When we make a comparison between the Turkish Government and that of Austria and Russia in respect to religious liberty, the scale turns entirely in favour of Turkey.  There is not only toleration for all religions, but the government does not mix with their religious affairs, but leaves these entirely to their own control; whereas under Austria, although self-government was secured by three victorious revolutions, by treaties which ensured these revolutions, and by hundreds of laws; still Austria has blotted out from Hungary the self-government of the Protestant church, while Turkey accords and protects the self-government of every religious denomination.  Russia (as is well known) taking religion as a political tool, persecutes the Roman Catholics, and indeed the Greeks and Jews, in such a manner that the heart of man must revolt against it.  The Sultan, whenever a fanatic dares to encroach on the religious freedom of any one at all in his wide dominions, is the inexorable champion of that religious liberty which is permitted everywhere under his rule.

Again, I must cite from the history of Hungary this fact; that when one-half of Hungary was under Turkish dominion, and the other half under Austrian, religious liberty was always encouraged in that part which was under the Turkish rule; and there was not only a full development of Protestantism, but Unitarianism also was protected; yet by Austria the Unitarians were afterwards excluded from every civil right, because they were Unitarians, although our revolution restored their natural rights.  Such was the condition in respect to religious liberty under the Austrian and under the Turkish dominion.

Now, in respect to municipal self-government, Hungary and all those different provinces which are now opposed to the Austrian empire,—­if indeed an empire which only rests upon the goodwill of a foreign master, can be said to exist, or even to vegetate,—­all those different provinces are absorbed by Austria.  There was not one which had not in former times a constitutional life, not one which Austria did not deprive of it by centralizing all power in her own court.  Such is the principle of Christian rule!

Take, on the other hand, the Turk.  In Turkey I have not only seen the municipal self-government of cities developed to a very considerable degree, but I have seen administration of justice very much like the institution of the jury.  I have seen a public trial in a case where one party was a Turk, and the other party a Christian; where the municipal authorities of the Christian and of the Turkish population were called together to be not only the witnesses of the trial, but mutually to control and direct it with perfect publicity.  But more yet:  there exist Wallachia and Moldavia, under Turkish dominion; and the Turkish nation, which has conquered that province and is dominant, yet, out of respect for national self-government, has prescribed to its own self not