THE EASTERN QUESTION
During his retirement from the leadership of the Liberal Party, Mr.
Gladstone employed his great abilities in theological controversy and
literary productions. It was during this period that he collected his
miscellaneous writings, entitled "Gleanings from Past Years." A little
more than a year had elapsed when he again entered the political arena.
"He threw aside polemics and criticisms, he forgot for awhile Homer and
the Pope," and "rushed from his library at Hawarden, forgetting alike
ancient Greece and modern Rome," as he flung himself with impassioned
energy and youthful vigor into a new crusade against Turkey. A quarter
of a century before he had aroused all Europe with the story of the
Neapolitan barbarities, and now again his keen sense of justice and
strong, humanitarian sympathies impel him with righteous indignation to
the eloquent defence of another oppressed people, and the denunciation
of their wrongs. It was the Eastern Question that at once brought back
the Liberal leader into the domain of politics. "The spirit of the
war-horse could not be quenched, and the country thrilled with his fiery
condemnation of the Bulgarian massacres." His activity was phenomenal.
"He made the most impassioned speeches, often in the open air; he
published pamphlets which rushed into incredible circulations; he poured
letter after letter into the newspapers; he darkened the sky with
controversial postcards, and, as soon as Parliament met in February,
1877, he was ready with all his unequalled resources of eloquence,
argumentation and inconvenient enquiry, to drive home his great
indictment against the Turkish government and its champion, Mr.
Disraeli, who had now become Lord Beaconsfield."
"The reason of all this passion is not difficult to discover. Mr.
Gladstone is a Christian; and in the Turk he saw the great
anti-Christian power where it ought not, in the fairest provinces of
Christendom, and stained with the record of odious cruelty practised
through long centuries on its defenceless subjects who were worshippers
of Jesus Christ."
Turkish oppression, which had for a long time existed in its worst
forms, resulted in an insurrection against Turkey and Herzegovina,
July 1, 1875. This, however, was only the beginning, for others suffering
under Ottoman oppression rebelled, and all Europe was involved.
In January, 1876, the Herzegovinians gained a victory over the Turkish
troops. The European powers then suggested a settlement favorable to the
insurgents, which was accepted by the Sultan. But early in May another
insurrection broke out in several Bulgarian villages, which was quickly
followed by the most horrible atrocities. A conference on the Eastern
question was held at Berlin in May, and soon afterward the English
ministers announced in Parliament that they were unable to assent to the
terms agreed upon at the Berlin Conference. This announcement caused
much surprise and comment in England. Public feeling already aroused,
was not allayed when it became known that the British fleet in the
Mediterranean had been ordered to Besiki Bay, seemingly for the
protection of the Turkish Empire.
June 28th the Bulgarian insurrection was suppressed. On the 10th of July
the Sultan, Abdul Aziz, was deposed and was succeeded by Murad V, who
declared that he desired to guarantee liberty to all. Mr. Disraeli
stated, in the House of Commons, that the steps taken by the Ministry
would lead to permanent peace. But within two weeks the _Daily News_
published a letter from Constantinople detailing the massacre in
Bulgaria by the Turks, which moved all England with indignation.
Innocent men, women and children had been slaughtered by the thousands;
at least sixty villages had been utterly destroyed; the most revolting
scenes of violence had been enacted; and a district once the most
fertile in the Empire had been laid waste and completely ruined. Forty
girls were shut up in a straw loft and burnt, and outrages of the most
fearful description were committed upon hundreds of defenceless
captives.
Mr. Disraeli, in the House of Commons, grew "jocular upon the cruelties
and sufferings almost unparalleled in the world's history," and
expressed his belief that the outrages committed by the Turkish troops
had been exaggerated, and sneered at the rumor as "coffee-house babble;"
while as to the torture of the impalement, which had caused universal
anger and disgust, that an Oriental people have their way of executing
malefactors, and generally terminated their connection with culprits in
an expeditious manner.
In the official report presented to Parliament by Mr. W. Baring, the
reported outrages in Bulgaria were corroborated. No fewer than 12,000
persons had perished in the sandjak of Philippopolis! The most fearful
tragedy, however, was at Batak, where over 1000 people took refuge in
the church and churchyard. The Bashi-Bazouks fired through the windows,
and, getting upon the roof, tore off the tiles and threw burning pieces
of wood and rags dipped in petroleum among the mass of unhappy human
beings inside. At last the door was forced in and the massacre was
completed. The inside of the church was then burnt, and hardly one
escaped. "The massacre at Batak was the most heinous crime which stained
the history of the present century;" and for this exploit the Turkish
Commander, Achmet Agha, had bestowed on him the order of the Medjidie.
Sir Henry Elliot, the English Ambassador at Constantinople, was directed
to lay these facts before the Sultan and to demand the punishment of the
offenders. The demand, however, was never enforced.
Prince Milan issued a proclamation to his people, declaring that, while
professing neutrality, the Sultan had continued to send military forces
of savage hordes to the Servian frontier. In June, Prince Milan left
Belgrade and joined his army on the frontier. The Montenegrins declared
war on Turkey and joined forces with Servia. July 6th the Servians were
defeated. Thus was Turkey plunged into war with her Christian provinces,
and all through her own misrule in peace and her barbarities in war.
Mr. Disraeli in a speech made in the House of Commons, August 11th,
explained that he had not denied the existence of the "Bulgarian.
Atrocities," but he had no official knowledge of them. He affirmed that
Great Britain was not responsible for what occurred in Turkey, nor were
the Turks the special _protégés_ of England. He announced that the
special duty of the Government at that moment was to preserve the
British Empire, and that they would never consent to any step that would
hazard the existence of that empire, This speech, which was
distinguished by much of his old brilliancy and power, was his last
speech in the House. On the morning after this speech it was publicly
announced that Mr. Disraeli would immediately be elevated to the peerage
under the title of the Earl of Beaconsfield.
In September, 1876, deeming it high time that the indignant voice of
England should be heard in demonstration of the infamous deeds practiced
by the Turk, Mr. Gladstone issued his pamphlet, entitled "Bulgarian
Horrors and the Question of the East." It had an enormous circulation.
He called for a stop to be put to the anarchy, the misrule and the
bloodshed in Bulgaria, and demanded that the Ottoman rule should be
excluded, not only from Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also from Bulgaria.
The Turks must clear out, "bag and baggage," from the provinces they
have desolated and profaned. The pamphlet, and the latter expression
especially, produced a great sensation.
The pamphlet "brought home to the English people the idea that for these
horrors which were going on, they too, as non-interfering allies of
Turkey, were in part responsible." Soon after this Mr. Gladstone
addressed a large concourse of his constituents at Blackheath, in which
he severely arraigned the Government. This address was one of the most
impassioned and eloquent of Mr. Gladstone's political orations, and at
some points the people were literally carried away with their feelings.
November 1st, Turkey was forced by Russia to agree to an armistice of
eight weeks. On the 2d the Russian Emperor pledged his word to the
English Ambassador that he had no intention of acquiring Constantinople;
that if compelled to occupy Bulgaria, it would be only until the safety
of the Christian inhabitants be secured; and urged the Ambassador to
remove the distrust of Russia prevailing in England. Yet, in the face of
all these assurances, Lord Beaconsfield delivered a war-like speech, at
the banquet at Guildhall, November 9th. Informed of this speech the Czar
declared that if the Porte did not accede to his demands, Russia would
then act independently.
On the 8th of December there was a great conference at St. James' Hall,
London, to discuss the Eastern question. The Duke of Westminster
presided at the afternoon meeting. At the evening gathering Lord
Shaftesbury occupied the chair. Mr. E. Freeman said: "Perish the
interests of England, perish our dominion in India, sooner than we
should strike one blow or speak one word on behalf of the wrong against
the right." The chief interest of the occasion centered in the speech of
Mr. Gladstone who was received with unbounded applause. He declared that
there had been no change in public sentiment in England on the question;
that the promoters of that meeting had no desire to embarrass the
Government; that the power and influence of England had been employed to
effect results at variance with the convictions of the country; that
Lord Beaconsfield had only recently appeared anxious; and that England
had duties towards the Christian subjects of Turkey. Mr. Gladstone
continued that he hoped that the instructions given to Lord Salisbury,
who had been sent for conference to Constantinople, were not in
accordance with the speech at Guildhall, but that he would be left to
his own clear insight and generous impulses; that the conference would
insist upon the independence of the provinces, or at least would insure
them against arbitrary injustice and oppression, and that the work
indicated was not merely a worthy deed but an absolute duty.
Mr. Gladstone, during the recess of Parliament, delivered speeches upon
the burning question of the day all over England. At Hawarden he
pleaded that it was the wretched Turkish system that was at fault, and
not the Turks themselves, and hoped for a remedy. To the electors of
Frome he spoke of the tremendous responsibility of the Ministers. In a
speech at the Taunton Railway Station, he said, in reference to the
injunction for himself and friends to mind their own business, that the
Eastern question was their own business. And when the Constantinople
Conference failed he spoke of this "great transaction and woeful
failure," and laid all the blame of failure on the Ministry. As to the
treaties of 1856 being in force, his opinion was, that Turkey had
entirely broken those treaties and trampled them under foot.
January 20, 1877, the conference closed. Parliament met February 8, 1877,
and the conflict was transferred from the country to that narrower
arena. In the House of Lords the Duke of Argyle delivered a powerful
speech, to which the Premier, Disraeli, replied, that he believed that
any interference directed to the alleviation of the sufferings of the
Turkish Christians would only make their sufferings worse. He asked for
calm, sagacious and statesmanlike consideration of the whole subject,
never forgetting the great interests of England, if it was to have any
solution at all.
Mr. Gladstone, upon his appearance in the House, was greeted as a Daniel
come to judgment. He was taken to task by Mr. Chaplin, who complained
that Mr. Gladstone and others of the Liberal party "had endeavored to
regulate the foreign policy of the country by pamphlets, by speeches at
public meetings, and by a so-called National Conference, instead of
leaving it in the hands of the Executive Government," and intimated that
Mr. Gladstone was afraid to meet the House in debate upon the question.
Mr. Gladstone, rebuking Mr. Chaplain, said that it was the first time in
a public career extending over nearly half a century, he had been
accused of a disinclination to meet his opponents in a fair fight, and
promised him that neither he nor his friends would have reason to
complain of his reticence. Tories and Liberals knew he had not shrunk
from meeting the public on this question. He was glad that there was a
tremendous feeling abroad upon this Eastern question. He had been told
that by the pamphlet he wrote and the speech he delivered, he had done
all this mischief, and agitated Europe and the world; but if that were
the case why did not the honorable gentleman, by writing another
pamphlet, and delivering another speech, put the whole thing right? If
he (the speaker) had done anything, it was only in the same way that a
man applies a match to an enormous mass of fuel already prepared. Mr.
Gladstone closed with the following words: "We have, I think, the most
solemn and the greatest question to determine that has come before
Parliament in my time.... In the original entrance of the Turks into
Europe, it may be said to have been a turning point in human history. To
a great extent it continues to be the cardinal question, the question
which casts into the shade every other question."
April 24, 1877, war was declared by Russia against Turkey. The Czar
issued a manifesto, assigning as reasons for this war the refusal of
guarantee by the Porte for the proposed reforms, the failure of the
Conference and the rejection of the Proteol signed on the previous 31st
of March. England, France and Italy proclaimed their neutrality. Mr.
Gladstone initiated a great debate in the House of Commons, May 7th,
which lasted five days. He presented a series of resolutions expressing
grave dissatisfaction with the policy of Turkey, and declared that she
had forfeited all claim to support, moral and material. Mr. Gladstone
asked whether, with regard to the great battle of freedom against
oppression then going on, "we in England could lay our hands upon our
hearts, and in the face of God and man, say, 'We have well and
sufficiently performed our part?'"
These resolutions were of course hostile to the Government, and many
Liberals refused to vote for them, because they pledged England to a
policy of force in connection with Russia. Besides the Government gave
assurances to avail themselves of any opportunity of interposing their
good offices. The resolutions consequently were lost. Mr. Gladstone was
not quite the leader of his party again.
Shortly after this debate, and before the close of the session, Mr.
Gladstone addressed a large meeting at Birmingham on the Eastern
question and the present condition of the Liberal party. Later on he
visited Ireland. On his return he addressed, by their request, the
people gathered to receive him. He expressed his belief that Turkey
would have yielded to the concerted action of Europe; noticed the change
in the tone of the ministry from the omission in the Premier's speech of
the phrase, "the independence of Turkey;" protested strongly against
England being dragged into war, and warmly eulogized the non-conformists
for the consistency and unanimity with which they had insisted on
justice to the Eastern Christians. Political feeling entered into
everything at this time, but as an evidence of the hold Mr. Gladstone
retained in the Scottish heart, he was in November elected Lord Rector
of Glasgow University by a large majority. Lord Beaconsfield was the
retiring Lord Rector, and the Conservatives nominated Sir S. Northcote,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Mr. Gladstone's opponent.
The war in the East went disastrously for the Ottoman arms. January 23,
1878, the Porte agreed to accept the terms of peace submitted by the
Grand Duke Nicholas.
Mr. Gladstone was invited January 30, 1878, to attend a meeting of
undergraduates at Oxford, held to celebrate the formation of a Liberal
Palmerston Club. He strongly condemned the sending of the British fleet
into the Dardanelles as a breach of European law; and confessed that he
had been an agitator for the past eighteen months, day and night, to
counteract what he believed to be the evil purposes of Lord
Beaconsfield.
In February the House of Commons passed a vote of credit, but on the 3d
of March a treaty of peace was signed between Turkey and Russia, at
Sanstefano, the terms of which in part were: Turkey to pay a large war
indemnity; Servia and Montenegro to be independent and to receive
accessions of territory; Bulgaria to be formed into a principality with
greatly extended boundaries, and to be governed by a prince elected by
the inhabitants; the navigation of the Straits was declared free for
merchant vessels, both in times of peace and war; Russian troops to
occupy Bulgaria for two years; Batoum, Ardahan, Kars and Bayazid, with
their territories, to be ceded to Russia, and Turkey to pay an indemnity
to Roumania. The terms of the treaty were regarded oppressive to Turkey
by the Beaconsfield Ministry, who proposed that the whole treaty be
submitted to a congress at Berlin, to meet in June, 1878. The treaty was
approved after some modifications. The English Plenipotentiaries were
the Earl of Beaconsfield and Marquis of Salisbury, who, for their share
in the treaty, received a popular ovation and rewards from the Queen.
Thus was Turkey humiliated and Russia benefited, having obtained her
demands. To the people assembled Lord Beaconsfield said from the window
of the Foreign Office: "Lord Salisbury and myself have brought you back
peace, but a peace, I hope with honor, which may satisfy our Sovereign
and tend to the welfare of the country." But at this very time the envoy
of Russia, whom the ministry thought to be circumvented, was entering
the Afghan capital; so that, although there was peace on the Bosphorus,
as a direct result of the Eastern policy, there was war in Afghanistan.
The Conservatives were very ready for awhile to use as a watchword the
phrase, "Peace and Honor," but before long it became the occasion
of ridicule.
Parliament was called upon to appropriate £8,000,000 to defray the cost
of the Afghan and Zulu wars. When Mr. Gladstone's government retired
from office, there was a surplus of over £3,000,000, but the budgets of
1878 and 1879 both showed large deficits. The people had applauded the
"imperial policy," "the jingoism" of Lord Beaconsfield's administration
during the past two or three years, but they were not so appreciative
when they found it so costly a policy to themselves. The depression in
business also had its effect upon the country. The unpopularity of the
Liberal government, which culminated in its defeat in 1873, was now, in
1879, being shifted to their Conservative opponents, whose term of
office was fast drawing to a close.
"Mr. Gladstone's resolute and splendid hostility to Lord Beaconsfield's
whole system of foreign policy restored him to his paramount place among
English politicians. For four years--from 1876 to 1880--he sustained the
high and holy strife with an enthusiasm, a versatility, a courage and a
resourcefulness which raised the enthusiasm of his followers to the
highest pitch, and filled his guilty and baffled antagonists with a rage
which went near to frenzy. By frustrating Lord Beaconsfield's design of
going to war on behalf of Turkey, he saved England from the indelible
disgrace of a second and more gratuitous Crimea. But it was not only in
Eastern Europe that his saving influence was felt. In Africa and India,
and wherever British honor was involved, he was the resolute and
unsparing enemy of that odious system of bluster and swagger and might
against right, on which Lord Beaconsfield and his colleagues bestowed
the tawdry nickname of Imperialism."
[Illustration: MR. GLADSTONE ON HIS WAY HOME]