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

should have done (they did not at the time) accepted the Memorandum, he would not have benefited the Christian subjects of the Porte, but have connived at the designs of Russia. A game of brag with Russia for the favour of the Turkish Christians must inevitably have led to England being the loser, for the interest of Russia is obviously to make them as independent of the Porte, and consequently as dependent upon herself, as possible; while that of England is to do everything to obviate such a result.

Although, however, Lord Derby declined, as he said in his answer to the City deputation last September, "to be guilty of the quackery of putting his name to a scheme which he believed in his conscience would not work," he did not cease to impress on the Porte the necessity of granting effectual reforms to its Christian subjects. He took the earliest opportunity of doing this on the accession of Sultan Mourad (despatch to Sir Henry Elliot of the 13th of June, 1876); and at the same time he continued his negotiations with the other Powers for the restoration of peace. "It was not a part of the system or policy of Eng

land," he said to Count Schouvaloff,* "to take up a position of isolation in Eastern matters, as, indeed, our conduct during the last few months had shown. Her Majesty's Government had given their support to the Note of Count Andrassy, though at no time sanguine of the results to be expected from it; they had dissented from the policy indicated by the Berlin Memorandum for reasons frankly stated by them at the time, and which they still held to be valid; it now appeared that action on that document was indefinitely postponed; and, as far as I saw, there was no present cause for difference between Her Majesty's Government and those of other Powers." A similar statement was made by Lord Derby to Count Beust, the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador (Despatch to Sir A. Buchanan of the 22nd of June, 1876).

It has been already shown (p. 61) that strong The cruelties in Bulgaria. representations were addressed to the Porte in December, 1875, with regard to the massacre of some Christians in Bosnia. Similar remonstrances

* Despatch to Lord A. Loftus of the 14th June, 1876. See also Despatch to Count Schouvaloff of the 29th of June, 1876.

was

were made on other occasions of a like kind; and when the news came of the so-called "atrocities" in Bulgaria, Lord Derby addressed a despatch, dated the 13th of July, 1876, to Sir Henry Elliot, instructing him to make an inquiry into the matter, and to warn the Porte "against the toleration of acts committed by its troops which would arouse the reprobation of the civilized world." On the following day the Ambassador instructed to bring the reports of Consul Dupuis relative to these outrages to the knowledge of the Porte, and at the same time to " urge strongly that directions be given to the local authorities to lose no time in repressing these outrages and punishing those concerned in them; that a proclamation be issued, prohibiting under severe penalties the sale of women and children; that the immediate release be effected of all persons who are held in illegal captivity by Circasssians or other parties, and that the local authorities take charge of such released captives, when requisite." Further, on the 8th of the following month, Lord Derby wrote to Sir Henry Elliot "You cannot speak too strongly of the horror