contemptuously put aside as a person of notoriously bad character. Another device is to get him imprisoned — it may be only for an hour — on some false charge. This is enough; for a Christian once imprisoned, however innocently, is rejected as a witness. On the other hand, the Mussulman prosecutor or defendant has no difficulty at all to get any amount of evidence against a Christian. The only chance the latter has is that, if he happens to be sufficiently rich, he may bribe the judge. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is not a judge in Turkey who will not sell justice for a bribe. The only conscience he has in the matter is that he is likely to sell his award to the follower of the Prophet for a smaller bribe than he will receive from the hated and despised Giaour. This universal corruption of justice in Turkey is admitted even by those who are ordinarily the most strenuous to defend the Turk against his western critics: —
- The absence of all effective control [says Mr. Gifford Palgrave], in a country where not only orderly and official superintendence, but even the restraint of public opinion, so powerful in Europe by means of the newspapers and intercommunication, is wanting, facilitates any amount of corruption; and if opportunity makes thieves, few Mahometan kadees are likely long to remain honest. . . . A judge dependent on favor and independent of reputation is much more likely, as human nature goes, to prove a Kirke than a "Daniel." ("Essays on Eastern Questions," p. 85.)
The Christian, moreover, is shut out from the possibility of buying land. A Christian now and then, more simple and confiding than his fellows, has within the last twenty years bought land in Turkey, presuming on the explicit guarantee of the Hatt-i-Humayoun; but the result has almost invariably been that he has been robbed of his purchase. Either the man of whom he purchased it, or some neighboring Ahab, covets and quietly takes possession of the poor man's dearly-bought field or vineyard. The Christian appeals to the law, but no evidence that he can produce is admissible. He loses his land without getting back his purchase-money, and he may thank his stars if he does not get the bastinado into the bargain for bringing a false accusation against a true believer.
I have already mentioned the most cruel torture of all to which the rayah of Turkey is exposed — I mean the peril to which the chastity of his female relations is daily exposed. It is stated in the Daily News of October 23, that Mr. Baring and Mr. Calvert, who were then in Bulgaria, had compelled the arrest of "a Turk who demanded a Christian girl from her father for his harem. When the latter refused he cut at him with a sabre, wounding his hand." In a debate on the Cretan insurrection in the House of Lords on March 8, 1867, the late Lord Derby bestowed high praise on Colonel Longworth, then consul-general at Belgrade; and certainly Colonel Longworth was a vigorous philo-Turk. His evidence therefore is above suspicion when he says that "the forcible abduction of Christian girls is an abuse which calls urgently for correction."[1] But to talk of a remedy for the Christian while the Turk rules over him is, in plain language, to talk nonsense. "A custom prevails here," says Mr. Consul Abbott, "to exempt from military conscription a Mussulman young man who elopes with a Christian girl, and whom he converts to his faith. This being a meritorious act for his religion, it entitles him, as a reward, to be freed from military service."[2]
Now let the reader consider what this means. It means that the Turkish government puts a premium on the violation of Christian female chastity. That government to which Christian States accredit Christian ambassadors tempts the Mussulman ravisher of Christian maidens with a substantial reward in the life that now is, and with the promise of paradise hereafter. And every rayah family in Turkey is exposed to this outrage. And they are helpless, for they are not allowed to possess arms, and they have no other arbitrament to appeal to but the God who hears in secret, and gathers up the tears of the afflicted.
- ↑ "Consular Reports on Condition of Christians in Turkey in 1860," p. 121. My first introduction to the consular reports of 1860 I owe to Mr. Denton's able and instructive pamphlet on "The Christians in Turkey." Though the pamphlet was published in 1863, I am sorry to say I never read it till after my return from Servia this year. The Parliamentary papers of 1867 and 1876 have been published some years after the publication of Mr. Denton's pamphlet, and they certainly throw a lurid light on his arguments and conclusions.
- ↑ "Consular Reports on Condition of Christians in Turkey in 1860," p. 7. Let no one be deceived by such terms as "elopes" or "converts to his faith." Elopement means what Mr. Consul Longworth calls "forcible abduction;" and as to conversion to the Mahometan faith, the victim of Turkish lust has no choice. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred she has no means to bring her case before the tribunals; and if she does, her evidence as a Christian is not received. If, in the frenzy of her despair, she proclaims herself a Mahometan, in order to get a hearing, her ravisher is praised and rewarded for having converted her, and she remains his lawful prey.
