the
Unitarians were afterwards excluded from every civil right, because they
were Unitarians, although our revolution restored their natural rights.
Such was the condition in respect to religious liberty under the
Austrian and under the Turkish dominion.
Now, in respect to municipal self-government, Hungary and all those
different provinces which are now opposed to the Austrian empire,--if
indeed an empire which only rests upon the goodwill of a foreign master,
can be said to exist, or even to vegetate,--all those different
provinces are absorbed by Austria. There was not one which had not in
former times a constitutional life, not one which Austria did not
deprive of it by centralizing all power in her own court. Such is the
principle of Christian rule!
Take, on the other hand, the Turk. In Turkey I have not only seen the
municipal self-government of cities developed to a very considerable
degree, but I have seen administration of justice very much like the
institution of the jury. I have seen a public trial in a case where one
party was a Turk, and the other party a Christian; where the municipal
authorities of the Christian and of the Turkish population were called
together to be not only the witnesses of the trial, but mutually to
control and direct it with perfect publicity. But more yet: there exist
Wallachia and Moldavia, under Turkish dominion; and the Turkish nation,
which has conquered that province and is dominant, yet, out of respect
for national self-government, has prescribed to its own self not to have
the right of a house to dwell in, or a single foot of soil in that land.
In all the domestic concerns of the province--which for centuries has
had a charter, by which the self-government of Wallachia and Moldavia
was ensured--it is worthy to mention that the Turk has never broken his
oath. Whereas in the European continent there is scarcely a single
dynasty, whether king, prince, duke, or emperor, which has not broken
faith before God and man. Now, the existence of this Turkey, great as
the present power of Europe is, is indispensable to the security of
Europe. You know that in the Crimea, in the time of Catherine, Potemkin
wrote the words, "Here passes the way to Constantinople." The policy
indicated by him at that time is always the policy of St. Petersburg;
and it is of Constantinople that Napoleon rightly said, that the power
which has it in command, if it is willing, is able, to rule
three-quarters of the world. Now, it is the intention, it is the
consistent policy of the Russian cabinet, to lay hold of Constantinople;
and therefore to protect the independent existence of Turkey is
necessary to Europe: for if Turkey be crushed, Russia becomes not only
entirely predominant, as she already is, but becomes the single mistress
of Asia and of Europe. And to uphold this independence of Turkey,
gentlemen, nothing is wanted but some encouragement from such a place as
the United States. Since Turkey has lost the possession of Buda in
Hungary, its power is declining. But why? Because from that time
European diplomatists began to succeed in persuading Turkey that she had
no strength to stand by herself; and by and bye it became the rule in
Constantinople that every petty interior question needed European
diplomacy. Now I say, Turkey has vitality such as not many nations have.
It has a power that not many have. Turkey wants nothing but a
consciousness of its own powers and encouragement to stand upon its own
feet; and this encouragement, if it comes as counsel, as kind advice,
out of such a place as the United States, I am confident will not only
be thankfully heard, but also very joyfully followed. That is the only
thing which is wanted there.
And besides this political consideration that the existence of Turkey,
as it is, is necessary to the future of Europe, there are also high
commercial considerations proper to interest and attract the United
States. The freedom of commerce on the Danube is a law of nations
guaranteed by treaties; and yet there exists _no_ freedom. It is in
the hands of Russia. Turkey, to be sure, is very anxious to re-establish
freedom; but there is nobody to back her in her demands. Turkey can also
present to the manufacturing industry of such a country as the United
States a far larger and more important market than all China, with her
two hundred and fifty millions of inhabitants.
But one consideration I can mention--and though it has no reference to
the public opinion here, I beg permission to avail myself of this
opportunity to pronounce it and give it publicity--and that is, that I
hope in the name of the future freedom and independence of the European
nations, those provinces of Turkey which are inhabited by Christians
will not, out of theoretical passion, and out of attachment to a mere
word, neglect that course of action which alone can lead them to freedom
and independence. Gentlemen, I declare that should the next
revolutionary movement in Europe extend to the Turkish provinces of
Moldavia and Servia,--and should Turkey hereby fall,--this would not
become a benefit to those provinces, but would benefit Russia only;
because then, Turkey no more existing, all those provinces will be
naturally absorbed by Russia; whereas, to hold fast to Turkey--that
Turkey, which respects religious liberty, gives them entirely and fully
self-government.
So much, gentlemen, I desired to express. I believe you will excuse me
for the inappropriate manner in which I have acquitted myself of this,
which I considered to be my duty in expressing my thanks to Turkey. I
declare before you that I am fully convinced of the identity of interest
between Hungary and Turkey. We have a common enemy--therefore Hungary
and Turkey are by natural ties drawn into a close alliance against that
enemy. I declare that not only out of gratitude, but also out of a
knowledge of this community of interest, I will never in my life let an
opportunity escape where I in my humble capacity can contribute to the
glory, welfare, and happiness of Turkey, but will consider it the duty
of honour toward my country to be the truest, most faithful friend of
the Turkish empire.
* * * * *