can and will take a cruel vengeance, they are looking round for friends. [Prince Milan (of Servia) has hurried to Vienna to explain his view of the elevation of the provinces south of the Danube into a hereditary Principality after the Roumanian plan, with himself as Hospodar.] That compromise might be accepted by Turkey if she were pressed hard enough. [It would really, though not nominally, strengthen Turkey. . . . But France is paralysed, England thinks her debtors quite right in crushing anybody who objects to pay taxes, and the Prince is defeated. He could do the work alone easily enough, but if he raised the standard the great Powers would march armies to secure peace. . . Peace will be maintained inviolate, which suits the Holy Alliance . . . and the peasantry who object to double taxes levied by fire and sword will pay for all, and English creditors of the Sultan will be relieved of a dread-and all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.]—Spec. Aug. 7th. On August 14th, the Spectator renews the suggestion of a "violet" solution in an article which it is interesting to compare with the utterances of its unregenerate days. The writer refers to a manifesto issued on July 23rd, by the commissioner for the supIression of the insurrection (Dervish Emir Pacha), and communicated to the Standard by its correspondent at Vienna. The manifesto, if it referred to people within the limits of English tourists' visits, would raise the most passionate indignation. The people of the Herzegovina are, in fact, to be slaughtered till order reigns once more, and then England and France will resist the proposition to raise the provinces into a Hospodarate. It is in English judgment better that iniquities of this kind should go on unchecked than that Turkey should be beaten in a diplomatic contest.-Spec. Aug. 14th. It was on the same day that the Times had what appears to be its first leader on the matter. The position it took was remarkable. There was no trace of legalism-no trace of philo-Turkism. It was not wanting in sympathy for the Provincials; it insisted simply and solely on the necessity of European peace. [It thinks the insurrection, though serious, will be quelled. The friends of the insurgents hope that other Powers will be drawn in]. We cannot share their wishes. . . . The momentary hope that the Turk would repent and live cleanly has long since been discredited. But the value of peace in the East of Europe is immeasurably greater at the present time than the welfare of the Herzegovina. It must wait. We say this in no spirit of cynicism but in a temper of pitying veracity. . . . The insurgents would do well, therefore, to lay down their arms and trust even to the Turks, tempered as their severities will be by the interference of the Christian States.-T. Aug. 14th. For some time past, as we have seen, grave misgivings had existed as to the financial prospects of Turkey. In the latter part of August the effects of the insurrection began to show themselves distinctly in the stock market. A correspondent of the Times 1 attempted to reassure investors by a prophecy that the revolt would easily be put down at a cost of perhaps 500,000l. The lack of anything like efficient public interest, however, is not to be ascribed to any belief in prophecies of this sort, and not entirely to apathy. It was in a great measure owing to the belief that the matter was "under care.” About the end of the third week in August it became known that "a modified mediation," as the phrase went, had been undertaken by the three Powers, and it seems to have been generally understood that the English Government was prepared to acquiesce, if not to take part in their action. The form which the "modified mediation" took was the so-called Consular Mission. The consuls were to be sent to the scene of the insurrection, and were to strive to bring about an accommodation between the insurgents and Server Pasha, acting as special commissioner for the Porte, and in this mission the English consul took part.2 With regard to the policy really pursued by the English Government at this juncture, people at the time knew very little. Lord Derby, in fact, invoking purely legalistic principles (though probably himself animated by "order" rather than by "legalism,") was addressing himself to two objects; first, to prevent other Governments from affording aid or comfort to the insurgents; and next to prevent the matter from being taken in hand by the European Powers, or at all events to reduce intervention to a minimum. On August 12th, 1875, Lord Derby writes to Mr. Ffrench (Chargé d'affaires at Vienna) : Her Majesty's Government would be glad to learn that the Government of Austro-Hungary had taken steps to secure the peace of the frontier, and to prevent the disturbances in Herzegovina from receiving support and encouragement from Austrian territory.-Turkey, ii. 1876, No. 12. On the same day, Lord Derby writes to Sir H. Elliot, Ambassador at Constantinople : Her Majesty's Government are not aware whether your Excellency may have any opportunity of advising the Prince of 1 "One who knows European Turkey," T. Aug. 20. 2 See Argyll, i. p. 136, for an account of the Consular Mission and the negotiations respecting it. Montenegro to restrain his subjects from aiding the insurrection. Should such an opportunity offer they do not doubt that you would avail yourself of it, and they wish you to direct Her Majesty's agent at Belgrade to use his best efforts to counteract any dispositions which may be apparent in Servia, to aid or foment the disturbances. At the same time Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Turkish Government should rely on their own resources to suppress the insurrection, and should deal with it as a local outbreak of disorder rather than give international importance to it by appealing for support to other Powers.Turkey, ii. 1876, No. 13. Again, Lord Derby writes to Sir H. Elliot, August 24th:- Your Excellency states that [the three northern Powers] propose that Consuls should be delegated by the Embassies to proceed to the scene of the insurrection and inform the insurgents that they must expect no support or countenance from their Governments. They are also to advise the insurgents to desist from hostilities but to make known their complaints to a Commission. The delegates are not to go further than this, but are to leave the rest to the Turkish Commission. . . . Her Majesty's Government have given the proposal thus made their serious consideration, and now authorise your Excellency to join the other ambassadors in sending Consuls to the scene of insurrection as proposed. Her Majesty's Government consent to this step with reluctance, as they doubt the expediency of the intervention of foreign Consuls. Such an intervention is scarcely compatible with the independent authority of the Porte over its own territory, offers an inducement to insurrection as a means of appealing to foreign sympathy against Turkish rule, and may not improbably open the way to further diplomatic interference in the internal affairs of the empire. Since, however, the Porte has begged your Excellency not to stand aloof, Her Majesty's Government feel that they have no alternative. They desire, at the same time, that the Turkish Government should understand that the assent of Her Majesty's Government is given at their own instance, and that Her Majesty's Government would have thought it better that the Porte should have dealt with the insurgents without foreign intervention of any kind.-Turkey ii. 1876, No. 16. The attitude of the English Government was hardly understood at the time. From the information before them, people might well suppose that the English Government, without perhaps taking any very active part, was prepared to view with complacency, to say the least, the efforts of other Powers to induce the Porte to make concessions to the Provincials-even to the length of emancipation. At all events, during the last week in August, the Times, which, as we have seen, on the 14th thought the matter was best left alone, came to be the advocate for a large measure of emancipation—not, to be sure, the policy so-called in the terms of our technical nomenclature, (for as yet there was hardly any question of our own country taking any initiative in that direction), but a solution of the problem in that sense. Again we find September 5th to be an important date with reference to the Daily News, as marking a similar development of opinion on the part of that organ. [Something must be done. If Server is empowered to make the best settlement possible he will readily consent to the transformation of Bosnia into a tributary principality. Self-government for Bosnia and the Herzegovina must come, and it would advantage the Porte for it to be at once arranged.]-T. Aug. 23rd. [Turkey is in a dilemma. If she puts down the rebellion in her own way, if she "acts with decision," she will be denounced as cruel, and the feeling of their people will drive Austria and Russia to interfere. If she tries to do it otherwise people will say she is not in earnest. For the moment it seems the difficulty will be got over by the mediation of the three Powers. The right of Turkey to deal with her own rebels will be treated as extinct, and the Christian subjects will be given to understand that in any future quarrel the three Powers will shield them. This may be proper and necessary, but it is scarcely less disastrous to the independence and integrity of Turkey than the success of the revolt.]P. M. G. Aug. 23rd. The Daily Telegraph says a certain proposition has been made by Austria and endorsed by Russia and Germany to terminate the insurrection--(Aug. 24th) and again, sees no reason why we should hold aloof. "We cannot possibly refuse our assistance to an endeavour to uphold the status quo of the Ottoman Empire."(Aug. 25th.) The Times says: Austria and Russia should take a bold course and settle the matter "while the iron is hot." Not much is to be hoped from Server. Every statesman knows that sooner or later the Herzegovina and Bosnia must receive a real if not a nominal independence.-(Aug. 27th.) The Spectator says: The Times has turned round upon itself after its fashion, and recognises that there is but one solution of the difficulty in the Herzegovina consistent either with continued peace or the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire.—(Aug. 28th.) The Pall Mall Gazette speaks of the unexpected zeal of the Times on behalf of the Christian population of South Eastern Europe. (Sept. 4th.) The Times alludes to a disagreeable suspicion that each Power has some concealed design.-(Aug. 31st.) The Daily News says: It would be an immense advantage if Bosnia and the Herzegovina could be placed in a position something like that of Servia, either spontaneously or by the energetic action of the Powers. "The experiment of upholding the old state of things in Turkey for the sake of the general tranquillity The Pall Mall Gazette says: We have neither the power nor the knowledge to do anything useful. We could not carry out our traditional policy of supporting the Turks even if we were anxious to do so. Moreover, if we could, it is doubtful if it would be wise. "The old policy was based on a belief that if the Turks were judiciously helped they would judiciously help themselves; but there are few people who entertain that belief now." We are in the dark, and had best not move.-(Sept. 10th.) § 2. First English Meeting in favour of the Insurgents. Presently the further idea made its appearance, that some active duty in the matter lay, if not on the English nation, yet on individual Englishmen. The immediate occasion of this was a proclamation issued by the insurgent leaders in which they set forth their grievances, saying death was better than a continuance of such things, and appealing for assistance to the Slav nationalities, and likewise to "every honest man without distinction of race or nationality." As if in response, there took place in England a movement which, both in itself and in the controversies of which it was the occasion, in a faint and dim way curiously foreshadowed the events of a twelvemonth later. The movement began with a letter from the veteran Earl Russell, which appeared in the Times. 1 I have been reading my despatch to Sir Henry Bulwer, of September 1861.2 I have read likewise the appeal made on behalf of the Christian rayahs in your paper of yesterday. I remember many years ago attending a meeting at Lord Fitzwilliam's in Grosvenor Square on behalf of the Greek insurgents. I subscribed 50%. on behalf of those insurgents. It is too late to call a meeting in London, but I am ready to subscribe 50%. on behalf of the insurgents against Turkish misrule.-(Earl Russell, T. Aug. 28th, 1875.) It is in connection with Earl Russell's letter, and the movement of which it formed a part, that we get the first sign of a splitting up of Public Opinion into different streams and of a conflict between them; and in the comments which were made we have some of the issues foreshadowed about which a furious controversy was to rage later on. The Economist referring to Lord Russell's letter said it was almost inconceivable that one who had been Prime Minister and 1 See T. Aug. 26, Berlin telegram. 2 Quoted by Argyll, i. p. 111. |