Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Memo

Turkish oppression as of foreign agitation, Lord Derby consistently opposed any interference with the “independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire” (Treaty of Paris, Article 7), at the same time urging the Porte, through our Ambassador, to take immediate steps for depriving its Christian subjects of any just grievance that might serve as a pretext for continuing the rising.

This was the spirit of the Andrassy Note; it was The Berlin not that of the Berlin, or rather the Russian randum. Memorandum. The proposals in that Memorandum, * as Lord Derby pointed out, were not of a nature either to restore peace or to maintain the sovereignty of the Sultan. " The concentration of the Turkish troops,” he said, “in certain places would be delivering up the whole country to anarchy, particularly when the insurgents are to retain their arms.

The consular supervision' would reduce the authority of the Sultan to nullity, and, without force to support it, supervision would be impossible. Even if there were any prospect of the Porte being willing and able

.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][ocr errors][graphic]

Memo

Turkish oppression as of foreign agitation, Lord Derby consistently opposed any interference with the “independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire” (Treaty of Paris, Article 7), at the same time urging the Porte, through our Ambassador, to take immediate steps for depriving its Christian subjects of any just grievance that might serve as a pretext for continuing the rising

This was the spirit of the Andrassy Note; it was The Berlin not that of the Berlin, or rather the Russian randum. Memorandum. The proposals in that Memorandum, * as Lord Derby pointed out, were not of a nature either to restore peace or to maintain the sovereignty of the Sultan. “The concentration of the Turkish troops,” he said, "in certain places would be delivering up the whole country to anarchy, particularly when the insurgents are to retain their arms. The consular supervision' would reduce the authority of the Sultan to nullity, and, without force to support it, supervision would be impossible. Even if there were any prospect of the Porte being willing and able

[blocks in formation]

to come to an arrangement with the insurgents on the basis proposed, which Her Majesty's Government scarcely believe possible, the intimation with which the Memorandum closes would render any such negotiation almost certainly abortive; for it could not be supposed that the insurgents would accept any terms of pacification from the Porte in face of the declaration that if the insurrection continued after the armistice, the Powers would intervene further."* Her Majesty's Government,

" therefore, could not “ accept, for the sake of the mere appearance of concert, a scheme in the

preparation of which they have not been consulted, and which they do not believe calculated to effect the object with which they are informed it has been framed."

Lord Derby's refusal could certainly not be attributed to any partiality for the Porte; for, in a

; despatch addressed to Sir Henry Elliot on the same date as that above quoted, he said that the Government cannot conceal from themselves that the gravity of the situation has arisen in a great measure from the weakness and apathy of the

*

Despatch to Lord Odo Russell of the 19th of May, 1876.

Porte in dealing with the insurrection in its earlier stages, and from the want of confidence in Turkish statesmanship and powers of government shown by the state of financial, military, and administrative collapse into which the country has been allowed to fall. The responsibility of this condition of affairs must rest with the Sultan and his Government; and all that can be done by the Government of Her Majesty is to give such friendly counsel as circumstances may require. They cannot control events to which the neglect of ordinary principles of good government may expose the Turkish Empire."

The decisive attitude taken up by England at this point of the negotiations—which it is now the cue of certain politicians to condemn—was at the time hailed with gratitude by public opinion in Germany, Austria, France, and Italy, and unanimously greeted by Parliament and the press as a triumph of English diplomacy, and a brilliant contrast to the timid and wavering policy of most of the statesmen who have, since Lord Palmerston, directed the foreign affairs of this country. If Lord Derby had, as his opponents now say he

F

« ZurückWeiter »