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:--
Article 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
territories 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 Christian and other subjects of the
Porte in these territories; and in order to enable England
to make necessary provision for executing her engagement, His
Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, further consents to assign the
Island of Cyprus, to be occupied and administered by England.
"Why, then, does not Lord Salisbury carry out England's pledges,
for which he is directly responsible, since he made them in
her name?
"England must be held to an accounting for the disorders in
Armenia. There are no such disorders in the provinces administered
by the Czar, provinces adjoining those where for the last six years
pillage, destruction, and murder have swept away every sign of
government. In the provinces controlled by the Czar the Armenians
have been so well treated, enjoying unquestioned religious freedom
and rights, that there have been not the slightest disorders. But
in the provinces where England pledged reform, the Armenian is
butchered daily.
"Does Lord Salisbury mean that so long as Great Britain occupies
Cyprus, pending the execution of reforms, it is better for England
that the reforms should not be executed and that England should
'watch over them; nothing more'?"
Note carefully what Salisbury says first; then what he says
afterward. First he says there is complete concert among the powers,
then he says there is not; first he threatens the Sultan, then he is
friendly. First he seems to be a brave and noble statesman, then a
cowardly politician.
Sir Philip Currie, the British Ambassador at Constantinople, is a
brave and noble gentleman. He was sent there by the Liberal government,
before Salisbury's accession. He has done a great deal for the Armenian
cause. But after Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister, he called him
to London and instructed him to have cordial relations with the Sultan,
and now he can do nothing.
Finally there appear to be two Englands, conservative England and
liberal England, slave England and free England, selfish England and
noble and sympathetic England, false England and true England. The
head of conservative, selfish, false, oppressive England is Lord
Salisbury. The head of liberal, free, noble, and true England is
Mr. Gladstone. Therefore nothing for Armenia can be expected from the
Conservatives, while much may be hoped from the Liberals. Gladstone
is an old man, but God will raise a Joshua to succeed Moses; Gladstone
will see the Armenian nation free, and then he will die.