TREATIES OF PARIS AND BERLIN.
Influence of Lord Stratford--The Holy Places--Crimean War--Treaty of
Paris--Abd-ul-Aziz--Extravagance--Influx of Europeans--Provincial
Government--Accession of Abd-ul-Hamid II--Russo-Turkish War--Treaty
of San Stephano--Treaty of Berlin--Cyprus Convention.
The success of Lord Stratford in establishing reforms in Turkey, and
more than that in securing the cordial endorsement of the Sultan and
of Reshid Pasha, occasioned great uneasiness in Russia. During the
whole of Abd-ul-Medjid’s reign there had been continuous intrigue,
especially in the Danubian Provinces and in Servia. This latter had
been practically independent since 1830, but its independence was by
no means a peaceable one. Its prince, the founder of the Obrenowitch
line, was a tyrant who took advantage of every opportunity to fill his
own private purse. There were risings of the people followed by firmans
from Constantinople, which limited his rights, but still the general
suzerainty of the Porte was acknowledged, and Servia was recognized
as a Moslem State. Along the Danube there were similar occurrences
following on the revolutions of 1848. The prince of Wallachia
accepted a constitution and then fled, a provisional government being
established. The movement spread to Moldavia and Russian troops
occupied the provinces, resulting in an agreement between the Porte
and Russia for a sort of mutual supervision. Similarly in Syria there
had been trouble which called for the intervention of Europe for the
protection of the Maronites against the Druzes. It was again, however,
about the Holy Places in Jerusalem that the disturbance centered.
During the reign of Mahmud II the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had been
devastated by fire and the Greeks made the repairs, taking advantage
of that to lay claim to the church, and consequently to all the Holy
Places, thus superseding the French, who had the general primacy since
the time of the Crusades. In 1851, the government of Louis Napoleon
demanded and obtained from the Porte, on the basis of the capitulations
of 1740, the formation of a mixed commission to look into the question
of the possession of the Holy Places. France claimed (1) the monument
of the Holy Sepulchre in the church of that name at Jerusalem; (2) the
great cupola built above the Holy Sepulchre; (3) the stone of unction
(this was not an exclusive claim); (4) the site of the tombs of the
French kings in Adam’s Chapel under Calvary; (5) the seven arched
vaults of the Virgin; (6) the Church of Gethsemane and the tomb of
the Virgin; (7) the upper Church of Bethlehem with the gardens and
sanctuaries dependent upon it; (8) the mixed possession of the altar of
Calvary. While making these general claims for the Latins, she declared
that particular concessions would be made to the other communions, but
they must be renewed annually. To these claims Russia objected very
strenuously. After considerable discussion the commission recognized
the rights of France, but proposed that the situation remain as it was,
except the admission of the Latins into the Sanctuary of the Virgin and
the right of Greeks to enter that of the Ascension. France accepted
this, but Russia objected, and this was followed by a special embassy
to Constantinople to demand by virtue of the treaty of Kainardji the
exclusive protection of all members of the Greek Church in Turkey, and
the settlement of the question as to the Holy Places on terms granting
the supremacy to the Greeks. This was in 1853. The Porte replied with
moderation, stating its desire not to injure in any way the privileges
of the various Christian subjects, and its wish to satisfy the demands
of the Greek pilgrims and the Russian churches, but affirming that to
accept the demands of Russia would be practically to destroy its own
independence. The Russian ambassador, Menshikoff, renewed his demands,
and said that further refusal would impose on his government the
necessity of seeking it in its own power.
At this time Lord Stratford was absent. Ten years before he had met a
somewhat similar difficulty by suggesting to the Porte that they make
the repairs themselves, but now such a solution was no longer possible.
It became evident that a crisis was at hand, and he was immediately
ordered back from England. This was Lord Stratford’s fifth embassy to
Constantinople, and marked a new phase in his policy. When first there,
he had had a long struggle with France, in which at the close he found
himself in alliance with Russia; in the second and third he had united
with France and Russia in seeking the pacification of Greece; in the
fourth, which covered the early part of Abd-ul-Medjid’s reign, there
was no great difference between the Powers, and although his actions
were looked upon with suspicion by Russia, he met with practically no
interference in pressing for reform. Now, however, he found that the
aggression of Russia was becoming threatening. In private interviews
between the Czar and the British ambassador at St. Petersburg in the
early part of 1853, the Russians had made known a definite proposal to
England to join in winding up the bankrupt estate of the “sick man.”
Servia, the Danubian Principalities and Bulgaria were to be independent
under Russian protection; if circumstances obliged the Czar to occupy
Constantinople, it would be as trustee and not as proprietor, and
England might be free to appropriate territories as she chose, provided
she did not undertake to hold the capital. All this he thought might
be accomplished by the two Powers, and if they agreed, it made very
little difference what France and Austria thought. This, however, was
strongly opposed to the whole British policy, and Lord Stratford,
immediately upon the decisive action of Prince Menshikoff, called the
other representatives of the great Powers and laid the foundation for
the European alliance, which was from that time steadily opposed to
Russian aggression.
Russia announced in May her proposal to enter the Danubian Provinces,
and France and England answered by despatching their fleets to the
Island of Tenedos at the mouth of the Dardanelles. A conference was
proposed at Vienna, but Turkey took the initiative by attacking the
Russians in the principalities. Russia retorted by the destruction of a
Turkish fleet at Sinop. The English and French fleets entered the Black
Sea and obliged the Russians to withdraw to their own ports. A last
attempt at peace was made by France, but the publication of the English
ambassador’s despatches at St. Petersburg stirred the indignation of
France, Austria and Prussia, and the result was a general alliance
of the four kingdoms with Turkey. To this afterwards Sardinia was
admitted, and Italy first appeared in the general European concert.
The story of the Crimean War it is not necessary to repeat here. The
mismanagement of the British army at its commencement and that of the
French at its close amazed the world. At last England’s forces were
well in hand and the possession of the Crimea was practically secured.
Then France grew again suspicious of England’s power and sought to
hold a balance between her and Russia. Sevastopol fell in September of
1855, but the Czar had just died in chagrin at the complete failure of
his plans and the terrible injuries and sufferings inflicted upon his
people. His army had failed to take Silistria, and although Kars had
fallen, the general rout of the Russian arms was so complete as to have
made it possible to have carried the day completely. Alexander II was
willing to treat, and a Congress met at Paris on the 25th of February,
1856. In this, France, England, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Turkey and
Russia appeared. Peace was signed on the 30th of March on the following
basis:
1. Russia renounced her exclusive right of protection over the
Danubian Principalities, and all interference with their internal
affairs. 2. The free navigation of the Danube was to be effectually
secured by the establishment of a commission, in which all the
contracting parties should be represented. Each of them should have
the right to station two sloops-of-war at the mouth of the river.
Russia consented to a rectification of frontiers which should leave
to Turkey and the Rumanian Principalities all the Danubian delta. 3.
The Black Sea was made neutral; its waters, open to merchant ships of
all nations, were forbidden to men-of-war, whether of the Powers on
the coasts or any others. No military or maritime arsenals were to be
created there. Turkey and Russia could only maintain ten lightships to
watch the coasts. 4. The _Hatti Sherif_ by which Sultan Abd-ul-Medjid
renewed the privileges of his non-Mussulman subjects was inserted in
the treaty, but with the clause that the Powers could not quote this
insertion as authorizing them to interfere between the Sultan and his
subjects.
Russia thus lost both the domination of the Black Sea and the
protectorate of the Eastern Christians; lost her fleets and naval
arsenals on the Black Sea and the fortresses of the Crimea. The
imprudent policy of Nicholas had destroyed the advantages gained by all
the previous treaties. One clause, however, in the treaty was worth
to her almost as much as these, and that was the one which prohibited
the Powers from interfering between the Sultan and his subjects. Count
Orloff with the aid of France proved more than a match for the rest.
Something, however, was gained, and the treaty was scarcely signed
when preparations were made, and soon after came the publication of
the Hatti Humayoun, described in another chapter. Lord Stratford, when
he heard of the treaty of Paris, said, “I would rather have cut off my
right hand than have signed that treaty.” In a letter written about
that time he said:
“How are the Sultan’s reforms to be carried through; the allied troops
all gone and no power of foreign interference reserved? How is the
country to be kept quiet if hopes and fears, equally excited in adverse
quarters, have to find their own level? What means shall we possess of
allaying the discordant elements if our credit is to decline and our
influence to be overlaid by the persevering artifices of a jealous and
artful ally? How can we hope to supply the usefulness derivable from
our command of the Contingent and Irregulars, if they are to be given
up? In short, when I hear the politicians of the country remark that
the troubles of Europe with respect to this empire are only beginning,
I know not how to reply.”
Lord Stratford soon returned to England, but visited Constantinople
again, only to realize in the presence there of his successor, Sir
Henry Bulwer, that his great work for Turkey was finished, and that
much that he had striven for and obtained would be abandoned. Sir
Henry Bulwer was a man of great diplomatic craft, but of the vilest
moral character. He commanded the respect of nobody. The best English
families in the city refused to receive him into their houses. He was
a giver and receiver of bribes, and it became notorious that whenever
the Turkish Government, or indeed anybody else, wished to carry through
a scheme that might be supposed to be hostile to English interests,
all they had to do was to send a sum of money to the English palace
or a pair of fine horses to its stables. He was at last recalled for
receiving a bribe of $50,000. He did everything in his power to undo
the work that Lord Stratford had done and to prejudice the Turks
against the reforms which he had been instrumental in inaugurating.
With this appointment of Sir Henry Bulwer commenced the decadence of
English influence at Constantinople and that long series of diplomatic
blunders that have resulted in the feeling on the part of every class
of people in the Turkish Empire that England is a synonym for treachery
and disgrace. There have been fine men in the English embassy: Lord
Lyons, so well known in the diplomatic circles in Washington, was
there for a time, and had he remained, it is probable that much of the
lost ground would have been regained, but he was promoted to Paris;
Lord Dufferin was there for a time and his well-known high character
and great ability accomplished much, but his term was very short;
Sir William White had a period of most successful conduct of English
interests, but he was removed by death. Since 1857, the English
embassy at Constantinople has been occupied the greater portion of the
time by Sir Henry Bulwer, a man of great ability, but of the lowest
character; Sir Henry Elliot, a man of high personal character, but of
no diplomatic ability; Sir Austen Layard, not dissimilar to Sir Henry
Elliott, and of late years by Sir Philip Currie, a man of ability and
force of character, but hampered by his relations and not equipped by
diplomatic tact and skill to meet the wiles of Russian diplomacy.
The next most important event after the treaty of Paris was the
atrocities in Syria, where vast numbers of the Maronites were massacred
by the Druzes. All Europe was filled with horror, and France sprang to
the front to reassert her former supremacy. The French fleet anchored
in front of Beirut; French troops held the road to Damascus, and Syria
became for the time being a French colony. The influence of other
powers, however, prevented her securing occupation and Fuad Pasha
represented the Turkish Government with such success in the quieting
of the Moslem turmoil that the Sultan succeeded in preserving his
hold upon that portion of his empire. This much, however, was gained;
a reorganization of the government was secured and the province of
Lebanon was established under a Christian governor, to be appointed
with and not to be removed without the consent of European Powers. This
proved a great boon, and Syria was at peace as she had not been for
centuries.
In 1861, Abd-ul-Medjid died and his brother Abd-ul-Aziz came to the
throne. The new Sultan was a man of entirely different type from
either of his predecessors; low-browed, coarse, sensual, given up to
the gratification of personal passions and personal pique; caring
for nothing except his personal comfort and the gratification of his
personal pride; a coward, a tyrant, the tool of designing men, utterly
weak for any good. At times strong men, like Fuad and Ali and Midhat
and Ahmed Vefyk Pashas, succeeded in gaining a temporary power, but
they could accomplish comparatively little for good, and the Turkish
court from 1871 to 1876 was the scene of unbounded extravagance and
corruption.
Outwardly the reign was one of great progress. The navy was built
up and put on a footing which brought the Turkish Government on a
reasonable par with the other Mediterranean Governments; the army was
developed and its organization was brought into better shape than at
any time previous; palaces and public buildings were erected. Up to the
reign of Abd-ul-Medjid the Sultans had occupied the famous old palace
of the Seraglio, but it was becoming out of date, and furthermore,
there were so many traditions of violence and crime connected with it
that there was a pall of superstition hanging over it. Abd-ul-Medjid
built the palace of Dolma-Bagtche, which contains one of the finest
throne-rooms in the world. It was sumptuously furnished and most
beautifully decorated. When Abd-ul-Aziz came to the throne this was
not sufficient and he put up the palace at Tcheragan, just above,
with adornments even surpassing in beauty, in some respects, those of
Dolma-Bagtche. Other old palaces were torn down and beautiful buildings
erected in their place. There were new roads built and efforts to
improve the general condition of the city. Constantinople itself has
always suffered from fires; the crowded wooden buildings furnished the
best possible food for conflagration, and the absolutely worthless
fire department seemed to help on rather than hinder the flames. One
great fire occurred in the latter part of the reign, and it was common
report that under the Sultan’s special orders no efforts were made to
stop it. It spread right through the city from the Golden Horn to the
Marmora, and was checked only as it came up against the high walls
of the Armenian Patriarchate. The generally understood reason for
the action of the government was that it might build up this section
again in more approved modern style. At any rate this was done, and
the whole of that region to-day bears a far different appearance from
other sections of the city. Wide streets took the place of the narrow
lanes, and brick and stone houses replaced the wooden fire-traps. At
the same time concessions were granted on every hand for improvements
of all sorts. European speculators thronged in crowds around the
offices of the Sublime Porte and the gateways of the palace. They paid
heavy bribes and secured the most valuable subventions. Among the most
notorious, and one which yet was a fair illustration of many others,
was that for the railway extending from Constantinople to Adrianople.
An Austrian financier secured the concession, and the contract awarded
him so much for each kilometer. The result was that the road, by
taking advantage of every possible turn, avoiding grades and bridges
so far as possible, nearly doubled the distance in a straight line
between the two cities. Care was taken also to have the different
stations at sufficient distance from the principal places on the
route, apparently in order to provide additional income to those who
wished to connect the cities with the railroad. The whole matter was a
“job” of the most stupendous character, and was a simple illustration
of what was done all over the empire. The government borrowed money
with absolute recklessness. Engagements were entered into without the
slightest careful investigation as to the resources of the empire and
extravagance ran riot.
At the same time there were more favorable features. It was during
this period that Robert College in Constantinople, the Syrian
Protestant College in Beirut, the Bible House in Constantinople
and various other educational and philanthropic institutions were
started. So long as the immediate interests of the more avaricious
Turks were not interfered with, there was in a degree free hand for
those who sought to improve the general condition of the people.
Foreign influence was at its height and many a native, not merely
Christian, but Turk, rejoiced in the support of those who sought not
any sectarian advantage, but the general improvement of the country.
In the administration of the government the offices were filled to
a degree as had never before been known with Christians. There were
large number of Europeans--English, German and French; and with all the
bribery and extortion there was more of business enterprise than had
been known during any of the preceding reigns. Armenians and Greeks
also were pushed to the front. Their abilities were recognized by the
heads of departments, and the pressure on every hand for the rapid
accomplishment of enterprises, which called for more of energy than the
average Turk was willing to exert, resulted in great opportunities for
those who were willing to work--and laziness has never been a general
vice of any of the Christian populations of the Levant. This had its
effect in ameliorating the condition of the Christians; at the same
time, as is noticed in other chapters, this rapid improvement brought
with it increasing information and still higher ideas. All of the
Christian subjects of the Sultan began to feel still more restive under
the Moslem tyranny, for that tyranny still existed. The absence of
any genuine conception of reform or of good government in the Sultans
inevitably affected the whole management of the empire, and taxation
was scarcely less severe than it had been in the past, the chief
improvement being in the freedom from certain other influences that
worked heavily against the Christians. Thus it came about that there
was perhaps more restiveness throughout the empire than there had been
previously.
Soon after the disturbances in Syria, the Grand Vizier, Ali Pasha,
made public a new system of provincial government in which each
province was to have a Christian vice-governor and advisory council
composed of Moslems and Christians, an independent judiciary and
a complete police force. The first application of this was to the
province of the Danube, including Bulgaria, which was placed under
Mithad Pasha, perhaps the most aggressive of all the officials that
Turkey has ever had. He carried it out there with great success, and in
a year and a half brigandage was practically extinct in the province;
several hundreds of miles of road had been built, and schools, city
hospitals, banks and steam navigation companies had been established.
In 1867 the system was ordered to be applied throughout the empire, and
the foreign Powers acted as if they thought that the reorganization was
really going to be carried out. It seems scarcely possible that they
should have been thoroughly deceived in this, for they knew perfectly
well that the intricacy of the system offered abundant facility for
corruption, and that the contempt felt by all Moslems for any laws not
based upon the Koran would effectually check the application of the
European code. As a matter of fact the whole system was lifeless from
the beginning, and with the death of Ali Pasha all pretense of carrying
it out disappeared. He, however, accomplished this much, that he warded
off active interference on the part of Europe for fifteen years. He
was followed by Mahmud Nedim Pasha, a man of strong individuality, who
claimed that the Sultan could brook no interference of Europe in the
internal affairs of Turkey, and announced his determination to govern
upon the principle that Western civilization is inherently unfit for
the needs of Eastern races. In this he had the cordial support of
the Turks, and more significant still, of the Russian Ambassador at
Constantinople, General Ignatief, probably the shrewdest representative
that Russia ever had at the Sublime Porte, and one to whom perhaps more
than to any one else has been due the policy which Russia has followed
out unwaveringly, of opposing any active interference on the part of
Europe in the internal management of the Ottoman Government. That this
was prompted by any interest in Turkey no one will believe. It was
simply the plan by which the situation was to grow worse and worse
until it became inevitable for Russia herself to intervene and take
what she desired.
The results of this were soon manifest. In the summer of 1875
commenced revolt in Herzegovina, extending to Bosnia. Already there had
been disturbance in the Danubian Provinces resulting in an increased
independency; then came the famous Andrassy note, in which Austria
demanded reforms in the Balkan Peninsula, opposed by the Turks as
derogatory to their honor. Meanwhile Russian embassies were at work
throughout the Balkan Peninsula, and Bulgarians on every hand were
being roused to a pitch of intense hostility to Turkish rule. Then
came Russian proposals skilfully arranged in such form as to arouse
hostility rather than the support of the other Powers and also
the fanaticism of the Turks. The result was a series of arbitrary
arrests of Bulgarians, the sending of troops into Bulgaria and the
providing of Moslems with arms for use in case of the arising of the
Christians. Then came an outbreak in Salonica, when the European
consuls were beaten to death by a fanatic mob, followed by a general
movement throughout Bulgaria attended by an outbreak of Softas in
Constantinople. The utter incapacity of Abd-ul-Aziz was more and more
evident, and there was a revolt under the lead of Mithad Pasha. A
fetvah was secured from the Sheik-ul-Islam, Abd-ul-Aziz was dethroned,
and notwithstanding the intrigues that had been going on for several
years in favor of his own son, the legal heir, Murad, his nephew and
the son of Abd-ul-Medjid, became Sultan. Meanwhile the atrocities
in Bulgaria continued and it became evident that Murad was unequal
to the task. Abd-ul-Aziz had been assassinated, as was generally
understood, as were also some of the ministers. The whole situation in
Constantinople was chaos when Abd-ul-Hamid II came to the throne. At
this time Servia declared war, and the situation throughout the empire
became more and more serious. Abd-ul-Hamid banished Mithad Pasha and
convened the first Turkish Parliament. For a while it seemed as if
something were going to be done, but negotiations were followed by
protocols, protocols by protests, and in April, 1887, Russia declared
war, feeling that there would be no great opposition to the advance
of her army which she had been massing in Bessarabia. The story of
the war that followed, both in Eastern Turkey and on the Danube, is
familiar. The determined opposition of the Turkish troops, the defense
of Plevna, the storming of the Shipka Pass and the final advance
through Bulgaria, until the Russian army had captured Adrianople and
was massed on the very outskirts of Constantinople, formed a panorama
of intense interest. All this was watched with great interest and
some solicitude by Europe, which came to realize that Russia was on
the point of securing the end that she had had in view for so long.
England was the only power to act and her fleet was anchored in Besika
Bay, just outside of the Dardanelles. The armistice and terms of peace
between Turkey and Russia, forming the basis of the treaty of San
Stephano, were signed at Adrianople January 31st; the treaty itself
at San Stephano, within sight of Constantinople, March 3d, 1878. The
conditions comprised the establishment of a principality of Bulgaria,
the payment of a war indemnity or a territorial compensation; the
independence of Rumania, Servia and Montenegro, with an increase of
territory for each of the principalities, the introduction of reforms
in Bosnia and Herzegovina and ulterior understanding between the Sultan
and the Czar in regard to the Straits and the evacuation by the Turks
of the fortresses of the Danube. As soon as this became known England
was alarmed and the fleet was sent through the Dardanelles, and for the
second time in history anchored at the Princes’ Islands.
It has been a subject of much discussion, why Russia did not improve
her opportunity, and seize Constantinople when it was in her power.
She could have done this with comparative ease, at least so many
think. Others claim that the Turks were in condition to offer
considerable resistance still, and that Russia knew very well that
Europe, especially England, would not permit her to carry out the
plan without war. For this certainly she was not prepared. So also
there were many questions in regard to partition of the empire which
may well have made her hesitate, and of which mention will be made
in a later chapter on the general question of the partition of the
empire. Whatever were the reasons, a halt was called. Then came the
field of diplomacy. England and Austria, through their Ambassadors at
St. Petersburg and Constantinople, announced that they would refuse
to recognize conditions of peace in contravention of the terms of the
Treaty of Paris, except as Europe had an opportunity to consider them.
Russia declared that all such terms would be submitted to a review by
the Powers. Finally a Conference of the Powers was called, first at
Vienna, then at Baden-Baden, and finally at Berlin. A difficulty arose
in regard to the submission to the Conference of the entire treaty of
San Stephano. This was demanded by England and refused by Russia. For a
time it seemed as if war was imminent, but at last a general agreement
having been reached by mutual conference between Russia, England and
Austria, the representatives of England, Austria, Russia, France,
Italy and Turkey met at Berlin in June, 1878, and remained one month,
the Treaty being signed upon the 13th of July. Its main points may be
summarized as follows:
1. Bulgaria, including Sophia, to be constituted a tributary
principality of the Sultan, ruled by a prince and an elected assembly,
and to be organized under a Russian Commissary General assisted by
delegates from the European Powers. The period of organization not to
exceed nine months.
2. A province called Eastern Rumelia to be formed on the south of the
Balkans, and to be governed by a Christian under the orders of the
Sultan. The organization of this province to be under control of a
commission appointed by the European Powers. Russian troops, not to
exceed 50,000 in number, to occupy Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia during
nine months, and to fully evacuate both provinces within three months
after this period.
3. Administrative modifications promised in 1868 to be introduced in
the island of Crete. Similar modifications to be introduced in the
administration of all the provinces of European Turkey which are not
otherwise provided for. These details of this reorganization to be
submitted to the European Commission charged with the organization of
Eastern Rumelia.
4. If Greece and Turkey fail to agree upon the ratification of the
frontier indicated in the proceedings of the Congress, the Powers
reserve the right to offer mediation to the two parties.
5. Bosnia and Herzegovina to be occupied by Austria.
6. Montenegro to be constituted an independent principality, with
enlargement of territory (equal in amount to its whole previous area),
including the seaport of Antivari, but not to be allowed to hold either
ships or flags of war, and its ports to be controlled by Austrian
revenue cutters.
7. Servia to be constituted an independent principality, with large
additions of territory on the south and east.
8. Rumania to be constituted an independent principality, to cede to
Russia the portion of Bessarabia taken from Russia by the Treaty of
Paris of 1856, and to receive in exchange the district of the Dobruja.
9. Kars, Ardahan and Batum to be ceded by Turkey to Russia, and Katour
to Persia.
10. The Turkish Government to introduce without delay suitable measures
of reform in all districts inhabited by Armenians.
11. Absolute religious liberty to exist in all the territories referred
to above, including the whole Turkish Empire.
The gain of Turkey, by the substitution of the treaty of Berlin
for that of San Stephano, was in the territories cut by this new
treaty from the principalities erected by the older one, and in the
substitution of a European supervision for a Russian supervision of the
execution of the treaty.
Meanwhile other negotiations had been going on, and just before the
close of the Congress the British Government announced a treaty
concluded with the Porte consisting of the following Articles:
“Article I. If Batum, 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 the 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.
“Article II. The present convention shall be ratified, and the
ratifications thereof shall be exchanged, within the space of one
month, or sooner if possible.”
To all appearance England had triumphed. Not only had the treaty of
San Stephano been set aside, but the Sultan had practically recognized
her as his most potent and most influential ally. The prestige lost
during twenty years of mismanagement had suddenly by a master stroke
been regained, and all the Christians of Turkey were jubilant. The
new Sultan was looked upon as a mild man thoroughly desirous of the
good of his people, and there were the brightest anticipations of
genuine reform. At this point it will be advantageous to look at the
constitution of the Turkish Government.
[Illustration:
GROUP OF ARMENIAN YOUNG MEN, students at the Euphrates College at
Harput. This is a good representative of the type of young men from
that section. They are mostly from sixteen to twenty-five years of
age, though occasionally one is found among them of advanced years
taking the course in order to fit himself for special teaching or
preaching.]
[Illustration:
THE CITY OF MARSOVAN IN ASIA MINOR. The white houses are the
buildings occupied by the American missionaries, also Anatolia
College. The roofs of the houses are chiefly of curved tiles. The
background furnishes a good idea of the general hill region of the
country. Marsovan was the seat of some disturbances early in 1893.]