his own act, did so much to bring about that state of Public Opinion which he afterwards so strenuously combated, and which so much embarrassed him.

§ 5. The Andrassy Note.

The transaction of the Canal shares to a great extent drew off the attention of people at home from the progress of the series of negotiations which culminated in the Andrassy Note. It is clear that a fresh wave of insurrection took its rise about the time of the Turkish repudiation. Mr. Disraeli at the Guildhall represented the latter event as the cause of the former, while Lord Derby, as we shall see directly, reversed the sequence of cause and effect. The revived activity of Russia at the end of October was regarded by many as a link in the same chain of events. The subsequent course of the insurrection, however, for a while attracted little attention.

The fit of "erubescence" occasioned by the publication of the article in the Russian official gazette1 was very shortlived. The cause which earliest operated to abate it was the knowledge that Russia was not acting alone, but on common ground with Austria and Germany.

[The three Powers have invited Austria] to frame a proposition setting forth what guarantees can be demanded, and what control should be jointly exercised by the great Powers to insure the carrying into effect of the Sultan's promises. Count Andrassy is now engaged in elaborating such a proposition.

[An impression is gaining ground that the Porte will not soon put the insurrection down, and that Austria will be commissioned to intervene, in the spring, with an armed force on behalf of the great Powers.]-Berlin Telegram, P. M. G. Nov. 3rd, 1875.

In this state of things great interest attached to the position of Austria. The general conception of Austria's policy at this crisis seems to have been what was probably not far from the truth;— namely, that it was primarily an order policy; a policy based on reluctance to encounter a disturbance, at all events as long as the risk of loss in a changed condition of things seemed to overbalance the chance of a prize. It is worth while to notice the resemblance and the difference between this policy and the policy of Lord Derby. They were alike in making "order" the one thing aimed at; but Austria, though willing to starve the insurrection by hindering supplies from reaching the insurgents, was ready, to all appearance, to join in extorting from the fears of the Porte some1 Ante, p. 233.

thing which would bring the insurrection to an end by removing the grievance. To the extent then that at the moment they were both pressing schemes of emancipation on Turkey, Austria was on common ground with Russia. Moreover, Germany it seemed

had now given her adhesion.

The fact that the three Powers were marching together was, to be sure, capable of more than one significance. The question was, how close was their agreement and what was its basis? On the one hand, it was taken by some as an indication, that the Holy Alliance had come to a full understanding as to the adjustment of rival claims, and was engaged in a conspiracy to partition Turkey. On the other hand, it was noted that in the event of any annexations the interests of Russia and of Austria would almost certainly clash, and the fact of their agreement seemed to point to the conclusion that no such measures were in contemplation, whatever pressure it might be intended to put upon the Porte in favour of the Provincials. Then again it was believed that the alliance would not bear the strain if action were to be pushed too far. Austria, it was thought, would curb and mitigate the impatience of her yokefellow, and thus reliance on Austria's minimising influence operated to allay suspicion of Russia.

The Spectator describes the two Powers as pressing an emancipation policy upon Turkey. Austria reluctantly and "peacefully," Russia with ardour and menaces (Nov. 6th). And again: The general impression outside is that Russia is getting ready but is not ready; that Austria is ready but very unwilling.-(Nov. 20th.)

The Daily Telegraph thinks Austria must be opposed to either a Russian protectorate over European Turkey, or a Slavonic autonomy on her borders, and in this sense the alliance of the three Powers is a pledge of peace and a guarantee against Russian aggression. (Nov. 8th.)

In other quarters, where the conviction had struck deep that the position of the Provincials lay at the root of the evil, and that some action stronger than mere diplomatic parleying must be resorted to, distrust of Russia suggested Austrian occupation as an alternative to Russian coercion, as a method for securing emancipation. Thus we note among the solutions proposed with this end in view, a rivalry at this time between the "Austrian occupation" and "Hospodarate" solutions. The Times leant to the former, the Spectator continued to argue for the latter.

1 The notion of Austrian occupation seems to have been suggested for the first time in the Times of October 9th. See also Times of Nov. 24th and 26th and Dec. 1st.

Nothing but a foreign army of occupation can save Herzegovina from the risk of a catastrophe. It is becoming clearer every day that the Turkish troops are totally unable to put down the rebellion. . . . Austria could not do a better service than by repeating in Bosnia and Herzegovina the act of police which she performed in 1854. The Porte would of course protest, and at first perhaps refuse to withdraw its own troops, but a State which exists on sufferance must be peremptorily informed that it wastes time by putting on airs of independence. The intervention must be made with the concurrence of the Great Powers; but all of them, we believe, will soon see that it is an absolute necessity.— T. Nov. 19th.

If the Times has been inspired it is clear enough that the course the English Government contemplates is to support Austrian claims to the reversion of European Turkey as against Russian.Spec. Nov. 27th,

The day after Lord Derby had said what he had to say on the purchase of the Canal shares to the Conservative working men at the evening meeting in the Corn Exchange,1 he was presented with the freedom of the City of Edinburgh. He took this opportunity to touch on the pending negotiations, in a speech which seemed to be, in the main, an exposition of his idea of the political characteristic of the period:

We have at this moment before us [not the English Cabinet alone, but the various Cabinets of Europe] a question, the final solution of which nobody clearly foresees, and in regard to which I suppose nothing more is possible at present than temporary expedients to meet the emergency of the time. . . . An outbreak in the Turkish dominions, slight in the first instance, not encouraged by foreign Powers, and which might have been easily put down by prompt action, was neglected until it grew into a serious insurrection. [Even then, it seemed likely to yield when repression was at last employed. Three months ago the best-informed persons did not expect it to last or spread. But then came the financial collapse of Turkey, and the insurrection gained ground. Even now it is not formidable in military resources, and the accounts of insurgent victories are exaggerated, but the excitement among the adjoining population is so great that the area of disturbance may be indefinitely enlarged.] The Governments of Austria and Russia are, I believe, perfectly sincere in wishing to prevent that. [At the risk of being thought credulous, he gave them credit for wishing to see peace and order restored.] You see by the newspapers that a plan is about to be proposed by Austria as a basis for the pacification of these disturbed provinces. The purport of that plan I do not yet know, and if I did I should not be justified in making it a subject of public discussion here. But this you

1 Ante, p. 243.

will all feel, that the difficulty of dealing with the internal affairs of a foreign country is in any case immense. [He alluded to some of the questions which occurred, not to lead to a foregone conclusion, but that the grave difficulties might be appreciated of the work which European diplomacy had been compelled to undertake.] You may wish us well through it, but don't be unreasonably dissatisfied if the solution arrived at is not all that we might desire. -Lord Derby.1

[Lord Derby has taken the measure of the British public.] Calmly has he surveyed us and calm are his conclusions. It is that for the next session, and for several sessions to come, we shall all be more than content to employ ourselves in wiping away small arrears of legislation and Blue Books. With regard to the Eastern disturbance the less we do there-that is, the smaller the scale of our interference-the better. Besides, Austria has taken the matter in hand, and we may wait to see how she fares in it. Lord Derby evidently believes that in a succession of the mildest hints he has just hit the political temper and wishes of the great majority of the people. . . . We thank him for the compliment. Let it be written in our epitaph that our only wish was to die putting our house in order.-T. Dec. 21st, 1875.

As a premonition, apparently, of the impending note which was to embody the demands Austria had undertaken to formulate, General Ignatieff had an audience with the Sultan early in November. As a counter-blast to the new project of interference the Turkish Government promulgated a fresh scheme of reform.2

The comments of some of the English newspapers on Ignatieff's interview are curious, and show how far opinion was as yet from having crystallised. The Daily News and Daily Telegraph, for instance, appear to have exchanged parts, if we judge by the positions they afterwards took up.

[Ignatieff seems to have delicately explained to the Sultan that his empire is doomed. The game is a pretty one for Western observers -it merits the attention of our statesmen, for it is being played at the risk of serious British interests.]-D. N. Nov. 6th.

[The real evil lies in the system of government at Constantinople. The line of Ottoman despots must reform themselves and their surroundings or History will draw its pen through their outworn arrogance.]-D. T. Nov. 6th.

1 Speech on being presented with the freedom of the City of Edinburgh.Dec. 18th. The Times commented somewhat sarcastically on this utterance.

2 See Turkey, ii. 1876, No. 50.

The rough draft of the proposals appeared in the Daily Telegraph, Dec. 10. The firman is dated Dec. 12. It appears that Midhat Pasha, then Minister of Justice, wished to add to these promises a change which if achieved would have anticipated the constitution of Jan. 1877, namely, the creation of a central elected council at Constantinople. But this was rejected and Midhat resigned.

The Sultan

The representative of the Czar showed the urgent demand for reform. Our own ambassador gave the same message to His Majesty more than two months ago. He uttered no threats, and General Ignatieff seems to have been equally polite has been invited to set his house in order that is all. Thus the Turkish policy of England and Russia is for once identical. [Turkey, Russia and England have travelled far in the last twenty-two years. The integrity 1 of the Ottoman Empire is a thing about which the Great Powers have ceased to battle, for the simple reason that any real integrity has ceased to exist. As to Constantinople, we believe that Russia is further from that prize than she was on the eve of the Crimean War. Austria could not let Constantinople pass into the hands of Russia. The mutual jealousies and the mutual necessities of Austria and Russia furnish therefore strong guarantees of peace even in the critical state of Turkey.]-T. Nov. 9th.

[It must be exceedingly provoking to those who have been announcing and speculating on the almost immediate collapse of the Turkish Empire, to find that not only is it in statu quo, but that it gives evidence of retaining both its independence and its position. The Porte will certainly resist any attempt at military occupation, high-handed dictation, or any attempt to extract unusual guarantees.] In fact the Turkish question can be treated alone by the ordinary methods of diplomacy. All drastic remedies are simply out of the question.-Morning Post, Dec. 14th.

[It is as difficult to tell whether the Firman is valuable or not as to tell whether the prospectus of a new company is likely to turn out a bubble or a good investment. In this case the very liberality of the terms makes us suspicious.-D. T. Dec. 16th.

[There is ground for hopefulness, since Turkey will feel the necessity of now making some serious efforts at reform, for it has to meet the inexorable demands of the three Emperors-and it has alienated from itself the support of England, France and Italy.] T. Dec. 17th.

The "Andrassy Note" was dated Buda-Pest, Dec. 30th, 1875, and was communicated to Lord Derby on Jan. 3rd, and the substance of the Note appeared in the English newspapers of Jan. 5th, 1876. The specific measures proposed for the revolted Provinces in this celebrated instrument were as follows:

Religious liberty full and entire.
Abolition of the farming of taxes.

A lawful guarantee that the product of the direct taxation of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be employed for the immediate interests of the province, under the control of bodies constituted in the sense of the Firman of December 12th.

1 Sic, but independence is meant.