Part 12

When England was preparing this private treaty, the English fleet was on the Sea of Marmora, at the gate of the Bosphorus, threatening Russia, to make her withdraw her soldiers from the gates of Constantinople, for the conquering Russian army had reached the suburbs, and encamped at San Stefano, only eight or ten miles away. But for England, Russia would have captured Constantinople, and kept it. But England backed Turkey, and the other powers backed England, and Russia reluctantly withdrew her troops. But Russia has never forgiven England for it; and if England wishes to help the Armenians, no matter how many are massacred, Russia will help Turkey, while the others side with neither. As to there ever being a European concert to reform Armenia, a pleasant dream which has deluded many thousands, I have always laughed at it, and I laugh at it still. The powers will never act together for any such purpose. It is not "practical politics" to think of it. The real center of action is not Germany or Russia, but England, for several reasons. One is that London is the money capital of the world. Money rules; money buys force. The richest nation is the strongest. What does Lombard street say? is the vital question. The second is her navy, the strongest in the world; stronger that that of any other two nations combined; perhaps in actual fight a match for all combined. The third is that her possessions are everywhere; she is a local power in every quarter of the globe; she has to pass by everybody's doors in managing her colonies. So I will begin with England.

ENGLAND AND THE ARMENIAN QUESTION.

If England had wished to solve this question, she could have done it long ago; but she never cared to. When Mr. Gladstone was in power, he tried to do it, but his Cabinet overbore him. He did, however, show by isolated cases what power England had if she chose to exercise it. After I was banished by the Turkish government, two native Christian ministers supplied my pulpit. They were sentenced to death on a false charge, but Gladstone threatened the Sultan, and the latter commuted the sentence to banishment. These ministers were Professors Thoumaian and Kayayian, who are now in England with their families. What could be done on a small scale could be done on a large one. I will give here some of the speeches of Gladstone on the Armenian question; then compare Lord Salisbury with him and his policy.

W. E. Gladstone.

He assails Turkey's Intolerable Misgovernment and Emphasizes the Value of Impartial American Testimony.

[By Cable to The New York Herald.]

London, Aug. 6, 1895.--A pro-American meeting, presided over by the Duke of Westminster, was held at Chester this afternoon. Mr. Gladstone was among those present, and upon entering the hall was received with great enthusiasm.

In addressing the meeting, Mr. Gladstone said he had attended rather to meet the expectation that he would be present than because he had any important contribution to make to the discussion of the subject under consideration. The question before the meeting, he said, was not a party question, neither was it strictly a religious question, although the sufferers, on whose behalf the meeting was called, were Christians. The evil arose from the fact that the sufferers were under an intolerably bad government--one of the worst, in fact, that ever existed. A resolution would be proposed presenting, with justice and firmness, the true view of the matter. Mr. Gladstone added that as America had no political interest in the Levant her witnesses were doubly entitled to credit.

Important Treaty Provisions.

The treaty of 1856, Mr. Gladstone continued, gave the powers the right to march into Armenia and take the government of the country out of the hands of Turkey, and under the treaty of 1878 the Sultan was bound to carry out reforms. The ex-Premier made three proposals:--First, that the demands of the powers should be moderate; second, that no promises of the Turkish authorities should be accepted; and third, that the powers should not fear the word "coercion."

"We have reached a critical position," said Mr. Gladstone, in conclusion, "and the honor of the powers is pledged to the institution of reforms in Armenia."

A resolution was then proposed expressing the conviction that the government would have the support of the entire nation in any measures it might adopt to secure in Armenia reforms guaranteeing to the inhabitants safety of life, honor, religion, and property, and that no reforms can be effected which are not placed under the continuous control of the great powers of Europe. The resolution was seconded by the Rev. Canon Malcolm MacColl, and was adopted.

Says Baseness and Villany Have Reached a Climax in Turkey's Treatment of Armenia.

[From The New York Herald.]

London, Dec. 27, 1895.--Murad Bey, formerly Ottoman Commissioner of the Turkish debt, who recently fled from Constantinople to Paris, sent to Mr. Gladstone a few days ago a pamphlet which he had published in Paris, entitled "The Yildiz Palace and the Sublime Porte," with a view to enlightening public opinion on Turkish affairs. In the course of his reply acknowledging the receipt of the pamphlet, Mr. Gladstone disavowed any feeling of enmity toward the Turks and Mussulmans generally. He said:--"I have felt it my duty to make it known that the Mohammedans, including the Turks, suffer from the bad government of the Sultan. I have heartily wished success to every effort made toward ending the great evil. Still, Turks and other Mohammedans are not, so far as I know, plundered, raped, murdered, starved, and burned; but this is the treatment that the Sultan knowingly deals out to his Armenian subjects daily. There are degrees of suffering, degrees of baseness and villany among men, and both seem to have reached their climax in the case of Armenia."

His Masterly Speech in Chester Re-enforced with a letter to a Turk.

[From The New York Sun.]

London, Aug. 10.--Once more have the wonderful power and the true greatness of England's Grand Old Man been demonstrated in the remarkable revival of popular interest in the fate of Armenia. The whole nation is marveling over his great speech at Chester, and there are no words, even among those who have always been his political opponents, save those of sympathy and admiration. Nobody is any longer foolish enough to deny the main features of the fearful atrocities in Armenia, and there is no possible doubt of the accuracy of the latest reports that thousands near the scene of the massacres are perishing of starvation.

The only protest against Mr. Gladstone's speech has been a long letter from Khalef Khalid, a conspicuous Turk, who asks the Grand Old Man why he hates and denounces the Turks so indiscriminately, when as many and as great outrages against the Mohammedans have been perpetrated by Christians as were ever committed by the subjects of Islam.

Mr. Gladstone's reply was made public to-day. It is one of the most pointed epistles the old man ever wrote. He says:--"I entirely disclaim the hatred and hostility to the Turks, or any race of men, which you ascribe to me. I do not doubt that you write in entire good faith, but your statements of facts are unauthenticated. I proceed only upon authenticated statements. I make no charge against the Turks at large, but against a Turkish government. I make the charges which they have been proved guilty of by public authority. In my opinion, I have been a far better friend to the Ottoman Empire than have the Sultan and his advisers. I have always recommended the granting of reasonable powers of local self-government, which would have saved Turkey from terrible losses. This good advice has been spurned, and in consequence Turkey has lost 18,000,000 of people, and may lose more. Pray weigh these words."--

The birthday of the Ex-Premier was made the occasion for an anti-Turkish demonstration.

Outrages and Abominations of 1876 in Bulgaria Repeated in Armenia in 1894.

[From The New York Herald.]

London, Dec. 29, 1894.--Mr. Gladstone celebrated his eighty-fifth birthday to-day, and was the recipient of hundreds of letters and telegrams of congratulation and parcels containing birthday gifts. Mr. Gladstone was in remarkably good health and spirits, and, despite the stormy weather, drove through the village of Hawarden to the church, where he met a deputation of Armenian Christians from Paris and London. The deputation presented a silver chalice to the church. The chalice was presented to the Rev. Stephen Gladstone, son of the ex-Premier, and rector of the Hawarden church, in recognition of the interest his father has taken in the Armenian outrages. Mr. Gladstone, in his reply to the deputation's address, said that it was not their duty to assume that all the allegations of outrages were true, but rather to await the result of the inquiry which had been instituted. However, he said, the published accounts pointed strongly to the conclusion that the outrages, sins, and abominations committed in 1876 in Bulgaria had been repeated in 1894 in Armenia. Continuing, Mr. Gladstone said: "Don't let me be told that one nation has no authority over another. Every nation, aye, every human being, has authority in behalf of humanity and justice." He had been silent, he said, because he had full confidence that the government knew its duty. If the allegations made should prove to be true, it was time that the execration of humanity should force itself upon the ears of the Sultan of Turkey, and make him sensible of the madness of such a course as was being pursued. Mr. Gladstone, in conclusion, said:--"The history of Turkey is a sad and painful one. The Turkish race has not been without remarkable, even fine qualities, but from too many points of view it has been a scourge which has been made use of by a wise Providence for the sins of the world. If these tales of murder, violation, and outrage be true, well, then, they cannot be overlooked, nor can they be made light of. I have lived to see the Empire of Turkey in Europe reduced to less than one-half of what it was when I was born. And why? Simply because of its misdeeds, and the great record written by the hand of Almighty God against its injustice, lust, and most abominable cruelty. I hope and feel sure that the government of Great Britain will do everything that can be done to pierce to the bottom of this mystery, and make the facts known to the world.

"If happily (I speak hoping against hope) the reports be disproved or mitigated, let us thank God. If, on the other hand, they be established, it will more than ever stand before the world that there is a lesson, however severe it may be, that can teach certain people the duty of prudence, and the necessity of observing the laws of decency, humanity, and justice. If the allegations are true, it is time that there should be one general shout of execration against these deeds of wickedness from outraged humanity. If the facts are well established, it should be written in letters of iron upon the records of the world that a government which could be guilty of countenancing and covering up such atrocities is a disgrace to Mohammed the prophet, a disgrace to civilization at large, and a disgrace to mankind. Now that is strong language, but strong language ought to be used when the facts are strong. But strong language ought not to be used without the strength of facts.

"I have counseled you to be still and keep your judgment in suspense; but as the evidence grows, the case darkens, and my hopes dwindle and decline, and as long as I have voice it will be uttered in behalf of humanity and truth. I wish you heartily every blessing, and also wish with every heartiness prosperity to your nation, however dark the present may seem."

Lord Salisbury.

Now we come to the present Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury. He is reputed a great statesman. That should mean that he has accomplished something great. Well, what? I know of nothing, have heard of nothing. Has he saved any country? Has he elevated any? Has he done any public action that can be set down to his credit? He has hindered some good ones, that is all. On the Armenian question he has done enormous harm. If he is not a great hypocrite, there is no use comparing a man's words with his actions. I have always told my friends that nothing good could be hoped for from him, for morally he is worse than the Sultan. An eminent English clergyman told me that Lord Salisbury is another Sultan, and I believe him. Here are a few of Lord Salisbury's deliverances; see how they agree:--

[From The New York World, August 16, 1895.]

Lord Salisbury to Sir Philip Currie, the British Ambassador to Constantinople:--"The Porte must accept the proposals of the Powers unconditionally, or England would use sharper means than those adopted by Lord Rosebery to settle affairs in Armenia."--[July 30, 1895.

Lord Salisbury, in a speech in London about the time of the above, said, "The concert of Europe on the Armenian question is complete, and England has the loyal support of other powers to reform Armenia."

At another time we note:--"There is every reason to believe that the Chinese government is sincerely desirous of punishing the perpetrators of the outrages and those who connived at them. Should any lukewarmness become discernible, it will become our duty to supply its defect.

"With respect to Armenia, we have accepted the policy which our predecessors initiated, and our efforts will be directed to obtaining an adequate guarantee for the carrying out of reform. We have received the most loyal support from both France and Russia. The permanence of the Sultan's rule is involved in the conduct he pursues. If the cries of misery continue, the Sultan must realize that Europe will become weary of appeals, and the fictitious strength which the powers have given the empire will fail it. The Sultan will make a calamitous mistake if he refuses to accept the advice of the European powers relative to the reforms." The House of Lords adopted the address in reply to the Queen's speech.

After the above strong words, Lord Salisbury backed down and sneaked out of his bold attitude in this way. (Jan. 31, 1896.) See how he asserts, first that England cannot do anything for the Armenians, and second that it is not her duty to do anything:--

[From The New York Tribune.]

"The Prime Minister expressed sympathy with the Armenians, but denied that Great Britain was under obligation to declare war against the Sultan of Turkey in order to compel him to govern justly, and cited the treaties in proof of his contention. He ascribed the atrocities to the passions of race and creed. He believed that the Sultan's government was wretched and impotent, but there was no ground for imagining that the Sultan had instigated the massacres. It might be asked why Europe did not interfere. He could only answer for England. She had lacked the power to do the only thing necessary to end the troubles, namely, to militarily occupy Turkish provinces. None of the powers wished so to occupy them.

"Lord Salisbury said he concurred in the belief that the only authority, albeit it was an evil one, in that country was the prestige of the Sultan's name. Patience must be exercised, and time must be given to His Majesty to enforce the reforms he had promised. He remarked upon the gradual return of order in Anatolia during the last few weeks, although he admitted that these signs should not be trusted too much. He concluded by declaring that if Great Britain did not co-operate with the other powers, she must act against them, which would lead to calamities far more awful than the Armenian massacres."

Ambassador Currie instructed not to exert Undue Pressure on the Sultan.

[From The New York World, 1895.]

London, Nov. 23, 1895.--It can be authoritatively stated that Lord Salisbury's instructions to Sir Philip Currie, the British Ambassador to Turkey, who left England a few days ago on his return to his post of duty, are to refrain from exerting undue pressure on the Sultan for the execution of the reforms in Armenia, and to give the Porte time to recover from the existing administrative anarchy, and appoint authorities through whom the reforms must be effected.

Sir Philip has taken with him an autograph letter from the Queen to the Sultan. This is supposed to be a reply to a letter the Sultan sent to her with the communication he sent to Lord Salisbury, which the latter read at the meeting of the National Union of Conservatives at Brighton, on Tuesday night last.

It is reported that the Queen will invite the Sultan to visit England, when the time shall be auspicious. The anxiety at the Foreign Office in regard to the East has greatly lessened during the week.

England possessed the Island of Cyprus, and it became her duty to look after the reforms in Turkey. But now Salisbury denies it, saying that it is not her duty, and meantime says that time must be given to the Sultan of Turkey, as if all the time had not been given him since the Berlin treaty of 1878.

Salisbury used another silly trick, persuading the Queen of England to write a letter to the Sultan and appeal to his good nature; as if the Sultan had a good nature; but the Queen wrote the letter.

A strong criticism by the editor of the New York "Press" on Lord Salisbury's speech.

February 3, 1896.

"We confess that we are at a loss to comprehend the meaning of Lord Salisbury's Armenian speech. We do not know what to make of it when he says that the Berlin Treaty "bound the signatory powers, that, if the Sultan promulgated certain reforms, they would watch over the progress of these reforms. Nothing more." We cannot understand him when he declares that the Cyprus Convention 'contains no trace of an understanding to interfere in behalf of the Sultan's subjects.' When Russia made, in March, 1878, a treaty with Turkey, called the treaty of San Stefano, Great Britain became alarmed lest Russia should secure too much influence in Constantinople. Russia then held some Armenian provinces bordering on her territory, and it seemed clear that it was her purpose to seize others. England protested to the Sultan against the treaty of San Stefano, but the government of the Ottoman Porte was helpless against the Czar, and the Sultan declared that he must adhere to the treaty. Great Britain then secretly bound herself to aid Turkey by force of arms in preventing Russia from appropriating further Armenian provinces, Turkey agreeing, on her part, to reform her local administration in her remaining Armenian provinces and assigning the island of Cyprus to be occupied and administered by Great Britain.

"Great Britain, meanwhile, had incited the other powers of Europe to take action against the treaty of San Stefano. Austria was induced to suggest a European Congress. Russia at first refused to go into this Congress; but, seeing that all the great powers were uniting against her, she consented to attend. The result of this Congress was the Treaty of Berlin, signed by the six powers,--England, Russia, Germany, France, Austria, and Italy. By this treaty Turkey was stripped of Bulgaria, Servia, and Roumania, and Russia was deprived of all she had won during the Turko-Russian war, except the Armenian provinces which she still controls. By this treaty, also, the signatory powers became guardians and trustees of the Ottoman Porte, pledging themselves that religious freedom should be secured in the Turkish Empire, and that Armenian Christians should be protected against the Circassians and Kurds.

"We are puzzled, therefore, to understand Lord Salisbury when he says that all these promises did not mean anything. Certainly he ought to know, for, as the agent of the Disraeli government, it was Lord Salisbury who drafted the agreements and drew up the promises. For eighteen years Christian civilization has supposed that they did mean something. But Lord Salisbury says not. He says that all the powers agreed to do was to 'watch over the execution of those reforms' if they were promulgated.

"What does that mean, anyway? Does it mean, as the Christian world has all along supposed, that the six powers would engage themselves to see that these reforms were carried out by Turkey, or does it mean that if the reforms were carried out they would simply look on; and if the reforms were not carried out, if ten thousand Armenian homes were destroyed, and four times ten thousand Armenian citizens were butchered, they would still simply look on?

"Nor do we understand Lord Salisbury when he pleads that it requires time for the Turkish government to carry out the reforms 'which the Sultan recently has accepted.' Why the Turkish government? There is no Turkish government. There is a Mohammedan administration, but the government of the Ottoman Porte expired with the Treaty of Berlin. The Turkish government is vested de facto in the six signatory powers of the Berlin Congress. Even the local government of Constantinople itself lies in the hands of these powers. The capital is divided into six sections, each controlled by a treaty power. Each has its own courts, its own military, even its own police. When Englishmen wish a wrong to be righted in the Turkish Empire, or a reform to be executed, they do not request the 'Turkish government' to listen to their appeal. The British Minister summons the Grand Vezir and orders him to do what is wished. And he does it forthwith, so far as he is permitted by the orders of the representatives of the other treaty powers. It is in London, in Berlin, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Vienna, and in Rome that the Turkish government rests.

"It is for these reasons that we are unable to understand what Lord Salisbury means when he says that the Berlin Treaty and the Cyprus Convention impose no responsibility for Armenian reforms upon any one save the Sultan. The Cyprus Convention specifies:--

"Treaty of Defensive Alliance between the British Government and the Sublime Porte, signed on June 4, 1878:--