THE GREATEST CRIME OF THE CENTURY.
That the Powers of Europe, having their fleets lying at anchor
in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas within a day's sail of
Constantinople, should stand by and permit the Sultan to slaughter
the helpless Armenians by the tens of thousands is the greatest crime
of the century.
The mutual jealousies and distrusts and diverse ambitions of the
Powers of Europe have been as fatal and as horrible in result as the
cruel wrath of a Nero, when for the first time he smote the early
Christians with the clenched fist of the Roman Empire. Would that
some hand could strip off the blood-soaked, dagger-pierced garments
of nearly a hundred thousand martyred dead, and lay them at the feet
of the nations who were consenting unto their death. Far be it from
us to attempt to divide, or measure, or weigh out the guilt that
lies with common shame upon them all; but that the burden rests with
unequal weight upon the Powers a brief recital of some of the facts
of history will show.
In little more than three hundred (322) days the Russian Army had swept
from the Danube, through Bulgaria, over the passes of the Balkans
across the plains of Adrianople, breaking and scattering the power
of the Turkish armies until in February, 1878, nearly one hundred
thousand victorious troops encamped before the gates of Constantinople
which lay defeated and helpless at the feet of the conquering Czar.
General Grant said that for Russia not to enter Constantinople at
that conjuncture was the greatest mistake a nation ever made. Could
he have foreseen the misrule of the coming years culminating in the
recent awful massacres, he would have called the failure a crime and
not a blunder.
But Alexander had not entered upon the war for the sake of conquest,
but to punish Turkey for her crimes against the Bulgarians and to
deliver them from her power. Hence the terms of the treaty of San
Stefano were specially in the interest of the subject Christian races
that were under the rule of the Sublime Porte.
The treaty established the independence and boundaries of Montenegro,
Servia and Roumania. It constituted Bulgaria an autonomous principality
with a Christian government, a national militia, with fixed tribute;
its boundaries carefully defined, included over sixty-five thousand
square miles with a population of nearly four million Christian
people. The Ottoman army was to be withdrawn and the irregular forces,
the Bashi-Bazouks and the Circassians were to be absolutely excluded
from it. The Russian army of occupation was to consist of fifty
thousand men to remain until the new government should be firmly
established (for the term approximately of two years.) All Danubian
fortresses were to be razed and Bessarabia restored to Russia. Kars,
Batoum, Ardahan, Bayazet and certain surrounding territory to be ceded
to Russia, and Armenia to be guaranteed protection against Kurds and
Circassians, and besides this territory, a war indemnity of a paltry
$250,000,000. This is all that Russia claimed for herself at the close
of a victorious campaign that had cost her $600,000,000 and the loss
of nearly one hundred thousand men. This was the sacrifice she had
offered to free her Bulgarian fellow Christians from the power of the
Turk. Russia was the master of the situation and had well earned the
right to dictate her own terms when the Sultan sued for peace.
Already the British Government had declared that they would not permit
any power to interfere with the freedom of the Dardanelles and the
Bosphorus, and that they should protect Constantinople from becoming
the prize of conquest. The Parliament had been convened in January
(17th) 1878, and in the Queen's speech there was this sentence: "I
can not conceal from myself that should hostilities be unfortunately
prolonged some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent on me to
adopt measures of precaution. Such measures could not be effectually
taken without adequate preparation and I trust to the liberality of my
Parliament to supply the means which may be required for that purpose."
In the debate that followed the Marquis of Salisbury said, "If you
will not trust the government provide yourselves a government you
will trust."
The danger flag was waved ominously bearing the insignia of the
Russian bear. On February 8th, the House voted a war credit of an
additional $30,000,000, and on the same day five British war vessels
were ordered to Constantinople. Troops were ordered to Malta from
India, and Disraeli, the Premier, significantly declared "that in
a righteous cause England would commence a fight that would not end
till right was done."
On March 17th, the ratifications of the treaty between Russia and
Turkey were exchanged at St. Petersburg. Now note the situation. Russia
has but three or four towns and the fortress of Kars on the frontiers
of Armenia, and the seaport of Batoum, from which to compel the Porte
to protect the Armenians from Kurds and Circassians. But there is a
Bulgaria freed from Turkish despotism. Four millions of Christians are
given the privilege of self government while still tributary to the
Porte. The frontier of Russia is restored as it was before the treaty
of Paris by the addition of Bessarabia. This is the only political
advantage to compensate for the expenditure of blood and treasure in
the liberation of Bulgaria. What does England want? What does she
mean to fight for? How is she injured? The Dardanelles are opened
for the free passage of merchant vessels both in peace and war. What
right has she to interfere now that the treaty has been signed?
Yet on March 28th, the Disraeli government announces that the first
class of the Army reserve numbering thirteen thousand, and the militia
reserve of about twenty-five thousand men were to be called out. This
determination led to the resignation of Lord Derby as Foreign Secretary
and the Marquis of Salisbury was appointed in his place. On April 1st,
Salisbury addressed a circular to the Powers, and after giving Russia's
refusal to consent to England's demand (by what right?) relative to
placing the treaty as a whole before the Congress--which Germany was
endeavoring to secure to avoid another war--he goes on to complain
of the terms imposed by Russia on Turkey: and the violation of the
treaty of Paris, etc. Prince Gortchakoff in his reply among other
questions asks Lord Salisbury how he would reconcile these treaties
with the benevolent ends to which the united action of Europe had
always been directed and the attainment of which one learns with
pleasure the English government desires, namely, good government,
peace and liberty for the oppressed populations.
Having allowed Russia single handed to chastise the Turks for the
massacre of the Bulgarians--and we think that any one can see that she
had done it with neatness and despatch, and had delivered four million
Christians from the cursed rule of Islam, England now comes forward
and demands that the treaty of San Stefano shall be broken and a new
one made. We may well exclaim "Cui bono?" In whose interest? For
the greater security of the Christians in Bulgaria? For larger
liberty and protection to the Armenians from Kurds and Circassians,
or the protection of the Balkan populations from Circassians and
Bashi-Bazouks?
No indeed! Noble, Christian England in her sympathy for the suffering
Bulgarians wanted a Congress called to give back into the hands of the
Turk, Bashi-Bazouk and Circassian more than three million Christians
and forty thousand square miles of territory which might have formed
the home of a strong, progressive Christian nation under the terms
of the San Stefano treaty.
Having thus purposed to give back these millions into the jaws of
the wolf, she yet desired to pose as the chief guardian of Armenia,
and said to Turkey now give me Cyprus and I will protect you against
Russia, and we can let Kurds and Circassians alone for awhile.
Thus while urging a Congress of the Powers, already on June 4th,
1878, England had secured the Island of Cyprus, and alone Christian
England had agreed to defend by force of arms the integrity and the
independence of the Turkish Dominions.
On June 13th, the Congress was called, Prince Bismarck occupying the
presidential chair. Beaconsfield and Salisbury and the Ambassador
at Berlin representing England, Russia, Austria, France, Italy and
Turkey also having their respective representatives.
At the twentieth and last meeting held July 13th, the treaty of Berlin
was signed. Thus by the conduct and the persistence of the English
government alone was the calling of the Congress made necessary or
possible, and by the spirit of England was the Congress dominated,
and its final deliverances controlled. At the behest of England were
millions of Bulgarians and Armenians handed over again to the tender
mercies of the wicked Turk, and Russia was robbed of the glory of
her victories.
An international crime like this must cry to Heaven for vengeance
and the most powerful and enlightened nation that insisted on it
and forced it through is also the most guilty. On their return to
England Beaconsfield and Salisbury received an ovation, and the Queen
conferred the Order of the Garter on these two Lords who had delivered
the lives and welfare of millions of Christians back into the hands
of the unspeakable Turk.
That England's attitude has not been too strongly emphasized, read this
quotation from Lord Salisbury's summing up of the situation in 1879:
"The Sultan's dominions he informed the Powers have been provided
with a defensible frontier far removed from his capital. * * Rich and
extensive provinces have been restored to his rule, at the same time
that careful provision against future misgovernment has been made which
will, it may be hoped assure their loyalty, and prevent the recurrence
of calamities which have brought the Ottoman Power to the verge of
ruin. Arrangements of a different kind, having the same end in view,
have provided for the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan security for the
present, and hope of prosperity and stability in the future. Whether
use will be made of this, probably the last opportunity which has
thus been obtained for Turkey by the interposition of the Powers of
Europe, of England in particular, (note this phrase) or whether it is
to be thrown away, will depend upon the sincerity with which Turkish
statesmen now address themselves to the duties of good government
and the task of reform."
One would suppose from the terms of the treaties that the Bulgarian war
had been undertaken for the sole and express purpose of establishing
and assuring the integrity and independence of Turkey, the entrenchment
of the Bashi-Bazouks in Bulgaria and for protecting the fierce wolves
that dwell in the mountains of Kurdestan from the helpless lambs that
infest the valleys of Armenia. In Russia the Berlin Treaty called
out the most indignant disapprobation. It was said to be "a colossal
absurdity, a blundering failure, an impudent outrage." The nation had
been robbed of all reward for the sacrifices she had made in the name
of humanity: and before the people Alexander had been humiliated. He
saw the incompleteness of his work, felt his inability to deal with the
forces that were at that time massed against him and felt bitterly the
reproach of the army and of those who had suffered the loss of kindred
and friends in a useless and expensive war. Russian diplomacy at Berlin
was felt to be more disastrous than the war, while the nation had been
decked with a fool's cap and bells and their honor trampled under foot.
England had taken on her hands a most difficult task, viz: To be the
Protector of the Armenians, while at the same time she wore the belt
as champion defender of Turkey against all comers. The Protector of
the Christians, and the Christian Champion of Islam!!
TREATY OF BERLIN.
Art. LXI. The sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further
delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements
in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their
security against the Circassians and Kurds. It will periodically
make known the steps taken to this effect to the Powers, who will
superintend their application.
ANGLO-TURKISH (CYPRUS) CONVENTION.
Art. I. If Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, or any of them shall be retained
by Russia, and if any attempt shall be made at any future time by
Russia to take possession of any further territory of His Imperial
Majesty, the Sultan, in Asia, as fixed by the Definitive Treaty of
Peace, England engages to join His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan,
in defending them by force of arms.
In return, His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, promises to England to
introduce necessary reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two
Powers, into the Government and for the protection of the Christian
and other subjects of the Porte in these territories; and in order
to enable England to make necessary provisions for executing her
engagement, His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, further consents to
assign the Island of Cyprus to be occupied and administered by England.
The Anglo-Turkish Convention having been made June 4th, and the
Berlin Treaty not being signed until July 13th, places priority
(may we not almost say entirety?) of obligation upon England, which
obligation with all that it implies she fully and alone accepted when
she accepted the island of Cyprus as a necessary base of operations
and a promise and pledge of good faith.
The Berlin Treaty did not release England from this distinct and
individual obligation nor did she wish to divide the honor of being the
defender of the Armenian Christians. It may be questioned whether she
had any right to expect anything more from the other signatory Powers
than their moral support in any attempted enforcement of its terms.
Passing by the first part of Art. I. in the Anglo-Turkish Convention
the reader is asked to give special attention to the wording of the
second part: "In return, His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, promises
to England to introduce necessary reforms to be agreed upon later
between the two Powers, into the Government and for the protection
of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte in these territories."
With that clause inserted "to be agreed upon later" how could Lord
Salisbury possibly dream, let alone say "that careful provision against
future misgovernment has been made"? Absolutely no provision had been
made to protect Armenia from Kurd or Circassian or the rapacity and
cruelty and outrage of Turkish officials. And none could be made
unless these two Powers alone, England and the Porte could agree
upon the nature of the reforms and the manner in which they should be
carried out. Was any promise, pledge or convention ever written that
actually meant less? Was this honest British Statesmanship actually
determining that something should be done? or was it shrewd Turkish
diplomacy that will promise anything in the bond but withdraw it in
the terms of later stipulations? Or was it understood that it was
merely dust for the eyes of Christian Europe?
The following incident in the career of Gen. B. F. Butler was given as
a newspaper item. In the course of a very spirited conversation one
day a gentleman called him a knave. The general smiled and replied,
"Well, did you ever hear anybody say that I was a fool?" Somebody
was surely fooled by this convention. Who was it? Not Russia and
certainly not the Turk. Who then? Salisbury? or England?
There were many men even in England who did not hesitate to express
hottest indignation against the policy of the Government regarding
her dealings with Turkey. Here are paragraphs from "The Ottoman Power
in Europe" by the English historian E. A. Freeman:
"The England of Canning and Codrington, the England of Byron and
Hastings has come to this, that the world knows us as the nation
which upholds oppression for the sake of its own interests. We have
indeed a national sin to redress and atone for. We are verily guilty
concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul when he
besought us and we would not hear. Nay, our guilt is deeper still. We
have not merely looked on and passed by on the other side, but we
have given our active help to the oppressors of our brothers. We have
"upheld" the foulest fabric of wrong that earth ever saw, because it
was deemed that the interests of England were involved in upholding
the wrong and trampling down the right. * * * *
"Our national crime is that we have upheld the Turk for our own
supposed interests. For these we have doomed the struggling nations to
abide in their bondage. We have doomed them to stay under a rule under
which the life and property of the Christian, the honor of his wife,
the honor of his children of both sexes alike are at every moment at
the mercy of the savages whom our august and cherished ally honors and
promotes in proportion to the blackness of their deeds. We have for
our own interests upheld the power which has done its foul and bloody
work in Chios, at Damascus and in Bulgaria, which is still doing the
same foul and bloody work wherever a victim may be found. We uphold
the power whose daily work is massacre and worse than massacre. It
matters not whether ten thousand or twenty thousand perish. We are
still to uphold the slaughterer, for it is to our interest that he
should not be shorn of his power of slaughtering.
"Now if there be any such thing as right and wrong in public affairs,
if moral considerations are ever to come in to determine the actions
of nations, it is hard to see how there can be deeper national guilt
than this. Unjust wars, aggressions and conquests are bad enough,
but they are hardly so bad as the calm, unblushing upholding of
wrong for our own interests. * * * * We look on, we count the cost,
we see how the wrong-doer deals with his victim and we determine to
uphold the wrong-doer because we think that to uphold him will suit
some interest of our own. There is no question of national glory, no
question of national honor; nothing which can stir up even a false
enthusiasm. It is a calm mercantile calculation that the wrongs of
millions of men will pay.
"The revenue returns of Egypt for 1890 were over $50,000,000. If
we knew how large a part of this went to bondholders in London,
we would know something about England's interest in Egypt. If we
knew how large a portion of the Turkish debt of above $500,000,000,
is held in London, we would know something about the interest the
British government has in maintaining the integrity of Turkey.
"England wouldn't care if that Turkey were carved to-morrow if only
she could hold Constantinople and administer on the dead Sultan's
estate until all the obligations she holds should be paid off. She
would rather like to occupy Stamboul on those conditions--Armenia,
Kurds, Circassians and all."
But to return from our digression which was meant to show something
of the nature of the interest England had in bringing Bulgaria again
under Turkish rule and taxation, we remark that with this Cypress
Convention already a deed accomplished what other European powers
would care a fig about seeing to the execution of possible reforms
in Armenia. What happened is notorious. A few ineffectual attempts to
agree upon reforms and when agreed upon many excuses for not carrying
them out and there the whole matter of reform was practically dropped;
but Cypress was retained as counsel fees possibly for securing such
a favorable revision of the terms of the San Stefano Treaty in the
interests of Turkey--of the Moslem not of the Christian.
For the sake of retaining influence with the Sublime Porte and to
outwit the possible plans and intrigues of the Russian Ambassador,
scared by visions in the night of some muscovite move towards
Constantinople. England for fifteen years connived at a state of things
which was decimating and impoverishing the provinces of Armenia,
and costing more lives and causing more suffering in the aggregate
than the massacres of Sassoun.
Often the question was asked, "Where is England's guarantee to
Armenian and Macedonian Christians now?" The Russian press was not
slow to give prominence to these reports of continually increasing
oppressions and pillage, of outrage and murder.
But nothing pierced the political-commercial conscience of England
until tidings of the most horrible massacres committed three months
before began to creep over the mountains of Armenia and find their
way to England and America.
When for very shame they could shut their ears to the clamor no
longer the British Government demanded a commission--it's great on
commissions. The British Ambassador intimated to the Porte that if
steps were not taken to satisfy her Majesty's Government that the
Sultan's promise (respecting the commission) would be fulfilled,
"they might find it necessary to inquire into the treatment of the
Armenians, and that they might also be forced to publish the consular
reports from the Asiatic provinces which had been so long withheld!"
What fires of shame should burn on cheek and forehead of the English
Government that nothing had been done to stop those outrages till
indifference and inactivity had given the impression that nobody
cared what became of the Armenians.
At last the heart of England flamed out in pity and her conscience
fired the brain to hot and earnest and even vehement utterance, and
hundreds of public meetings were held. Instinctively all eyes turned
to Gladstone to voice the sorrow, the pity or the indignation of a
Christian people who felt themselves in some measure responsible for
the deliverance of Armenia from further horrors.
GLADSTONE ON ARMENIA'S FATE.
At a meeting held in the Town Hall, Chester, England, a great many
members of Parliament being present, the Duke of Westminster presiding,
Mr. Gladstone spoke (in part) as follows:
"My Lord Duke, my Lord and Ladies and Gentlemen:
"It is perfectly true that the Government whose deeds we have to
impeach is a Mohammedan Government, and it is perfectly true that the
sufferers under those outrages, under those afflictions, are Christian
sufferers. The Mohammedan subjects of Turkey suffer a great deal,
but what they suffer is only in the way of the ordinary excesses and
defects of an intolerably bad Government--perhaps the worst on the
face of the earth. (Hear, hear.) I will take the liberty of reading
a resolution which has been placed in my hands and which seems to me
to express with firmness, but with moderation, the opinions which I
am very confident this meeting will entertain, and this meeting, in
entertaining such opinions, is but the representative of the country
at large. (Cheers.)
"Allow me to go further and to say that the country at large in
entertaining these ideas is only a representative of civilized
humanity, and I will presume to speak on the ground, in part, of
personal knowledge, of the opinions and sympathies that are entertained
among our own Transatlantic brethren of the United States. If possible,
the sentiment in America entertained on the subject of these recent
occurrences is even more vivid and even stronger, if it can be,
than that which beats in the hearts of the people of this country.
"The terms of the resolution are as follows:
"'That this meeting expresses its conviction that her Majesty's
Government will have the cordial support of the entire nation, without
distinction of party, in any measures which it may adopt for securing
to the people of Turkish Armenia such reforms in the administration
of that province as shall provide effective guarantees for the safety
of life, honor, religion, and property, and that no reforms can be
effective which are not placed under the continuous control of the
Great Powers of Europe.' (Cheers.)
"That means, without doubt, the Great Powers of Europe, all who choose
to combine, and those great Powers which happily have combined and
have already, in my judgment, pledged their honor as well as their
power to the attainment of the object we have in view. (Cheers.)
"Now, it was my fate, I think six or more months ago, to address a very
limited number, not a public assembly, but a limited number of Armenian
gentlemen, and gentlemen interested in Armenia on this subject. There
was no authoritative and impartial declaration before the world at
that period on the subject of what is known as the Sassoun massacre;
that massacre to which the Noble Duke has alluded and with respect
to which, horrible as that massacre was, one of the most important
witnesses in this case declares that it is thrown into the shade
and has become pale and ineffective by the side of the unspeakable
horrors which are being enacted from month to month, from week to
week, and day to day in the different provinces of Armenia. (Hear,
hear.) It was a duty to avoid premature judgment, and I think it was
avoided. But though it is a duty to avoid exaggeration, a most sacred
duty, it is a duty that has little or no place in the case before us,
because it is too well known that the powers of language hardly suffice
to describe what has been and is being done, and that exaggeration,
if we were ever so much disposed to it, is in such a case really
beyond our power. (Cheers.) Those are dreadful words to speak. It is
a painful office to perform, and nothing but a strong sense of duty
could gather us together between these walls or could induce a man
of my age and a man who is not wholly without other difficulties to
contend with to resign for the moment that repose and quietude which
is the last of many great earthly blessings remaining to him in order
to invite you to enter into a consideration of this question. What
witnesses ought we to call before us? I should be disposed to say
that it matters very little what witness you call. So far as the
character of the testimony you will receive is concerned the witnesses
are all agreed. At the time that I have just spoken of, six or eight
months ago, they were private witnesses. Since that time, although
we have not seen the detailed documents of public authority, yet we
know that all the broader statements which had been made up to that
time and which have made the blood of this nation run cold have been
confirmed and verified. They have not been overstated, not withdrawn,
not qualified, not reduced, but confirmed in all their breadth, in all
that horrible substance, in all their sickening details. (Hear, hear.)
"I will refer to the last of these witnesses, one whom I must say I
am disposed to name with honor, it is Dr. Dillon, a man who, as the
special commissioner of the Daily Telegraph newspaper, some months
ago with care and labor, and with the hazard of his life (hear, hear),
went into Turkey, laudably making use of a disguise for the purpose,
and went into Armenia, so that he might make himself thoroughly master
of the facts. (Cheers.) He published his results before any public
authority had given utterance to its judgments and those results
which he, I rather think, was the first to give to the world in a
connected shape--at any rate he was very early in the field--those
results have been completely confirmed and established by the inquiries
of the delegates appointed by the three Powers--England, France and
Russia. (Cheers.) I say he has, at the risk of his life, acquired a
title to be believed, and (in the Contemporary Review) he gives us an
account which bears upon it all the marks of truth, but which, at the
same time that we must believe it to be true, you would say is hardly
credible. Unhappily some of those matters which are not credible do,
in this strange and wayward world of ours, turn out to be true; and
here it is hardly credible that there can dwell in the human form
a spirit of such intense and diabolical wickedness as is unhappily
displayed in some of the narratives Dr. Dillon has laid before the
world. I shall not quote from them in detail though I mean to make a
single citation, which will be a citation, if I may say so, rather of
principle than of detail. I shall not quote the details, but I will
say to you that when you begin to read them you will see the truth
of what I just now said--namely that we are not dealing at all with a
common and ordinary question of abuses of government or the defects of
them. We are dealing with something that goes far deeper, far wider,
and that imposes upon us and upon you far heavier obligations.
"The whole substance of this remarkable article may be summed up in
four awful words--plunder, murder, rape and torture. ('Shame.') Every
incident turns upon one or upon several of those awful words. Plunder
and murder you would think are bad enough, but plunder and murder are
almost venial by the side of the work of the ravisher and the work of
the torturer, as it is described in these pages, and as it is now fully
and authentically known to be going on. I will keep my word, and I will
not be tempted by--what shall I say?--the dramatic interests attached
to such exaggeration of human action as we find here to travel into the
details of the facts. They are fitter for private perusal than they
are for public discussion. In all ordinary cases when we have before
us instances of crime, perhaps of very horrible crime--we at once
assume that in all countries, unfortunately, there are malefactors,
there are plunderers whose deeds we are going to consider. Here, my
lord duke, it is nothing of the kind; we have nothing to do here with
what are called the dangerous classes of the community; it is not their
proceedings which you are asked to consider; it is the proceedings
of the Government of Constantinople and its agents. (Cheers.)
"There is not one of these misdeeds for which the Government at
Constantinople is not morally responsible. (Cheers.) Now, who are these
agents? Let me tell you very briefly. They fall into three classes. The
first have been mentioned by the noble duke--namely the savage Kurds,
who are, unhappily, the neighbors of the Armenians, the Armenians
being the representatives of one of the oldest civilized Christian
races, and being beyond all doubt one of the most pacific, one of
the most industrious, and one of the most intelligent races in the
world. (Cheers.) These Kurds are by them; they are wild, savage clans,
organized as bands of robbers. These the Sultan and the Government at
Constantinople have enrolled, though in a nominal fashion, not with
a military discipline, into pretended cavalry regiments and then set
them loose with the authority of soldiers of the Sultan to harry and
destroy the people of Armenia. (Cheers.) Well, these Kurds are the
first of the agents in this horrible business; the next are the Turkish
soldiers, who are in no sense behind the Kurds in their performances;
the third are the peace officers, the police and the tax gatherers
of the Turkish Government; and there seems to be a deadly competition
among all these classes which shall most prove itself an adept in the
horrible and infernal work that is before them, but above them and more
guilty than they, are the higher officers of the Turkish Government.
"I think there are certain matters, such as those which have been
discussed to-day and discussed in many other forms, on which it is
perfectly possible to make up our minds. And what I should say is,
that the whole position may be summed up in three brief propositions. I
do not know to which of these propositions to assign the less or the
greater importance. It appears to me that they are probably each and
every one of them absolutely indispensable. The first proposition is
this, You ought to moderate your demands. You ought to ask for nothing
but that which is strictly necessary, and that possibly according
to all that we know of the proposals before us, the rule has been
rigidly complied with. I do not hesitate to say, ladies and gentlemen,
that the cleanest and clearest method of dealing with this subject,
if we should have done it, would have been to tell the Turk to march
out of Armenia. (Loud cheers.) He has no right to remain there, and
it would have been an excellent settlement of the question. But it is
by no means certain that Europe or even the three Powers would have
been unanimous in seeking after that end. Therefore, let us part with
everything except what is known to be indispensable. Then I come to
the other two rules, and of these the first is that you should accept
no Turkish promises. (Hear, hear.) They are absolutely and entirely
worthless. They are worse than worthless, because they may serve to
delude a few persons who, without information or experience, naturally
would suppose, when promises are given, that there is something like
an intentional fulfilment. Recollect that no scheme is worth having
unless it be supported by efficient guarantees entirely outside the
promises of the Turkish Government. (Applause.) There is another
word which I must speak, and it is this: Don't be too much afraid
if you hear introduced into this discussion a word that I admit, in
ordinary cases, ought to be excluded from all diplomatic proceeding,
namely, the word coercion. Coercion is a word perfectly well
understood in Constantinople, and it is a word highly appreciated in
Constantinople. It is a drastic dose--(laughter)--which never fails of
its aim when it is administered in that quarter. (Laughter.) Gentlemen,
I would not use these words if I had not myself personally had large
and close experience of the proceedings of the Turkish Government. I
say, first make your case good, and when your case is made good,
determine that it shall prevail. (Cheers.) Grammar has something to
do with this case. Recollect that while the word 'ought' sounded in
Constantinople, passes in thin air, and has no force or solidity
whatever attaching to it; on the contrary, the brother or sister
monosyllable, the word 'must' is perfectly understood--(cheers)--and
it is a known fact supported by positive experience, which can be
verified upon the map of Europe, that a timely and judicious use of
the word never fails for its effect. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, I must point
out to you that we have reached a very critical position indeed. How
are three great Governments in Europe, ruling a population of more
than two hundred million souls, with perhaps eight or ten times the
population of Turkey, with twenty times the wealth of Turkey, with
fifty times the influence and power of Turkey, who have committed
themselves in this matter before the world, I put it to you that
if they recede before an irrational resistance--and remember that
I have in the first instance postulated that our demands should be
reasonable--if they recede before the irrational resistance of the
Sultan and the Ottoman Government they are disgraced in the face
of the world. Every motive of duty coincides with every motive of
self respect, and, my lord duke, yourself let drop a word which is
a frightful word, unhappily not wholly out of place, the word
'EXTERMINATION.'
There has gone abroad, I don't say that I feel myself competent to
judge the matter, I don't think I do, but there has gone abroad and
there is widely entertained a belief that the recent proceedings of
the Turkish Government in Armenia particularly, but not in Armenia
exclusively, are founded upon deliberate determination to exterminate
the Christians in that Empire. I hope it is not true, but at the same
time I must say that there are evidences tending to support it--(hear,
hear)--and the grand evidence which tends to support it is this: the
perfect infatuation of the Turkish Government. The Turkish Government
is evidently in such a state of infatuation that it is fain to believe
it may, under certain circumstances, be infatuated enough to scheme
the extermination of the Christian population. Well, this is a sad
and terrible story, and I have been a very long time in telling it,
but a very small part of it, but I hope that, having heard the terms
of the resolution that will be submitted to you, you will agree that a
case is made out. (Cheers.) I for one, for the sake of avoiding other
complications, would rejoice if the Government of Turkey would come
to its senses. That is, in my opinion, what we ought all to desire,
and though it would be more agreeable to clear Turkey than to find
her guilty of these terrible charges, yet if we have the smallest
regard to humanity, if we are sensible at all of what is due to our
own honor after the steps which have been taken within the last twelve
or eighteen months, we must interfere. We must be careful to demand no
more than what is just--but at least as much as is necessary--and we
must be determined that, with the help of God that which is necessary,
and that which is just shall be done, whether there will be a response
or whether there be none." (Loud cheers.)
In a letter written late in March, to the Duke of Argyle, chairman
of the Armenian Relief Committee, Mr. Gladstone said, "that he hopes
that nobody will suppose that deplorable and ignominious failure of
Europe to do her duty in Armenia will in any way diminish the force
of the present appeal (for aid) to Christian pity."
But what about this deplorable and ignominious failure of Europe
to do her duty? Lord Salisbury has gravely assured the nation that
England is utterly powerless to alleviate the lot of the Armenians
in Turkey. If this be true and the Porte should choose to finish
his work of extermination, must all the world stand by and see it
done and no arm be raised to defend the helpless? If so, woe to the
world when the Lord God of hosts shall arise to avenge the blood of
a slaughtered race.
When the first rumors of a massacre at Sassoun was confirmed in all
essential details, the Government had to act quickly and somewhat
decidedly, to avoid a swelling storm of indignation, that might break
with serious effect upon their heads.
Two courses of action were open to England, either to use all her
power of persuasion, with some strong language, by way of emphasis,
to induce the Porte to bring the officials to justice and obtain a
guarantee that no such massacres should be permitted in the future,
or sound an alarm and call on all the Powers of Europe for an armed
intervention, in which case she must be ready to cast in her heaviest
weight of men and metal. As the responsibility for the terrible state
of affairs in Armenia was due to England's neglect, in not enforcing
reforms, essential to prevent such awful scenes, she should have
secured from the Powers their consent to let her thrash the Turks
in Constantinople and Anatolia, while the fleets anchored in the
Bosphorus to protect the "balance of power" when the deed was done.
A guarantee from the Powers, that England would not be permitted to
occupy Constantinople, might have satisfied Russia, or have prevented
any interference in the carrying out the purpose of delivering the
Armenians from further outrages and massacres. In that case the
dissolution of "the Sick Man" might have been the solution of the
Eastern question.
At least unless England knew that the Powers would stand by her the
threat of using force was stupid folly. A conference of the Powers was
a necessity and the pledge of concurrence or armed neutrality should
have been given before she began to bait the Sultan. It has been known
for years that the Sultan is the last man to be controlled by mere
sentiment. He only yields to necessity, to force actually present,
to guns trained upon him. He was never scared by all the letters and
the threats of the English Government. He knew the Powers were not
agreed to use force.
Sir Philip Currie telegraphed to Lord Kimberley:
"I impressed upon His Excellency (said Pasha) as forcibly as I could
that the only safe course for the Turkish Government was to authorize
the Commission to make a fair and impartial inquiry; that failing
this they would be held responsible for the cruelties perpetrated on
the Armenians by the local authorities, and that the feeling aroused
in Europe was such that if these cruelties were not punished, active
interference from without must be looked for."
This was an earnest, urgent, emphatic, even threatening appeal:
but where was there any warrant for the last threat? There was no
ultimatum ready. No nation was going to take up arms against Turkey,
England least of all. There was no agreement among them to let
England take up the task alone. If there had been, one battleship
before Constantinople would have brought the massacres to a speedy
close and could have compelled the punishment of the Governors in
every vilayet where the horrors of Sassoun had been repeated with
increased torment and misery. But the fact remains, and the fact
is the thing emphasized, that England and all the Signatory Powers
sat in masterly inactivity though with steam up at Salonica and let
the deadly work go on. There is only time to notice one question,
"Why did not Russia agree to the forcing the Dardanelles and coercing
the Turks? The blame for the fiasco must fall upon Russia."
How so? Could you reasonably expect Russia to assist England in
performing her promises to protect Armenia when you remember the
humiliation of the Berlin Treaty? If England entered into engagements
she was powerless to make good, whose fault was that? And when the
implicit appeal was to her Christian sympathy the Russians replied in
their press: "Where were all these glorious virtues of Englishmen when
Lord Beaconsfield handed back the Christian subjects of the Sultan to
the dismal fate which has only now begun to excite their pity, when
an improvement would suit their policy and further their designs? If
England continued to be both humane and Christian while suppressing
those noble impulses eighteen years ago, it is hard to understand
why we can not remain both, while holding them in control to-day."
To those who deny to Russia any disinterested motives of Christian
sympathy in her war with Turkey to deliver Bulgaria from the
horrible misrule of the Sultan, this refusal will furnish only
another illustration of her being what they consider her, viz:
a half-civilized nation.
But for England to look to a Power she considers her mortal enemy
as regards the occupation of Constantinople, for help to rescue the
Armenians from Kurd and Circassian and Turkish regulars, set upon
them by the Porte, is the sublimity of political innocence, or the
confession of utter weakness.
The Russian Bear smiled at the innocence, and with grim satisfaction,
perhaps, allowed the Turk to wave back the fleets of the allied
Powers from the straits of the Dardanelles and continue his fiendish
massacres.
Weigh each for himself the responsibility of each of the Great Powers
in any scales he may choose, distribute the guilt by a different
judgment, and yet the failure of these Christian nations to unite for
the deliverance of Christian Armenia from the barbarous and cruel,
most lustful and brutal outrages under which they were suffering,
will be stamped by history as the most awful crime against humanity
upon which the sun ever gazed during all the passing years of the
nineteenth century, and only to be paralleled by the apathy of Western
Europe, when alone in 1453 Constantinople fought her last battle for
the cross and fell under the sword and power of Islam.