CHAPTER XXI

RELEASE

How Lord Chandos would have acquitted himself of his delicate mission, had he been left to his own resources, it is impossible to say. As it was, the unaccountable Power which, for want of a better term, we call “luck” seconded him beyond his own or any one else’s most sanguine hopes. Just as he arrived on the scene, the strain between France and Turkey ripened to a crisis.

Besides her grievances against the pashas on the Bosphorus, France had many scores to settle with the pirates of Barbary. Louis had put up with their depredations for eight years--so long, that is, as his war against Holland, Denmark, Spain, and Germany tied his hands. But the pacification of the West had set him free for action in the East. The monarch who had humbled all the Powers of Europe would no longer brook humiliation at the hands of the petty principalities of Africa. He decided to deal with them summarily and, at the same time, with their patron in Stambul: the combination, in truth, was unavoidable, for the corsairs were permitted to prey upon the French even in the ports--nay, in the very towns--that lay directly under the Grand Signor’s rule. Only a few months ago the French Consul at Cyprus and a French merchant were carried out of their houses during the night aboard a Tripoli man-of-war, and after being soundly drubbed were forced to ransom themselves. M. de Guilleragues could obtain from the Grand Vizir no satisfaction for this outrage; and the pirates improved the occasion by taking a French ship worth 100,000 dollars as it sailed from Smyrna.[290]

So the famous Admiral Duquesne was sent with a squadron to scour the Mediterranean. His orders were to seek and destroy the pirates wheresoever he found them. After sweeping everything before him farther west, Duquesne entered the Archipelago. The Grand Signor’s Capitan Pasha met him with his Fleet and asked what he came into these seas for. The Frenchman quoted his orders. “Nay,” said the Turk, “the Grand Signor will never allow the Tripolines to be attacked in his own ports.” “We shall see about that,” replied Duquesne, and made for Chios, where four Tripoli men-of-war and four petaches lay careening with their guns all ashore. The Admiral sailed into the port (July 13, 1681) and, without any ceremony, went for the disarmed pirates. They fled into the Grand Signor’s Castle, which fired two guns. Duquesne retorted with thirty, and a message that, if the Grand Signor’s Castle protected them, he would knock it down about the ears of the Grand Signor’s garrison. The Turks, terrified, desisted from further acts of hostility, turned the Tripolines out, and sent word to the Admiral that they would remain neutral. Duquesne then set to work: in four hours, and at the expense of 8000 shots, he disabled the Tripoline vessels (how he managed not to destroy them does not appear), slaying about 300 of their crews and, incidentally, doing some damage to the town. Some of his shots battered down several buildings, among them a minaret, and killed some of the inhabitants. Whereupon loud uproar in Stambul: it was the greatest affront the Ottoman Empire had ever received since its foundation! Rumour added that Duquesne had sailed to the Dardanelles, whence he had addressed, through the Turkish commander of the Castles at the Straits, a message to the Vizir demanding to know how the French Ambassador would be treated as to the Soffah and stating that he would shape his conduct accordingly! Cause enough for uproar.

At the Porte all is confusion. Councils are held in quick succession; orders are despatched to the Capitan Pasha to put his Fleet in a place of safety; couriers fly in different directions on secret errands. Until their return, what steps Kara Mustafa will take, no man can tell, he least of all.

Among the French residents all is consternation. M. de Guilleragues, after repeated demands and denials, had only a week before obtained leave for his wife and daughter to depart on the plea of ill-health: now, fearing lest the Porte should cancel the permission, he hastens to send them away; but he is not quick enough: the vessel has fallen down the Sea of Marmara some leagues, the ladies are on the very point of following in a boat, when a peremptory command from the Vizir stops them and compels the vessel to turn back. Simultaneously the Ambassador is summoned to give an account of what was done at Chios; but before he has set out, a countermand comes, ordering him to hold himself ready for another summons. While waiting for this summons, M. de Guilleragues gives out that, when he appears before the Vizir, he will not utter one word, unless he has his seat on the Soffah: he will only hand to him the King’s letters--which all these months still remain undelivered--and, let him do his worst, Kara Mustafa shall have no other answer. Very fine--but the French merchants, in great alarm, apply to the various foreign Ministers to save the best of their effects.

The English await developments with tense interest: “Every day is like to produce great matters,” writes Sir John, and the writing, much larger and with wider spaces between the lines than usual, illustrates his excitement. “The result of these resolute orders of His Most Christian Majesty can end in nothing mean.” France, he thinks, has gone too far to draw back: she must either come to an absolute breach with the Porte, or “make the Proud Heads of this place to stoop”--in which case all Christendom will reap the benefit: “If the Turk once finds that things are not tamely putt up, transactions here will be more easy, and I hope My Lord Chandos will find the good effect of this passe.”[291]

The anticipation was abundantly verified. Chandos made the most of this fortunate conjuncture. During the weeks he remained incognito waiting for the _Oxford_, he prepared the ground, and in his audience with Kara Mustafa he delivered the sterner letter from the King: the Vizir read it through most carefully and bade the Ambassador welcome, without any allusion to its contents. But it was obvious that he had been deeply impressed; and the Ambassador did not fail to strike while the iron was hot. He struck so vigorously and skilfully that by the 5th of September he had obtained full satisfaction on the two main points: The money extorted from Finch for the Capitulations was refunded to the Treasurer of the Levant Company by Kara Mustafa’s Jew, who, to save the Grand Vizir’s face, pretended that it came out of the dead Kehayah’s hoard. This was a triumph of which Chandos might well be proud--restitution of money had never yet been procured from a Turk; and it was followed by another, not less pleasant: in his own words, “the false demand upon his Excellency for a prodigious sum of money by the Pasha of Tunis is also for ever damn’d by the most valid way in their Law we could desire without parting with one asper.” And even that was not all: “We are also now promised several other Articles of considerable benefit to trade in these parts and shall have them in our custody in a few days.” On one point only the Ambassador found the Vizir adamant and was forced by the haste which the Company’s interests required not to lose time in disputing it, but to accept his “parole of honour that if any prince in the world ever had the priviledge of the Suffra we should have it the first”--a promise which the Vizir had no difficulty in making, as he went on to add that “heaven should be earth and earth heaven before any such thing should be condescended to by them!”[292] That a man, while parting with solid cash, should cling so passionately to an empty form, is but another manifestation of the mysterious workings of the official mind. However, we were more than satisfied with a liberality which would have been more meritorious, but could not have been more welcome, had it been voluntary.

At the same time Lord Chandos obtained leave for Sir John to depart when he pleased. But alas! the boon which a little while ago would have filled Sir John with joy found him now unable to enjoy anything. On the 22nd of August his friend Baines had been seized with a malignant double tertian, of which he was very certain that he would die, in accordance with the method of Providence. “For,” he told Finch, “God had under many diseases preserved him so long as he could be any wayes usefull or serviceable to me, but that now, returning into England where my friends were all so well in their severall posts, he could no longer be of any use to me, and therefore God would putt a period to that life which he onely wished for my sake.”

His comrade’s condition, reacting upon Finch’s own system through the subtle laws of sympathy, “cutt off the thread of all my worldly happinesse and application to business,” so much so that he himself fell ill of a tertian. Then, on September 5th, the very day on which the leave to depart was brought to him, Baines died: the friend from whom during thirty-six years he had never been separated for more than a week or two at a time--“the best friend the world ever had, for prudence, learning, integrity of life and affection”--was taken away from him.

For this calamity Sir John’s mind ought to have been prepared. About a year before, while he and Sir Thomas were sitting in their gallery after supper, there came upon the table a “loud knocking.” Such was the first warning. The second was not less significant. A few days before Sir Thomas’s illness one of Sir John’s teeth dropped out of his head without any pain whilst they dined together: “which,” notes the ex-Professor of Anatomy, “seemes to confirm the interpretation of those who make the dreaming of the losse of a tooth to be the prediction of the losse of a friend.”[293]

These reflections, however, came to poor Sir John afterwards. At the moment he was not in a state for coherent thought of any kind. The blow fell upon him with all the stupefying force of an unforeseen catastrophe: it prostrated him: his tertian rose to a double continual tertian, which reduced him to such weakness that he was given over by his physician and all others. Thus he lay, forlorn, desolate, broken in mind and body, for about a fortnight. By September 22nd, however, he had recovered sufficiently to indite a lengthy despatch, in which, after touching upon his bereavement, he gives the sequel of the French Admiral’s exploit.

So far the only outcome of the debates held at the Porte had been an embargo imposed on French ships and men throughout the Empire. The Turks did not find themselves in a condition to express greater resentment; for Duquesne’s squadron, small as it was, was “more than doubly able to fight all the force the Ottoman Empire is able to make appear at sea. So that, contrary to the bilious and proud procedure of this Court, they go on with Spanish phlegm. The Porte are very sensible that France can doe them all manner of mischief, both by its power and its vicinity, and that they can take no other but the small, pitifull revenge of exercising their indignation upon the French Ambassadour and as many of the King’s subjects as reside in the Empire.” The Tripolines, left in the lurch, sued for peace. But “Mons. de Quesne refusd’ to treat with such a company of rascalls.” Some fruitless negotiations between the Admiral and the Capitan Pasha ensued. Then, Sir John adds three weeks later, a courier from the Capitan Pasha came with the news that the Admiral had blocked up his whole Fleet in the port of Chios. On receipt of this fresh instance of the Giaour’s temerity, “the heat of the Gran Signor was such that he ordred the Gran Visir to send for Mons. de Guilleragues and send him to the Seven Towers. The Visir sent for the Ambassadour using great threats towards him; but his Excellency carry’d himselfe with great courage, not onely refusing to sit below the Saffa, but being pressd’ to doe it, kickd’ his stool down with his feet, and then delivring the Letter from the King his master, which for more than 8 moneths the Visir had refusd’ to receive.” When Kara Mustafa urged reparation for the affront and damage done to the Grand Signor’s port of Chios, M. de Guilleragues retorted that the King of France had received none for the affront and damage done to his Consul and subjects at Cyprus, concluding that, “it was as lawfull for the King his Master to set upon his enemy’s in the Gran Signor’s ports, as for them to attack the French.” Thanks to his “dexterous and resolute prudence,” the French Ambassador was only detained in custody of the Chaoush-bashi for a while, and then, on signing a paper to acquaint his Most Christian Majesty with the Grand Signor’s desires, was released; and it was thought now that in the agreement the point of the Soffah would be included. “Certainly Mons. de Guilleragues has shown himselfe in this a Great Minister.”[294]

This is Sir John’s last official report from Pera. While penning it, he was busy with his preparations for leaving a spot to which he was now bound by nothing save memories of suffering. Every hour he passed in that house only accented his sense of desolation. With Sir Thomas Baines all that had made Turkey bearable had vanished. He was no longer there to support him. The hapless bachelor, physically and mentally worn out, and relieved of all public concerns, had now nothing to do but brood over his personal grief. He was like a shipwrecked mariner stranded on an alien and hostile shore. His one desire was to hasten home. It is much to his credit that of all this inner misery the only hint we have is contained in a paragraph of unwonted self-restraint: “I with some impatience attend the recovery of my health that I may be once freed from the commands of a Goverment so irregular that they are wholely irreconcilable to all methods of reason and honour and return into my native soyl.”[295]

It was with the same wish, expressed in the same words, that Sir John had left his “native soyl” in 1673. Eight years had passed--had he known what lay at the end of it all, would he have had the strength to persevere? And now, more than ever, he languishes for home: the longing grows, as the days go by. At last, in November 1681, he set sail in the _Oxford_, carrying with him the body of his friend embalmed. But he was destined to have one more experience of Kara Mustafa’s “irregular goverment” at Smyrna, where the _Oxford_ put in that she might take under her escort four English merchantmen which lay there richly freighted. The convoy was ready for its homeward voyage, when a command from the Porte forbade it to sail. Why, oh why had he not departed two months ago? Why had he waited to recover: will accidents never cease to dog his steps? Without sharing Sir John’s superstition, no one that studies his life can help being struck by the continuity of his bad luck: everything seems to go wrong with him--not always through any wrong calculation of his own; and when something lucky happens, it is not he that reaps the gain and the glory, but his successor.

The causes of this latest check were as follows:

The panic into which Duquesne’s feat had thrown the Porte had subsided. The French admiral was still cruising about the Levant coasts, but did nothing. Kara Mustafa saw that he had little to fear from France. Nor had he much to fear from England. Scarcely had Lord Chandos received satisfaction for past injuries, and he had not yet received the additional privileges promised to him, when news reached Constantinople that English ships laden with a vast estate were on their way to Turkey. For this injudicious precipitancy the Levant Company was not to blame, but only some members of it, our old friend Dudley North chief among them. For reasons of his own he had from the first opposed the suspension of trade, and now, by representing the scheme to the King and the Privy Council, through his brother the Lord Keeper, as a treacherous design inspired by the Opposition with a view to hurting the Royal Exchequer, he got the Government to force the merchants to rescind all they had done.[296] The result was such as might have been foreseen. Kara Mustafa, concluding that the English were anxious for trade at any price, decided to make them pay for the blow they had dealt at his purse and his pride. All that he needed was a specious pretext; and he had not far to look for one.

The English by their Capitulations were obliged to pay a 3 per cent export duty on silk. But the Turks, to avoid fraud--an art in which foreigners surpassed the natives--preferred to collect this duty from the native seller, who charged it to the foreign buyer and handed over to him together with the goods the official receipt. Such had been the established practice for over thirty years. Nevertheless, the letter of the law remained unaltered; and it was in this pure technicality that Kara Mustafa found his pretext. Suddenly our merchants were called upon to pay the duty on all silk they had exported for five years past, a sum amounting to over 100,000 dollars, and it was suspected that this was only a beginning, the intention being to extort ultimately the duty for the whole thirty years. On their refusal to comply, the Customer of Smyrna stopped the ships which the _Oxford_ was to convoy.

Lord Chandos was summoned by the Grand Vizir to the Divan and asked if his Nation ought not, in accordance with their Capitulations, to pay a 3 per cent duty. He replied in the affirmative. “But,” said the Vizir, “do you?” Chandos naturally answered that the duty was paid by the sellers on account of the buyers. “Oh,” said Kara Mustafa, “that shall not serve your turn. The sellers are the Grand Signor’s subjects, and he may lay what he pleases on them. What they paid was on their own account, but you must pay for yourselves,” and, without further argument, he gave a kind of sentence against the English. The Ambassador protested, but was told that, if he did not obey, he should be put in irons, and was sent away to think about it. What a clap of thunder to our merchants: their victory turned suddenly into a ruinous disaster!

Chandos thought of nothing less than submitting; but Finch, who itched to see the last of Turkey, positively declared that he would not stay more than a few days: if the matter was not settled quickly, he would sail in the _Oxford_, leaving the four merchantmen behind. Chandos considered what this would mean: an indefinite detention of the ships, to the great loss of freighters and owners, not to mention the danger of confiscation. He therefore offered the Vizir 25,000, 40,000, 55,000 dollars. But all these offers were rejected. Thereupon the English had recourse to “other means, wherein by a marvellous Providence we succeeded.” This providential intervention consisted of a bribe of 12 purses, or 6000 dollars, administered to the Smyrna authorities. It acted like a charm: the vessels were suffered to slip away, and Sir John was able to pursue his voyage in peace.[297]

The shores of Turkey gradually merged in the sea-mists. That harsh Eastern world lay hushed behind him. Before him, ready to welcome the exile, friendly Italy; and beyond, England, dear relatives, and leisure, and rest.

On January 18th, 1682, we hear of the ex-Ambassador’s arrival at Argostoli on the island of Cephalonia, where he was treated by the Venetian Governor very courteously.[298] On March 11th he was at Leghorn, purchasing Italian pictures, statues, and wines. From Marseilles he intended to travel overland to Calais in a litter; but he changed his mind and continued his journey by sea, visiting Seville on the way and purchasing Spanish wines. By the time he reached the Downs he had with him, besides some sixty trunks, nineteen enormous chests of books, twenty-three of Italian pictures and statues, fifteen of Florence wine, a butt of Smyrna wine, and six of Saragossa. From the _Oxford_ he wrote to his nephew, giving him minute directions about this baggage: “I believe a barge will be most convenient as I can put three or four trunks upon it which cannot well be left for any other passage.” The chests of books and pictures and statues “will require a hoy or vessell that hath a dry hold to keepe them from rain above and sea water below.” “If wine in bottles pay no custome, I will have 50 dozen bought for me with good corks.”[299]

That a man who had suffered such a bereavement should have any thoughts left for pictures and statues; that he should, to the sad cargo of his friend’s coffin, be adding chests of wine and ordering corks, may to the impercipient seem strange, and to the cynical convey a suggestion of insincerity. But those acquainted with the psychology of grief will understand. In reality it was distraction from thought which these thoughts brought him. Sir John sought some antidote--he felt the need, which certain natures under the stress of intolerable sorrow feel, of turning to commonplace occupations, of busying himself with trivial details, as the only means of reducing the dreary melancholy which else would crush him utterly.

His attempt was rewarded by a measure of success. Although during the early part of the voyage he had been so depressed that he made his will, in July he landed on his “native soyl” in much better spirits than he could have hoped “after so much weaknesse and sicknesse and sorrow.” But the rally was only temporary: the anxieties, the mortifications, the apprehensions he had endured at Constantinople had undermined his delicate constitution: the worm of grief had gnawed too far into his heart for anything to be remedial now; and after laying the remains of Sir Thomas in the chapel of Christ’s College, Cambridge, as if the last frail tie that held him to life had snapped, Finch himself succumbed to an attack of pleurisy on the 18th of November 1682.

His body was conveyed to Cambridge and buried, as he had desired, beside his friend’s under the tomb which is still visible: a marble monument, the laboured elegance of which reflects the Italian tastes of the age and of the men in whose joint memory it stands. It is adorned with a Latin epitaph from the pen of Henry More--the tutor who had first introduced the two friends to each other. Thus years that were far asunder were bound together, and the hand which had started Sir John and Sir Thomas on their common course rounded off its common end.

Beneath that stone the Ambassador whose doings and sufferings we have witnessed sleeps quietly--the sleep of clay and dust. Of all those agonies and vanities: emotions once so real and vibrant--of that personality so impulsive, so susceptible to flattery, so prone to anger and fear--remains only a pale reflection in the letters we have deciphered. Out of those fussy despatches he who cares may still call up the phantom of Sir John Finch: there, if anywhere, he still lives--a soul infinitely pathetic.

For Sir John was nowise great; and such elements of greatness as may have been in him were frustrated by his one life-long attachment. From the time he met Baines, Finch lost every chance of self-development and self-realisation. Tied, heart and mind, to that monotonous, masterful pedagogue, he never used his own powers. The universe had contracted round him to the narrow circle limited by that pedant’s exiguous vision. How completely Baines kept the world, its inhabitants, and its interests from Finch may be seen from the fact that, after seven years’ residence, our Ambassador knew almost as little of Turkey as on the day of his landing. During all those years the realities about him took a second place in his thoughts: the first place was filled by abstractions according to Sir Thomas: on Sundays the twain composed essays on Theology, and on week-days they talked what Sir Thomas imagined to be Philosophy. Life-long tutelage must have a debilitating, devitalising effect; and it can hardly be questioned that the benignant Baines exercised over his friend a most malignant influence. Not intentionally, of course: Baines, we are persuaded, meant well; but much of the mischief done on this planet is done by people who mean well.

It was a sound instinct that made Finch shy at public life. As a diplomat he displayed all the faults of one to whom zeal and judgment had not been given in equal proportions. He was not born for diplomacy: certainly not for Turkish diplomacy. In all those oscillations of mood and fluctuations of the will which he so naïvely betrayed when wrought up by his feelings, we see a temperament very ill adapted to a profession which requires above all things coolness and firmness. That he failed at Constantinople cannot be disguised. But, despite his foibles and his friend, he would have done as well as any average ambassador, if he had had no exceptional difficulties to contend with. So much is clear from his history: as long as the sun shines and the waters are smooth, we see him steering on, happily enough; as soon as the tempest bursts, the helm slips from his hold and he flounders on in thick darkness, inward and outward--a fair-weather pilot, like many another. To drop metaphor, the man--everything reckoned--was essentially a victim of circumstances: chief among them the death of Ahmed Kuprili. Even more mediocre natures would have succeeded under that Grand Vizir; under Kara Mustafa only talents of the very first order could have availed. And it is poignant to reflect what a trifle would have turned Sir John’s failure into a success: had he accepted the Turkish Embassy when it was first offered to him, in 1668, his career at Constantinople would have terminated before the death of Ahmed--on such little ironies hang the destinies of poor mortals.

FOOTNOTES:

[290] Finch to Sunderland, Nov. 6-16, 1680.

[291] Finch to Jenkins, July 25, 27, 1681.

[292] Chandos to Jenkins, Sept. 23, St. Vet. 1681.

[293] Malloch’s _Finch and Baines_, p. 72.

[294] Finch to Jenkins, Sept. 22, Oct. 14-24.

[295] _Ibid._

[296] _Life of Dudley North_, pp. 171-2.

[297] Chandos to Jenkins, April 17-27, 1682; Petition of the Levant Company to the King in _Register_, pp. 114-17; _Life of Dudley North_, p. 98.

[298] Sir Clement Harby to Jenkins, Zante, Feb. 10, 1681-82, _S.P. Turkey_, 19.

[299] Malloch’s _Finch and Baines_, p. 77.

CONCLUSION

The death of Sir John Finch forms so fitting an end to the drama in which he bore a principal, if not a leading, part that, in a work of the imagination, any further addition would have been an artistic crime. But in a book like the present the claims of artistic fitness must yield to those of historic completeness.

After getting their ships out of the Vizir’s clutches, the English endeavoured to come to an arrangement with him on the basis of their original offer of 55,000 dollars, in which the sum paid at Smyrna should be included; but they failed. Kara Mustafa, infuriated, meant to have his revenge; and a few days later he summoned the merchants to the Porte--the merchants only, for his policy now was to treat the matter as a quarrel between them and the Customer--a purely commercial lawsuit in which neither the King of England nor his representative had any concern. But Lord Chandos would have none of these fictitious distinctions. He assembled all the merchants in the Embassy, and when the Chaoush came to fetch them, he positively refused to let them go without him. After a day’s parley, he carried his point; and so, on Sunday morning, January 15th, 1682, Ambassador and merchants went together. They were shown into the Kehayah’s room, where they found, besides that officer, the Chaoush-bashi, the Customer, and three or four other dignitaries. The discussion soon degenerated into a violent altercation, until the Kehayah, proceeding from words to deeds, ordered a Chaoush to seize the two chief merchants, Montagu North and Mr. Hyet. Chandos at once interposed and, getting hold of them, declared that he would go to prison in their place: he was there to act as surety for the Nation under his protection. “No, no,” said the Kehayah, “the King of England and the Grand Signor are good friends, and you shall be treated accordingly: this is a mere matter of trade, in which the merchants are the only parties concerned,”--and he asked his Lordship to sit down and drink his coffee and sherbet! His Lordship hung on to the prisoners, as the Chaoush dragged them out--he hung on to them across the courtyard: the Chaoush pushed him off, but he still hung on with true bull-dog tenacity: so that the Chaoush had to resort to a ruse: he carried the prisoners back into the house, shut Lord Chandos out, and got them off by a back-door.

Baulked, angered, thoroughly disgusted, the Ambassador mounts his horse and returns home--to plan such measures as the situation demands. That afternoon he seals up all the English warehouses at Constantinople and despatches to the Smyrna Factory notice to provide against the worst. During the following days he plies the Vizir with memorials, messages, petitions for audience--“too tedious to relate”; to all of which he receives but one answer: the Vizir has given him an audience on his arrival, he has also seen him since about the business in dispute, and has heard all that could be said on that subject: the Grand Signor will soon be back: His Excellency will have an audience of him then, and an opportunity of saying anything he has to say. An appeal to the Mufti falls equally flat: the Mufti stands in too much awe of Kara Mustafa. And meanwhile our merchants remain in custody: for a month and a week they keep in tolerable health, but on the thirty-ninth day one of them sickens: he seizes the chance of a visit from the Ambassador’s Dragoman to say in Turkish that he will not die there--if he owes any man anything, he is ready to pay; if he has committed any crime, let his head fly. All he demands is justice: since the Ambassador cannot free him, he has slaves in his house, and he will send one of them to the Grand Signor with a pot of fire on his head![300] This threat, it was thought, reported to the Vizir by one of his spies, produced, or contributed towards producing, the desired effect. Soon afterwards Kara Mustafa agreed to Chandos’s original proposal that, for 55,000 dollars, he should condemn his own sentence and absolve the English from all such claims, past and future. The bargain struck, our prisoners, after forty-two days’ confinement, were released, and the Ambassador reported home:

“Thus are we restored to free commerce with these unrightuous people once again, how long it may continue is past my guess for never was there a people more false and ficle in theyr words then I have found thos here I have had to doe with ... but I consider’d it the duty of a faithfull servant to his master to avoid all is possible the necessity of pushing disputes to such extremities as to bring a war or great dishonor on his master and for this reason in the first place and secondly in regard to trade which would infallibly have receiv’d a deadly blow had their violence byn a little more provok’d for ’tis most certain that we have stuck many days at the pit’s brink.... I had my _ar’s_ ready to have gone in person to the Visier and G: Signor but was overcome and prevented by the merchants reasons and intreaties and I hope all is for the best for there is not one instance of any one’s having ever got any good by wrangling with this Visier.”[301]

In adjusting this avania Lord Chandos had hoped, as he tells us, to find “some faire quarter” in other matters; but he soon found that “there is no peace with the wicked.” When he applied for his Audience of the Grand Signor, Kara Mustafa demanded an extraordinary present--not, he explained, as a price for the Audience, but as a recognition of the great favour he had done us by letting us off the silk claim on such easy terms. Chandos replied that all he had parted with was to purchase the Vizir’s goodwill, and he was willing to strain yet further to give him satisfaction; only he entreated his patience till the Audience was over, lest it should be said that he had paid money for it: which, being an alteration of the ancient practice between the Crowns, imported much more than his head was worth. This reply, in spite of its urbanity, set the Vizir in a mighty passion: he doubled his demand, and, as the Ambassador took no notice, he refused to let him deliver his Credentials. Moreover, every time an Englishman was sued before the Divan, Kara Mustafa condemned him out of hand; and, in short, missed no chance of showing his malice against us. Not that we enjoyed the exclusive monopoly of his rancour. The Dutch underwent a fresh fleecing on the same pretext as the English--silk export duties--and were glad enough to compound for 25,000 dollars; the Venetians were forced to pay ten times that sum by way of reparation for an affray between their own and some Turkish subjects in Dalmatia--it was, in truth, reparation for wrongs suffered rather than inflicted, but that made no difference: the Bailo, finding reason useless, had to employ “the rhetorick of chequins”--’twas the only means “to make faire weather with a Visier who is of a temper to doe anything for mony and nothing without it.” When describing to the Secretary of State how he and his colleagues fared at the hands “of this greivous oppressor of all Christians,” Chandos ventured to drop a hint that His Majesty might, “if the intolerable tyranny of this vile Minister receiv’s not a speedy check,” find “some other way to make him sensible of His iust indignation”--some way more “becoming His great wisedome and high honor.” But what could poor, lazy Charles do, where the haughty and energetic Louis was content to eat humble pie by the plateful? It was, indeed, the “submission,” as the Turks very correctly called it, of the French Padishah that had raised Kara Mustafa’s rapacious insolence to its present pitch. This brings us to the conclusion of the Chios exploit in which the Franco-Turkish quarrel had culminated.

Nothing more humiliating for Christendom, nothing better calculated to inflate Ottoman arrogance, could be imagined. The French Admiral, after hovering aimlessly about the Dardanelles with his squadron for nine months, sailed away leaving the French Ambassador to pay for his feat. It was no longer a question of exacting satisfaction for past insults, but of averting imminent calamities: M. de Guilleragues had to fight not for a stool, but for safety. A three days’ struggle ensued--the French gazettes of the time styled it an “audience.” The first day, when the Ambassador was brought before the Vizir, he spoke and acted with spirit; but Kara Mustafa, unimpressed by what he knew to be empty bluster, ordered him to be locked up. Three days’ confinement brought M. de Guilleragues to reason: he signed a bond to pay within six months an indemnity thinly veiled under the euphemism of a “galantaria” emanating from his private pocket--“a present of such value as became a Chivaliere.” When the six months expired, the “present” was duly tendered, but was rejected as falling short of what became a Chevalier in distress to give or a victorious Pasha to receive. After some kicking against the pricks, the Ambassador submitted to a valuation of his “galantaria” by experts appointed by Kara Mustafa, with the result that he was “screw’d up to 100 purses, that is, 50,000 Dollars.” This was for the Grand Signor. “What he paid the Visier himself and his inferior officers, by his own confession, came to between 15,000 and 20,000 Dollars and most of this mony was taken up at 18 or 20, and some at 22 per cent.”

Thus the long-drawn-out duel between the wig and the turban ended in a decisive victory for the turban. It was not pleasant to witness “the barbarous triumphing of the Turks over all Christians upon this their success against the French, for the Turks judge all things by the event and impute all that hitts right to the great wisedome and conduct of their Visier, for in this business they say (according to their proverb) the Visier _caught a hare with a cart_, and the French who are the loosers have nothing to say, which is hard according to our English proverb.” Nothing to say--they who a few months before “made many high brags of great wonders they resolv’d to doe.”[302]

But in ascribing their triumph to Kara Mustafa’s genius the Turks paid him a tribute to which he was not entitled. The causes of the French defeat lay in Paris rather than in Stambul. Louis was a calculating politician as well as an arrogant prince. His arrogance prompted him to beard the Turks, his policy forbade him to break with them. It was essential for the success of his ambition in the West that the German Empire should be engaged in the East; and he did not hesitate to purchase the co-operation of Kara Mustafa at any price. Kara Mustafa, on his part, had long nourished the wish to attack Austria, and he had a good opportunity of doing so in the first two years of his Vizirate, when the French harassed the Emperor on one side and the Magyars on the other; but, with characteristic acumen, he had chosen to go to a profitless war with Russia and to postpone the realisation of his favourite dream to a less convenient moment. However, Louis thought, better late than never.

In the meantime, while these machinations were maturing, Kara Mustafa sharpened his sword. Chandos heard of “nothing soe much as the drawing togeather of great forces from all parts of this vast Empire,”[303] and, though he prayed “God defend all Christians from the violence of Turks,” he could not help feeling that in a long-protracted war lay his only hope of escaping further molestation. It was therefore with profound relief that he saw the Vizir make his stately exit from Constantinople: “nor doe we dispair of God’s mercy either to convert him from or confound him in his malice against us before his returne.”

Of the two contingencies it was the more probable that came to pass; and, if the English had good reason to attribute the aggravation of their woes to the Machiavellian policy of Louis, it was to that same policy that they owed their final deliverance.

Kara Mustafa, in the spring of 1683, marched north at the head of as numerous an army as ever Grand Vizir led--the whole strength of the Ottoman Empire was bent against Austria. With this host, augmented, too, by Hungarian rebels, he crossed the frontier, traversed Hungary performing miracles of ferocity and perfidy, and, not finding in his way either fortified towns or armies capable to arrest his progress, penetrated to the very gates of Vienna (July 14, N.S.). At the approach of the enemy the Emperor Leopold fled with precipitation, leaving the Duke of Lorraine with a small force to defend his capital.

The unhappy citizens, isolated and abandoned by their natural protector, presented to the world a memorable example of courage and initiative. But hunger and disease soon began to decimate them. Of succour there was no sign. The beleaguered city seemed doomed, and with it the whole of Central Europe. Only a combination of chances could save Vienna.

Such a combination was provided by Kara Mustafa’s multiform imbecility. Eager to secure the treasures of the Hapsburg capital for himself, he declined to stimulate the ardour of his soldiers with the promise of plunder and avoided a general assault which could have reduced the town before the arrival of relief, hoping to take it intact by capitulation. Being as arrogant as he was greedy, he disdained to keep himself informed of the movements of the enemy, took no measures to prevent their passage of the Danube, and allowed them to concentrate close behind his camp without the slightest opposition. At the very moment when Vienna seemed ready to succumb, John Sobieski joined the Imperial forces under the Duke of Lorraine on the neighbouring heights.

Next day (Sept. 11, N.S.) this army of only 77,000 men descended to the plain like an irresistible avalanche and beat Kara Mustafa’s host into confusion, defeat, destruction. Some ten thousand Turks remained dead on the field of battle. The rest, including the Grand Vizir, fled leaving behind them their guns, their tents, their archives, and all their colours except the sacred standard of the Prophet. Not the least notable item in the long list of loot was the Grand Vizir’s pavilion: a miniature palace surrounded by baths, gardens, and fountains: which that night afforded a luxurious resting-place to the happy King of Poland--the King whose ambassadors Kara Mustafa had treated as we have seen. And so in a few hours the cloud that had hung over Central Europe for months melted away.

This rout, aggravated by some other disasters which overtook shortly afterwards the demoralised Ottoman army, exhausted the Grand Signor’s favour for his Vizir. Kara Mustafa’s enemies at Court fanned the Imperial wrath to a white heat, and an Aga was sent to Belgrade, where the would-be conqueror had retired, with orders to relieve him of his head. The Aga arrived on December 25th (N.S.) after sunset; and before sunrise he had fulfilled his mission. Thus perished, in the height of his pride, one of the most wicked Ministers, and one of the weakest-minded, that ever tyrannised over a country. His death was lamented only by those few who had had no cause to regret his birth.

Kara Mustafa’s disappearance brought comparative peace and contentment to foreign residents in Turkey. Not long afterwards Lord Chandos had the Audience from which he had been debarred for three years, and after a prosperous career this shrewd and sturdy Englishman retired, in 1687, with a full purse.[304]

But for Kara Mustafa’s country there was neither peace nor contentment. The discomfiture before Vienna afforded a revelation of Turkey’s weakness which tempted Russia and Venice to join Austria and Poland in what they called a “Holy League.” As we have seen, they all had many scores to settle with the Porte. They settled them now with a vengeance. From 1684 on to 1699 this struggle for dominion and plunder raged under the name of religion. The religious fervour of the Moslems was not less holy than that of the Christians, but Allah fought on the side of the majority. Misfortune followed misfortune and loss came on the top of loss. In 1687 the Turks thought to change their luck by changing their Sultan. But to no purpose: the cycle of their misfortunes went on unbroken. Famine, fires, and insurrections at home heightened the dismay caused by defeats abroad, until at last the mighty Ottoman Empire, stripped of vast territories, distracted, and utterly spent, had to seek the mediation of the Maritime Powers--England and Holland. Lord Pagett and Jakob Collyer, the successors of the diplomats whom Kara Mustafa had outraged so grievously, tried in 1699 to rescue what was possible from the wreck Kara Mustafa had wrought. (Peace of Carlowitz, Jan. 26.)

Not long after this remarkable instance of historic retribution, one of Kara Mustafa’s victims reappeared upon the stage. Mrs. Pentlow had, on his fall, endeavoured to obtain reparation for the injury done to her, and the new Grand Vizir, our old friend Soliman, Ahmed Kuprili’s suave Kehayah, was very willing to see both that and our other claims settled out of his enemy’s estate. But the Grand Signor, who had confiscated that estate, demanded due proofs, which was demanding the impossible. Avanias were always so conducted that hardly any one besides the persons concerned knew the details: the Turks concerned were Kara Mustafa’s creatures who, on his death, were dispersed; the evidence of his Jew and of our Dragomans was inadmissible against True Believers; the only witness who could have helped us was the Chief Customer; but Hussein Aga would not, for prudential reasons, come forward.[305] So the matter dropped, and Mrs. Pentlow went away to England, where she married a member of the St. John family, apparently resigned to her loss. But she had not abandoned all hope, and in the autumn of 1700, when our Ambassador was basking in the sun of popularity, she arrived at Constantinople with her daughter, now grown into a fine young “Mrs. Susanna Pentlow,” and a letter from the Earl of Jersey, Secretary of State, to Lord Pagett, requesting him to use his influence for the recovery of the Smyrna estate.

Lord Pagett enjoyed among the English in the Levant the reputation of a diplomat who made “no great figure at Court, contenting himself with being feared by his own nation.”[306] And in this case he did precisely as the unfortunate Sir John Finch would have done. He indited a lengthy despatch in which he gave five different reasons why he could do nothing. The records of the Porte had been lost before Vienna, and without them no claim would be considered. The widow had no documents to prove her case. By the Turkish law all debts for which no demand had been made for fifteen years were invalid. The Vizir then in power was the son of Kara Mustafa’s sister who was still alive, and there was nobody in the whole of the Ottoman Empire who respected the memory of that “unfortunate great man” so much or who showed a stronger devotion to his family. Lastly, the Turkish Government had no money to pay off its soldiers and sailors, all of whom were clamouring for their long overdue stipends: “and while pressing, clear, just debts can’t be got in, there’s little hopes of recovering an old, doubtfull, litigious pretence, pursued upon a very cold scent.”[307] His Lordship therefore advised that the matter should be allowed to rest till some favourable opportunity turned up. Such an opportunity, to the best of the present writer’s knowledge, has not yet turned up. And so we may part for ever with Mrs. Pentlow, _alias_ Mrs. St. John, and direct our attention to some of the other characters that have figured in our story--those three distinguished Englishmen who, it is hoped, did in Turkey enough to inspire the reader with a wish to know what became of them afterwards.

The subsequent career of Paul Rycaut need not detain us long. On missing the Constantinople appointment, our late Consul entreated the King to cast a gracious eye upon him, when any office which His Majesty’s wisdom should judge most agreeable to his talents and experience became vacant; and in 1685 he obtained the post of Secretary to the Earl of Clarendon who had recently been made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. At the same time he was knighted and sworn of the Privy Council and judge of the Admiralty in Ireland. In this employment the ex-Consul earned his Chief’s commendations for integrity and, among the Irish Catholics, the character of an extortionate official. Whichever of these two opinions was correct, Sir Paul did not hold that office long. At the beginning of 1688 he returned to England, and about the middle of the following year he was transferred at last to a sphere for which his linguistic attainments and his diplomatic and commercial experience really fitted him--that of English Resident in Hamburgh and the Hanse Towns. He filled that position almost till his death, which occurred in 1700, a few months after his recall. As in Turkey, so in Europe, Rycaut devoted much of his time to literary work, publishing _The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches_ (1678); _The History of the Turkish Empire from 1623 to 1677_, including his _Memoirs_ (1680); and some translations from the Spanish and the Latin. Of these productions the _History_ was long considered one of the best works of its kind in the English language; and the _Memoirs_ part of it, at least, can still be read with profit and not without pleasure.

To turn to the Rev. John Covel. Thanks to his trip to Adrianople, supplemented just before he left Turkey by some swift excursions to Nicomedia, Nicaea, and the islands of the Sea of Marmara, and by a passing view of such classic spots as the homeward bound ship touched at, our Chaplain returned home with his fame as “a great Oriental traveller” firmly established.[308] Soon afterwards he was made Doctor of Divinity by royal warrant, instituted to two sinecure rectories, and, in 1681, was appointed Chaplain to the Princess of Orange at the Hague. He was now forty-three. With his faculties unimpaired and patronage from high quarters flowing in, he seemed to have the ball fairly at his feet. For about four years he flowered in the sun of princely favour; and then, suddenly, the fair prospect became overcast. Dr. Covel would never speak of the cause which brought his residence at the Hague to an abrupt close--it was, perhaps, the one subject on which he ever succeeded in holding his tongue. But we know it. Among the various and, doubtless, useful functions a divine had to perform in the Orange household, that of gossip and newsagent was not included. Dr. Covel, however, unable to break himself of an old habit, continued his investigations into other people’s affairs with unabated ardour. To put it plainly, he became one of the spies and tale-bearers who were encouraged, if not actually employed, by King James to make mischief between his daughter and his son-in-law. A letter from the Chaplain giving the English Ambassador an account of the way in which William treated Mary was intercepted--and Dr. Covel had to pack at three hours’ notice.

King James tried to console the dismissed cleric with the Chancellorship of York during its vacancy (Nov. 9, 1687); and the Mastership of Christ’s College falling vacant, the Fellows, to avoid having a certain Smithson thrust upon them by the King, hastily chose (July 7, 1688) Dr. Covel: “a choice,” it has been guessed, “they probably would not have made, had they had more time.”[309] But the Rev. John was not to be consoled for the loss of his place in the princely sun. He denied the accusation, denounced his accusers, did everything possible to regain the Paradise Lost. But all in vain. That William neither believed nor forgave him became painfully obvious when, soon after the Revolution, he visited Cambridge. That year (1689) Dr. Covel was Vice-Chancellor of the University, and since he could not avoid coming into personal contact with the King he had offended as a Prince, he anxiously inquired how His Majesty would be pleased to receive him. The answer must have made him wince: His Majesty could distinguish between Dr. Covel and the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Curt, caustic Majesty!

His garrulity had ruined Dr. Covel’s chances of ecclesiastical preferment; but it did not stand in the way of his academic career. He retained the Mastership of Christ’s all his life, and spent much of his leisure in transcribing, expanding, correcting, and every way spoiling the notes he had made at Constantinople: to the satisfaction of himself, though not of others. No publisher could be found courageous enough to undertake the publication of these masses of immense discursiveness and laborious irrelevance. It was only in our own time that a learned society ventured to print a selection from them. But Dr. Covel was not fortunate even in this tardy and partial emergence. To the author’s minute inaccuracies the editor has added a multitude of absurdities of his own; the upshot being the most bewildering bundle of blunders that ever issued from the press of any country in the guise of a book.[310]

So much concerning Dr. Covel’s Travels. His _magnum opus_ on the Greek Church, after nearly fifty years’ incubation, came out at last when it was least wanted, in 1722--more than a generation after the question with which it deals had lost its actuality. It came out in folio, with a florid dedication to the Duke of Chandos, son of our late Ambassador and at the time Governor of the Levant Company: the author hints that, had he been made a Bishop, he would have had time to finish his book sooner. The delay, indeed, had its advantages: _non cito, hoc est, non cito ac cursim agere; vel non temere et inconsulte_. Yet, despite fifty years’ revisions and manipulations, he fears “some few things may yet appear Defective, and others Confus’d and Indigested.” The fear is well founded. Its diffused and confused style, and still more its creator’s fundamental inability to take an objective view of things, render this _Account of the Greek Church_ one of the best illustrations extant of the aphorism _mega biblion, mega kakon_.

But, after all, it is not Dr. Covel the bad writer, but John the good fellow we care most about. In course of time he left off hoping for royal favours and episcopal mitres, and settled down to a mechanical routine of existence such as good dons lead. Whether he knew it or not, Dr. Covel was happy; the jollity which had made the Papas popular with the Factors of Constantinople helped to make the Master popular with the Fellows of Cambridge. This placid existence lasted till December 19th, 1722, when the Rev. John, in the 85th year of his age, went to join Finch and Baines under the pavement of Christ’s College chapel.

An inscription commemorates the virtues of Dr. Covel. A good portrait of him, in his congregational robes, preserves the features of his countenance. His voluminous journals and letters, stored in the British Museum, supply an ample and by far the most trustworthy testimony to the traits of his mind and character; they exhibit him as an amiable man rather than one of a very superior understanding.

Much more exciting were the fortunes of the Honourable Dudley North. We saw him in Turkey a shrewd merchant, keen and unscrupulous in his pursuit of wealth. We find him in England a shrewd politician, keen and, some said, remorseless in his pursuit of power. He returned at a moment when the feud between Whig and Tory--to give the factions their new-fangled designations--was at its fiercest. By that infamous fiction, the Popish Plot, the Whigs had for a time driven the nation to madness and their principal opponents to an ignominious death. The public was just beginning to find out how it had been duped, and the Tories, profiting by the reaction, were getting ready to pay the Whigs back in their own false coin; the same gang of spies, witnesses, informers, and suborners who had hounded innocent Tories to the gallows, were now employed to hound innocent Whigs. North had come home a firm believer in Titus Oates’s murderous myth. He was undeceived--all the sooner because he was not slow to perceive that his interest lay on the same side as the truth: the Tory side. At the instance of his brother, then Lord Chief Justice, he was called to serve the King’s party as Sheriff of London and Middlesex: an expensive office which conferred the power of packing juries and securing convictions. Dudley performed the services expected from him with more energy than scruple. He considered it, indeed, very unfortunate that so many trials for high treason and executions should happen in his year of office; but business is business.

In the midst of all this sanguinary work, he found time to court a wealthy widow, Lady Gunning, and, in spite of her father, to marry her. She loved him, admired him, idolised him, and presided over the splendid banquets he gave in his Basinghall Street mansion. He returned her affection fully, and it was partly that she might not remain, were it only in name, separate from him, but become Lady North, that he accepted the honour of knighthood which a grateful Court bestowed upon him. Thus happy both in his private and public affairs, Sir Dudley climbed from height to height, becoming in quick succession an Alderman, a Commissioner of the Customs, a Commissioner of the Treasury, a Member of Parliament, and the chief advocate for the Crown in all questions of revenue that came before the House of Commons. In this last capacity North shone with a pure light.

Men who spend their lives in making money are usually the least competent to understand the abstract principles that govern the accumulation and distribution of wealth. The distant views and ultimate conclusions which make up the science of Political Economy are beyond their vision. All the progress achieved in that most important field of knowledge has been achieved by philosophers, to whose discoveries our merchants and manufacturers were the last to be converted. North, by a most rare gift of nature, combined in his mental constitution the contradictory qualities of the practical trader and the speculative thinker. Together with a large fortune, he had brought from the Levant a large fund of original deductions from his experience.[311] Withal, he possessed a faculty of expressing himself, at once homely and forcible, which arrested attention and carried conviction. As a speaker on financial topics the Member for Banbury had no rival.

How much higher a man of so many gifts and so few scruples might have climbed must remain matter of speculation. The Revolution of 1688 pulled the ladder from under him. The day which witnessed the victory of the Whigs was a day of reckoning for the Tories. Forgetting the wrongs they had inflicted and remembering only the injuries they had suffered, the victors were grimly set on revenge. Parliamentary Committees were appointed to inquire into the late judicial proceedings, to punish all persons concerned in them, and to indemnify the victims out of their estates. Among the rest, Sir Dudley North had to stand his trial. Great sport was expected from his baiting. The galleries and benches of the House of Commons were crowded with spectators; but they got very little satisfaction. To all the questions put to him as to the manner in which he had obtained his Shrievalty and his conduct therein, North gave fearless and, apparently, full and frank answers. This was not well! After much whispering into the Chairman’s ear, one of the members of the Committee moved that the ex-Sheriff should be asked to name the Aldermen who, as he pretended, had assisted at his election. The Chairman nodded. That was Sir Dudley’s supreme moment. He turned quietly round and with his cane pointed to five Aldermen present, who since the Revolution had gone over to the Whigs, naming them one after another with deadly distinctness. This was worse than ever! To prevent further sensations, a cunning Parliamentarian stood up hastily, and “Mr. Foley,” he said, addressing the Chairman, “you had best have a care: you have an honourable gentleman before you: that you do not ask him, etc.” Having thus turned the tables upon his prosecutors, the clever Dudley left the House with colours flying, sped away by the very persons who had dragged him there.

For a time he continued in the Commission of the Customs. But, presently, that and his other offices were taken from him; and Sir Dudley relapsed to his original status of a Turkey Merchant. He went back to the buying and selling of cloth with the resignation of a philosopher and the spirit of a veteran trader. But even there luck had at the last rounded upon him. The War with France just begun (1689) hit North as hard as it did most of the other merchants of England trading into the Levant Seas. Their trade was attacked by the enemy both in Turkey and on the way to it. These calamities abated North’s mettle and affected his health. He decided to give up the perilous business and turn country gentleman--a quiet rural life, he thought, would restore to him the health of body and peace of mind of which the bustle of the world had robbed him: he would beat his clothyard into a ploughshare; he would raise crops with as much pleasure as he had raised dollars or cut off heads. Alas! even here his good fortune failed him. After inspecting several great estates and offering great prices for them in vain, he succeeded at last in finding a home in Norfolk; the date was fixed for him to go down to sign the agreement; but on the day before, he was seized with the disease which killed him. He died on the last day of 1691, at the comparatively early age of fifty.

However his character may be appraised, Dudley North will always be remembered as one of the outstanding figures of his time: the most brilliant of those seventeenth century merchant-adventurers who were the founders of our national prosperity and commercial pre-eminence.

So with all our actors off the stage, we may ring the curtain down. _La commedia è finita._

FOOTNOTES:

[300] As a rule, all petitions to the Sultan had to pass through the Vizir’s hands; but in cases where the Vizir himself was involved a direct appeal was possible through the above formality: which secured to the petitioner access to the throne, but entailed, if his complaint proved false, loss of his head. See Rycaut’s _Present State_, p. 84; _Life of Dudley North_, p. 100.

[301] Chandos to Jenkins, April 17-27, 1682; cp. Sir John Buckworth’s “Narrative of the Distresses of our Turkey Merchants at C.P.,” Jan. 22, 1681-82, _S.P. Turkey_, 19.

[302] Chandos to Jenkins, Oct. 11, st. vet. 1682. _The Turk catches the hare with a cart_ still is a common proverb among the inhabitants of the Near East. It conveys an appreciation of Turkish tactics: slow and blundering in appearance, yet forming parts of a strategic plan, based on the principle that the ultimate outcome of a struggle depends on which side can show the greatest endurance and shall have most reserves when it comes to the final tussle.

[303] Chandos to Jenkins, March 29, 1683.

[304] “Few have made more of the place than he hath. He has doubtless raised his estate considerably by it.”--Nathaniel Harley to Sir Edward Harley, Aleppo, Oct. 29, 1687, _Hist. MSS. Com. Thirteenth Report_, Part II. p. 242.

[305] _Life of Dudley North_, pp. 102-3.

[306] Nathaniel Harley to Sir Edward Harley, Aleppo, July 20, 1694, _Hist. MSS. Com. Thirteenth Report_, Part II. p. 245.

[307] Pagett to Vernon, Jan. 17, O.S. 1700-1, _S.P. Turkey_, 21.

[308] Evelyn’s _Diary_, Nov. 23, 1695.

[309] _Dictionary of National Biography._

[310] It would be invidious to single out particular pearls, but one is too precious to be passed over. Dr. Covel wrote in his Diary: “Just at two o’clock Antonio called us to go to the Alloy.” Now, as the reader may remember, “Alloy” was the name for the ceremonial march-out of the Army. The editor, mistaking this Turkish word for the name of an English ship, and then drawing upon his imagination, evolves a pretty myth: “Dr. Covel and Sir John Finch, the ambassador, started together on the _Alloy_, and the new Grand Vizier, Kara Mustapha, came to see them off, and brought them large quantities of presents.” He goes on to describe the voyage of the phantom vessel as far as Venice (pp. 282 foll.). The only parallel instance of an editor’s mythopoeic faculty working upon a verbal misapprehension known to me is to be found in the _Rigveda_.

[311] See Appendix XVI.

APPENDIX I

[_Ellis Papers_ at the British Museum: _Add. MSS. 28937_, pp. 167-9.]

Instructions for our Trusty and wellbeloved Servant S^r John Finch Knt going in Quality of our Amb^{r.} to reside at y^e Court of y^e Grand Seig^{r.} Given at y^e Court at Whitehall the ________ 1672.

1. You shall embarque your self upon y^e ship designed to carry you, and dispose thereof according to y^e instruc͡ons of our most Dear Brother the Duke of York, our High Adm^{ll.} of England.

2. Being arriued at Constantinople you shall in y^e first place informe your self from Mr Newman Secretary to y^e late Amb^{r.} S^r Daniel Haruy, and by him left in the care of our affaires, and of our subjects in that Court, in what state things now are, and by him and such others as are best able to informe you, to instruct your self in the manner of making your addresses with our credentialls to the Grand Seignior and the Grand Vizier according to the accustomed stiles used by those inuested with your character, remembering allways not to suffer it to be prejudiced or uiolated in any circumstance either by that Court, or any forreign Ministers residing there.

3. In your Addresses to y^e Grand Seig^{r.} and Vizier you shall expresse the Great Value wee haue for their persons, and satisfac͡on in the obseruance of y^e peace & good correspondence these towards our Subjects in their Trade & Com͡erce, w^{ch} is so beneficiall to those parts aboue any other nac͡on, and particularly those made with Algiers, Tunis, Tripoly, which wee desire they would continue to protect & recom͡end, assuring them wee shall seuerely punish any of our subjects, that shall in any degree uiolate the same; or if in your passage, or upon the place you shall learne any infringem^{ts.} haue been made on either side, you shall as occasion shall furnish you with matter for it, frame excuses or complaints.

4. In all y^e time of y^r Residence there you must be carefull to maintain a good correspondence with all y^e Amb^{rs.} and Agents of Christian Princes, especially those y^t shall be in a nearer degree of alliance and amity with us, But not forgetting it euen towards those that are lesse so: to protect their persons, and render your self usefull to them with all good offices, employing effectually likewise towards the good of all Christians in generall of what Degree, Quality, Sect, or opinion so euer they be, giuing the preference therein still to those of our own profession in Religion in procuring them Justice & Fauour in all things.

5. You will learne best upon the place in what manner you must proceed towards the protec͡on of all the priuiledges and im͡unityes of our subjects of the Turky Company, for whose good and Benefitt you are most especially to reside there, by preseruing firme and inuiolable to them the Capitulac͡ons that are allready in being with the Grand Seig^{r.} and by solliciting & procuring such further additionall ones, as time and other circumstances may make usefull for them to haue, so wee need not be particular in our Direc͡on to you therein, assuring our self that you will not be wanting in any thing to performe all good offices towards them to their entire satisfac͡on.

6. You shall make it y^r particular care & endeauour to be truly informed of all negotiac͡ons & practises in y^t Court which may disturbe the peace of Christendom in any part of it, and accordingly informe us thereof under the surest and most speedy conueyance you can, by the hands of one of our principall Secretaryes of State, with whom you usually correspond, who will likewise take care on their parts, to signify our pleasure & further Instruc͡ons to you upon all Emergencyes, com͡unicating to you all such aduices from hence as may be of use to you there.

7. And whereas frequent Representac͡ons haue been made to us by the Turky Company and otherwise of the great mischeifs occasioned in Trade by the permitting of false and faulty monyes to be imported or passed in payment in Turky, you shall take some fitt opportunity to insinuate to the Grand Seig^{r.} and Vizier the mischeifs and ill consequences of that abuse, and shall in some publick way, such as you shall find most fitt, disowne the same in Relac͡on to the English, and in case any English Factor shall transgresse therein, either in importing those monyes or colouring them, or in receiuing them by consignac͡on from others, wee do, with the aduice of our Priuy-Councell, hereby giue you sufficient power & authority to punish such offenders.

APPENDIX II

[_S.P. Turkey_, 19, at the Public Record Office.]

ROUGH DRAFT

Charles the Second by the Grace of the most High God, King of Great Brittaine, France & Ireland, Defender of the Christian Faith &c. To the most High & Mighty Emperor Sultan Mahomet Ham Chiefe Lord and Commander of the Musulman Kingdome, sole and Supream Monarch of the Easterne Empire, sendeth Greeting. Most High & Mighty Emperor, Having received advice of the death of S^r Daniel Harvey, Our late Ambassador in Your Court, and desiring above all things to entertaine firme & inviolable on Our part that Good Amity & Friendship which is between Us & You, to the Mutuall benefit & advantage of both Our Subjects in their Trade & Commerce, We have made choice of Our Trusty & Wellbeloved S^r John Finch K^{nt} a Principall Gentleman of Our Court [lately Our Resident with Our Cousin the Great Duke of Tuscany & Councellor to Us in][312] Our Councell for matters relating to Our Forraigne Colonies & Plantations, who is the Bearer of these Our Letters[313] to reside at Your Port as Our Ambassador in the roome & place of the said S^r Daniel Harvey, We pray you therefore to receive & admitt him favourably to negotiate with You as Our Ambassador, & to give entire beliefe & Credit to him in whatsoever he shall at any time move, propose, or treate in Our name for the mutuall good & welfare of Our Dominions & People Our Friends and Allyes, the protection of Our Merchants trading into Your Empire from all wrongs, oppressions & violence in their persons or Estates, & in what else may conduce to the strengthening & increase of that Amity, Commerce & good Correspondence, w^{ch} hath been soe long continued between our Crownes & Subjects And which We on Our part are resolved to preserve most sacred & inviolable. All whereof We have given Our said Ambassador charge more particularly to assure you, Not doubting but he will find in all things the same favour & good respect with You w^{ch} his Predecessor the said S^r Daniel Harvey reported to Us to have ever found from You & Your Ministers in all his negotiations, For which We now acknowledge Our thankes, & shall be ready to make on all occasions those returnes that may expresse the particular esteeme, We have of y^r Friendship & Good Will & soe We committ You & Your affaires to the Almighty.

Given at Our Court & Palace of Whitehall the ________ day of November in the Yeare of Our Lord God one thousand six hundred seventy & two & of Our Reigne the four & twentieth.

* * * * *

Charles the Second by the Grace of the most High God, King of Great Brittaine, France & Ireland, Defender of the Christian Faith &c. To the High & Excellent Lord the Vizier Azem, sendeth Greeting.

High & Excellent Lord, Having received advice of the death of S^r Daniel Harvey Our Ambassador with the Grand Signior Your Lord & Master, & being desirous by all means to provide for the improvement & encrease of that Amity & Friendship w^{ch} We have hitherto soe happily entertained with the Grand Signior to the mutuall profit & content of both our subjects, We have made choice of this Bearer Our Trusty & Wellbeloved servant S^r John Finch K^t a principall Gentleman of Our Court & one of Our Councell for matters relating to Our Forreigne Colonies & Plantations, as one who by the Employments he hath held on Our part for many yeares in Courts of severall Forreigne Princes, We have judged more particularly qualified to succeed the said S^r Daniel Harvey, to reside with the Grand Signior as Our Ambassador, to negotiate on our part & soe doe & performe those Offices on all occasions, by which the Amity & good Friendship between us may be strengthened & confirmed, & Our Subjects reciprocally reap the fruit thereof in their Trade & Commerce, and therefore considering the eminent place You justly hold in the favour, as well as the businesse, of the Grand Signior your Lord & Master, & in regard of the good affection you have alwayes expressed to Us & Our affaires, of w^{ch} We shall ever retaine a very particular sense, We have desired by this to recommend Our said servant to your kindnesse, as one of whose discreet & respectfull carriage towards your Master & your selfe We are very confident & doe therefore pray you to receive him as your friend, to believe him in what he shall at any time deliver to you in Our name, & to be aiding to him in all occasions by your authority and support, in what may concerne the preservation of that Friendship & good correspondence that is between Our Kingdomes & that Empire & w^{ch} We are resolved to observe inviolably on our part, as We doubt not of the Justice & good Disposition of the Grand Signior to doe at all times on his. In w^{ch} We againe pray your best Offices, & soe leaving Our said Ambassador in Your favour, We recommend You to that of the Almighty.

Given at Our Court & Palace of Whitehall the ________ day of November in the yeare of Our Lord God one thousand six hundred seventy & two & of Our Reigne the four & twentieth.

Your affectionate Friend.

FOOTNOTES:

[312] This sentence is crossed out; the Great Duke being the Sultan’s enemy, the fact that Sir John came from his Court would scarcely be a recommendation!

[313] Here the following is added in the margin: “After haveing served Us with good satisfac͡on s̶e̶v̶e̶r̶a̶l many yeares in severall Foreigne Negotiac͡ons.”

APPENDIX III

The Levant Company’s Charter of 1605, which established it in perpetuity, superseding the earlier patents granted by Elizabeth for a limited number of years, conferred on the Merchants full power “to name, choose, and appoint at their will and pleasure” Consuls or Vice-Consuls; but on the point of the Ambassador it was silent, unless the Company’s right to name him might be inferred from a clause which authorised it “to assign, appoint, create, and ordain such and so many officers and ministers,” both at home and abroad, as “shall seem expedient for the doing and executing of the affairs and business appertaining to the said Company.” At the same time, the Merchants were authorised, “for the sustentation of the necessary stipends and other charges,” to levy upon all goods transported from England to the Levant or vice versa, and upon every ship so employed, such sums of money, “by way of Consulage or otherwise,” as “to them shall seem requisite and convenient.” [The original is to be found in _S.P. Levant Company_, 107, at the Public Record Office; for a printed copy see M. Epstein’s _Early History of the Levant Company_, London, 1908, Appendix I.]

The Parliamentary ordinance of 1643 accorded to the Merchants explicitly “free choice and removal of all ministers by them maintained at home and abroad, whether they be dignified and called by the name of Ambassadors, Governors, Deputies, Consuls, or otherwise,” and also recognised in specific terms their right to levy import and export duties on foreign merchandise carried under the English flag to and from the Levant (“Strangers’ Consulage”), as well as on English merchandise (“Native Consulage”). Thus the Company obtained an official recognition of its claim to appoint the Ambassador and an undisputed power over all the funds by which the Embassy was maintained.

The new Charter of 1661, though not ratifying the Company’s claim to appoint the Ambassador, sanctioned its hold upon both kinds of Consulage. [See the Charter in _S.P. Levant Company_, 108.] In other words, the Merchants retained the material means of keeping, and therefore, by implication, the right of appointing the Ambassador.

In 1668, when, upon the recall of Lord Winchilsea, the question of a choice of Ambassador once more arose, Sir Sackville Crow, still smarting from his grievances, presented to Charles a vindictive Memorial in which he recapitulated the old disputes and urged him to recover “one of the Supreme Prerogatives of your Crowne, viz. the Election of the Ambassadours for Turky,” by depriving the Company of the Consulage which enabled it to maintain and, in consequence, to claim the right of naming, the Ambassador. Otherwise, he said, His Majesty’s envoys, by depending entirely on the Company for their maintenance, would be the Merchants’ “stipendiaries and vassalls, and obliged to serve theire Lustes and Pleasures (good or badd) agaynst the Law or Crowne, whereof his late Majestie had too sadde an experience and may justly caution your Majestie to take care of and provide agaynst.”[314]

Nothing came of this instigation, and the anomalous position of the Constantinople Embassy continued for ages a source of intermittent friction.

FOOTNOTE:

[314] _Narrative Levant Companies Proceedings with the Crowne And my Petition to His Majesty thereon for Examination_, in _S.P. Turkey_, 19. Cp. _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series_, 1667-1668, pp. 226, 230.

APPENDIX IV

Ahmed Kuprili’s age is uncertain: “only thirty years of age”--Lord Winchilsea to Secretary Nicholas, Nov. 11-21, 1661 [_S.P. Turkey_, 17]; “Not exceeding 32 years of Age”--Sir Paul Rycaut, 1661 [_Memoirs_, p. 82]; “The Vizier, they say, exceeds not the age of two and thirty yeares”--Geo. Etherege[315] to Joseph Williamson, “R. 8 May 1670” [_S.P. Turkey_, 19], which would make him at his accession only 24. John Covel in 1675 writes: “He is, they say, 44 years old, though, for my own part, I guesse him not above 40, if so much” [_Diaries_, p. 195]. Covel’s guess would make Ahmed at the time of his accession 26--an estimate which coincides with Hammer’s statement: “Kœprilu Ahmed, alors âgé de vingt-six ans” [_Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman_, vol xi. p. 113].

Concerning his merits contemporary English opinion is unanimous. “He was one of the best Ministers that People ever knew” [_Life of Dudley North_, p. 72]. “This great Kupriogle was a Man of Honour ... and just” [Covel’s _Account of the Greek Church_, Pref., p. lii.]. “He is prudent and just, not to be corrupted by money, the general vice of this country, nor inclined to cruelty as his father was” [George Etherege, _loc. cit._]. “Very prudent, honest ... not given to blood as his father, not mercenary, an enemy to _avanias_ and false pretences ... just in his decrees” [Lord Winchilsea, “Memorandums touching the Turkish Empire” (1669), in _Finch Report_, p. 522]. Sir Paul Rycaut gives him the character of “a prudent and Politick Person,” speaks of his “gentleness and moderation,” and adds that “he was not a Person who delighted in bloud, and in that respect of an humour far different from the temper of his Father. He was generous, and free from Avarice, a rare Vertue in a Turk!... In the administration of Justice very punctual and severe” [_Memoirs_, p. 333].

Equally unanimous is the evidence as regards his favour to the English. “I shall apply myself to the Vizier and doubt not to have all satisfaction from him, being assur’d of his good will to us and aptness to favor us in all our reasonable demands”--Sir Daniel Harvey to Lord Arlington, Jan. 31, 1669 [-70]; “Your Lordship may be assurd our merchants heer in Turkie are soe farr from meeting with any obstruction in their affayrs, that they have all the countenance and incouradgment the publick ministers which reside in those places where we have factories can give them and that not without some preference to other nations”--the Same to the Same, April 30, 1671; “As to the honour and privilege which our Nation enjoyeth here, and security of our persons and estates under the Turkes, it is beyond the example of former times”--Paul Rycaut, Smyrna, July 26, 1675 [_S.P. Turkey_, 19]. Cp. “He was very observant of the Capitulations between our King and the Grand Signior, being ready to do Justice upon any corrupt Minister who pertinaciously violated and transgressed them” [_Memoirs_, p. 333]. “And whereas under the Government of Kuperlee Ahmet Pasha ... our Merchants enjoyed great security and freedome in the Trade....”--Charles II. to the Grand Vizir, Whitehall, Dec. 28, 1680 [_Register_, 1668-1710, pp. 99-100, _S.P. Levant Company_, 145].

FOOTNOTE:

[315] The celebrated Restoration dramatist. He had gone with Sir Daniel Harvey to Turkey as his Secretary and, in the winter of 1669-70, accompanied him to Salonica, where the Ambassador had his audience of the Grand Signor. Of this, Sir George Etherege’s first step in the diplomatic service, no mention is made in the article on him in the _Dictionary of National Biography_. The one letter from him on Turkish affairs and personalities preserved at the Public Record Office makes us wish for more: a better informed or better written document does not exist in all the Turkey State Papers.

APPENDIX V

Two such instances may be quoted as affording an instructive parallel to the present case. In 1661 the Algerines complained “That the ship the _Goodwill_, bound, with the persons and goods of several Turkish passengers from Tunis to Smyrna, meeting with some Maltese galleys, without any dispute or contest, resigned them up all with their estates into the hands of the Grand Signor’s enemies. That another ship, the _Angel_, had done the like to the Venetian fleet and rather sought excuses to cover the treachery than means to avoid the enemy”--Lord Winchilsea to Secretary Nicholas, Adrianople, Jan. 13, 1661-2 [_S.P. Turkey_, 17].

APPENDIX VI

The Instructions given by the Levant Company to every new Ambassador and Consul contain a clause to this effect: “If you shall find any of our Factors or others of the English Nation to be notoriously addicted to Gaming, Drinking, Whoreing, or any other licentious course of life, to the dishonour of God, the scandal of our Religion and Nation, their principalls’ damage, and the ill example of others, wee doe straitly require and recommend to you to endeavour to reclaim them by your good admonitions or, finding them incorrigible, to give us speedy notice of such persons to the end some other course may be taken with them.” [See Instructions to Sir Daniel Harvey (1668); to Lord Chandos (1681); to Sir William Trumbull (1687); to Sir William Hussey (1690); to Lord Pagett (1693); to Sir Robert Sutton (1701); to Paul Rycaut, Smyrna (1668); to Thomas Metcalfe, Aleppo (1687); to George Brandon, Aleppo (1700); to William Sherrard, Smyrna (1703); to William Pilkington, Aleppo (1708)--_Register_, 1668-1710, _S.P. Levant Company_, 145; _Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series_, 1667-8.] The repetition of this injunction shows at once how necessary and how ineffective it was.

Another means employed by the Company to combat licentiousness deserves attention. Macaulay has grossly exaggerated the scarcity of books during the 17th century.[316] From John Evelyn’s letters, Pepys’s diary, and many other contemporary sources, it is clear that England abounded both in private and in public libraries: Norwich had one since 1608, Bristol since 1615, Leicester since 1632, Manchester since 1653. As to the English in the Levant, that even there books were not lacking for those who cared to make use of them is proved by two documents before me. The first is “A Catalogue of the Library belonging to the English Nation at Aleppo, taken in the year of our Lord 1688”--seven folio pages, giving the titles of 210 works. The other is “A Catalogue of the Books in the Library belonging to the English Nation at Smyrna. Taken in the year of our Lord 1702”--a list of some 110 volumes. [_Register_, pp. 157-164, 301-304, _S.P. Levant Company_, 145.] But these collections, apparently formed under the inspiration of the chaplains and, one might suspect, for their own benefit, consisted mostly of Theological, Classical, Historical, and other ponderous tomes hardly calculated to allure gay young sportsmen. With the exception of “Lovelace his Poems, 8o Lond. 1649,” light literature is represented in them by nothing lighter than “Bacon his Essayes, 12o Lond. 1664,” and “Lock, of Understanding, Lond. 1690.”

FOOTNOTE:

[316] Of that popular historian’s way of writing history one instance will suffice. He cites Roger North’s Life of his brother John as evidence that the booksellers’ shops in Little Britain were crowded by readers who could not afford to purchase books (_History of England_, 4th ed. vol. i. p. 392). In point of fact, what North says is that scholars went to Little Britain, “a plentiful and perpetual Emporium of learned Authors,” as to a Market. “This drew to the place a mighty Trade; the rather because the Shops were spacious, and the learned gladly resorted to them, where they seldom failed to meet with agreeable Conversation. And the Booksellers themselves were knowing and conversible Men, with whom, for the sake of bookish Knowledge, the greatest Wits were pleased to converse.” (_Life of the Hon. and Rev. Dr. John North_, 1742, p. 241.) North’s whole intention is to draw a picture of the abundance and diffusion of books at the time, in contrast with the opposite state of things which, he asserts, prevailed at a later period, when the bookselling trade had “contracted into the Hands of two or three Persons,” with the result that bookshops diminished in number, deteriorated in quality, and, as places of resort, were superseded by the tavern or the coffee-house.

APPENDIX VII

When Macaulay, in his Third Chapter, depicted the English squire of the 17th century as looking down upon those of his neighbours who “were so unfortunate as to be the great grandsons of aldermen,” he attributed to a past age prejudices derived from his own. A little serious investigation might have taught him better. The Earl of Danby, afterwards Marquis of Caermarthen (1680) and Duke of Leeds (1694), was the great grandson of an alderman--the clothworker Sir Edward Osborne, one of the founders of the Levant Company. The Norths, whose _Lives_ he often quotes, emerged from obscurity when the first North of whom we have any distinct knowledge settled in London and became a merchant, sometime before the end of the fifteenth century; his son rising to the peerage about the middle of the next century. Sir John Finch’s brother, the Earl of Nottingham, married the daughter of Daniel Harvey (about 1650); his cousin, the Earl of Winchilsea, the daughter of John Ayres (1681); and his successor at the Constantinople Embassy, Lord Chandos, the daughter of Sir Henry Barnard (about 1670)--all of them merchants of London. Another London merchant, Sir Josiah Child, as Macaulay himself notes, married his daughter to the eldest son of the Duke of Beaufort (1683). Further illustrations of the absence of any chasm between the two classes will readily occur to any student of literary history. For instance, the father of Sir Thomas Browne (who was born in London in 1605), a merchant, sprang from a good Cheshire family; the father of John Milton (who was born in London in 1608), a scrivener, came of an ancient Oxfordshire stock; Edward Gibbon was descended from a younger son of the Gibbons of Kent, who, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, had migrated to the City of London and become a clothworker. In mentioning this fact, Gibbon very truly remarks that “our most respectable families have not disdained the counting-house or even the shop” (_Memoirs of My Life and Writings_, 1st ed., p. 5). Hume also, in speaking of the Commonwealth, observes, “the prevalence of democratical principles engaged the country gentlemen to bind their sons apprentices to merchants” (_History of England_, chap. lxii.): he is only wrong in the time he assigns to this social revolution--it was much older than the Commonwealth, and was due to economic causes rather than to political principles.

APPENDIX VIII

Of all the excesses of the age the most fashionable was excess in drink. Smyrna was particularly famous for a kind of wine which connoisseurs pronounced only inferior to Canary:[317] so excellent, indeed, was this wine that a butt of it formed a most acceptable present from an English Ambassador to a Secretary of State.[318] The Franks made it in their own houses, buying the grapes in the town. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that inebriation nowhere attained greater heights than at Smyrna. When ships from home came into port, captains and merchants vied with each other in feats of conviviality. Here is a picture of these jollifications drawn by a competent and appreciative eye-witness: “_Les marchands vont quelquefois se divertir à bord des vaisseaux.... Ils y viennent de bon matin et s’en retournent fort tard. Très souvent les conviés ont besoin qu’on les mette dans leurs bateaux avec des palans, de crainte que les pieds leur manquent en descendant par les échelles. Cette précaution est sage et nécessaire après ces sortes de longs festins où l’on a bu beaucoup, et, pour l’ordinaire, beaucoup trop.... Quand les divertissements se font à terre chez les marchands, et surtout chez les Anglois, on ne peut rien ajouter à la magnificence des festins ni à la quantité de vin qui s’y boit. Après qu’on a cassé tous les verres et les bouteilles, on s’en prend aux miroirs et aux meubles. On casse et on brise tout pour faire honneur à ceux à qui on boit et on pousse quelquefois la débauche si loin que, ne trouvant plus rien à casser, on fait allumer un grand feu et on y jette les chapeaux, les perruques, et les habits, jusqu’aux chemises, après quoi ces messieurs sont obligés de demeurer au lit jusqu’à ce qu’on leur ait fait d’autres habits._”[319]

FOOTNOTES:

[317] Thevenot, _Travels into the Levant_, Part I. p. 92 (Eng. tr. 1687).

[318] Sir Daniel Harvey to Lord Arlington, Dec. 9, 1668; Jan. 31, 1670; Paul Rycaut to the Same, June 29, 1671, _S.P. Turkey_, 19.

[319] D’Arvieux, _Mémoires_, t. i. pp. 131-2.

APPENDIX IX

This outrageous specimen of oppressive impudence, like other abuses, can be traced up to a very respectable origin--to one of those feelings which do honour to human nature. It is still the custom among the Turks, after a banquet, to give the guests a present which, in the quaint language of Oriental courtesy, they style _dishe parassi_--“teeth-money”--a slight return for the trouble the guest gave himself in partaking of their hospitality. But what was originally a delicate token of respectful affection, under the tyrannical circumstances of Ottoman rule, assumed the form of a degrading and disgusting imposition.

In the same way, _bakshish_ generally, if considered in its origin, is only a very natural expression of love and respect. Presents have always been and still are the proper tokens of friendship among men the world over. But observances of this kind have a knack of degenerating; and the Turk in power soon learnt to exact presents as tribute, until the institution became one of the greatest political evils that ever afflicted a community: it would be no overstating the case to say that the Ottoman Empire has died of _bakshish_.

APPENDIX X

SIR DANIEL HARVEY TO LORD ARLINGTON

[_S.P. Turkey_, 19]

(_Extract_)

PERA OF CONSTANTINOPLE, _Jan. 31, 1669 [-70]_.

I was received by y^e Grand Segnior according to y^e custome of this Court, except in a condescention w^{ch} I am told this Monarch does not accustome himself to, for after my Memorial was read by my Druggerman, containing a congratulation for his success in Candy & recom͡ending to his consideration y^e senceritie of my Master’s frendshipe by such instances as ware proper to doe it, he asked me if I had anything more to say by word of mouth, whareupon I pressd y^e renuing y^e Capitulations, & y^e adding some new Articles to explain & fortify y^e rest, w^{ch} ware often misinterpreted by inferior ministers to y^e prejiduce of my Masters subjects. he replied y^e Chimacham was his Deputie to whome he refer’d me, & y^t if any of his subjects did any thing contrary to y^e Capitulations w^{th} y^e King of England, he com͡anded him to cutt of thare heads.

APPENDIX XI

SIR JOHN FINCH TO SECRETARY COVENTRY

[_Coventry Papers_]

(_Extract_)

CARAGAS NEAR ADRIANOPLE, _September the 9th, 1675_.

This done, I thought no other difficulty could remain; but when they were wrote out and the Gran Sig^{rs} seale to them, and I appointed to come to receive them from the Vizir, asking whether the Gran Sig^{rs} Hattesheriffe or Hand was to them, I was answerd’ No. I said then, I could not receive them: Here I send to the Rais Affendi who desires me to desist for it was impossible to be done, for neither France, Venice, nor Holland had a Hattesheriffe to their Capitulations who were renewd’ since ours. Then I send to the Kehaiah my good Friend the Capitulations renewd’ by my Lord of Winchelsea, to which the Imperiall Hand was sett, with this message by my Druggerman, that it was a point I could not depart from, for the Capitulations would not onely be thought by the King my Master to whome I was to send them to be surreptitiously gott, but also it was the losse of my Head to accept of lesse then what my Predecessors had gott: Whereupon the Kehaiah immediately takes Pen and Ink, and writes to the Vizir, who had an Answer immediately that it should be done, but I attended a whole week before it was effected, and three days more before the Vizir deliverd’ them.

APPENDIX XII

Sir John Chardin, writing from first-hand knowledge, described our export trade with Turkey at that time as amounting to between £500,000 and £600,000 a year (a quarter of the total export trade of the kingdom), and estimated the annual exportation of cloth, the staple commodity of England, at about 20,000 pieces [_Travels into Persia_, London, 1691, pp. 4-6]. These statements are corroborated by an official Account which the Levant Company delivered to the Lords Commissioners for Trade in 1703. We find there the exports of cloth from 82,032 pieces (the total for the six years 1666-1671) rising in the next six years (1672-1677) to 120,451: the high-water mark of our Turkey trade [_Register_, p. 308, _S.P. Levant Company_, 145]. Further evidence that the embassy of Sir John Finch coincided with our commercial zenith is supplied by a Petition from the Levant Company against the Woollen Manufacture Encouragement Bill of 1678. The Petitioners claim that they have advanced the consumption of broad cloth in Turkey from 14,000 or 15,000 to 24,000 or 25,000 a year [_House of Lords Calendar_, in _Hist. MSS. Comm._, Ninth Report, Part II. P. 111.]

As to selling on credit, the Company’s attitude is illustrated by the comment which accompanies the Account cited above: “My Lords, By the foregoing particulars of our exportations does plainly appear that the Trade hath been considerably increased since the year 1672 when the Oath against Trusting first took place.” Ambassadors and Consuls were instructed to watch over the strict observance of that oath [see the Company’s Instructions to Lord Chandos, Sir William Trumbull, Sir William Hussey, Lord Pagett, Sir Robert Sutton, to Thomas Metcalfe, Consul at Aleppo, to George Brandon, also Consul at Aleppo, and to William Sherrard, Consul at Smyrna, in the _Register_ already cited]. It was found, however, that the Factors, in spite of their oath, would “trust.” Whereupon, in 1701, the wise men in London put their heads together to discover “what methods were best to be used to prevent so ill a practice” [Instructions to Sutton, Clause 7], and “made a new Oath against Trusting, more full and comprehensive than the former, to be taken by all our Factors in Turkey, which you are to see strictly observed, with this limitation only: that our Factors may sell on trust such goods of the growth and product of Turkey, Persia, and India as are not proper to be sent to England, upon their own account, being willing to make an experiment of the effects which such an indulgence may produce” [Instructions to Sherrard, Clause 5]. The text of this new Oath was as follows. I reproduce a copy enclosed in a despatch from Sir Robert Sutton to the Secretary of State, dated “Pera of Constantinople, Nov. 30th, O.S. 1702” [_S.P. Turkey_, 21]:

“I A. B. do solemnly swear in the presence of Almighty God and upon the holy Evangelist that I will not sell or barter upon Trust, for my own or any English-man’s account, any Cloth or other goods and commodities whatsoever, nor suffer it to be done by any other person or persons for or under me directly or indirectly.

And I do further swear that I will not deliver out of my possession, nor suffer to be delivered directly or indirectly any goods or commodities for my own or any English-man’s account, before I have received full payment for the same in mony, if such goods and commodities were sold for mony, but if such goods and commodities were sold in barter against goods I will not deliver the goods I so sell before I have received the full value in the goods bartered for, and they to be at my immediate disposal to all intents and purposes as if I had bought and paid for them with mony.

And I do likewise further swear that I will not take in payment or in pawn as security for any goods sold or bartered, neither by myself or any other person directly or indirectly, any Temesooks, Mery Tescarees, Beghlar Tescarees, Sebeb Takrirs, Hojets, or any assignments or other writing or writings of what nature soever of or from any person or persons of what nation soever.

All which I will duely observe without any equivocation or mental reservation so long as I shall remain in Turky, unless the Levant Company shall sooner annul their order in this behalfe.

So help me God.

At a General Court of the Levant Company held at Pewterers’ Hall London the 24 October 1701.

Ordered that every person taking this Oath shall repeat the words after him that administers it and the same shall be entered in Cancellaria and subscribed by the respective parties.”

APPENDIX XIII

That the Levant Company did not consider the result of Sir John’s expedition to Adrianople at all commensurate with the expenditure it had entailed may be seen from its Instructions to subsequent ambassadors: not to go out of Constantinople for the presentation of their Credentials, but to await there the return of the Court, and to forbear renewing the Capitulations, unless the juncture of affairs should happen to prove so favourable that some new Articles for the security and advancement of trade might be obtained; but, in any case, not to entertain any thoughts of renewing them without first consulting the Company [_Register_, 1668-1710, _S.P. Levant Company_, 145].

APPENDIX XIV

To avoid similar complications, the Levant Company instructed the Ambassadors: “Many Evils have ensued upon the marriage of Englishmen with the Subjects of the Grand Signor. We therefore pray your Lordship to discourage and discountenance that practice, it being prejudiciall to themselves as well as to the publique” [see Instructions to Chandos, Trumbull, Hussey, Pagett, Sutton--_Register, S.P. Levant Company_, 145]. But the practice continued. In 1758 the Grand Vizir Raghib Pasha re-opened the whole question by issuing an ordinance which forbade Franks to marry the daughters of _rayahs_ or to acquire real estate, and once more the authorities at Galata were commanded to send in a list of all Franks who were in the one or the other category [Hammer, _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman_, vol. xvi. p. 12]. But still the practice went on, and in the end the Turks, whatever they may have held in theory, acquiesced in our view that the descendants of Frank fathers, no matter how remote, did not become Ottoman subjects. Hence the so-called Levantine families settled at Constantinople, Smyrna, Salonica, and other trade centres in the Near East; forming ex-territorial colonies the members of which, amenable to their own laws, administered by their own magistrates, and subject only to the jurisdiction, within certain limits, of their own Governments, preserved their respective nationalities and their civil and political rights, just as if they lived in the countries of their origin. This régime, unique in modern Europe, though common in antiquity, endured unchallenged down to the Turkish Revolution of 1908.

APPENDIX XV

In 1687 James II. extorted from the embarrassments of the Porte what Charles II. and his predecessors had failed to obtain from its sense of justice. The occasion was curiously similar to the present one. An Italian corsair, operating under a commission from the King of Poland, robbed an English ship, the _Jerusalem_, of some passengers and goods belonging to the Pasha of Tripoli and carried them off to Malta. On the petition of the Levant Company, King James instructed his new Ambassador Sir William Trumbull, who was on the point of sailing for Turkey, to call in at Malta, expostulate with the Grand Master on the protection he gave to pirates preying upon English vessels, obtain liberation of the captives and restitution of the stolen goods, take both to Tripoli and hand them over to their rightful owner. This was done, and King James, in a letter to the Grand Vizir, after describing the service rendered, proceeded “to declare our positive resolution pursuant to the Capitulations in that behalfe that neither We nor any of our subjects shall at any time answer for the persons or estates of such subjects of your Imperial Master as shall of their own accord embark themselves upon any of our Merchants ships. But that all such persons as shall intrust either themselves or their goods upon any English ship shall bear their own hazard of corsairs and pyrats of what nature soever and sustain all other accidents whereunto the sea is lyable and from which they can only be protected by the one omnipotent God. And to this which is in itself so highly reasonable and agreeable to the rules of common justice, We cannot doubt of your assent.”

As at the moment the Ottoman Empire was assailed by four Powers from without and was convulsed by rebellions from within, the Grand Vizir readily gave his assent: “In conformity to the good accord of peace established with the happy Port of the Empire who is the refuge of the world, it is necessary and fit that the subjects on both parts should be in safety one with the other; and if the subjects of these Imperial Dominions shall enter voluntarily into the ships of your Merchants and your Merchants shall give them a writing any ways obliging themselves as security for said loss, or damage, according to that writing which shall be given it shall be obeyed and observed as to the security given for the loss or damage. And if your Merchants are not in this manner obliged nor give a writing of such import, the subjects of this Empire entering voluntarily into the ships of the Merchants, any loss or damage happening so to them, there shall be nothing pretended from your Merchants nor your subjects on any such pretexts. This rule ... We shall keep it an established Rule....”[320]

But alas for promises given under compulsion! Notwithstanding this solemn engagement, the Porte clung to its favourite principle, and every English Ambassador had to repeat, age after age, his nation’s disclaimer of corporate responsibility. [See, for instance, the Credentials of Abraham Stanyan (1717) and of James Porter (1746) in _S.P. Turkey_, 56.] As to the Levant Company, it did what it could to avoid trouble by instructing the Ambassadors either to forbid English ships to carry Turks and their goods, under severe penalties (such as making them pay double Consulage), or at least to see that the necessary precaution was taken by a writing given at the port of embarkation to secure the Company from any damage, in accordance with the Grand Vizir’s letter. [See the Company’s Instructions to Sir William Hussey (1690), to Lord Pagett (1693), to Sir Robert Sutton (1701), in the _Register_ already cited.]

FOOTNOTE:

[320] For the documents (Levant Co.’s petition to Earl of Sunderland; King James to Grand Vizir; Grand Vizir to King James), see _Register_, pp. 132, 134, 151, in _S.P. Levant Company_, 145.

APPENDIX XVI

Dudley North’s genius is proved and his place in the history of Political Economy established by an anonymous pamphlet which he published shortly before his death under the title _Discourses upon Trade, principally directed to the cases of the Interest, Coinage, Clipping and Encrease of Money_. This great little treatise, suppressed by the Government of William III. in 1691, was reprinted, from one of the very few copies extant, in 1856 by J. R. M’Culloch among his _Early English Tracts on Commerce_. It embodies, briefly and boldly, a system the originality and completeness of which may be judged from the following abstract--a theory in essence similar to, in some respects more consistent than, that enunciated by Adam Smith generations later:

“The whole world, as to trade, is but one nation or people, and therein nations are as persons. The loss of a trade with one nation is not that only, separately considered, but so much of the trade of the world rescinded and lost, for all is combined together. There can be no trade unprofitable to the public; for if any prove so, men leave it off: and, wherever the traders thrive, the public of which they are a part thrive also. To force men to deal in any prescribed manner, may profit such as happen to serve them, but the public gains not, because it is taking from one subject to give to another. No laws can set prices in trade, the rates of which must and will make themselves. But when such laws do happen to lay any hold, it is so much impediment to trade, and therefore prejudicial. Money is merchandize, whereof there may be a glut, as well as a scarcity, and that even to an inconvenience. A people cannot want money to serve the ordinary dealing, and more than enough they will not have. No man will be the richer for the making much money, nor any part of it, but as he buys it for an equivalent price.... Exchange and ready money are the same; nothing but carriage and re-carriage being saved. Money exported in trade is an increase to the wealth of the nation; but spent in war and payments abroad, is so much impoverishment....” The tract ends with these weighty words: “No people ever yet grew rich by policies: but it is peace, industry, and freedom that bring trade and wealth, and nothing else.”

The author describes his propositions as “paradoxes, no less strange to most men than true in themselves.” Their truth may still be a matter of controversy; their strangeness at the time at which they appeared is unquestionable. They were rank heresies against the dominant creed of the day. According to the cardinal article of that creed--the “balance of trade”--wealth consisted solely of money: whatever sent the precious metals out of a country impoverished it: whatever tended to swell the quantity of bullion in a country added to its riches. Therefore, no trade with any country was profitable, unless we exported to that country more value in goods than we imported, receiving the difference in money, which was considered the measure of our profit. North, presumably, had his eyes opened to the fallacy of this mercantile doctrine by the facts of our Levant trade. In the earlier days our exports to Turkey fully paid for our imports, and in those days English writers proudly contrasted our position with that of other nations--the French, Dutch, Italians, Germans--who paid a balance in cash. It did not occur to them that those nations must have found it as profitable to pay for what they got in gold and silver as we did in goods, else they would not have done so: and if they got their money’s worth for their money, which no doubt they did, they were quite as well off as the English who, of course, got no more than the worth of their manufactures. [See Munn’s _Discourse of Trade_, 1621, in Geo. L. Craik’s _History of British Commerce_, 1844, vol ii. pp. 19-20.] However, before North left Turkey, our merchants had got into the habit of sending, in addition to goods, large quantities of specie: in other words, now the “balance of trade” was against us--and yet our Levant trade never was more profitable! Here was a paradox to set a sensible man thinking.

But few men can think. Acting upon the established belief, English public opinion clamoured for the exclusion from the Kingdom of the products of foreign countries, particularly those of our traditional rival, France. In one of these paroxysms of popular frenzy an entire prohibition of French goods was proclaimed by Act of Parliament (1678). On that occasion, indeed, national hatred and religious excitement combined to invigorate and envenom the feelings arising from commercial jealousy, for it was the time of the ferment about the secret designs of France and Charles, out of which sprang the wild delusion of the Popish Plot. But the chief motive of that legislative measure was the prevailing notion that the country was suffering enormous pecuniary loss in consequence of our excessive importation of French commodities. Dudley North’s comments on that notion are refreshing: “trade is not distributed, as government, by nations and kingdoms; but is one throughout the whole world, as the main sea, which cannot be emptied or replenished in one part, but the whole, more or less, will be affected. So when a nation thinks, by rescinding the trade of any other country, which was the case of our prohibiting all commerce with France, they do not lop off that country, but so much of their trade of the whole world as what that which was prohibited bore in proportion with all the rest; and so it recoiled a dead loss of so much general trade upon them. And as to the pretending a loss by any commerce, the merchant chooses in some respects to lose, if by that he acquires an accommodation of a profitable trade in other respects.” [_Life of Francis North, Baron of Guilford_, 1742, p. 168.] No wonder such views were obnoxious to a Government bent blindly on crushing France, as the Whig Government of 1691 was, and it may be suspected that in choosing that moment for the publication of his heresies North was actuated quite as much by the wish to thwart the war policy of his opponents as by the desire to promote the cause of Truth.

The Act of 1678 had been repealed in the beginning of James II.’s reign, but immediately after the Revolution all commerce with France was again barred. The boycott continued through the two wars of 1689-97 and 1701-12, and the attempt made by the Tories in 1713, when peace was restored between England and France, to re-open the trade with the latter country, failed: the merchants took the alarm, the Whig politicians exploited that alarm, public opinion was roused, and the Bill was lost. We have heard the same clamour for breaking off all commercial relations with a rival nation in our own day--over two hundred years after Dudley North exposed the egregious folly of such a policy.

INDEX

Adrianople: Court at, 24, 26, 28, 68; Finch’s preparations for, 86-8; entry into, 93-4; quarters in, 94-5, 172; foreign diplomats in, 96-7; the city, 97; festivities in, 68-9, 105-113, 131; plague in, 136-7, 138, 139, 156, 163, 174; departure from, 175-6; Levant Company and Finch’s visit, App. XIII. 400

Affaire du Sofa, _see_ Soffah

Aga of Pasha of Tunis, 16-20, 85-6, 305, 306

Ahmed Kuprili, Grand Vizir: character, 12-15, 103, 104, 160, 165, 191-3, 225, 354, App. IV. 385-386; siege of Candia, 14, 16, 132, 207; negotiations with Poland, 31, 68; and Pasha of Tunis, 85, 86, 173-4; finds quarters for Finch, 95; Finch’s audience with, 98-103; Charles II.’s letter to, App. II. 381-382; and Holy Sepulchre disputes, 117, 118-19, 123, 125, 158; and Tripoli corsairs, 129, 182; his intemperance, 132, 164, 165, 169; and Capitulations, 134, 147, 149, 158, 159, 160, 166, 169-71, 180; at Finch’s audience with Grand Signor, 140, 141, 142, 143, 146; and Vani Effendi, 153; letters to Charles II., 170; and Genoese Resident, 294; his death, 191, 192, 193; Kara Mustafa and, 325 (_note_)

Ak-bonar, 137

Aleppo: Anglo-French disputes at, 72-3, 188; customs duties at, 181, 218; dollars consigned to, 237-243; Hattisherif, 27, 150; library at, App. VI. 389; Pasha of, 237-8

Algiers pirates, 85, 244, 248-9

Allin, Sir Thomas, 85

_Alloy_, the, described, 257-8, 370 (_note_)

Ambassadors: state kept by, 36, 39-40; Turkish conception of responsibilities of, 273, 303-4, App. XV. 402-3

American ceremonialism, 200

Anchorage charges, 28

Ancona, 284

_Angel_, the, App. V. 387

Angora, 236

Argostoli, 351

Arlington, Lord, 3, 4-5, 52, 116, 121

Ashby, Mr. John: the Pizzamano case, 211, 212-13, 214, 215-16, 218, 222, 231; the Pentlow case, 268, 269, 271-6

_Asper_, 233

Austria attacked, 361, 362; in Holy League, 364-5

Avanias, 15, 228, 229, 233, 264, 274, 281, 283, 365

Avji, the Hunter, 25, 131, 144, 146. _See_ Mohammed IV.

Bailo of Venice, the, 20; and religious disputes, 119, 122, 124, 151; and Sir John Finch, 185, 189; Kara Mustafa and, 202, 227-8, 229-30, 281-3, 321, 359

Baines, Sir Thomas, 40-44, 353; on the Turks, 22-3; journey to Adrianople, 89, 90, 94; at Karagatch, 137, 175; and Vani Effendi, 153, 155-7; reproves Nointel, 190-91; pulls strings for Finch, 245; his sedan chair, 291; death, 344-5, 347; burial, 352

Bairam, Feast of the, 20, 216, 222, 316

_Bakshish_, App. IX. 394

_Barat_, 266, 267

_Baratlis_, 266

Barbary corsairs, 83-5, 339-41, 345, 348

Barton, Edward, 119

Belgrade, 39

Bendyshe, Sir Thomas, 26, 120

Berkeley, Earl of, 312, 313

Bocareschi, Count, 133, 155, 156, 163

Books in 17th century, App. VI. 388-9

Bostanji-bashi, 248

_Boza_, 323, 324

Broesses, M. de, 297

Brusa, 236

Busbequius, 8; quoted, 33

Caboga, Signor, Ambassador of Ragusa, 96, 112, 113, 250, 251

Cadileskers, 140, 142, 303, 306, 315

Caloyers, Greek, 118, 119, 151

“Cambio Marittimo,” 83

Cambridge, 2, 40, 112; Covel at, 54-55, 369-70, 371-2

Cancellier, Levant Company’s, 51, 142, 144, 145

Candia, siege of, 14, 15, 16, 101, 132

Canizares, 119, 122

Capiji-bashi, 93, 139

Capitan Pasha, 193, 212; the new, 248, 257, 279, 340, 341, 346

Capitulations, the, 14, 26-31, 98, 100, 293-5; prepared, 104, 134; Latin Fathers and, 124-5; postponements, 147, 149-51; draft shown, 157, 158, 159; the signature question, 166-7, App. XI. 396; signed, 168, 169, 170; not appreciated, 178-9; difficulties in execution, 180-81; Ahmed Kuprili maintains, 180, 193; Grand Signor and, App. X. 395; Kara Mustafa and, 223, 244, 249, 270-71; and cloth trade, 247; married Franks and, 266-7, 270-71; Kara Mustafa holds for ransom, 292, 293-6; silk duty under, 349

Capitulations, the Dutch, 296-8, 300

Carlowitz, Peace of, 365

Carpenter, Mr. William, 51, 142, 144

Catholics, _see_ Roman Catholics

Ceremonialism, diplomatic, 199-200

Chandos, Lord: appointment, 313-314, 329; arrival, 335-6, 337; delivers his letters, 339, 342-3; silk duty dispute, 348, 349-50, 355-8; his Audience delayed, 358, 364; retirement, 364

Chaoush-bashi, 93, 139, 142, 198, 216, 239, 346, 355, 356

Chaplyn, Captain, 18-19, 304, 305, 306

Charles II.: knights Finch, 2; Arlington and, 5; policy of, 9, 15, 359; and Levant Merchants, 10-11, App. III. 384; and Grand Duke of Tuscany, 18; and Rycaut, 53, 367-8; Treaty of Dover, 69, 71, 121; and Roman Catholics, 120-121; letter to Grand Vizir, 99, App. II. 381-2; letter to Grand Signor, 144, 145-6, App. II. 380-81; gift of figs to, 170, 179-180, 209, 223; and Turkish currency, 235; turns against Louis, 260, 263; appoints Finch’s successor, 311, 312, 313, 314, 329; suspends trade with Turkey, 319, 320; letters borne by Chandos, 337-8, 342; resumes trade, 348-9

Chios: Ahmed Kuprili at, 132; French bombard, 340-41, 346, 359

Christ’s College, Cambridge: Finch at, 2, 40; Baines at, 40; Covel at, 53, 55; Finch and Baines buried at, 352; Covel Master of, 369-70

Circassian slave, 184

Circumcision festival, 68, 105-9

Clarendon, Earl of, 121, 367

Cloth trade, English, 27-8, 149-50, 247, App. XII. 397

Coke, Mr. Thomas, Cancellier, 51, 142, 144, 145

Colbert, 50

Collyer, Jakob, 365

Collyer, Justinus, 298, 299-300, 328, 333. _See_ Dutch Resident

Constantinople: city described, 24-25, 33-6, 38-9, 44-5; Finch reaches, 20; Grand Signor’s dislike of, 24-6, 182; customs duties, 27; plague in, 24, 176-7; religious disputes in, 55-6, 57; Finch returns to, 176; Grand Signor at, 182-4, 196, 278

Constantinople Embassy: Finch’s aversion to, 4, 5; Finch accepts, 1, 5, 11; appointments to, App. III. 383-4; character of post, 7-11; chaplaincy, 54 (_see_ Covel); candidates for, 311-14

Constantinople factory and Pentlow case, 274

Conway, Anne, Viscountess, 3

Conway, Lord, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 22, 44, 245

Cordeliers, Spanish, 119, 122-7, 138, 150-52, 158-9, 254-5, 286

Corsairs: and Porte, 16-17, 84-5, 340-41, App. XV. 402-3; and English ships, 16-17, 83, 85, App. V. 387, App. XV. 402-403

Counterfeit coin, 76-7, 82, 234-7, App. I. 379

Covel, Rev. John: Constantinople chaplain, 53-7, 66, 89; journey to Adrianople, 90, 91; on Adrianople quarters, 91, 94, 97, 98; on Ahmed Kuprili, 102; during festivities, 111-13, 250; and religious controversy, 122, 125-6; on Turkish Court, 131, 132; and Bocareschi, 133; at Karagatch, 137, 148; at Grand Signor’s Audience, 142, 143, 144, 145; on Vani Effendi, 154; return to Constantinople, 176; in Grand Signor’s camp, 182-3; leaves Constantinople, 287-8; later career, 368-72

Crete, war in, 14, 118

Crim Tartar, 253

Cromwell, Oliver, 10, 15, 120

Crow, Sir Sackville, 10, 26, App. III. 384

Currency, Turkish, 233-6

Customer, Chief, _see_ Hussein Aga

Customs-duties, 26-8, 349-50, 355-9

Cypress trees, 36

Deereham, Sir Richard, 313

Dey of Tripoli, 83, 84, 129, 182

_Dishe parassi_, 91, App. IX. 394

Divan, 139-40

Dositheos, 119, 125-6

Dover, Treaty of, 69, 71, 121

Dragoman of the Porte, _see_ Mavrocordato, Dr.

Dragomans, 46-50, 204, 266, 267; Finch’s, 50-51, 86-7, 94-5, 164, 175-6, 186-7, 203-4, 272, 315, 330. _See_ Draperys _and_ Perone

Draperys, Signor Giorgio, 50-51, 89, 94, 95, 141, 144, 145-6, 164, 186-7, 188

Drink, excess in, fashionable, 60, App. VIII. 392-3

Druggermen, _see_ Dragomans

Duquesne, Admiral, 340-41, 345, 346, 348, 359-60

Dutch: Kara Mustafa and, 202, 228, 296-8, 300, 359; married, 267; rivalry with English, 28, 237, 238, 240, 242, 247

Dutch Cancellier, 294

Dutch Capitulations, 296-8, 300

Dutch Resident, 31, 160-161; Kara Mustafa and, 202, 228, 298, 300; Finch’s quarrels with, 299-300, 327, 332-3

Elizabethan relations with Turks, 8, 30, 46, 326-7; with Greeks, 119

English: Dutch and, 28, 237, 238, 240, 242, 247; French and, 71-72, 73-6, 80-82, 261-2, 262-3; Greeks and, 119; Turks and, 16-17, 100-101, 224, 231-2, 236-7

English, custom-house privileges of, 246-8

English merchants, 36-9; married, 267, 269, App. XIV. 401; Turkish justice and, 28-30, 63, 157-8, 223-4, 231-2, 274, 307-8

English renegades, 29-30, 149, 157-8

English shipping: pirates and, 16-17, 83, 85, App. V. 387, App. XV. 402-3; Turks requisition, 15, 127-9

Eyre, Sir John, 10

False coin, manufacture of, 76-7, 82, 234-7

Festivities at Adrianople, 68, 105-113, 131

Finch, Sir Heneage (father), 1

Finch, Sir Heneage (brother), 1, 2, 3, 288. _See_ Nottingham, Earl of

Finch, Heneage (cousin), 4. _See_ Winchilsea, Earl of

Finch, Heneage (nephew), 2

Finch, Sir John (Baron), 1

Finch, Sir John, Ambassador at Constantinople: family, 1-2, 4; early career, 2-3; knighted, 2; in Italy, 2, 3-5; appointed Ambassador to the Porte, 1, 5, 11; character of post, 7-11; his instructions, 9, App. I. 377-379; credentials, App. II. 380-382; the case of the Pasha of Tunis, 16-20, 85-6; landing at Smyrna, 19-20, 22, 71; arrival at Constantinople, 20; audience of the Kaimakam, 20-21, 30-31; the new Capitulations, 26-31; life in Constantinople, 36-41, 43-5; devotion to Baines, 40-44, 353; Dragomans, 50-51; colleagues and friends, 51-67; delays presenting credentials, 69, 88, 165, 173; Anglo-French difficulties, 69-77; relations with Nointel, 69, 78-82; the Tripoli corsairs, 83-5, 102, 129, 181-2; claims of the Pasha of Tunis, 85-6, 173-4, 244, 300; preparations for journey, 69, 86-8; journey to Adrianople, 89-93, App. XIII. 400; enters city, 93-4, 172; his quarters, 94-5, 97-8, 172; and other diplomats, 96-7; audience of Grand Vizir, 98-103; preparing the Capitulations, 104, 115, 134; at festivities, 110, 134; dispute between Greek and Latin Fathers, 116, 119, 122-6, 150-152, 158-9; requisitioning of English ship, 127-30; winning favour at Court, 131-4; Capitulations promised, 134, 138; audience of Grand Signor, 136, 139-46, 172; Capitulations delayed, 147-8, 149-53, 157-9; the bribery system, 159-162; further delays, 162-8; Capitulations signed and delivered, 168-73, 174, App. XI. 396; return to Constantinople, 175-6; Levant Company’s ingratitude, 178-80; Capitulations upheld, 180-81; Tripoli corsairs punished, 181-2; Grand Signor at Constantinople, 182-4; quarrel with Genoese Resident, 185-8; difference with Nointel, 188-190; death of Ahmed Kuprili, 191-3 Kara Mustafa, 194-5, 196-7, 207, 225-6; the Soffah affair, 198-201, 202, 203-5, 207-8, 249; diplomatic illness, 201-3, 210; negotiations for an audience, 203-5, 207-8, 209-10, 216-19; the Ashby case, 211-216, 218, 222, 227, 232; audience of Kara Mustafa, 222-5; on Kara Mustafa’s extortions, 227-30, 256; the Aleppo dollars case, 237-43; troubles to come, 244-245; friendly Turkish dignitaries, 246-9, 326, 330; on Kara Mustafa and Ambassadors, 250-255; Greek and Latin Fathers again, 254-5; description of the _Alloy_, 256-9; Anglo-French disagreement, 260-62; compact with Nointel, 262-3; on Vizir’s return, 264-5; the Pentlow case, 268-77; on Court affairs, 278-84; colleagues leave Turkey, 287-8; contract with Levant Company expires, 288; standing with Turks, 290-92; the Smyrna Jew’s case, 293-5; Kara Mustafa holds Capitulations for ransom, 295-6, 343; quarrels with Dutch Resident, 299-300, 327-9, 332-4; revival of case of Pasha of Tunis, 301, 302-10; Finch stands firm, 308-10; proceedings suspended, 310-11, 314, 329, 330-31, 335, 336, 337; his successor appointed, 311-14, 329; breach with Kara Mustafa, 314-20; on the Kehayah’s execution, 322-6, 327, 329; Kara Mustafa’s temporary friendliness, 330-31; awaiting Chandos, 335, 336, 337, 342; on trouble between France and Turkey, 342, 345-7; the Pasha of Tunis defeated, 343; death of Baines, 344-5, 347; departure from Turkey, 347-8, 350; the voyage home, 350-52; death and burial, 352

Fireworks, Turkish, 107-8

Florence, Finch at, 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 19, 33, 40

France: England and, 69, 71, 121; war with, 375, App. XVI. 406-7; Germany and, 31, 170, 171, 361; Spain and, 171 Turkey and, 15, 118; crisis between, 339-342, 345, 348, 359, 361

France, King of, styled _Padishah_, 30

Franceschi, Domenico, 16, 17, 18

Franks: marriages of, 266-7, App. XIV. 401; Turks and, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 65-6, 335, 359, 360-361, 365

French: against Turks in Crete, 15, 118; and interpreter problem, 49-50; ceremonialism, 200; married factors, 267, 286; rivalry and disputes with English, 69-70, 71-6, 80-82, 203, 206, 224, 238, 247; war on Tripoli pirates, 339-41, 345, 348, 359

Galata, 35, 186, 266, App. XIV. 401

Genoa, 18, 234, 283

Genoese Resident, 185-8, 202, 228-9, 283, 286, 294, 321

German Emperor’s Resident, 31, 96. _See_ Kindsberg

German Internuncio, 263-4, 280

Germany: France and, 31, 170, 171, 361; supports Latin Fathers, 117

Glover, Sir Thomas, 119

Golden Horn, the, 35

_Goodwill_, the, App. V. 387

Grand Signor, 8, 15, 35; and vassal corsairs, 84-5, 102, 244, 248-9, 303, 340-41. _See_ Mohammed IV.

Grand Vizirs, 12, 103-4, 293. _See_ Ahmed Kuprili, Kara Mustafa, Mohammed Kuprili

Greek and Latin Churches, feud between, 55-6, 57, 116-19, 120, 122-7, 150-52, 158-9, 254-5, 286

Greek Patriarchs, 55-6, 122

Greeks, English and, 119

Guilds, processions of, 105, 106, 257, 259

Guilleragues, M. de: the Soffah question, 285-7, 321, 326, 334-5, 342, 346-7; and bombardment of Chios, 340, 341-2, 346-7, 360

Gunning, Lady, 373

Haghen, Cornelius, 300

_Haratch_, 266, 267

Harem intrigues, 103, 324, 326-7

Harvey, Sir Daniel, 1, 4, 8, 17, 26, 177; and pirates, 17, 85; and Nointel, 70; and Catholics, 121-2; and false coin, 235, 236; Grand Signor and, 146, App. X. 395; Ahmed Kuprili and, App. IV. 386; Kara Mustafa and, 207

Hasnadar, 161, 212, 215, 216, 222

Hattisherif, Aleppo, 27, 150

Hedges and Palmer, Messrs., 61-2

Hoffmann, German Internuncio, 263-4, 280

_Hoggiet_, 293, 305

Holland, Resident of, _see_ Dutch Resident

Holy League, 365

Holy Roman Empire, 280

Holy Sepulchre disputes, 116-19, 122-7, 158-9, 254-5, 286

_Hunter_, the, 74, 81, 183

Hunter, the (Mohammed IV.), 25

Hussein Aga, Chief Customer, 134, 180-81; friendly to Finch, 210, 246-8, 319, 320, 326; and Ashby case, 214, 215-16; and Aleppo dollars, 239, 241, 242; and Pentlow case, 366

Hyet, Mr., 95, 142, 144, 356

Ibrahim, Sultan, 25

Imperial Resident, _see_ Kindsberg _and_ Sattler

Interpreters, 21, 30-31, 47-8, 49-50

Italy, Finch in, 2, 3, 33

James II., 369, App. XV. 402-3

Janissaries, 91, 136, 139, 141, 256, 257, 258

Jenkins, Sir Leoline, 315, 316

Jersey, Earl of, 366

_Jerusalem_, the, App. XV. 402

Jerusalem: Holy Sepulchre disputes, 116-19, 122-7, 151, 158-9, 254-5, 286; Patriarch, 119, 125; Nointel at, 151

Jesuits, 120

Jew, Kara Mustafa’s, 296, 298, 343, 366

Jew of Smyrna, case of, 292-3, 296

Jewish quarter, Adrianople, 94, 98

_Kaftans_, 20, 100, 102-3, 169, 197, 217, 219, 248

Kaimakam, 19-20, 30-31, 88

Karagatch, 137, 139, 148, 175

Kara Mustafa, 152, 193-5, 196, 230-231, 284-5; motives of his extortions, 230-31 Ambassadors and Residents, 196-197, 202 Dutch, 202, 228, 229, 297-8, 300, 332-3, 359 English: Finch: diplomatic illness, 201-3, 210; negotiations for audience, 203-8, 209-10, 216-19, 221-2; the Ashby case, 212, 213, 216, 217-18, 219, 222, 231-2; audience with, 222-5; Aleppo dollars case, 238-44; the Pentlow case, 286-76; Capitulations held for ransom, 293-6, 343; the Pasha of Tunis, 302-10, 314-20 Chandos: and Charles II.’s letters, 337-8, 342-3; silk duty case, 349-50, 355-9 French: Nointel, 197-9, 200, 201, 207, 208-9, 226; Guilleragues, 286-7, 334-5, 341, 342, 346-7, 360-61 Genoese, 202, 228-9, 283, 321 German, 228, 264, 280, 279, 280-81 Polish, 251-4, 255, 259-60, 279 Ragusan, 228, 230, 250-51, 284 Russian, 255, 256, 279-80 Venetian, 202, 227-8, 229-30, 279, 281-3, 321, 359 the Soffah affair, 198-9, 203, 207 208, 286, 290, 334-5, 341, 342, 343, 346-7; and Capitulations, 223, 244, 293-6, 343; extortions from Turks, 230, 256; the Russian war, 257, 258, 265, 361; and married Franks, 267, 270; his Kehayah executed, 323-5, 326, 327, 329; attacks Austria, 361-2; defeated, 363-4; executed, 364

Kehayah, Ahmed Kuprili’s (Soliman), 86, 104; Finch interviews, 114, 115, 116, 125; and requisitioning of English ship, 127-8; and delayed Capitulations, 134, 138, 147, 150, 158, 166-7, 174; and title of Padishah, 150, 159, 160-161, 173; and customs dues, 180-181; and Tripoli corsairs, 182; and Ahmed’s death, 191; becomes Master of the Horse, 195, 323, 324, 331-2; Kara Mustafa and, 323, 324, 326, 331; sent to Mecca, 332; becomes Vizir, 365

Kehayah, Kara Mustafa’s, 197; refuses Finch’s Bairamlik, 216-217; and Aleppo dollars, 239, 241; and Polish Ambassador, 254; and Pentlow case, 272, 273, 276; threatens tax on Ambassadors, 283; and case of Pasha of Tunis, 218, 306, 307, 315, 316, 317-18, 319; executed, 320-25 his successor, 355, 356

Kindsberg, Count, German Emperor’s Resident, 31, 96-7, 133; Kara Mustafa and, 228, 263, 279, 280; death of, 264, 280-81

Kislar Aga, 103, 319, 323-4, 326

Knatchbull, Major, 313

_Konaks_, 90

Kuchuk Chekmejé, 90

La Croix, M. de, 96, 97

Landed and trading classes, 58-9, App. VII. 390

Latin and Greek Churches, feud between, 55-6, 57, 116-19, 120, 122-7, 150-52, 158-9, 254-5, 286

Lawson, Sir John, 85

Lello, Henry, 119

Leopold, Emperor, 362

Leopold, Prince, 3

Leslie, Walter, 96

Levant, luxuries of the, 37-9

Levant Company, 7; Charter of, 10, App. III. 383-4; and Ambassador’s appointment, 7, 10-11, App. III. 383-4; instructions to officers by, App. VI. 388-9; trade of, App. XII. 397-8; and Pasha of Tunis, 17-18; opposes credit system, 178, App. XII. 397-9; forbids _temeens_, 235, 236-7, 238; imports Lion dollars, 237; false economy of, 238, 243; and Pentlow case, 270-71; and suspension of trade with Turkey, 319-20, 337-8; forced to resume trade, 348-9 Finch and, 9, 11, 178-9, 288, 311 Treasurer of, _see_ North

Levantine Families, 267, App. XIV. 401

Libraries, 17th century, App. VI. 388-9

Lion dollars, 233, 235, 236, 237-43

Lorraine, Duke of, 262, 263

Louis XIV.: Charles II. and, 69, 71, 260, 263; and Soffah, 334; and Barbary pirates, 339, 342, 359; and Turkish campaign against Austria, 361, 362

Lucaris, Cyril, 119-120

_Luigini_, 233-6

Mahomet Kuprili, _see_ Mohammed Kuprili

Majorca corsairs, 72

Malta, Finch at, 19

Marriages of Franks, 267, App. XIV. 401

_Mary and Martha_, the, 183

Matthewes, Sir Phi., 313

Mavrocordato, Dr., Dragoman of the Porte, 100, 140, 143, 144, 164, 168, 198, 217, 239, 300

_Mediterranean_, the, 16, 17, 18, 304, 306

Meletios, 119

Merchants trading into Levant Seas, _see_ Levant Company

Mohammed IV., Grand Signor, 24, 25, 105-6; and hunting, 25, 259; dislike of Constantinople, 24-6, 182; and Capitulations, 27, 166-8, 169; forbids tobacco, 63; at his festivities, 68-9, 87, 105-6; requisitions English ship, 127-8; prohibits intoxicants, 131, 148, 153, 322, 324; flees plague, 137; Finch’s audience with, 138, 140, 143-6; and Vani Effendi, 153-4; signature to Capitulations, 166-8, 169; letters to Charles II., 170; in Constantinople, 182-3; leaves Constantinople, 191; and death of Ahmed Kuprili, 192, 231; returns to Constantinople, 196; demands on Kara Mustafa, 231; in Silistria, 251; his _Alloy_, 257-258; fills Seraglio, 278; returns to Adrianople, 317, 318; executes Kehayah, 322-3, 324, 325; and Soliman, 331; Charles II.’s letters to, 337-8, App. II. 380-381; and corsairs, 84-5, 102, 244, 248-9, 303, 340; and Guilleragues, 346; reign ends, 365

Mohammed Kuprili, 12, 13, 225, App. IV. 385-6

Moldavia, Prince of, 51, 256, 284

Money, Turkish, 233-6

More, Henry, 352

Morosini, Signor, 185, 282. _See_ Bailo of Venice

Mufti, the, 105, 132, 149, 152, 158, 269, 357

Muhurdar, 166, 168

Munden, Sir Richard, 261

Murad III., 26

Muscovy: campaign against, 32, 257, 258, 265, 361; Embassy from, 255-6, 259-60, 279-80

Mustafa Pasha, 152. _See_ Kara Mustafa

Muteferrika, 133, 134

_Naculs_, 110

Narbrough, Admiral Sir John, 129, 181-2, 244, 248-9

Neale, Mr. Thomas, 313

Nicholas, Secretary, 121

Nicusi, Panayoti, 117, 118

Nimeguen, Treaty of, 263

Nishanji-bashi, 140, 141, 142, 159

Nointel, Marquis de, 69; and Smyrna disturbance, 72, 73; Rycaut and, 73-5, 77, 82; Finch’s interview with, 78-82; at Adrianople, 95; and religious disputes, 117, 118, 122, 123, 151, 152; Ahmed Kuprili and, 165; quarrel with Finch, and reconciliation, 188-91; Kara Mustafa and, 197-9, 200, 201, 207, 208-9, 227, 229; the Soffah question, 198-201, 206, 207, 208-9; Anglo-French compact with Finch, 262-3; leaves Turkey, 287

North, Hon. Dudley: early career, and character, 57-67; economic genius, 67, 373-4, App. XVI. 404-6; and journey to Adrianople, 87, 90, 94, 95; at festivities, 106, 110-11, 113-14; and religious disputes, 124; during plague, 137-8; at Grand Signor’s audience, 142, 144-5; and Capitulations negotiations, 157, 160, 161, 167-8; leaving Adrianople, 175; on Ashby case, 211, 232; and Kara Mustafa, 226; and Aleppo dollars, 239, 242, 243; Hussein Aga and, 248; in Adrianople, 272; leaves Turkey, 287; a candidate for Embassy, 312-13; resumes trade too soon, 348; political career, 372-5; trial, 374-5; pamphlet by, App. XVI. 404-6; back in Turkey trade, 375; farming, 375; death, 376

North, Lady Dudley, 373

North, Montagu, 62, 287, 356

Nottingham, Earl of, 2, App. VII. 390

_Ottavi_, 233-6

_Oxford_, the, 336, 337, 347, 348

_Padishah_, the title of, 30-31, 145, 150, 159, 160, 172-3

Padua, Finch at, 2, 40, 168

Pagett, Lord, 365, 366-7

Palatine of Kulm, 251-3, 254, 255

Palmer, Mr., 61-2

Panayotaki, 117-18

Parker, Captain, 75

Pasha of Aleppo, 237-8, 243

Pasha of Tunis, 16-20, 85-7, 173-4, 218, 244, 248; his Vakil, 218; his case revived, 301-11, 314-17, 329, 330, 335, 337; Chandos defeats, 343

Pashas and Pashaliks, 91

Patriarch of Constantinople, 122

Patriarch of Jerusalem, 119, 125

Pay day of troops, 136, 140-141

Pentlow case, 268-76, 365, 366-7

Pera, 35, 38, 162, 165, 176, 267, 335; illicit still at, 186

Perone, Signor Antonio, 51, 86-7, 88, 92, 94-5, 164, 166-7, 272

Peskeshji-bashi, 139, 141

Pickering, Dr., 142

Pirates: and English shipping, 16-17, 72-3, 83, 85, App. V. 387, App. XV. 402-3; French and, 72-3, 339-41, 345, 348, 359; the Porte and, 16-17, 84-5, 102, 244, 248-9, 303, 340-41, App. XV. 402-3

Pisa, Finch at, 2

Pizzamano, Signor, 211, 212, 214-15, 216, 222

Plague, 39; in Adrianople, 136-7, 138, 156, 163, 168, 174, 175-6; in Constantinople, 39, 176-7; in Karagatch, 148; Ambassadors die of, 252-3, 264

Podolia, 254

Poland: Turkey and, 14, 31, 32, 68; peace negotiations, 210, 251-3, 254, 264; and Holy Sepulchre, 254; announces truce with Muscovites, 279; and Turkish overthrow, 363-4; in Holy League, 365

Polish Ambassador, Kara Mustafa and, 251-4, 255, 259-60, 279

Pope and Turks, 284

Popish Plot, 372, App. XVI. 406

Prince, the Turkish, 108-9, 258

Puntiglio, Finch and, 20, 30-31, 78, 80, 87, 88, 95-6, 188-9, 199, 200, 203-4, 210, 217, 219, 299, 326, 327-9

Queen Regent, 324, 326

Ragusa, Ambassador of: at Adrianople, 96, 112, 113; Kara Mustafa and, 228, 230, 250-51, 284

Rais Effendi, 104; and Capitulations, 114, 134, 147, 149, 157, 159, 166, 167, 172, 173, 174; and audience with Kara Mustafa, 204-5; and Kara Mustafa’s extortions, 229, 230; and Palatine of Kulm, 254; and Pasha of Tunis case, 302, 306, 330-31, 336

_Rayahs_, 266, 267, App. XIV. 401

Renegades, 29-30, 107, 149, 157-8, 212

Residents and Ambassadors, 205-6

Roe, Sir Thomas, 120, 220-21, 285 (_note_)

Roman Catholics: in England, 119, 120, 121, 126; in Turkey, 48-9, 120, 121; Charles II. and, 120-121

Russia: Turco-Polish campaign against, 32; Kara Mustafa attacks, 255-60, 264, 361; peace negotiations, 279-80; in Holy League, 361

Rycaut, Sir Paul, 51-3, 66; and Anglo-French disputes, 71, 73-75, 77, 82, 261; and Turks, 133 (_note_), 290; on Ahmed Kuprili, App. IV. 386; and Ashby case, 211-12; and coining, 236; and Pentlow case, 271, 273, 276; leaves Turkey, 287; desires Constantinople Embassy, 312, 313; subsequent career, 367-8

St. Demetrius Hill, 177, 264

St. Gothard, battle of, 14

St. John, Mrs., 366, 367

Sattler, Imperial Resident, 263, 264, 280

Scanderoon, 72, 218

Scutari, 36

Sedan chairs, Turks and, 291

Selivria, 91, 191

Seraglio, Grand Signor’s, 35, 182, 278; intrigues in, 103, 324, 326-7

Seven Towers, 208, 228, 282, 298, 317, 346

Silk duty dispute, 349-50, 355-9

Smith, Mr. Gabriel, 268, 269, 271, 272-6

Smith, Dr. Thomas, 54

Smyrna: Finch lands at, 19, 20, 71-2; Anglo-French disputes at, 71-2, 73-6, 80-82, 261-2; library at, App. VI. 389; life in, 38-9; North at, 59-60

Smyrna factory, 20, 27, 38-9, 60, 165-6; and Ashby case, 213, 218; and Pentlow case, 274, 276

Smyrna figs, 170, 179-80, 209, 223

Smyrna Jew, case of, 292-3, 296

Smyrna wine, App. VIII. 392-3

Sobieski, King of Poland, 32, 279, 363, 364

Soffah, the, 98-9; Nointel and, 198-201, 206, 207, 208-9; Finch and, 201-208, 209, 249, 290; Guilleragues and, 285-7, 321, 326, 334-5, 342, 346-7; Chandos and, 343

Soliman, _see_ Kehayah, Ahmed Kuprili’s

Spain: France and, 171; Turkey and, 8, 117, 119

Spanish Cordeliers, 119, 122-7, 138, 150-52, 158-9, 254-5, 286

Spinola, Signor, 185-8, 228-9, 294, 321. _See_ Genoese Resident

“Sporca,” Sultana, 184

Spragge, Sir Edward, 85

Stamboli Effendi, 213, 214, 215, 216

Stambul described, 35; Grand Signor and, 24

Sultan, _see_ Mohammed IV.

Sultana “Sporca,” 184

Sunderland, Earl of, 315

_Sweepstakes_, the, 72

Tangier, 9

Tartar Han, 253

“Teeth money,” 91, App. IX. 394

Tefterdar, 138, 140, 141, 142, 149, 150, 157, 239

_Temeens_, 233-6

Terlingo, German Internuncio, 280

Thynne, Sir Thomas, 313

Tobacco forbidden, 63

Tories and Whigs, 372, 374, App. XVI. 407

Trading and landed classes, 58-9, App. VII. 390-391

Travellers, fear of, 91-2

Treaty of Dover, 69, 71, 121

Treaty of Nimeguen, 263

Tripoli corsairs: English and, 16, 83-5, 86, 102, 129, 181-2; French and, 339-41, 346; the Porte and, 16-17, 84-5, 102, 244, 248-9, 303, 340-41

Tunis, Pasha of, _see_ Pasha of Tunis

Turkey, 6, 8, 12; cheap and luxurious living in, 37-8; oppression in, 11-12, 38, 290-291; plague in, 39

Turkey: Austria and, 361, 362; England and, 16-17, 100-101; France and, 15, 118, 339-42, 345, 348, 359, 361; Poland and, 14, 31, 32, 68, 251-4, 264, 363-364; Russia and, 32, 255-6, 264, 279-80, 361; Spain and, 8, 117, 119; Venice and, 8, 14, 15-16, 281-3, 286

Turks: and European envoys, 205-206, 220-21, 303-4, App. XV. 402-3; tyranny of, 11-12, 38, 290-91; Baines on, 22-3; and Finch, 19-20, 291; North’s popularity with, 63-6

Tuscany: Finch in, 2,3; coining in, 234

Tuscany, Grand Duke of: Finch and, 3, 16, 19; and pirates, 16, 18, 19

Ukrania surrendered, 253

Vani Effendi, Sheikh, 153-7

Vasvar, Peace of, 14

Venetian Ambassador, _see_ Bailo of Venice

Venetians: and Aleppo dollars, 238; affray between Turks and, 359

Venice: and Turkey, 8, 14, 15-16, 281-3, 286; in Holy League, 364-5

Vienna, siege of, 362-4, 366

Wallachia, Prince of, 256

Wedding festivities, 68, 109-110

Whigs and Tories, 372, 374, App. XVI. 407

William of Orange, Covel and, 369-70

William, Prince of Furstenberg, 170-171

Winchilsea, Earl of, 4, 8-9; on Ahmed Kuprili, 13, App. IV. 386; on Constantinople, 34; Rycaut and, 52, 312; his Dragoman, 51; and Capitulations, 26, 98, 167; and pirates, 85, App. V. 387; and Jerusalem Fathers, 120, 121, 124-5; during plague, 177

Wych, Sir Peter, 120

Zechrin, 256, 264

THE END

_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, _Edinburgh_.