tº
E-i
º
ķm.
ſae;}}{{#$%;
■* k3 ţğţ
###ķ
į!ģ
§#！***############}}
įķ#}∞}
}{
º
&
º
§§
ķ
º
º:
g-
wº
#
º
sº
º
º:
º:
ºº::
º:
twº ºw
3 *w-
É
*:
É
Kºº.
****
º
#####
sº Q
-≡
·§.ſae{$#####
-*§§}ķiķ####ķ$
ſaeſºſjB&#ż}¿iſtiſſaeſſa##}}&{};
}};}}{{#####ķſſſ####
{###########į#####################################§§
šķī£{{{#¡##########################################################}}
#}،|ķ###}}###{ķ§§§§####§ 8########ķ################};};ſ
ķ&\，######ķķ#įįțķ،ģ
·■№，،-{{!}};}}{{#ſĎae.§ 8）;ķ$$$$$$$$$${}{}\\ſ|$68¿§§§}
·{{{:$}}}}�¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡#######################}}{{####ķ;########{{#######ķ######ķğ##############ķ#####§§}};}}{{
$$$$#}####|ķ#############################################ğ&##############ģĶķ$£§§§§ģ
§ 5º） eſ###########################{{########ſſſſſſſ§§####ģ###############################ģi####ķ
ķſ.####}}###########################################ķ###########################################################}ģ{#######
####Äķķſſſſſſ#########################D###################################################ģ$$$$$$
#########}}}}}}}$ķķ|!############################ķ#############################################ģ################
ģķ}#############ķ######¡¡¡¡¡¡¡###############################################}
ķ#########ëſķ.•######Œį#####################ķſé：}§§ 8#######################################}ğ###|-
ſaeB： : ：·ſaeſſſſſſſſſſ|##}}-iſ;¿###########Ķ§§#############8$$$$§§
§§ķķį}}###################ſaeķķ####ķķį¿]Ēģț¢Ë§§§#########################§§}}
¿¿.Çáſ$$$$¡¡¡################################įſiſſſſſſ##############################§§
ķ§{}{#8#########################################${ķ#############################*
$$$$$$ķĢģĶķ，###################################################$ſ;#8########################ģ}{}
ſae§§§§§§§§##########&{};}ģiſ##########################ſ.#ķ##########################ĶĒģ###ķ
ķķķ§§§#ffff;|-}#################$######}}######################¿#####ſºſJ###########ğ§§;###########
§§§§§}}ſſſſſſſſ$$$ķº！{{{########{##}#####}}{{####Ķ{{{#############}}####{};U.{ķ{{ĒģĶķ,#######∞§§§%}}####§.
#####}}ķ§§łaeĶiģ{};w：#######ķ##########ķ######################################}}}}}}}}}}}&#ğjģ###############################################
}}ķ########Ķķëſſſſſſſſſſſ§§į#################ķſiſſae;###################iķ###ș#####H§§§}###########################¿§§
}}}}}}}}}}};{{{8}}}{{ķįſ;$#########ģiķiſ#####################################################ffff;####ģķ##################ſae######}}}}}}}}}}}}}}{#####§§§§§§§§§£
}}}}}}}}}#############ķ#############}}#################}############################################################ģ###############§§įģĶķğģ
ķ§#####šķģĶķ#######ķ##ķ#####įķķ####################################$$$$########################ţ#}}}}}}{{};ģ####ſaeſ
§§ķ}}&###############################$ſ;{§§}####ķ{{}}|ķīļļģiķi#################§###};ķ######į#############################·$##############§§§§
šķķ#######$$$$$}#######################################################################įſ.(?)šķģ#######################################§§§
¿?}}ķ$#####į#############$}}ëſķ####################(）§§§§§§§}:}:}:}$$$$$$$$$$$$$§§}}
ķ###########################################################################}#####·
}}$$#####ķłķķ########################################################################
ķ########§§§§#########{{###########{{{######|##################iģ}{!}}{{#####§§įſſſſſſſſſſſ8##
$$$$$$·};####§§§§§Ķišķiį9###}};{{####}};}}{{#########ķ{{}}}}#############ķ）##ſae#####};§;}#####§§J
$$$$$$$$$$Ķ;&#ffffffff;"**{{iſ}}###########};#############################įſ;·&#################§§§ （ ）$$$$$#####
ſaeķ§§§§kiº}};{{{8}}}}}#3##########################################}}}}}}}}įſiſſäķ#########ſae}#######§§§
}}}}}}}}}}}}#ffff;}}ſſſſſſ·{|ķ№&###################################}$$$}}###----§§}}{{#if:|{{!}}{{##########§§§ſºż;
ķ•ģ#######################################ģ####ſae########¿§§§§§######{{!}}{{#¡$£§!ğ###;ſ
}}}}}}}{{#######ĶķĹĺķ$$$$-}ķק####-#####ķ#ffffff;"#ſſſſſſſ};{{!}}{{}ſi，};{}}·ſë};tº§§§§§§|ţăți#######¿§§
§§§§§§$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ſaeſaeae:ķķ###############ķ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}########§§į#####§§§§§§§%;};};########țiț¢}};&#####§§！
ķ}}}}}}&#######}}}}}}}}}}}}§§vº，žģ#####}}|##############################}}&##įſae;§§§§§§######§§§ſae;§§§ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ·¿
§§§§§§§§§##########8#########&############§§§§išķģĶķiſ##########{：！#}};{{#########}}############įſtſ§§ſſſſſſſſſſſſſ§§§§§§§§§§§§$%ſºğ&#%$§§§§§:
######}}}}}}}####}}}}}}}}}###ķiſ¿ķ#######}}}}}{{############�{ķ}}}}}}#ffi#######ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ;}}•ķ};ſi##ķ}}&#####€$£§§£; ſae;¿
######ķišķ########šķ########################}}{{#############}};}}{{#$$$$}}}}}}############ģ###############################
§§§§§$$$$$$$$&#######################################################{{#####$$$$$$îț############|§§§
§§§§§§}}&####}）;šķi#{{}{};}}####&######iſºſ};{}{}{};#################ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſÄĶķț¢}ķ&#ffffffff;·šķ#########;
§§§§§$%ſºț¢#############Ķiģ}}[##}}ķ}$$$$$#########ķ######º aeģ######ķğț¢;&#######%º;}}}}}¿
$£§§§§§§§§###################################################{{X}ſ}{№####################${{#############
ķ}}Ēģ$###################################šķ#####};};}}{{№Ķišķſ****§§P.， aſae·};&########
ſí§§§§}}};########################}}}};{{{ſ}šķiſ}}}}{{{################ff9;ifºſſae{{###
§§ķ{|}}}################################§§§§§###[]§§§##############$ſſſſſſ}§§
ķ§§{}}##################};}};}}{{##∞§ț¢########ĢģĶķĹĺķŁſae
}}}}#############$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$}};{{####Ķķiſſºſ;?
·∞}}ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ|}}}}}ķ|%ſſſſſſſſſſ§§§§§§§§{{}∞#:
ſaešķ#####################ķ#########Ży|-ºſ##############
######ķ################################}}## {#####$}#####ţķ
}}{{####Ķīſiſķķ###################：ſae;###############
}}ķ###############[]}};{{{ſ}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
§:#;$$$$§§§};ſaei§§§§*-
${};§§§}}}}}}}}}}}}}}ſaeº.ſ. ，ºſſiſ}}}}}}}}：::§§ķiſ
ķķſºſ;ķķķ#######šķ##########
： ∞، taeſaeſ?}};{{#############{{{{ſ}}*ſ.ſae#######################}}ſae
}ķķ{ķķķſſſſſſſſſ####ķ###########Ķ
}ț¢Â‚Äſſſſſſſſſſaeae}};{{#ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ:#####：}}·
ſſſſſſſſaeſſſ######}}}}}}}}}}};•|－wae ºſºſ
}}§§}ķķķ####§§§;&########
•••0ķ&######}}}€.}{ſł######}##§§§};#####
-ſaeģix}}&{};$¿ſae}};};};};}&{}\\ſ|$）;§§§§§§:
;:ſſſſſſſſſſſſ:}}}}}}}}}}};#####ķ###############
¿?§|$$$||}ſºſ|įſiſ;###
ſtae·：--…33:Aſſºſ
,，ſaeſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſĶķi;ſuae
ſae-ſſſſſſſº ， ， ，¿·
ķķķķ%;
¿ſ.}}}}}}}}}}}}į·ae：ſae:
ķķ##########;;;;;;
№ºt***，\！}}waeſ;ſſſſſſſſºſ;ºººººſºſĶëſae
§§§ķ####################ķ§§
"№ſſºſ}}#############}}#####
Đįſſiſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſº £
ķ;ķ*
}}$$$$ķ
ſiſſae;'，
&#1§§§§§§
0{{ſ}}¡ ¿¿¿
v sº：·ſiſſºſ;ſſſſſſſſſſſſſ
ºſ ſuºse§Êſ.■■■■i¿∞ √ √∞¿ſ·
}}}};}}¡¿;ķ#«'};∞};ſſſſſſſ|ķ{};
، ، ، ، ،ſgſãº:ºſſſſſſſ?ſ º§§§§§#fffffff;ſae
ſºſaeķi;：#¿ķķ
----（， ）§§
ºffſ§§}}#####،
¿#####ſvae
:ſ：:§:ſſiſſiſ;∞
}ķ888
ſae; &ae
ſaeºſ，
ſae
ſaeº，
ſl
{
·º·:·º·:·º·：·
º.o. w ſą ºrº （º
"...ººº，）
${};ſºiº
ſ.W0）;
čl*…*…！！！！！！{tae
};$$$$¿ſººſ
§§§§§§#*（?:iſ：№ſſae
§§{{}}:}}};¿
º C（§§§§§§§§§
ſºſ;
ſºſiae
ſº:Đ
ſiſ;};R.
};
; ： , ，
， ，
8
ſ
*№ſſſſſſſſſ
$（'&?#8
， ！
****
***ųº， y
\！！！！！！！！
ĢĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒ&{;$3'）;
º y
Mae’,
::::::}%;">
&ººº..º
¿
№!
• ， ， ， ſ
， ， ， ，
ſae, º
ºa
Ķ8%Dr.}}
¿ſºgaeae
º ：-aeſº.º¿
ſae··ſºſº，
∞ √°.'，·E
ſae-
№j
¿¿ {:::::：::، ،ķaeg
¿¿.ķŘaešķ！*
ſaeae$،|－ķță$$$:::
{{}{}
+ſae
：£
##§§Dae
####ģĶķ
#########
ķ
Ķ
Ķ
į
№ț¢
§§§§0
§§§§✉·
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ſeº
šķģ###Fºl$º-
D###3%ſſſſſi####§##§§?ģ
§§########################ſae§§
}}Șº¡¡¡¡¡ ¿ģiſ####}}#####¿
§§§};&#§§
§§§：
§§
ſº
№，
►►aeſaeį.|
ſaeº.∞∞∞،§∞§§
∞#¿ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ§3
wae}}######{{#}&&&ſaeſ?
≡&};}}{{{#¡ğķ§§§§§#######
####}#######$$$$$$$$$$*№ſſºſ######
№ģ№ģţ}};};$##########
-§§，•Gºwae，！ſae-ſaeraeaeſºs
šķķķķ############################
######ģ####};####################ķ;$$$$$$§3%$$$$$$$ĒMae{¿?
¿aeķ######ļķķ}};·ķ§§ķ};§§§#########£§!§§
########################§§§§§§{###35ſae####ffff;&##ſae
ſae#########################ķ}};}}{}}ſºſ§$$$$$$$##$$ğ
#########################################§§§##};$$$$$$$${&&
#############ķ##}}ķğ}{{########ºſ######ţſaeſį
############################{{}}:}}}#{{#iğiģ#######~
«¿?##############################§§§§§§§ſſſſſſſ{{!}}{{#
####ķ#########ķ##############ķ:;$$$$$$$$$$$
ſae}}{{####{ķ###{{}}ģ##########·$șğſae
：&·$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$•Ēģ$£§§
}ķįķ####$$$####Ķģ
Caeſaeiſłę§§§§§§§%;$$$§§§§§§§§
#####tj{！ķ#šķſj§§×#########{{{$ğ
#######:：:：:&############################§§;#####################
§§§·}}{{{#ffffff;##ſł##############ķ§§§¿
ķğģ###########################};#############
ĶķĹĺ##%;$}}&{};####################}}∞###ſae
ķţ########################
§§§ķ#######§§§…}}
§§§§ſaeſſſſſſſſſſſſſs
∞Dſae$$$$$$$$
}{{#¡






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
∞ √∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
±
§
|×
3
çº
>
2
3
}
！9
wº §
º
[[[IIIIHIIIHHHHHITIII
fiſſ;
iii;
iſſ
ºf
º
lſº
iſl




** -->























|-∞
| -�·
}�
{{
•
�
#
ș·
�|-
4
}«»
|
* *ș
ł
|
}
{
�
*
|
!
·|
ø{
$
ș →
}
|ſ., i !·
--------- «~ : ~~** …--§ →4--- n + + 34+#---+---+ |











SIR WILLIAM WHITE

<!--**4）} = --º-º--
! → √≠ √t =







º-º-º-º-º-º-
2%

SIR WILLIAM WHITE
G.C.B., K.C.M.G.
FOR SIX YEARS AMBASSADOR
AT CONSTANTINOPLE
HIS LIFE AND
CORRESPONDENCE
-º-
By Hº SUTHERLAND EDWARDS
ETC., ETC.
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
I902
i PRINTED BY
HAZELL, watson, AND VINEY, LD.,
i" LONDON AND AYLESBURY.
º
s
7.
#. -
º, • *
. . - * * º
- * * * º -
*. º **
> e -- * Af
º * -
f - -
º
ji
w
h





|-tº-ºvº.
Seck . .
| ? - ? tº -24.
1 + oxº
C O N T E N T S
CHAPTER I
GENERAL VIEW
CHAPTER II
WICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW
CHAPTER III
COLLAPSE OF INSURRECTION
CHAPTER IV
FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC
CHAPTER V
ARRIVAL IN SERVIA
CHAPTER VI
SERVIA, IN 1876. BUL.GARIAN ATROCITIES
CHAPTER VII
SIR HENRY LAYARD AT CONSTANTINOPLE
PAGE
24.
45
54
8I
94.
. I 2 I
V
vi CONTENTS
CHAPTER VIII
MR. WHITE AT BUCHAREST
CHAPTER IX
“THE PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA ’’
CHAPTER X
ROUMANIA AND THE JEWS
CHAPTER XI
ROUMANIA IN 1878
CHAPTER XII
RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE
CHAPTER XIII
ROUMANIANS IN TRANSYLVANIA
CHAPTER XIV
PAGE
. I 3 I
. I4 I
. I 56
. I62
. I 72
MUTUAL ANNEXATION PROJECTS IN THE BALKAN
PENINSULA, LETTERS FROM
LAYARD
CHAPTER XV
A SERIES OF AMBASSADORS
CHAPTER XVI
THE NEW BALKAN STATES
SIR HENRY
. I9 I
. 2C2
. 207
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XVII
AN EVENTFUL YEAR .
CHAPTER XVIII
BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA .
CHAPTER XIX
THE EVER-CHANGING EASTERN QUESTION
CHAPTER XX
PASSAGE OF THE STRAITS .
CHAPTER XXI
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
INDEX .
ILLUSTRATIONS
SIR willIAM WHITE (PHOTOGRAVURE)
THE AMBASSADOR AND HIS STAFF
vii
PAGE
. 222
. 228
. 244
. 25 I
. 26O
. 275
Frontispiece
. To face p. 246


































SIR WILLIAM WHITE
CHAPTER I
GENERAL VIEW
OETHE, in two perfect little poems, presented
together under the title of Orpheisch, sets forth
in the first that, let a man struggle as he may, his fate
is irrevocably fixed in the stars; and in the second,
that a lamp may be perfectly trimmed and full of oil,
but that unless it somehow gets touched with fire, it
can never burn. Sir William White's destiny had been
marked out beforehand by his strong personal character.
He has himself, however, been heard to say, that unless
he had been appointed to Bucharest, at the critical
moment when Roumania was about to be raised from
vassalage to independence, he could never have passed
from the Consular into the Diplomatic Service, and
thus would never have been eligible for the post of
Ambassador.
As it was, the Belgrade Consul-General of 1876,
the Dantzic Consul of 1861, the Warsaw Vice-Consul
(or Consular Clerk) of 1857, became actually in 1885,
officially in 1886, the Ambassador of England at Con-
stantinople, where for six years, until his death in
1891, he made his power and his influence more
I
2 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
seriously felt than any previous Ambassador had done
since the days of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe.
Sir William White was born on February 13, 1824,
at Pulawy, in Poland. He lived in that country, at
one time and another, for more than thirty years, and
spoke the Polish language perfectly; from which, and
from the fact that his mother and his maternal grand-
mother held land in Poland, it was inferred that he
must, at least on the mother's side, be of Polish origin.
He had, however, not one drop of Polish blood in
his veins.
Sir William White's father was in the Consular and
afterwards in the Colonial Service, and he was at the
time of his death Governor of Trinidad.
“When I knew him, between 1845 and 1851,” writes
Mr. Cadman Jones, one of Sir William White's oldest
and most intimate friends, “he was stationed at Trinidad.
What I chiefly remember about him is, that his son was
his exact image.”
His family, settled for several generations in the Isle
of Man, was of Dutch extraction, and its original
name was “de Witt.”
Sir William's mother was the daughter of General
William Neville Gardiner, last English Envoy to the
Court of Poland in the days of King Stanislas Augustus,
under whom was accomplished, in the words of the usually
calm Guizot,” “the murder of an entire nation.”
General William Neville Gardiner — usually called
“Neville-Gardiner,” which the Poles shortened into
“Neville” alone—was, according to the Foreign Office
Records, Minister at Warsaw in 1784, twelve years after
the first Partition, and again in 1794, one year after the
Second Partition and one year before the third Partition,
* Guizot's Memoirs, year 1830.
1794] GENERAL NEVILLE GARDINER 3
by which the formidable insurrection of Koscziusko was
immediately followed. Then the capital of Poland
passed beneath the domination of Prussia, and Warsaw
became a Prussian provincial town. A leading member
of General Neville Gardiner's mission was Colonel William
Gardiner, apparently a relative ; and the chief had with
him a certain number of so-called “correspondents,” who
in the present day would be described as secretaries,
or attachés. With the complete destruction of Poland
by the third Partition, the mission at Warsaw came
to an end. There was no longer a Polish Government
or a Polish Court to be accredited to.
General Neville Gardiner now returned to his military
duties He was appointed commander-in-chief of the
troops in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and died
at his post in 1806, the year in which Napoleon re-
constituted the Prussian provinces of Poland into the
Grand-Duchy of Warsaw.
General Neville Gardiner was brother of Viscount
Mountjoy and uncle of the Viscount Mountjoy who in
1816 was created Earl of Blessington.
Mrs. Neville continued to live at her country place
in Poland, and it was in Poland that her daughter
became acquainted with Sir William White's father.
Of two children by the marriage, one died in childhood ;
the other was William Arthur White, the future am-
bassador. After going to School for some years at
King William's College in the Isle of Man, young White
was sent to Cambridge and entered at Trinity College,
where he remained two years.
On leaving the University in the year 1843, he went
to stay with his mother and grandmother in Poland,
a Cambridge friend, Mr. Cadman Jones, accompanying
him and remaining with the family some three months.
4 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
“His mother and grandmother,” writes Mr. Jones,
“lived at Gora Pulawska, on the left bank of the Vistula,
where the high road from Radom to Lublin crosses the
river, and directly opposite Pulawy, formerly the palace
of the Czartoryskis, which is on the right bank. There
is a legend that Charles XII. of Sweden bombarded it
from the spot on which the house of Gora now stands.
This is on a slightly rising ground, where the last ripple
of the Carpathians sinks into the sandy plain of the
north-east of Europe. He went out uncertain whether
he should return to England or not.”
Nearly six years after his arrival in Poland from
Cambridge—in the spring of 1849—Mr. White suffered a
severe loss in the death of his grandmother and mother.
“The mourning seal, edge, and envelope will at once
make you guess,” he writes to Mr. Cadman Jones, “that
this is a message of some great misfortune for me—which,
I am convinced, will be duly felt by you. You have not
heard from me this long time ; and my answer to your
last kind letter is the sad tidings that I am left an
orphan, completely alone so far as kindred goes in this
country.
“Yes, my dear friend, both my grandmother and dear
excellent mother have left me for another, and, I hope
and trust in Christ, for a better world. You who have
seen that circle as one of the family, who have known
the amiability and sensibility of the mother, the loving
devotedness of the daughter, you can best appreciate
my painful position and my affliction.
“I cannot easily account for my long silence towards
you. Laziness had something to do with it; but I have
for some time had considerable anxiety of mind owing
to repeated disappointments in more or less serious
matters.
“On the 9th October, myself and my dear mother, we
undertook a trip to Paris for the purpose of meeting my
father; and we returned to Zielonka on the 3rd November,
our movements being so rapid that I did not find time
to drop you a line.
“My excellent mother had been labouring under a
painful illness for some years. She enjoyed very much
1849] MRS. NEVILLE 5
our excursion ; but, alas! her mind had been preyed upon
by very great anxiety.
“At the time I engaged in affairs (of a pecuniary nature)
in this country with the view to increasing my income
we entertained too sanguine hopes of receiving remittances
in which we were completely disappointed. This led to
difficulties. Bad seasons and casual losses rendered many
plans abortive ; and my want of experience has added
not a little to this unpleasant position.
“All this preyed upon my mother's mind. Her heart
so sensitive, her feelings for me always so full of anxiety,
suffered very much—too much, alas ! She enjoyed
exceedingly her visit to Paris; but upon our return we
found my grandmother getting daily weaker and more
infirm. My father joined us most fortunately in January
last and has been constantly present. He leaves only
to-day to resume his public duties. My grandmother
declining gradually expired in the night of the I Ith to
the 12th of March, 1849.
“My dear mother had sufficient strength left to attend
the funeral, and was pretty well for five weeks afterwards
when she got a cough, and, her lungs being very much
affected, she prepared for that terrible separation which
was to leave me an orphan and alone in this country,
and which took place on the I Ith May, exactly two
months after her mother.
“Many, many witnesses—hundreds, rich and poor—
witnesses, I say, of her virtuous life—attended her to the
grave. In fact, she is universally and sincerely regretted.
“Under these afflicting circumstances I received your
letter, and it is impossible for me to tell you anything
further about myself. You will guess my melancholy
feelings and meditations.
“Many of those you knew are dead, and many changes
have to be noticed in my next, when I shall try to send
you a flower from the grave of your two sincere friends
of Gora, whom I am sure you will lament sincerely.
“Pray try to assist my father in removing my books
and things from Miss Garner's, 6, Green Street, Cambridge,
to London, and thence here, vić Dantzic.
“I still live in hopes of seeing you some day; but,
believe me, my life is very sad indeed.
“Yours ever affectionately,
“W. A. WHITE.”
6 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
“I heard from him,” writes Mr. Cadman Jones, “at
irregular intervals all through the remainder of his
life. When I left Poland, his employment was looking
after the estate; to which, while I was there, he gave
a good deal of personal supervision. I have a vague
impression that owing to the distress occasioned by the
Crimean War, things turned out ill, and that the properties
were sold.”
English residents in Russia who wished to do so
remained there throughout the war, and, as a rule, were
treated with great consideration. It was thought strange,
however, and suspicious that an Englishman should stay
during hostilities with his own country in a part of the
Empire so notoriously disaffected as Poland ; and, as a
precautionary measure, a gendarme was attached to
Mr. White, who was kept under supervision except on
comparatively rare occasions when he furnished his too
assiduous guardian with enough money to enable him to
get drunk. I am indebted for this interesting information
to Field-Marshal Sir John Lintorn Simmons, who succeeded
General Mansfield in 1857 at the Warsaw Consulate.
From his twentieth, then, up to his thirty-fourth year,
Mr. White was occupied not with Diplomatic or Consular
work, but solely with agriculture. But for some repre-
sentations which he had to make to the Russian authorities
in the character of British subject he might never have
had occasion to visit the British Consulate at Warsaw, and
never, therefore, in all probability, would have been invited
by its chief to take service in it. To secure the assistance
of an English gentleman who possessed a perfect know-
ledge of Polish affairs and of the Polish language was
an evident advantage for General Mansfield, the newly
appointed Consul-General, who, arriving at Warsaw soon
after the peace which followed the Crimean War, saw
Poland for the first time.
1857] AT THE WARSAW CONSULATE 7
Mr. White's entry into the Warsaw Consulate cannot,
however, be looked upon as a step taken without aim or
without previous leanings towards the kind of employment
he was now obtaining. To begin a consular and quasi-
diplomatic career at the age of thirty-three was not for
an ambitious man a promising start. It had been Mr.
White's desire, at an early age, and the desire of his father
(who himself began life in the Consular Service), his
mother, and his grandmother (Mrs. Neville) that he should
adopt diplomacy as his profession ; though at the time
of his leaving Cambridge the pecuniary position of his
family rendered it impossible for them to make him the
necessary allowance. After referring to this unrealisable
project, Mr. White, in one of his letters from Bucharest
(April, I885), writes as follows:
“But my time was not lost during my long residence
in Poland, as I acquired a knowledge of Russian ways
and doings which has proved invaluable to me, and would
prove still more so were I serving under a chief more
distrustful of the “Moskal’’ than our ‘G.O.M.’”
The Consulate at Warsaw was not much of a com-
mercial post, but mainly a political one. The English,
French, Prussian, and Austrian Consulates-General at
Warsaw were first established, at the suggestion of the
Emperor Nicholas, after 1830, in testimony of his
intention to maintain Poland as a separate kingdom with
its own institutions; and England has always been repre-
sented at Warsaw by some military man—usually, a
Colonel of Artillery or Engineers. The Consul-General
at Warsaw transacted business in Mr. White's day
* Polish for “Muscovite.” Long after “Muscovy” had become
“Russia” for the rest of Europe it was still “Muscovy” for the Poles.
The French in like manner continued to call Prussia “Brandenburgh"
long after it had ceased to be “Brandenburgh” for all other nations.
8 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
with the Director of Foreign Affairs for the Kingdom
of Poland ; and he addressed his reports sometimes to
the Foreign Secretary in London, sometimes to the
Ambassador at St. Petersburg.
During the Crimean War, General Mansfield had held
the post of military adviser to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe,
and he came to Warsaw direct from the famous capital
to which Sir William White, nearly thirty years later,
was to make his way. After helping General Mansfield
for a short time in the Consulate, and inspiring him with
feelings of confidence and friendship, Mr. White soon
agreed to accept a permanent engagement on the under-
standing that promotion was to be open to him in the
Consular Service. -
He had some business to attend to in England,
and in March, 1857, received in London, from General
Mansfield at Warsaw, the following letter:
‘‘March 9, 1857.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I am happy to be able to tell you that I have
received Lord Clarendon's approval of the arrangement
I proposed in your favour, and that I am authorised
to draw £25 per quarter on your account, the arrange-
ment to take effect from the Ist of next month. This
gives you, therefore, till the end of March to arrange
your affairs, which, I hope, will be sufficient for you. You
will have watched the late Parliamentary contest with the
same interest as I have ; indeed, the attention of Europe
has been altogether absorbed by it.
“If you require more time to enable you to carry out
your move and change of home, do not fail to apprise me,
as you must not be a pecuniary loser in consequence of
entering your new career.
“Yours very truly,
“H. B. MANSFIELD,”
Mr. White's duties at the Warsaw Consulate soon
became important, for General Mansfield was called away
1857] ACTING CONSUL–GENERAL 9
from his post before he had occupied it many months in
order to go to India, where the Mutiny had broken out,
and where he had been appointed chief of Sir Colin
Campbell's staff. Mr. White now for a time became
acting Consul-General, but without any permanent change
in his rank.
A great diplomatist, Sir William resembled in no way
the conventional diplomatist of fiction, and too often of
real life; who, suave in manner, impenetrable in look,
abstains on principle from any show of zeal, believes,
really, that language was given to him to conceal his
thoughts, and, hearing of another diplomatist's death,
indulges in subtle speculations as to what object he
could have had in dying. Sir William White was a
diplomatist of the robust school. Tall, handsome, and
of commanding presence, his demeanour was compara-
tively rough. Without being careless, he was not over
careful in his dress. In conversation he was frank, genial,
always in high spirits, with a powerful voice, which often
broke into loud laughter. Among well-known types the
one his personal appearance most strongly suggested was
that of an English country gentleman who happened to
wear a beard.
But his manner of speech pointed in a different
direction. Accustomed to many tongues, and as dexter-
ous in carrying on a conversation with different people
in different languages as a juggler in keeping up balls
in the air, he spoke English with a scarcely perceptible
foreign accent, which was neither French, German, nor
Polish, but perhaps a faint reminiscence of all three, with
something indefinable and beyond, analysis superadded.
That everything about him was natural—so natural
as sometimes to be deceptive—is shown by the fact,
that, occupying a subordinate position at the Warsaw
2
IO GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
Consulate, he presented the same characteristics which
struck every one when, thirty years afterwards, he directed
the Embassy at Constantinople.
Sir William White began life in the days of “dis-
abilities,” when Jews were not allowed to sit in Parliament,
nor Roman Catholics and Dissenters to graduate at the
ancient Universities. Had he completed his course at
Cambridge, he would have been unable by reason of
his religion to take a degree; for he had been brought
up in the faith of his grandmother and mother. The
honorary LL.D. was ultimately conferred upon him, but
not until after he had been named Ambassador ad interim
at Constantinople; and he was the first Roman Catholic
Ambassador appointed since the Reformation.
“Herr Doctor Ich gratulire,” wrote Lord Arthur
Russell to him on the occasion of his receiving the
Cambridge degree. “The honours conferred by an ancient
and free corporation on a fellow citizen are more
valuable than the stars given by Ministers. It is one
of the illusions I still have left, that it really is a fine
thing to be made a D.C.L. by our venerable Universities.
I am sorry that I did not, like Lord Acton, have the
pleasure of seeing you in your cardinal's robes.”
The nomination to Constantinople by which the con-
ferring of the honorary degree had been preceded, was
only provisional until the arrival of Sir Edward Thornton,
the titular Ambassador; and Sir William White was
assured at this time, by powerful and influential friends,
by Ambassadors and Ministers of State, that he had
not the slightest chance of obtaining the appointment
permanently.
He was much pressed, moreover, in that very year
of 1885, officially by Lord Salisbury, and privately by
one of his most intimate and most trusted friends, Sir
1857] FUTURE PROSPECTS I I
Robert Morier, to accept the Legation at Pekin; and
but for his strong character (“character,” as a German
philosopher has defined it, is “the resistance offered to
pressure from without”) he must at that critical moment
have lost all chance of going permanently to Constanti-
nople. With noteworthy foresight, both Lord Salisbury
and Sir Robert Morier perceived sixteen years ago the
Supreme importance that China was gradually assuming
in the affairs of the world.
“I have been considering very carefully with Sir Philip
Currie,” wrote Lord Salisbury, September 30, 1885, “the
possibility you expressed to me some weeks ago. I am
very anxious to recognise your undoubted claims, and
to make use of your great experience and ability in a
suitable employment. But I am forced to remember what
Gortchakoff said, when they asked him why he did not
promote his son : ‘Can I poison the Ambassadors P’
The vacancies are very few—only two. Brazil I know
you have already declined, and I cannot manage by any
shuffling of the cards to vacate any post which you would
be disposed to take. Brazil is naturally not popular.
The alternative before you, I am afraid, therefore, is either
Pekin, or to wait till something more favourable presents
itself. Of course, it is a matter of uncertainty whether
I shall have any influence over the use to be made of
that opportunity when it occurs. You told me that
you would not take Pekin, and I hardly like to dwell
on it. But I cannot help reminding you of the extreme
importance which that mission is assuring. The Power
that can establish the best footing in China will have
the best part of the trade of the world ; I cannot help
saying, that the matter should not be put aside without
reflection.”
Twelve days earlier, Sir Robert Morier had addressed
to Sir William, from Frankfort, a most friendly letter,
of which the verve would be lost and the “free fantasia”
style destroyed if one word were altered or suppressed.
I 2 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
“My dear White,” wrote this eminent diplomatist who
had recently been appointed to the Embassy at St. Peters-
burg, “I am just an infernal correspondent, and it's no use
trying to disguise it. I have two letters of yours on
my soul, and damned bad company they are for it, for
whenever I have thought of them I have had a fresh out-
burst of irritation against myself. The first undoubtedly
required an answer—even if only to say that I could say
nothing. But my reason for writing to-day is a very
different one. It is to urge you in the strongest way I
can to accept the post of China, if offered, as I feel sure
it would be, if it was thought you would accept it. Now
listen attentively to what I say. My sole and only motive
in going out of my way to express this opinion is my
earnest desire for your personal welfare. For myself
personally, the loss of you at Bucharest, and of my chance
of a visit from you at St. Petersburg, with the prospect
of being coached up in all matters connected with the
Slav Kosmos would be a colossal calamity; but I am
bound as an old and most sincere friend to tell you what
I deem best for you.
“I know better than any one that the post you ought
to fill is Constantinople. I know that you had not ill-
grounded hope that you might get it, and if I saw any
chance of your doing so, I would say, ‘Bide your time at
Bucharest.’ But I have good grounds for believing that,
notwithstanding the extraordinary fact that with your
powers and your fearless individuality, you have com-
pletely succeeded in gaining the confidence of the F.O.
and of both the Montagues and the Capulets who
alternatively reign there, you have no prospect of getting
the post, within measurable time, at least. I have inde-
pendent grounds for believing this. Both as regards
yourself and the good of the country, I do not think that
time should be lost in giving you your chance einaugreifen
in die Weltgeschichte. Now there is no European post
in which I can foresee any possibility for you to get this
chance for the present. On the other hand, in my humble
opinion, the political complications of the planet being
such as they are, China, St. Petersburg, and Constantinople
are, as regards us, three points of the greatest importance.
As I told Giers, we must avoid war, because if war there
is, it will be a planetary war, with the Sun and moon and
Saturn and Mars and Venus all looking on. All the
1857] FUTURE PROSPECTS I 3
forces of Asia and Europe will have to be stirred. Now
I believe China is just getting within touch of planetary
influence. We ought to secure China. Now there are
only two kinds of Ministers possible there—a Chinese
expert, like Wade, or a colossal European statesman. The
expert, now Hart has resigned, does not, I believe, exist,
and if he did, would, me judice, have to be entirely dis-
carded. What we want is the man who can seize the
great political bearings of the question, and who has the
vigour to carry out the idea, the savoir-faire to get behind
Chinese officialism. You are the man ; no man in the
service or out of it has the same grasp of this same
savoir-faire. It would be madness to accept Rio or any
other similar post; but China, I believe, would give you
your chance, and if it did, you would use it, and then
Constantinople or the Nile would be your due. -
“I speak with the full conviction that I am giving you
the right counsel. If you do not take it and remain at
Bucharest, I shall be the gainer. The few of your friends
I have seen since Hart's resignation all echo my sentiments.
“I have had three such delightful days with the King
and Queen of Roumania at Königstein. It was a pleasure
to me to hear them talk the way they did about you.
I felt rather a traitor, for they supplicated me to use all
my influence that you should not be promoted away from
Bucharest. I have solemnly promised to pay them a visit
next year.
“God bless you! Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest
my advice, knowing I shall be personally happy if you
don't take it. But if you do, telegraph, “Think you are
right,’ and I will then work in that sense.
“Yours ever,
“R. B. MORIER.”
Sir William did not telegraph “Think you are right.”
He was convinced, indeed, that his friend was wrong; and,
as a matter of fact, he was, twelve months later, appointed
Ambassador at Constantinople.
Sir William during the most important part of his
career, extending over the last fifteen years of his life,
seems to have enjoyed in an equal degree the good will
I4. GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
of both parties. Lord Derby gave him the C.B., Lord
Granville the K.C.M.G., and Lord Salisbury the G.C.M.G.
It was Lord Derby who sent him to the Conference of
Constantinople as adlatus to Lord Salisbury; while to
Lord Salisbury he was indebted for his nomination to
Bucharest, and for his promotion at Bucharest from the
rank of Diplomatic Agent and Consul-General to that of
Envoy-Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. Mr.
Gladstone's Government sent him to Constantinople as
Ambassador ad interim in 1885; and the Government
of Lord Salisbury appointed him permanent Ambassador
in I 886.
Amongst Sir William White's letters are to be found
copies of two congratulatory ones addressed to him by
an eminent leader of Whigs, Earl Russell, and by an
eminent leader of Radicals, Mr. Gladstone. Lord Edmond
Fitzmaurice, in a very interesting article on his life
and work (contributed to the Speaker), regards him as
a Home Ruler. But in one of his despatches from
Bucharest in reference to the admission of Jews to
the Roumanian Parliament Sir William sets forth, that,
according to the Roumanian view, the Jews would form
a separate party to impede legislation, “like the Home
Rule faction in the House of Commons.”
He was never, in fact, a man whom either Liberals
or Conservatives could claim as their own ; and he must
often have regretted, like most of his diplomatic associates,
that it was sometimes found necessary to shape the
foreign policy of England so as to suit, not the interests
of the country, but those of a Parliamentary party, or
of popular opinion outside Parliament.
In regard to many important questions that came
beneath the notice and study of Sir William, there was
an absolute consensus of opinion among well-informed
1861] POLISH QUESTION I 5
diplomatists, whereas in Parliament two diametrically
opposite views were held by Conservatives and by
Liberals. Lord Napier at St. Petersburg, Lord Augustus
Loftus at Berlin, Colonel Stanton and Mr. White at
Warsaw, all understood the Polish insurrection of 1863.
But Lord Russell did not seem to understand it in the
least; and, having a fixed part to play in Parliament,
could scarcely have wished to understand it. As a
rule, the Liberals supported it, while the Conservatives
deplored it.
During the period of the Bulgarian Massacres, Liberals
might have been met with in England who denied that
they had been provoked, and Conservatives who declared
that they never took place.
A true diplomatist, Sir William belonged to neither
of the two great political parties. He carried out his
instructions faithfully, vigorously, and with success, and
he sent home the fullest and fairest reports. He felt
much his permanent separation from England, and con-
stantly refers to it in his letters. What does the author
of Comingsby say on this subject P “A diplomatist is,
after all, an abstraction. There is a want of nationality
about his being. I always look upon diplomatists as
the Hebrews of politics, without country, political creed,
popular convictions, that strong reality of existence which
pervades the career of an eminent citizen in a free and
great country.”
To speak of his habits, so far as they were connected
with his work, Sir William was an early riser, and had
read all the papers and heard all the local news of the
previous night before other diplomatists were out of bed.
He also attended late receptions and balls; and, that he
might reach them wakeful and alert, would go to bed
at eight and get up at midnight. He was wonderfully
I6 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
punctual and never failed to keep an appointment.
One afternoon at Warsaw, when the Town Hall was
blazing and troops of all arms were drawn up in front
of the conflagration, which was looked upon as a final
revolutionary flare-up in view of massacres and a
European intervention, he was asked whether he intended
to keep a dinner engagement for which the hour was
approaching and which, under the circumstances, might
well have been put off. -
“Whatever happens,” he said, “the dinner will be ready
at seven o'clock, and it is best to be punctual.”
But the line—the circular hedge—of troops was too
thick, and but for the politeness of a Cossack colonel,
who recognised Mr. White, and told an orderly to pass
him through, he never could have got to his entertainment.
In Poland, when the popular manifestations which
culminated in the insurrection had once begun, Mr. White
found abundant employment for his inexhaustible activity.
Afterwards at Dantzic, where as Consul he had nothing
in the way of politics to occupy him, he was not only
allowed, but encouraged to give his attention to affairs
outside his own particular domain ; and, during his ten
years' residence in the city at the mouth of the Vistula,
the Foreign Office received from him reports not only
on German commerce, but also, and, above all, on such
subjects as religious movements in Austria and Slavonic
aspirations in Hungary. Panslavism in general, moreover,
was treated in one of these special reports, which never
found their way into blue books, and in all probability
were never seen except by the Foreign Secretary, the
political and permanent under-secretaries, and, in some
cases, the Prime Minister.
Throughout his career, until he had reached a point
beyond which it was impossible to rise, Sir William White
1865] VARIED DUTIES 17
was constantly being called upon to perform duties
superior to those of the post he officially held. It has
been seen that at Warsaw he had been Consular Clerk
for only four months when, on the sudden departure of
his chief, General Mansfield, for India, he became for
a time acting Consul-General. Seven years later, after
being named Consul at Dantzic, he was asked not to
take up his new appointment until he could be spared
from Warsaw, where he was once more performing the
duties of Consul-General. From Dantzic, moreover,
he was sent on a political mission to Hungary, which
with other lands in Eastern Europe formed the subject
of a private report to the Foreign Office.
He had not long held the post of Consul-General and
Diplomatic Agent at Belgrade when he was appointed
adlatus to Lord Salisbury at the Constantinople Con-
ference, where for the first time the interests and needs
of the Christian subjects of the Porte were seriously
considered.
The Conference of Constantinople marked an important
point in Sir William White's career, and soon after its
conclusion he was transferred from Belgrade to Bucharest,
where, while fulfilling what might well have been dis-
agreeable duties, he inspired both King and Queen with
the most friendly feelings; indeed, with genuine regard.
The independence of Roumania had already been recog-
nised both by victorious Russia and by vanquished
Turkey. Russia, it is true, stipulated for the execution
of one unacceptable condition, to which, sooner or later,
Roumania was sure from necessity to agree. But the
other Powers demanded, in addition to the cession of
territory which Russia insisted upon, that the Jewish
inhabitants of Roumanian birth, but unacquainted for
the most part with the Roumanian language, together
3
I8 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
with foreign Jews, and even Jewish wanderers on
Roumanian soil, should have granted to them equal
political rights with the ancient population of pure
Roumanian blood.
They required, moreover, before Roumanian Inde-
pendence could be recognised, that the Roumanians
should give way to Germany, or, rather, to Prince
Bismarck, in regard to what, in a very high quarter, was
correctly described as a “railway job.”
Sir Henry Elliot, writing from Vienna to Mr. White
at Bucharest, expressed his regret that the recognition
of Roumanian Independence should be made dependent
on so petty a matter, about which not one word was
said in the treaty of Berlin. Nor could Lord Salisbury
approve in the abstract of such a condition being
insisted upon. But he explained to Mr. White that
Prince Bismarck had given England such valuable
support at the Berlin Conference on points of the first
importance, that it was impossible not to do something
for him in return. He was sorry to place Mr. White
in an awkward position. But diplomacy was like chess :
a piece had now and then to be sacrificed; and the
piece on this occasion was the new Envoy.
The Jewish question was full of difficulties, and the
Roumanians were for the most part full of prejudices
in regard to them, though Sir William White pointed
out in more than one despatch that the political dis-
abilities weighing upon some three hundred thousand
Jews, of whom about three-quarters had nothing—not
even language—in common with the Roumanians, were
in practice equally felt (if felt they were) by all foreigners
in Roumania.
There was much persecution, however, going on
at the time. Turks persecuted Christians, Christians
1878] JEWISH QUESTION I9
persecuted Jews, while eminent Jews in foreign parts
persecuted Ministers of State, and through them the
Christian princes of the East. If, for example, the Prince
of Roumania travelled westward on a visit of pleasure,
the well-organised Alliance Israélite watched his progress
and requested the Foreign Minister of whatever country
he happened to be staying in to call his attention to the
fact that the Jews living beneath his rule did not possess
equal political rights with the rest of his subjects. Lord
Derby was once invited to worry Prince Charles of
Roumania—in England at the time—on a point of this
kind. But his Lordship made some excuse for not
troubling the Queen's guest about a matter which, apart
from other considerations, was quite beyond the Prince's
own personal control.
Besides holding out against the Roumanians on the
subject of the three hundred thousand Jews of all kinds
to whom they refused unconditional enfranchisement; of
the territory demanded by Russia, which they were deter-
mined not to cede, and of the Bismarck “railway job"
to which they persisted in objecting, Mr. White had
to get from the Roumanian Government a favourable
commercial treaty, and he had to do all this without
occupying any recognised diplomatic position.
The undefined character of Mr. White's status must,
in spite of his personal popularity, have been a source of
considerable annoyance to the Roumanian Government;
for when, in 1879, Bratiano made his circular visit to
the principal European capitals, in order to protest
against the forced cession of Bessarabia to Russia, one
of the first requests made by the Roumanian Minister to
the English Government was that they should appoint
to Bucharest an Envoy-Extraordinary and Minister Pleni-
potentiary. Mr. White (whom Bratiano had doubtless
2O GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
in view at the time) had already his credentials as
Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary locked up in his
desk. But some months had still to pass before he could
show them ; and when he presented them to King
Charles, he, at the same time on the part of England,
recognised his Majesty as Sovereign of Roumania.
After the recognition of Roumanian Independence,
and the signing of the commercial treaty (the two
things went together), one of the first important duties
required of the English Minister at Bucharest was a
very important one indeed. He had to take charge
temporarily of the Constantinople Embassy; and, Eastern
Roumelia having now been brought into union with
Bulgaria, he was instructed to support the national
aspirations and claims of the new State.
From the time of Mr. White's first appearance at
Constantinople as Ambassador ad interim, his chief
activity was shown in backing up Bulgaria against the
pressure brought to bear upon her for a time by Russia,
when the Bulgarians (like all Christian subjects of the
Porte in every similar case) showed themselves perfectly
well disposed towards the Power most ready to assist
them. Sir William White's attitude in connection with
Bulgaria was much approved by his brilliant and Sagacious
friend, Sir Robert Morier, except that Sir Robert wished
to see England befriending Bulgaria, not in opposition
to Russia, but in harmony and co-operation with her.
Surely, however, this depended a good deal on Russia's
own bearing towards the newly created State P
On one point the two friends were quite agreed—that
England ought to make herself (to use Morier's own
words) “the point d'appui " of the Christians in the
Balkan Peninsula.
Once in occupation of the Embassy Palace in the
1885] AT CONSTANTINOPLE 2 I
Turkish capital, it suited Sir William White so well that
he felt it to be his destiny—it was at all events his
determination—to make it his permanent home. Before
he was appointed definitely to the first of diplomatic
posts (a post where, for various reasons, the Ambassador
has much more liberty of action than at others of equal
rank), Buenos Ayres had been offered to him, and Rio
de Janeiro pressed upon him ; and we have seen that
he was almost entreated to go to Pekin. But he had set
his heart upon Constantinople, and there he ultimately
settled down.
From the days of the Conference, in 1876, to his own
provisional appointment, in 1885, the Constantinople
Embassy had been in the hands of Sir Henry Elliot,
Sir Henry Layard, Mr. Goschen, Sir Drummond Wolff,
Lord Dufferin, and Sir Edward Thornton—who, however,
was only a titular occupant ; six Ambassadors in nine
years At the time of his lamented death in December,
I891—a substantial loss to his country, a sorrowful one
to his friends—Sir William White had already performed
the duties of Ambassador for six years consecutively.
Throughout this period, he showed himself not only
a skilful diplomatist, but a powerful one; caring little
for petty personal triumphs, but generally managing in
important matters to get his own way. In asserting
himself, he seems at times to have been abrupt and
even violent. “We shall do nothing so long as that
bear remains at the English Embassy l’ exclaimed one
of his diplomatic rivals, not to say enemies. He once,
too, received from the Foreign Office a letter in which
the following passage occurs: “I know what good
work you are doing, by the bitter things that are said
against you.”
A strong, bearlike man would doubtless, in spite of
22 GENERAL VIEW [Ch. I
disadvantages of style, obtain more success in diplomacy
than a weak one with charming manners. But in Sir
William White the kindliest nature and abundant strength
were combined. He was of a most obliging disposition,
and though constantly occupied with important affairs,
was always ready to furnish an inquiring friend with
whatever information he might need, on subjects of which
Sir William possessed full and often exclusive knowledge.
He had wide sympathies, too, and always during the
eight years he passed at Warsaw, subscribed, Roman
Catholic as he was, towards the maintenance of the
English church; saying (so Sir Lintorn Simmons, Mr.
White's chief at the time, informs me) that “the English
ought to have their place of worship.”
Very successful in diplomacy, Sir William White was
skilful also in the difficult art of life. What prospect
had he of a career when he entered the Warsaw Con-
sulate at the age of thirty-three as clerk P. Ambitious,
however, and full of assiduity, he concentrated all his
energies on the best means of obtaining promotion along
the path on which he had set his heart. Suddenly called
upon to assume the duties of acting Consul-General,
when his official position was only that of clerk, he was
at once brought into direct relations with Lord Clarendon,
Foreign Secretary at the time. But he knew no other
political personage of the first importance until he was
introduced, after he had passed four years at Warsaw,
to Lord Lansdowne, who, at his request, gave him a letter
to Lord John Russell, with whom, two years later, the
Insurrection of 1863 placed him in constant communication.
The rules and traditions of the Foreign Office are
generally supposed to be of So rigid a character that any
attempt to break through them would only bring the
transgressor to confusion. Yet, such was the trust placed
1891] PROJECTS UNFULFILLED 23
in the wideness and accuracy of Sir William White's
information, that in whatever country he might be placed
—Poland, Prussia, Servia, Roumania—his chiefs seem
always to have assumed (and with reason) that he was
perfectly acquainted with the affairs of all neighbouring
and all kindred lands. Even when he had reached
Bucharest, where he had at least four very important
questions to occupy him in connection with the recognition
of Roumanian Independence, he was told on the highest
authority, that if he could only throw any light on “the
mysterious politics of the Austrian Court,” the Foreign
Office would be very much obliged to him.
On his retirement, Sir William White meant to devote
himself to literary work, with a view not to the Foreign
Office Archives, where so many of his reports lie buried,
but to publication.
One of his chosen subjects, which he certainly would
have handled in masterly fashion, was the Partition of
Poland ; and he had already begun to collect materials
for his memoirs. These, including much valuable corre-
spondence, have been kindly placed by Lady White at
the disposal of the present writer.
CHAPTER II
VICE-CONSU L WHITE AT WARSAW
URING the first three or four years that followed
Mr. White's appointment “order” did indeed
“reign at Warsaw "; and not by any means in the
peace-with-solitude sense in which the words were
employed on the too famous occasion when Marshal
Sebastiani uttered them in the French Chamber.
Russia had been much shaken, much weakened by the
war carried on against her by England, France, Turkey,
Sardinia, and—one might almost add—Austria; and
she was sincerely occupied with internal reforms of the
most important kind. She had disengaged herself from
all foreign questions—as Russia can so well afford to do
whenever she thinks fit. The defeat of Austria in 1859,
by France and Sardinia, did not seem in any way to affect
her ; though it certainly caused her no grief. Her army
was being gradually allowed to decrease; a matter of
no political importance, for there was no quarter from
which she had the slightest reason to fear attack. Since
the Crimean War she had given up recruitment in Poland,
as in the Russian Empire generally; and without thinking
it worth while to notify foreign Powers on the subject,
had practically disarmed.
It had been determined to emancipate the serfs, to
reform the administration, and to introduce into civil
and criminal proceedings publicity, oral evidence, the

24
1855–61] POLAND UNDER ALEXANDER II. 25
jury system and the employment of counsel; all of
which was faithfully done.
The censorship, too, over newspapers, without being
abolished or seriously modified by law, was being exercised
in the most moderate manner and, in Some cases, scarcely
exercised at all.
In the kingdom of Poland, under the mild rule of
Prince Gortchakoff (Prince Michael of Crimean fame),
things went smoothly enough. The only reform intro-
duced was the substitution of the French system of
conscription by ballot for the arbitrary system of pro-
scription by designation, previously in force. This,
however, was an important change, and Prince Gortchakoff's
general attitude showed him to be animated by the new
Emperor's benevolent intentions. The laisser aller of
the new reign was quite as noticeable in Poland as in
Russia proper. The Russian garrison in Warsaw had
become very small. The Polish language was spoken
everywhere, including the public offices, where by law
Russian should have been used. Though not politically
free, the Poles led free lives. They were in no way
harassed.
By an act of amnesty, published just after the Coronation,
numbers of Poles had been recalled from Siberia ; who,
on their return, failed to show any good will towards
the Government which had sent them out. It was really,
however, the Emperor Nicholas who had exiled them ;
Alexander II. had only brought them back.
During the first half-dozen years of Alexander II.'s
beneficent reign, no one, either in Poland or in Russia, was
punished or even brought to trial for any political offence.
It was under these peaceful conditions that Mr. White
began his duties at the Warsaw Consulate; where no
record seems to have been preserved of any act or deed
4
26 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
On his part, until on a certain Saturday a Russian
diplomatist, M. Sabouroff, finding that Mr. White was
going to England, asked him to take charge of a letter
to Baron Brunnow.
The letter having been duly delivered at the Russian
Embassy in the Ambassador's absence, Baron Brunnow
addressed to Mr. White, from Brighton, a gracious reply.
M. Sabouroff's letter was dated “Samedi” only. The
inscription at the head of the Baron's epistle is a little
more explicit, and it appears from the postmark on
the envelope that it was sent out for delivery in the
year 1862. Here is the document; one of the first com-
munications received by Mr. White from a diplomatist
of the highest rank:
“BRIGHTON, Vendred; Matin,
“5, MARINE TERRACE.
“CHER MONSIEUR WHITE,
“Vous étes bien aimable de me proposer de venir
me voir à Brighton.
“Si cela ne vous dérangeait pas trop, nous serions
charmés, ma femme et moi, d'avoir le plaisir de vous voir
chez nous à l'heure de notre luncheon (deux heures),
tel jour qu'il vous serait agréable de choisir.
“Ayez la bonté, seulement, de me faire savoir le jour
qui pourrait vous convenir le mieux.
“Si Dimanche pouvait vous étre agréable nous vous
attendrons avec un égal plaisir ce jour-lä comme un
autre.
“Recevez, cher Monsieur White, l'assurance renouvelée
de mes sentiments les plus distingués.
“BRUNNOW.”
Neither M. Sabouroff nor Baron Brunnow could have
had any idea that the Vice-Consul at Warsaw (Mr. White
had now been promoted to that dignity) would some
day be made the subject of a big biography in which
their letters to him would be introduced ; or they would ,
perhaps, have been more careful in dating them.
1881] MAKING FRIENDS 27
The same may be said of Lord Lansdowne, Lord
Malmesbury, and other eminent correspondents of this
period, some of whom in writing to Mr. White give only
the day of the month, others only the day of the week.
In these cases the date may sometimes be ascertained
through the postmark on the envelope, sometimes by
the date of a letter of reply.
On a certain “Friday ” the Marquis of Lansdowne
writes as follows:
“Lord Lansdowne has the pleasure of enclosing to
Mr. White a note of introduction for Lord J. Russell
agreeably to his desire.” :
Mr. White seems to have sent on the letter of intro-
duction to Lord John Russell with a note from himself;
and after a time came the following by way of reply:
“Lady John Russell presents her compliments to Mr.
White, and begs to say that Lord John Russell and she
will have much pleasure in seeing him any Sunday after-
noon. She begs to apologise for the delay in answering
his note, which she had unfortunately lost.
“PEMBROKE LODGE, RICHMOND,
“July 13th, 1861.”
In 1863 Mr. White received a letter of introduction
to Lord Malmesbury, forwarded it, and obtained the
following reply:
“Lord Malmesbury presents his compliments to Mr.
White, and will have the pleasure of seeing him at I 1.30
on Friday or Saturday as may best suit his convenience.
“ 19, STRATFORD PLACE,
“September 15th (1863).”
In the contents of the preceding letters there is certainly
nothing remarkable. But they at least show that when
only Vice-Consul, or even Consular Clerk, Mr. White had a
28 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
view to much higher things, and made a point of cultivat-
ing influential acquaintances. He was already on friendly
terms with the Russian Ambassador to the English Court,
and with two English noblemen, one of whom had been
Foreign Secretary, while the other actually held that
post. Of the two Foreign Secretaries, past and present,
one was a Conservative, the other a Whig ; and Mr.
White went down to Brighton to lunch with the Russian
Ambassador just when the Poles were preparing to rise
against the power of the Tsar.
Never at any period of his career did Mr. White allow
himself to be affected by the “surtout pas de gèle" maxim ;
excellent from a chief addressing a subordinate whom
he does not wish to be too officious, but ridiculous if
adopted as a principle of action by the subordinate himself
or by an aspirant for success at any stage of his promotion.
Mr. White had become known to the Earl of Clarendon,
on being attached to the Warsaw Consulate in 1857, and
he made Lord Clarendon's personal acquaintance in 1860,
when he received several letters from him, including one
on the subject of Cracow, concerning which there had
been Some intention of asking questions in Parliament.
“No questions are now likely to be asked about Cracow
in the House of Lords,” wrote Lord Clarendon, March 25,
1860. “Otherwise, I would apply to you.”
Cracow, it need scarcely be said, has been for more
than fifty years under Austrian government.
From the beginning of the Polish patriotic manifesta-
tions of 1861, Mr. White was brought into constant
official communication with Lord John Russell at the
Foreign Office, with Lord Napier at St. Petersburg,
and Lord Augustus Loftus at Berlin.
Lord Napier took the greatest interest in the im-
1861] MUSKETRY FIRE AND REFORMS 29
portant measures of reform introduced by the Emperor
Alexander II., both in Russia and in the kingdom of
Poland. He studied them, appreciated them, and wished
them all possible success. He was at the same time
grieved to hear of the violence with which certain patriotic
manifestations at Warsaw, first tolerated, afterwards for-
bidden, were ultimately suppressed. Projects of reform
one day; bullets and bayonets the day afterwards. What
more natural than that people in the mass should have
been more impressed by the lead and steel than by the
paper documents?
Lord Napier, however, had confidence in the good
intentions of the Russian Government; and this confidence
was fully shared by Lord Augustus Loftus, who, on
May 12, 1861, wrote to Mr. White from Berlin the
following letter:
“The Government here are watching with much interest
the events in Poland, but they show no token of alarm
for their Polish population and have taken no military
precautions, trusting fully in the forces they now have
there and more especially in the loyalty and force of their
German population. I have read with great interest
your several despatches on the events passing at Warsaw.
The language of the Russian Minister here [Baron
Budberg] is very moderate and conciliatory, and leads
me to suppose that the Government are desirous, by
making large concessions, to win over to their side the
Moderate Party. The ‘Provisorium,’ which the state
of things may well be termed, existing since 1831, has
lasted already too long ; and there appears to be a real
desire on the part of the Russian Government to introduce
a more liberal system. In my opinion, Poland can only
obtain her rights and privileges by means of Russia and
not in opposition to her.
“Believe to remain, dear sir,
“Yours very truly,
“AUGUSTUS LOFTUS.”
3o VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
The view expressed by Lord Augustus Loftus in the
concluding sentence of his letter looks, in the present
day, very like a platitude. But the general, the almost
universal belief at that time was that just government
for Poland could only be obtained through the action
of the representatives of the various European States
bound together in a menacing league.
A second letter from Lord Augustus Loftus, written at
Berlin, when he had just returned from a visit to Vienna,
shows what impression had been made upon him a year
later by the appointment of the Grand-Duke Constantine
to the Vice-Royalty of Poland :
“BERLIN, June 8th, 1862.
“DEAR SIR,
“I learn that the Grand-Duke Constantine's
appointment is received at Vienna with some doubt
and apprehension as he is considered to be imbued with
Panslavist tendencies, which in the course of time
might prove attractive to Poles beyond the present
Polish limits.
“For my part, I regard this appointment as an event
of considerable importance, and likely to lead to the
formation of an independent Polish kingdom under the
Grand-Duke Constantine. Such a plan would not be
wholly distasteful to the Muscovite Russian Party, who
would be glad to be rid of the embarrassment of Poland,
provided that Russia could succeed in indemnifying herself
in the East.”
It has been seen that Mr. White was first appointed
to the Warsaw Consulate on the recommendation of
General Mansfield, who, on his departure, in 1857, for
India was replaced by Colonel Simmons, R.E. (now
Field-Marshal Sir John Lintorn Simmons); who obtained
for Mr. White the appointment of Vice-Consul with a
salary of £2OO a year.
Colonel Simmons was followed at Warsaw by Colonel
1861] CONSCRIPTION AND PROSCRIPTION 31
(afterwards Sir Edward) Stanton, R.E.; and until the
year 1861 (Consule Stanton) Poland passed through a
period of profound peace. She was no more independent,
nor, in a legal sense, self-governing than under the
reign of Nicholas. But she was ruled with humanity.
She was scarcely, indeed, ruled at all.
Under the Emperor Nicholas, Poland had been so
severely crushed that when Russia found herself at
war with England, France, Turkey, and Sardinia, the
Poles did not venture to raise a finger. Half a dozen
years afterwards, beneath the mildest rule, they took up
arms against a generous, kind-hearted sovereign, whose
benevolence had been mistaken for weakness. Under
Nicholas the secret police was always at work, and the
army was recruited by a system not of conscription, but
of simple proscription. Just as on Russian estates the
proprietors were expected to furnish a list of available
recruits, whom they selected at will, so throughout Poland
recruitment was effected on the reports and through the
agency of the political police.
From the creation, by the Vienna Congress, of the new
kingdom in 1815 up to the rebellion of 1830, Poland
possessed her own national army, which after the Sup-
pression of the insurrection was naturally abolished. Then
came the odious system of forced recruitment under which
young men of rebellious tendencies, of patriotic feeling,
or even of high aspirations were marked down on a black
list as dangerous characters, and at the proper moment
incorporated in the Russian Army.
It has been already mentioned that the old Nicholas
system of recruitment was, soon after the accession of
Alexander II., formally done away with ; though there
was as yet no occasion for the new law, borrowed from
France, to be put in force. All recruitment had stopped;
32 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
and the Warsaw garrison, so formidable under the pre-
vious reign, had been allowed to dwindle down to only
a few thousand men. Russia was suffering from a bad
headache; the natural consequence of the ruinous war
from which she had just emerged. She had ceased to
be aggressive, whether towards her neighbours or towards
her own subjects.
Poles, like Russians, were still liable to arbitrary arrest
followed by unexplained imprisonment and exile without
specified cause. But in the Polish jails there were, as
a matter of fact, no political prisoners.
As for reforms in Poland, was not the new attitude of
the Government towards its subjects in itself a reform P
Some reforms, however, of a positive kind were being
undertaken by the Poles themselves, without, for a time,
being discountenanced by the Russian Government.
Soon after the accession of the Emperor Alexander II.,
and with his express sanction, the Agricultural Society
of the Kingdom of Poland had been formed under the
Presidency of Count Andrew Zamoyski. The Association
was composed of landed proprietors to the number of
Some four thousand ; and its meetings were attended
by delegates from the agricultural societies of Posen,
Cracow, and Lemberg; the chief cities, that is to say,
of Austrian and Prussian Poland.
The work which, above all, occupied the attention of
the Society was a project for relieving the peasantry,
still in a state of mitigated serfdom, from taskwork, and
making over to them the portions of land which they
had hitherto cultivated in return for labour required
from them on his own particular land by the manorial
proprietor.
After discussing the project for some considerable time,
the Society ended by adopting it, voting the measure
1861] THE MARQUIS WIELOPOLSKI 33
just as though the Agricultural Association had been a
legislative assembly. Disturbances, meanwhile, suppressed
with violence and bloodshed by the troops, broke out in
the streets of Warsaw on the very day that the Agri-
cultural Society performed its quasi-political act. It had
been made to play a part in certain manifestations, which,
regarded at first as harmless, had at last assumed a
threatening if not a dangerous character; and under these
circumstances the Association was dissolved. The chief
reason, however, for dissolving it, was that it had assumed
political functions.
The dissolution of the Agricultural Society was soon
to be followed by important reforms, the work of a Polish
magnate, the Marquis Wielopolski, who had obtained for
them the sanction of the Emperor.
Unfortunately the Marquis Wielopolski, the author of
the new reforms, was the most unpopular man in Poland.
Generally mistrusted by reason of his well-known desire
to raise up his native land through the action of Russia
—which implied obedience and loyalty as conditions
precedent—he was disliked by his equals and associates
on account of his haughty and overbearing disposition.
Lord Napier, in one of his despatches on the subject
of the Wielopolski reforms, speaks with personal knowledge
and regret of the Marquis's “inability to brook con-
tradiction.”
The following letters from Lord Napier to Mr. White
show the views taken of Polish affairs at St. Petersburg
shortly before the insurrection :
“ST. PETERSBURG,
“July 2nd, 1862.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I thank you very much for your last etter and
despatches. You say very truly that the aspect of affairs
at Warsaw at the moment of which you write was more
5
34 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
encouraging than that of St. Petersburg. But your
prospects are dimmed immediately afterwards by the
attempt upon General Lüders. I know that the day
before the news reached the Emperor of that incident
very encouraging impressions had been sent up of the
state of public feeling in Poland, and the Government
were congratulating themselves on the success of Marquis
Wielopolski's first proceedings, when the intelligence of
the attempted assassination arrived. The Emperor at
once decided that the Grand-Duke should go down, and
the Grand-Duke came at the same moment spontaneously
to the same conclusion.
“The Grand-Duchess would not be left behind, though
she was so far advanced towards her confinement. You
have, therefore, a prompt and conciliatory policy in return
for the very act which was designed to frustrate it. A
strong Government generally profits by the excesses of
its adversaries, and I believe the Russian Government
will derive advantage ultimately both from the incendiary
fires and the abortive assassination.”
“St. PETERSBURG,
“October 22nd, 1862.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“No one could hail with more satisfaction than I
the symptoms of improvement in Poland which your last
despatches indicate. I do hope that these good impres-
Sions will be confirmed. No one who views these matters
with a dispassionate eye can doubt the good intentions
of the Emperor towards Poland, to the extent of establish-
ing in that country a liberal, enlightened administration,
with Some elements of a national character. On this basis
the representative system must be raised at a later period.
National independence is out of the question. At least,
it is not worth while seriously speculating upon a con-
tingency so remote and chimerical.
“Believe me,
“Yours very truly,
“NAPIER.
“P.S.—You have of course seen what may truly be
called the greatest measure of law-reform which the world
ever saw : the introduction of the Judicial Institutions
of France into Russia. The code itself will, I presume,
Soon follow.”
1862] THE IMPERIAL FAMILY 35
“ST. PETERSBURG,
“ December 28th, 1862.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I thank you very sincerely for your interesting
letter, which renews my hopes which I have never
abandoned of a better future for Poland under the
Emperor and Wielopolski. The Grand-Duke has a
glorious mission; and one less difficult, but also arduous
and honourable, has just been delegated to his brother, the
Grand-Duke Michael. It is a very fine thing to see the
Princes of the Imperial family becoming the instruments
of an enlightened and conciliatory policy in the disordered
and neglected provinces of the Empire. In the Caucasus
the whole civil administration has to be recast in conformity
with the principles now in vogue. The Grand-Duke will
go with a kindly and ingenuous mind, susceptible of just
impressions. His character will probably gain firmness
when he has filled for some time an independent and
responsible position.
“I am very grateful to Marquis Wielopolski for his
amiable recollections and for the message which he
confided to you. I beg you will present or forward this
letter to him.
“Believe me,
“Yours faithfully,
“NAPIER.
“To W. A. WHITE, ESQ.”
The arrival of the Grand-Duke Constantine at Warsaw,
accompanied by the Marquis Wielopolski, did not have
the effect that might reasonably have been anticipated.
More than once the Russian troops had fired upon the
people—assembling in crowds and refusing to disperse;
and it was asked whether the Emperor thought he could
atone for such injuries by sending his brother to Poland
as Viceroy. What the arrival of the Grand-Duke and
Wielopolski really meant was that, even if the extreme
revolutionary party persisted in committing outrages
the Government would, all the same, persist in introducing
the promised reforms.
36 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
Until this time the conduct of the Russians in Warsaw
had been marked by good intentions, evil actions, and
much indecision. The system of recruitment by designa-
tion had been replaced by conscription through ballot, as
in France–legally, that is to say; for, as a matter of fact,
there had been no recruitment since the Crimean War.
A Polish Council of State, together with elective district
and municipal councils, had been formed ; and a circular
was despatched to the various foreign governments
announcing the introduction of these reforms. They were
represented, however, by the Poles abroad as absolutely
without value ; and neither in England nor in France did
the general public pay any attention to them. News,
on the other hand, was constantly arriving of excesses
committed by the Russian soldiery in dispersing crowds,
or in ejecting from churches congregations who had
assembled ostensibly for religious observances, in reality
for patriotic manifestations.
The whole population of Warsaw, men and women,
had gone into mourning ; and the news of this unanimous
protest against an intolerable state of things quite over-
shadowed such good effects as might have been produced
abroad by the knowledge that the Marquis and the Grand-
Duke were persisting, notwithstanding the most violent
opposition, in introducing their remedial measures.
General Prince Gortchakoff had begun by giving up
Warsaw to the care of the Poles and allowing their
patriotic manifestations to take place without being
watched either by troops or by police, other than their
own special constables. He ended by ordering volley
after volley to be fired on an unresisting, unarmed crowd.
A few months later he died, after giving orders that he -
should be buried not at Warsaw, but at Sebastopol, where
he had greatly distinguished himself during the siege,
1862] VICAR-GENERAL SENTENCED 37
The Russians charged him with having fostered the
insurrection by his mildness; while the Poles accused
him of having provoked it by his severity.
He was succeeded by three other military governors,
the last of whom was that General Lüders who was shot
at and badly wounded just before the arrival of the
Grand-Duke Constantine. -
It having been proposed that religious services should
be performed everywhere in memory of Kosciuszko,
the Government absolutely forbade them. The formal
veto remained, however, without effect. Soon after the
beginning of mass, one of the principal churches was
surrounded by troops. Eighteen hours later, during
which time a strict siege had been maintained, the soldiers,
at four in the morning, entered the church and made
several thousand arrests.
“The deeds of profanation committed yesterday,”
wrote the Vicar-General of the diocese in a letter to
the Chief of the Government, “ have filled the inhabitants
of the entire country with indignation and horror. Acts
such as these are beyond the reach of language and carry
us back to the times of Attila.”
To mark its sense of the outrage committed, the Con-
sistory ordered every church in Warsaw to be closed.
The Vicar-General, tried by court-martial, was sentenced
to death, though the punishment awarded by the military
tribunal was at once replaced by exile to Siberia.
To illustrate the anarchical character of the tyranny
that was now being practised in Poland it must be
mentioned that the siege of the churches, ordered by
General Gerstenschweig, the military governor, was
violently condemned by Count Lambert, the civil governor,
who was a Catholic; and, at the end of a furious
altercation, General Gerstenschweig blew his brains
38 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II.
out, while Count Lambert quitted Warsaw and even
Europe.
One of the first acts of Constantine was to annul the
Vicar-General's sentence of exile; and one of the first
acts of the sworn revolutionists was to fire at and wound
the Grand-Duke whom they mistrusted, et doma ferentim.
Undeterred by the attack made upon him, the new
Viceroy went on with his reforms. Administrative
autonomy of the most complete kind had been formally
introduced, and every Russian functionary was now with-
drawn from the Civil Service to be replaced by a Pole.
The Russians regarded this measure as an act of
treachery on the part of Wielopolski, who wished, they
said, to prepare the way for a great national uprising ;
while the Grand-Duke Constantine in consenting to it
was accused of sacrificing to his own personal ambition
the interests of Russia.
The Russians overrated the significance of the Wielo-
polski reforms almost as much as the Poles under-
valued them. But they saw that if the measures were
favourably accepted, Poland would be separated from
Russia by her Government without being united to
her by any feeling of common interest. They also
perceived that the kingdom of Poland, with its Polish
university and gymnasiums, its Polish Council of State,
and its district and municipal councils would become a
centre of attraction to the Poles of the old Polish provinces
incorporated with the Russian Empire.
The Prussians believed that Poland and the Wielopolski
system would exercise too much influence on Posen ; and
the Russian Government was advised from Berlin not
to make concessions to its discontented Polish subjects,
but to assume towards them an attitude of decision and
restore order by military means.
1862] NAPOLEON THE LIBERATOR 39
An Austrian general of considerable political acumen said
to an English friend, when it had already become evident
that the Poles would not accept the Wielopolski system :
“They think they understand their own interests,
but we also believe that we know ours ; and when we
found that Wielopolski's scheme was rejected we could
not contain ourselves for joy. If the system devised by
the Marquis had been adopted by his countrymen, Warsaw
and the Polish ‘kingdom' would have become so intensely
Polish, and would have exercised such an irresistible
attraction on all the other portions of ancient Poland,
that in six months we should have lost Galicia.”
There was one idea by which numbers of Poles were
haunted, that could not possibly be brought forward in
public discussion ; an idea which had been present to
many imaginative minds ever since the liberation of Italy
by Napoleon III. Would they not, if they rose against
Russia, be helped by the great liberator of suffering
nationalities P Italy had never asked Austria for reforms;
the only reform she cared for being the withdrawal of
Austrian troops from Lombardy and Venetia. In due
time, however, Napoleon III. had driven the Austrian
garrison out of Lombardy, as in proper season at the fit
opportunity he would surely expel the Russian garrison
from Poland.
To accept Wielopolski's system and trust to Russia
for further reforms would be to abandon all hope of a
French intervention, of which some encouraging signs
had already shown themselves. Sympathetic articles and
pamphlets had been published very numerously at Paris;
and Poles of high position were known to have had
conversations on the subject with the Emperor Napoleon,
who was quite prepared, he said, to take up the cause
of Poland “as soon as he had settled the Mexican
question.”
4o VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
Among Sir William White's papers, I find a translation
of a proclamation issued by the revolutionary government
of Poland, the so-called “National Junta,” just after the
conscription had been carried out. It begins with a call
to arms, and ends by a decree of Outlawry against
Wielopolski and “all the criminal band who have taken
part in the recruitment.” “It is permitted,” concludes
the proclamation, “to every one to judge and to execute
them without incurring any sort of responsibility, either
before God or the country.”
As a general statement of the case, nothing could have
been fairer than Lord Napier's despatch on the subject
of the forced and arbitrary recruitment—which also Sir
William White had preserved. He described it as “a
design to make a clean sweep of the revolutionary youth
of Poland, to shut up the most dangerous spirits in the
restraints of the Russian Army, to kidnap the opposition,
and carry it off to Siberia or the Caucasus. This
proposal, SO totally out of keeping with the humane and
intelligent order of things recently inaugurated in Poland,”
continued Lord Napier, “has created great surprise among
many persons well affected towards the Russian Govern-
ment; for it was apprehended, that even if the Government
should succeed in disposing of a number of dangerous
antagonists, yet the moral obloquy attending this act
would greatly outweigh the material advantage to be
gained. It seemed to my humble judgment to be the
single considerable error committed in Poland since the
nomination of Marquis Wielopolski.”
The Russians, knowing that Mr. White spoke Polish
perfectly, and that he had numbers of Polish friends,
suspected him of undue sympathy for the Poles. But
Colonel Stanton and Mr. White never allowed themselves
to be blinded by Polish predilections, and some of their
1863] LORD RUSSELL'S REMEDIES 4. I
published reports on the subject of the Polish disturbances
were looked upon by important newspapers in England
as far too Russian. Thus Colonel Stanton (with whom
Mr. White was absolutely at one) was specially con-
demned by the Saturday Review as “one of those military
officials in whose eyes the only thing important is the
preservation of order.”
Most of the consular despatches were addressed to
Lord Napier at St. Petersburg, and Lord Napier's letters
in reply show how well he was satisfied with them. Some
of them, however, were sent direct to Lord Russell ; who,
after the outbreak of 1863, when the time seemed to have
come for organising against Russia a diplomatic demon-
stration on the part of all Europe, called Mr. White to
London in order that he might be at hand should the
Foreign Minister need by chance his assistance and
advice. The noble earl, however, showed himself quite
equal to the occasion. In his younger days he was
equally ready, according to a great humourist, to take the
command of the Channel Fleet, or perform the operation
for stone ; and in 1863 it was mere child's play for him
to draw up a list of concessions which the Russian
Government had only to publish in order at once to
pacify Poland.
He may have taken counsel from some of the leading
members of the Polish emigration in London, but he
never thought of consulting Mr. White; than whom no
one was better acquainted with the exact nature of the
concessions already made to the Poles and the concessions
which, under favourable conditions, might yet be granted
to them.
An intense believer in constitutional government
wherever and however applied, it at once occurred to Lord
Russell when the insurrection of 1863 broke out, that it
6
42 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
must be due to the withdrawal of the constitution of
1815, thirty-three years previously—the same harmless,
necessary constitution that Napoleon had granted in 1807
to the Grand-Duchy of Warsaw.
In this view he was doubtless encouraged by a very
distinguished Pole, who some months afterwards prevailed
upon him to make the unfortunate declaration—so soon
to be withdrawn—that by refusing to restore the famous
constitution of 1815 Russia had forfeited her rights over
the Polish kingdom.
Already on March 2, some five weeks after the
outbreak of the insurrection, Lord Russell had sent a
despatch to St. Petersburg reminding the Russian Govern-
ment, through Lord Napier, that the stipulations of the
treaty of Vienna in respect to Poland had long ceased
to be observed, and advising as the best means of pacifying
the country the formation of a National Diet and the
introduction of a National Administration.
A few days afterwards his Lordship addressed a
circular to the English representatives abroad, enclosing
a copy of his despatch, and directing them to recommend
“a communication of similar views by the representative
at St. Petersburg of the Powers who were parties to
the treaty of June, 1815.”
A National Administration the Poles, thanks to
Wielopolski, already possessed in the completest possible
form ; an administration in which every official was
a Pole and consequently not one a Russian.
A Diet they did not possess. But to demand its
establishment and to attempt to procure similar demands
from the representatives of all foreign Powers who were
parties to the treaty of 1815 was to let the Poles under-
stand that they had formidable backers in Europe,
and that the insurrection, powerless in itself, had now
1863] AN INTERCHANGE OF IDEAS 43
something to rest upon. The Russian Government would
not be likely to accede to the demands pressed upon it
by foreign Powers; and the Poles reflected with natural
delight that what Prince Gortchakoff called “an inter-
change of ideas” 'might possibly in the end lead to an
interchange of bullets.
In the autumn of 1862 Mr. White made the acquaintance
of Messrs. Walker and Whicher, two English police
officials, the precise object of whose visit will be best
understood from the following letter which Baron
Brunnow, Russian Ambassador in London, addressed
in September, 1862, to the Home Secretary, Sir George
Grey.
“The Grand-Duke Constantine during his former stay
in this country was particularly impressed by the beneficial
influence which your police regulations exercise for the
maintenance of good order, legality, and public security.
His Imperial Highness is desirous of establishing a similar
institution in the kingdom of Poland, whose welfare is
now intrusted to his care by H.M. the Emperor. The
Grand-Duke is the more anxious to introduce a useful
reform into this branch of the public service, as
such a reform may enable him to put an end as soon
as possible to the now existing martial law, and to
replace the country under the rule of the regular civil
administrators.”
After spending a few weeks in Warsaw, Messrs. Walker
and Whicher wrote to their chief, Sir Richard Mayne,
as follows:
“Everything seems very quiet, and no further attempts
at assassination have been made, although it is feared
that similar acts will be repeated ; but every precaution
is taken to prevent them. Indeed, the Government seems
in a constant state of apprehension.”
They added that their mission was kept secret except
44 VICE-CONSUL WHITE AT WARSAW [Ch. II
from three officials with whom they had been working,
“lest its character should be misunderstood and their
personal safety endangered.”
Mr. White received visits also from several of his
old Cambridge friends, Lord Stratheden and Campbell,
Mr. W. H. Clark (Public Orator), and Dr. Birkbeck,
Downing Professor of Law ; also from Mr. Edward Dicey
and Mr. W. H. Hall, who afterwards published a very
interesting account of what he had seen in insurgent
Poland entitled Polish Eageriences.
Mr. Laurence Oliphant, too, appeared upon the scene,
commissioned to travel through various parts of Poland
in order to report to the Prime Minister what chance,
if any, the insurrection had of success, and how long
it was likely to last.
Besides going to Warsaw (whence he made a visit to
a camp of insurgents in a not-far-distant wood), he
stayed a short time at Cracow, and passed through
Galicia to Volhynia and the Ruthenian provinces; parts
of ancient Poland with which the Consulate-General
at Warsaw was not called upon to occupy itself, and
about which, as a matter of fact, it received little or
no information.
Laurence Oliphant's report to Lord Palmerston could
only have been to the effect that the insurrection un-
supported from abroad must soon die out.
It lasted a considerable time. But it was supported
from abroad—supported with false hopes.
CHAPTER III
COLLAPSE OF INSURRECTION
ORD RUSSELL entertained the highest opinion of
Mr. White's abilities, which did not prevent him
from cherishing a far higher one of his own. He had
already been acquainted with Mr. White for more than
two years when, in 1863, he summoned him from Warsaw
to London that he might be at hand should any information
be required in regard to the demands in favour of Poland
which the English Government was on the point of
addressing to St. Petersburg. It has already, however,
been said that Mr. White was not once consulted by
Lord Russell, who preferred to take for his advisers the
leading Poles of the emigration; men who had been
separated from Poland for upwards of thirty years
“They are like the exiles described by Macaulay in
his history,” said Sir William White, speaking one day
on this very subject. “They think nothing has changed
in their country since they left it.”
It was much to be regretted ; for not only did Lord
Russell bring ridicule on himself, his Government, and his
country, by asking for concessions which the Russians
had already spontaneously made, but he gave them the
right to believe that in his demands he was not even
sincere—an injustice of which no one with any knowledge
of Lord Russell's character would be guilty.
It was hard to believe that with all the European States,
45
46 COLLAPSE OF INSURRECTION [Ch. III
save Prussia, leagued together in favour of Poland, nothing
would come of their representations except additional
misfortunes for the Poles and a notable increase in the
numbers of the Russian Army. There were many Poles
who believed in the general efficacy of the diplomatic
intervention, and a few who imagined, as all hoped, that
it might lead to war; while there were scarcely any who,
from beginning to end, felt sure, as they ought to have
done, that in the first place England would do nothing,
and, as a natural consequence, that France also would
refrain from action.
One such, however, was Count Alfred Potogki, after-
wards Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Austrian Cabinet.
He had, at the beginning of his diplomatic career, been
attached to the Austrian Embassy in London, where he
made the acquaintance of Mr. Charles Greville, author
of the famous Memoirs. Mr. Greville corresponded with
him on all important political events ; and in a letter
on Polish affairs, which Count Alfred Potogki showed me,
he set forth that the London manifestations in favour
of Poland would lead to nothing. -
“Meetings,” he wrote, “will be held, speeches will be
made in Parliament, representations will be addressed
to the Russian Government ; but the excitement will
gradually cool down, and all will end in smoke.”
“Mr. Greville,” said Count Potogki, “judges so correctly,
that I always adopt his views; and this time, as on
other occasions, I am sure that he is right.”
When the fury of the first outbreak had subsided, the
progress of the insurrection was regulated more or less
perfectly on that of the diplomatic intervention, and
the failure of the latter meant the collapse of the former.
Prince Gortchakoff had told Lord Russell that his
1863] THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON'S CIRCULAR 47
propositions, as a whole, were unacceptable ; and when
Lord Russell had informed the Emperor of the French,
through M. Drouyn de Lhuys, that his Majesty's pro-
posal to hold a Conference could not be acceded to by
the English Government, then all occasion for forming
insurgent bands in Galicia, in order to attack the Russians
in Poland, had come to an end.
Lord Russell's last performance in connection with
the deplorable diplomatic comedy in which he had played
an undignified part bordered closely on the tragic. He
had wisely refused the Emperor Napoleon's invitation to
join his Conference, which was to have deliberated on
the most pressing affairs of the moment, with the Polish
question before all others. But he went very near war
on his own account when, partly of his own accord,
partly at the instigation of a distinguished Polish friend,
he declared that, by reason of Russia's refusal to restore
the Polish constitution of I815, as guaranteed—at Russia's
request—by the leading Powers of Europe, her title to
rule in Poland could no longer be recognised, and had,
in fact, come to an end.
Informed by telegraph from St. Petersburg that the
despatch, if presented, might lead to serious conse-
quences, his Lordship recalled it, and afterwards struck
out all the passages in it which referred to the Emperor
of Russia's title as King of Poland.
“In the new despatch it is difficult,” said Mr. Pope
Hennessy in the House of Commons, “to know what has
been cut out, but it is “easy to see the scar.”
What had really happened was this.
After making a touching little speech at Blairgowrie
(a place unknown at that time to fame) on the text of an
inscription, “Rest and be thankful,” which he had read
on some seat provided for the tired wayfarer, Lord
48 COLLAPSE OF INSURRECTION [Ch. III
Russell pointed out that there was an end to reform, as
to everything else, and that when such reforms as those
which had so greatly interested him in the course of a
long career had once been obtained, the only thing to
do was to “rest and be thankful.” He felt it impossible,
however, to extend this feeling of composure towards a
certain Power which had failed alike in its engagements
towards Europe and in its duty towards its own subjects;
and all that, in this condition of things, could be said to
Russia was that her right to rule in Poland had ceased.
Lord Russell's speech caused infinite joy to the Poles;
for they were clever enough to see, that if the English
Minister stuck to his words, a breach with Russia could
be the only result. An intimate friend of Lord Russell's,
Count Ladislas Zamoyski, who with the best possible
feelings towards England was, as a matter of course, still
better disposed towards his own country, congratulated
Lord Russell heartily on the bold, decided character of
his Blairgowrie speech.
“I think, too,” added Count Ladislas, “that we shall
hear more of it. I am not a betting man, but I have
promised to give £ IOO to a charity if you do not within
a certain time embody the most important part of your
speech in a despatch.”
“Well, we shall see,” replied Lord Russell ; “and I
don't think,” he added with a smile, “that you will have
to pay the money.”
Lord Russell wrote his despatch, and sent it off, but
only to recall it on a hint to that effect from the
English Ambassador at St. Petersburg.
As soon as it was quite clear that all diplomatic
negotiations in favour of Poland, whether between the
European Powers and Russia, or between England and
France, or between England and Russia, as represented
1863] COUNT BERG'S FIRST BALL 49
by Lord Russell and by Prince Gortchakoff, had come
absolutely to a close, then it was evidently useless to
sacrifice any more lives, and the insurrection came to
an end.
The Russians saw, moreover, that the time had come
for stamping out resistance in every form. The theatres,
which throughout the insurrection and for some con-
siderable time preceding it, had remained closed, were
now opened by Superior authority. For nearly two years
every one had worn mourning. To wear mourning,
except for near relatives, was now made a punishable
offence; and equally so to wear any sort of headgear
except the top-hat, the “cylinder of civilisation,” as Count
Berg called it in his droll proclamation on the subject.
Count Berg, moreover, most cruel cut of all,—issued
cards for a series of balls, at which all the most im-
portant personages of the Polish aristocracy were expected
to attend. -
One afternoon, I met in company with Mr. White a
member of one of the most important families in Poland,
whose brother had been implicated in the insurrection. In
the course of conversation, he said that he was going that
evening to the first of Count Berg's receptions. Possibly
I looked a little astonished, for he at once added :
“It is better to put on a white cravat for half an hour
than to have our Lithuanian estates confiscated.”
Before taking leave of Poland I may say a few words
as to the composition and character of the Consular body
at Warsaw at the time when Mr. White belonged to
it as English Vice-Consul. The establishment of Con-
sulates in Poland was due to the Emperor Nicholas,
who, after the suppression of the rebellion of 1830,
showed in many ways, now advantageous, now injurious
to the Poles, that he still regarded the “Congress
- 7 -
5O COLLAPSE OF INSURRECTION [Ch. III
Kingdom * as a separate State under the Russian Crown.
He sent to Siberia thousands of Poles from the Polish
provinces incorporated with the Russian Empire, but
exiled no one from the kingdom ; which did not prevent
numbers of its inhabitants, mistrustful of the Imperial
mercy, from exiling themselves—chiefly to Paris and
to London. The refugees, however, were for the most
part Lithuanians.
The Emperor Nicholas recognised the validity of the
banknotes and bonds issued by the Insurrectionary
Government; but while ordering them to be paid on
presentation, charged the money to the Treasury of the
kingdom, regarded as a separate State.
In 1849 he intervened with an armed force in Austria,
convinced that the establishment of Hungarian indepen-
dence would be followed by an attempt on the part of
the Hungarians, with their Polish legion in the vanguard,
to conquer the independence of Poland. Under these
circumstances he charged the cost of the intervention
to the Poles in whose interest he claimed to have
undertaken it.
The French Consul-General in 1863 was M. de Val-
bézen, who had previously been Consul at Calcutta,
where he had formed favourable opinions of the English
and of their rule in India. After the suppression of
the insurrection in Poland he retired with the rank of
Ministre en Disponibilité ; eligible, that is to say, for a
Legation which he was never likely to receive.
The Austrian Consul-General was Baron Von Lederer,
who, after the insurrection, was appointed Minister at
Washington.
Colonel Stanton, R.E., the English Consul-General,
was promoted soon after the restoration of “Order” to
be Consul-General and Diplomatic Agent at Alexandria,
1863] POLISH PATRIOTISM IN POLAND 51
receiving at the same time the K.C.B. The English,
French, and Austrian Consuls were excellent friends;
and, partly perhaps because their Governments were
intervening on behalf of Poland, were well received and
much sought after in Polish society.
The Prussian Consul-General, representing a Power
which had said plainly from the first that it was opposed
to insurrection in Poland, which refused to join the
European intervention on behalf of the Poles, and which
justified its attitude by pointing out that the independence .
of the Polish kingdom would necessitate an addition to
the Prussian Army of a hundred thousand men; this
representative of a candid if cynical Government was
looked upon, through no fault of his own, with but little
favour. In private conversation he did the fullest
justice to the patriotism of the Poles, while professing
not to understand it.
“Faire du patriotisme sur le Boulevard des Italiens 2"
he once said to me. “Oui, je comprehends cela 1 Mais
ici 2 c'est de la folie /*
The only complaint Baron Von Lederer had to make
of the Poles was that they attached too much importance
to the assistance rendered by Sobieski to Austria in
1683. He kept always at hand a history of the defence
of Vienna against the Turks, ready on the slightest
provocation from a Polish visitor to show him what an
important part in the decisive battle had been taken by the
Duke of Lorraine and his numerous German regiments.
Two Prussian officers sent to Poland as military
commissioners were nowhere received as welcome guests
except of course at the foreign Consulates and especially
the English Consulate, where the chief was himself a
soldier. As for the Poles, they could not help feeling that
if by some marvellous chance the insurrection showed
52 COLLAPSE OF INSURRECTION [Ch. III
signs of success, a single word from the Prussian military
commissioners would cause their Government to take
action against it. One of these officers, Colonel (now
General) Verdy du Vernois (whom I afterwards met in
the Franco-German War, at the King's headquarters),
became one of Sir William White's most intimate friends,
especially after his promotion to the Consulate at Dantzic,
whence his duties called him often to Berlin.
Count Bismarck was Foreign Minister at the time ;
and he was well rewarded for his decided attitude in
favour of Russia when, immediately after the Polish
insurrection, the Schleswig-Holstein Question again showed
itself; for this time Russia took the German side.
His foresight and determination were once more
rewarded when, in 1866, Russia left Prussia a free
hand in regard to Austria; and finally, in 1870, when a
still greater service was rendered to his country by
Russia's watchful bearing towards Austria, at a moment
when Prussia thought it quite probable that Austria would
render assistance to the French—or the Sixth Prussian
Corps would not at the beginning of the campaign have
been kept in observation on the Silesian frontier.
Austria in connection with the Polish insurrection
played a double part. Siding diplomatically with France
and England she co-operated, through occasional action
against Galician insurgents, with Russia ; while, by toler-
ating up to a certain point the formation of insurgent
bands on Austro-Polish territory, she showed her power-
ful neighbour that she could at any time, by direct
encouragement, bring about a formidable insurrection in
the Polish kingdom.
The French, English, and Austrian Consuls—especially
the English and the French—used to be asked, ques-
tioned, and entreated on the subject of the hoped-for
1863] MARQUIS PAULUCCI ON THE POLES 53
intervention. They of course knew nothing more than
was known to many other persons: the negotiations being
carried on not with the authorities at Warsaw, but
with the Government at St. Petersburg. So eager, so
overstrained was the popular anxiety on the subject that
groups of excited patriots might sometimes be seen on
the banks of the Vistula, gazing down the stream to
see if there were any signs of the English fleet coming
up from Dantzic.
In the absence of human intervention, divine aid was
looked for ; and there was a pear-tree in the Saxon
Gardens above which daily at noon multitudes of devout
Poles used to declare that they saw a cross of fire in
the heavens. As a persistent belief in the miraculous
apparition might possibly have led to local troubles,
the Russians, in a coarsely practical manner, cut down
the pear-tree; when the promise of victory was no
longer seen.
Poland in 1863 was still governed as a separate
kingdom with its own particular departments of state.
Baron Osten Sacken was Director of Foreign Affairs;
M. de Laski, Director of Finance. One of the most
amiable and best intentioned of the high officials was
the Marquis Paulucci, Chief of Police at the beginning
of the patriotic manifestations which, little by little, led
to the armed insurrection. The Polish organisers of
one particular demonstration gave him their word (he
himself told me) that if everything was left to them,
and neither troops nor police appeared on the scene,
there should be nothing resembling a breach of the
peace ; and they kept their promise.
“They are not then a difficult people to govern ?” I
said to the Marquis.
“On peut les memer avec un fil de soie,” he replied.
CHAPTER IV
FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC
R. WHITE now thought only of leaving Poland.
Lord Napier, who had been much pleased with
his despatches from Warsaw during the insurrection,
had been appointed Ambassador at Berlin, and he had
promised Mr. White to recommend him for a Consulate
in Prussia on the first opportunity.
Lord Augustus Loftus, in his valuable and interesting
Memoirs tells us that he also recommended Mr. White
for promotion.
Apart from the two ambassadorial recommendations,
Mr. White had written to Lord Clarendon, requesting
him to do his best towards obtaining for him the Dantzic
Consulate which at the time seemed on the point of be-
coming vacant through the serious illness of its occupant.
Lord Clarendon's reply was as follows:
“Feb. 3/64.
“MY DEAR SIR, -
“Lord Russell has always appeared to be kindly
disposed towards you on the different occasions when
I have spoken to him on your behalf; and I have
every reason to expect that matters will be, if they
have not already been, arranged according to your
wishes, though it is probable that a Consul-General will
not be retained at Dantzic. I hope the unfortunate
Poles will cease to delude themselves with hopes of any
foreign assistance.
“Yours very faithfully,
“CLARENDON.”
54
1884] DELUDED POLES 55
“Delude themselves” is good | Who first deluded
them P
The Poles are probably the most deluded nation
on the face of the earth. Whether direct oppression
drives them, or fancied opportunity tempts them to in-
Surrection, their rising is in either case supported by
the West of Europe; which, as soon as it has sufficiently
roused the indignation and provoked the alarm of their
rulers; as soon as by its evident wish and apparent
intention to intervene, it has produced a genuine Reign
of Terror, then retreats, saying that it has done all it
was possible to do, and that beyond moral (i.e., grossly
immoral) support it cannot go.
On September 17, 1864, Mr. White had still heard
nothing more about the Dantzic Consulate. Much
vexed at the delay, he now addressed Lord Russell
in a direct manner on the subject. Here is his letter:
“S. VILLA, BATH,
“ 17 September, 1864.
“My LORD,
“Fifteen months ago, when taking leave of your
lordship on returning to my post, you were pleased to
hold out hopes to me that my claims to preferment
should not be overlooked whenever a favourable oppor-
tunity presented itself.
“I am afraid that no such opportunity has as yet
occurred, as it is acknowledged on all sides that the
claims of real merit always find their due appreciation
under your lordship in the bestowal of Consular patronage.
“However unwilling I am to trouble your lordship so
often on personal matters, I wish to submit respectfully
to your consideration a circumstance connected with my
present appointment which has not yet been prominently
enough brought forward, and as I have to return to
Warsaw without another opportunity of paying my
respects to your lordship, I venture to make this official
communication. -
“Eight years ago, when on the resumption of Diplomatic
56 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
relations with Russia, General, now Sir, William Rose
Mansfield was appointed Consul-General in Poland, he
put himself in communication with me immediately on
his arrival at Warsaw, and a few months afterwards he
offered me an appointment, having been authorised to
do so by the then Secretary of State ; and in urging
my acceptance of it, Sir William relied chiefly on the
fact that my education and varied experience had qualified
me for a service in which by such an opening I could
look forward to an honourable promotion.
“Whether these services, however humble and sub-
ordinate, have been deserving of any such reward, your
lordship is certainly the best judge, and I am quite willing
to abide by that judgment, and quite ready to accept any
appointment in which your lordship will consider that I
may be employed with advantage to the public service.
“This much, however, I hope I may be allowed to state
without being thought either presumptuous or as taking
too great a liberty—i.e., that my present remuneration, and
even my present position are not only in my own opinion,
but also in the estimate, whether of my friends, or of
persons by no means favourable to me, quite inadequate,
and that I should never have accepted it when it was
offered me in February, 1857, if I had not looked upon
it as a temporary employment and one of probation.
“I have to apologise to your lordship for the free
and open manner in which I have presumed to express
myself, but I have been to a certain extent encouraged
to do so by the invariable personal kindness shown me
by your lordship,
“I have, etc.,
“W. A. WHITE.
“THE RIGHT HonourABLE,
“THE EARL RUSSELL &c. K.G., &c.”
It was not until a month later that Mr. White was
informed that the Consulate, which he had been expecting
for nearly a year, would now be given to him. On
November 15, 1864, Lord Clarendon wrote to him as
follows:
“A domestic affliction has prevented my writing to you
Sooner. But I lost no time in applying to the F. O.
1864] A RELIGIOUS PIRATE 57
in your favour when I heard of Mr. Plow's death, and I
have been informed that you will be gazetted in a few
days. I am sorry to say, however, that Dantzic is no
longer to be a Consulate-General and that the salary
is to be reduced. But it will be promotion for you and
removal from Warsaw.”
On the same day, Lord Russell addressed to Mr. White
this official notification of his appointment.
“37, CHESHAM Place,
“BELGRAVE SQUARE,
“Mov. 15/64.
“DEAR MR. WHITE,
I have great pleasure in informing you that the
Queen has approved of your being appointed Consul at
Dantzic. The salary will be, I believe, £600 a year. A
small sum besides will be allowed for office expenses.
“I remain,
“Yours truly,
“RUSSELL.”
At Dantzic, Mr. White was still in Poland ; in a corner,
that is to say, of the ancient Poland that was partitioned
as a first operation in 1772. The buildings, the antiquities
of the city recall in many ways its past history, especially
the Church of St. Mary, with its celebrated picture of
the Last Judgment—the work, according to an ancient
tradition, of St. Methodius, who, in company with St. Cyril,
converted the Slavonians to Christianity. Painted by
Hans Memling, and sent from Bruges as a present to the
Pope, the picture was captured at sea by a Dantzic pirate
who, with admirable piety, gave it to the church of his
native town.
After the reduction of Dantzic by the French in 1807,
Napoleon sent Memling’s “Last Judgment” as a trophy
of war to Paris, where it remained until 1815; in which
year, with the various works of art carried away from so
many cities, it was restored to its legitimate owners.
8
58 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
Even in Peter the Great's time Dantzic was scarcely
under Polish Government; though it was not by the King
of Prussia (who was ultimately to take possession of it),
but by the Tsar of Russia that it was ruled. Already
in 1716 there was a scheme afloat for dismembering
Poland, by which Prussia, through the annexation of
Polish territory was to join together and “round off” her
disconnected provinces, Russia compensating herself in
Lithuania, and Austria in Galicia ; while what would
remain of Poland after these amputations was to be
made an hereditary kingdom under the sovereignty of
King Augustus of Saxony. Peter, however, rejected this
plan, put forward by Frederick I. of Prussia, even as
Catherine rejected for some time the plan of dismember-
ment proposed, with ultimate success, by Frederick II. ;
the reason in each case being that Russia wished to
preserve throughout Poland her political and military pre-
ponderance, and cared little for a slice of Polish territory
if slices were also to be appropriated by her Western
neighbours.
Peter imposed his will on the municipal authorities of
Dantzic without troubling himself in the slightest degree
about the Polish Government, which on its side showed
itself utterly careless as to Peter's goings on. When
King Augustus arrived to hold a conference with Peter,
the sovereign of Poland seems to have thought it quite
natural that the Tsar of Russia should levy fines at
Dantzic, exact contributions, and cause ships to be con-
structed. Peter had ordered the city to supply four
cruisers with twelve guns each, or, in default, to furnish
two hundred thousand gulden for the purchase of ships, for
provisioning the ships, and for paying the sailors. As the
town council would not accept the terms, Peter declared
Dantzic a hostile city, and ordered General Dolgorouky,
1864] IDANTZIC ASSOCIATIONS 59
who was in Occupation with a large force, to take vigorous
measures against it. *-
Peter had left Dantzic and was at Amsterdam when
the Dantzic municipality sent an envoy to him with a
convention by which it bound itself to furnish three armed
frigates and a sum of one hundred and forty thousand
thalers in silver; Peter granting Dantzic in return “a
confirmation of its privileges.”
Russia had, at that time practically the absolute
command of a fine port on the Baltic ; which she lost
by the Partition of Poland half a century later. It was
not, however, until the third Partition, in 1795, that
Dantzic was definitively acquired by Prussia; which for
many years beforehand had cast longing eyes on the
ancient city, the once impregnable fortress.
When first threatened by the Prussians, Dantzic
appealed to Russia for help. But the Russians had lost
their chance in this direction, and Dantzic fell to the
lot of Prussia.
In 1807 Dantzic was taken by the French, and it was
for a few years the seaport of the Napoleonic “Grand
Duchy of Warsaw,” when, as a consequence of the retreat
from Moscow, it fell into the power of the Russians.
But Dantzic was restored to Prussia in 1815, at the
Congress of Vienna; the new “Kingdom of Poland ”
being at the same time assigned to Russia.
At Warsaw Mr. White had seen Slavonians contending
against the dominion of other Slavonians.
At Dantzic he found himself in a once Slavonic city
which had become German.
At Belgrade he was to see a once Turk-governed
Slavonic city recover, with the country of which it was
the capital, its Slavonic character and its complete
independence.
6O FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
Thus during the first twenty-one years of his consular
and diplomatic career, he saw the whole of the Slavonic
world as in a microcosm.
The Russians, themselves Slavonic with a mixture,
dominate other Slavonians; the Germans absorb them ;
the Turks disappear before them.
It was in 1865 that Mr. White arrived at Dantzic in
view of permanent residence. The new Consul had at
once to occupy himself with German affairs, and his first
serious piece of work was a report on the commerce of
Dantzic, which, by a pardonable development, he enlarged
into a report on the commerce of Germany in general.
Surtout beaucoup de 2èle was always his maxim. -
At Warsaw the duties of the Consul-General are almost
exclusively political, though from time to time reports
have been written from the Warsaw Consulate on the
subject of Polish manufactures and commerce. A very
remarkable report was once shown to me by Mr. White
the work of one of his predecessors, in which it was
pointed out that the country was growing rich, prosperous,
—and discontented ; every increase in material prosperity
being accompanied by a corresponding increase in its
aspirations towards national independence.
For such a country there can be no hope, not, at least,
in the near future. The “enrichissez-vous ” maxim of the
bourgeois king has in this case no signification.
On arriving at Dantzic Mr. White had a dreary prospect
before him. He had obtained a notable increase of salary,
from £200 a year to £600, with office allowances. But
the post had no sort of interest for him and he was no
longer brought into official relations with English political
leaders as had happened to him on several occasions when
he was Vice-Consul at Warsaw.
The Foreign Secretary would not want to consult him
1864] LORD NAPIER'S INTEREST IN POLAND 61
about the trade of Dantzic or the navigation of the
Vistula; that thoroughly Polish river, from whose banks
at a higher point of the stream he had seen the inhabitants
of Warsaw gazing in feverish expectation of the arrival
of an English fleet!
Once when the Prince of Wales was returning through
Dantzic from a visit to St. Petersburg Mr. White had
the honour of receiving His Royal Highness at the
railway station. Dantzic, however, though highly in-
teresting by its ancient buildings and its historical
associations, does not lie on any of the great travelling
routes ; and no one came to see the new Consul at
his new post.
He soon arranged, however, to make visits on his own
account to Berlin where England was now represented
by the Ambassador, who had carried on with Mr. White
such a long and interesting correspondence on the subject
of Polish affairs. These continued to interest Lord
Napier, even after the Polish insurrection had been
brought to an end ; and when he had been for some little
time at Berlin, strange news reached him on the subject
of Polish convents and the measures taken by the Russian
Government for suppressing them. Mr. White, if any
one, would know what it all meant, and, still at Warsaw,
he received from Lord Napier the following letter on
the subject :
“BERLIN,
. “Dec. 1, 1864.
“My DEAR SIR,
“I will send you a man early next week, and I will
advise you of his approach by telegraph. It will be
very interesting to me to hear your account of the
measures concerning the suppression of the convents. I
am myself not a great friend of monks, but placing
myself in a Roman Catholic point of view, and assuming
62 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
^
that the religious bodies are virtuous, laborious, and
enlightened, I conceive that a number of small convents
disseminated over the surface of a barbarous country
might be more useful as instruments of education and
charity than a few large convents placed in cities.
Whether the small convents were really pious or useful
institutions in Poland is more than I can judge. I am
also curious to know whether the lands and revenue of
the suppressed convents are really honestly appropriated
to the other wants of the Roman Catholic Church, or,
at least, of the Roman Catholic people for spiritual
purposes, and not disposed in favour of the peasants
temporal/y, or in favour of orthodox proselytism. I am
assured that the first is the case. I was very glad to
learn that you had succeeded in obtaining a remove, and
to the place which you desired. It will give me great
pleasure to see you en passant. I saw the article in
Katkoff's journal, and was pleased by it, for my address
at St. Petersburg did not satisfy all my Russian friends.
But I don’t wish to be praised by a Russian journal
at Warsaw.
“Believe me
“very truly yours,
“NAPIER,”
For his report on the trade of Germany, previously
referred to, Mr. White received an expression of thanks
from Mr. Hammond, permanent Under-Secretary at the
Foreign Office.
Mr. White wished next to show what he knew of
the Slav countries in Austria, Hungary, and the Balkan
Peninsula; and he prepared an elaborate report on the
subject, which drew from the Foreign Office not a
request that he would kindly restrict his observations to
the affairs of his own Consulate, but a cordial letter
of acknowledgment and thanks.
Among the letters addressed to Mr. White by Mr.
Hammond during the first years of his residence at
Dantzic, the following may be given :
1870] MR. WHITE ON AUSTRIAN AFFAIRS 63
“F. O.,
“ December 28, '65.
“MY DEAR SIR,
“I have to thank you for your letter of the 20th,
which I have shown to Lord Clarendon, who desires me
to beg you to write to me in the same way whenever
you have any information to give. -
“Very faithfully yours,
“G. HAMMOND.”
Not long afterwards Mr. Hammond again wrote:
“I have to thank you for your letter of the 17th March,
and the papers you were so good as to enclose with
it. The long one was very interesting.
“As regards the fortress what I said, was ‘that
Darmstadt was territorial sovereign over one of the most
important fortresses on the Rhine now occupied by a
Prussian garrison.” One reporter forgot Mayence and
concluded for Dantzic.”
Mr. White must have reflected with bitterness that
he was living and working in a place so entirely beyond
the ken of newspaper reporters that one of them imagined
it to be a fortified place on the Rhine, with Darmstadt
for its territorial sovereign
On June 1, 1870, close upon the eventful time when
Mr. Hammond was to make his celebrated declaration
as to the absolute peacefulness of the outlook in Europe,
Mr. White had just sent in a paper on men and things
in Austria, which drew from the permanent Under-
Secretary the following reply:
“I have laid before Lord Clarendon the memorandum
on Austrian affairs which you sent me on the 23rd, and
he desires me to thank you for it, and to say he has
read it with interest,
“Very faithfully yours,
“ G. HAMMOND.”
64 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
Towards the end of November, I 87O, Mr. White seems
to have been occupying himself with military matters,
as who did not in that annus miraffilis of battles and
sieges, victories and defeats? He had many friends in the
Prussian Army, and one in particular of great eminence,
Colonel (now General) Verdy du Vernois, whom he had
known at Warsaw, and who occasionally wrote to him
from the King's Headquarters.
Lord Granville was now Foreign Secretary, and Mr.
Hammond had just shown him one of Mr. White's
letters.
“He will be very glad,” wrote Mr. Hammond, “that
you should continue to write to me on the same or
any other matters of interest that may come to your
knowledge ; for information from outsiders is very often
valuable, and even more to be relied upon than that
from headquarters.”
By the beginning of 1871 the Consul at Dantzic had
so far convinced the Foreign Office of his political ability
and of his knowledge of the affairs of Eastern Europe,
that we find him commissioned to undertake a journey
through Hungary. -
“My dear Sir,” wrote Mr. Hammond, March 8, 1871,
“I do not think that any particular instructions are
needed by you during your approaching visit to Hungary.
You will, of course, pick up all the information you can
both of a commercial and a political nature, taking
care, however, not to give your inquiries an official
character.
“We should, of course, like to know anything you
can glean respecting the relations between Austria and
Russia, and the feelings of the Hungarians on the subject;
and further, as to aims in regard to the Turkish Danubian
Provinces.
“You will when at Vienna put Lord Bloomfield in
possession of all the information that you have succeeded
1871] A VISIT TO HUNGARY 65
in obtaining, and I will write to him to prepare him
for your appearance.
In a letter of this period to Mr. Morier about church
matters in Bavaria, Mr. White writes:
“Have you any notion or could you find out what
relations exist between Bishop Reinkens and the Munich
Old Catholics and the Uniatel Bishops in Turkey P I
have reason to suspect that there are plans at work there
which may in the future assume political significance.”
The possible effect of the coming together of the Old
Catholics in Bavaria, and the Uniate Bishops in Turkey,
was a problem in political chemistry, which it would
have been interesting to see worked out by the two
diplomatic experts. Bishop Reinkens and the Uniate
Bishops equally believed in national churches and service
in the national tongue.
Mr. White was much interested just then in the work
and personality of Bishop Strossmayer, to whom, in a
letter written ten years later, Mr. Gladstone makes special
reference when thanking Mr. White for a letter con-
gratulating him on the fiftieth anniversary of his entry
into political life.
“My dear Mr. White,” wrote Mr. Gladstone, De-
cember 13, 1882, “the receipt of your very kind letter on
this noteworthy day in my political career has given me
much pleasure, and I thank you sincerely for remembering
me and for sending me such cordial good wishes, which, I
assure you, I much value. I have also had the honour
of a most kind letter from Bishop Strossmayer, whom
I admire and greatly revere.
“I remain,
“Very faithfully yours,
“W. E. GLADSTONE.”
1 Graeci Uniati, called in English by some writers “Greek Uniates,”
by others (perhaps more correctly), “United Greeks.” Members of
that Western Section of the Greek Church which accepted, at the
9
66 FROM warsAw To DANTZIC [Ch. IV
In August, 1872, Mr. Hammond wrote to Mr. White,
thanking him for two letters that had recently come to
hand.
“It is easy to understand,” he continued, “how the
Imperial meeting gives rise to all sorts of speculations.
But I do not imagine that it will be productive of any
other results than an interchange of present ideas, to be
exchanged for others according to the ever-varying phases
of European politics. The Church Question is much
more likely to cause convulsion and trouble, and its
growing up will at all events be curious to watch,
especially at a time when in the natural course of things
there may soon be a change in the Papacy.”
On resigning his post, in 1873, Mr. Hammond wrote
to thank Mr. White for a friendly and complimentary
letter just received from him.
“I have always been careful,” he added, “to let the
Secretary of State see your letters to me, so that he
might fully appreciate the interest and value of the
information they contained. Now that I have retired
from office, my successor, Lord Tenterden, will value
your letters as I did, and you should communicate with
him as with me.”
Lord Tenterden, however, seems to have been a less
active correspondent than Mr. Hammond, his predecessor;
or, possibly, Mr. White had, for the moment, nothing
more to write concerning German, Austrian, or Hungarian
affairs. He was using all his influence to get appointed
to Some post in the East, where consuls are less com-
mercial than political agents; and his first letter from
Lord Tenterden instructs him (apparently in answer to
Mr. White's inquiries on the subject) in the difficult art
Council of Florence, union with Rome, acknowledging the supremacy
of the Pope and the double procession of the Holy Ghost, while
retaining prayers in the vernacular and a married priesthood.
1872] LORD ODO RUSSELL 67
of drawing bills of exchange. It is addressed to him at
Belgrade, where he had just arrived in the character of
Consul-General and Diplomatic Agent.
“There is no mystery,” writes Lord Tenterden, “about
drawing the bills, and there are no printed forms. You
merely draw the bill on Secretary of State for Foreign
affairs at thirty days' sight, and write to me a separate
despatch advising your having done so.”
From soon after the Franco-German War until he left
Dantzic for Belgrade, one of Mr. White's best friends at
Berlin was the new Ambassador, Lord Odo Russell,
afterwards Lord Ampthill.
Towards the end of the war this diplomatist had gone
to the Royal Headquarters at Versailles to make repre-
sentations to Count Bismarck in reference to Russia's
declared intention of disregarding the article in the Treaty
of Paris, which prevented her (equally with Turkey) from
building warships on the Black Sea. Prince Gortchakoff,
when the end of the Franco-German War could already
be foreseen, and when the helpless position of our
Crimean ally was only too obvious, insisted on the
abolition of all restrictions as against Russian warships ;
and this abrupt violation of a solemn compact neither
Mr. Gladstone nor Lord Granville could tolerate.
Mr. Odo Russell was commissioned, therefore, to explain
to Count Bismarck, with whose knowledge and assent
this step against England had been taken, that if Russia
persisted in her declaration the consequence would be war.
This prospect Count Bismarck was too great a lover
of peace to view without dismay ; and in the end the
English Government, far from supporting the representa-
tions of its agent at Versailles, listened to the Prussian
statesman in his newly assumed character of peacemaker,
and consented to enter a conference at which, instead of
68 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
objecting any longer to Russia's pretensions in regard
to the building of warships on the Black Sea, she acceded
to them in writing.
Count Bismarck said on this occasion that Russia would
have acted more ingeniously had she begun building her
new warships on the Black Sea, without saying anything
about it. But Gortchakoff desired a great diplomatic
triumph for himself, and at the same time an historical
triumph for his country. He had been present in 1856
at the Paris Conference, and had made a point of not
appending his signature to the Treaty ; for he had sworn
to make it the object of his life to undo in that treaty
the two clauses which told specially against Russia.
One of them was the clause forbidding Russia to build
warships on the Black Sea—annulled in 1871 by the
Conference of London ; the other, the clause which took
from her the strip of Bessarabia, on the Black Sea, annexed
by the Treaty of Paris to Moldavia. This last was to
be effaced in 1878, after the Russio-Turkish War, by the
treaty of Berlin.
Although the English Government gave up the clause
which Russia at a most favourable opportunity had
denounced, it should in justice to Lord Granville be
remembered that he made the best of a bad business.
In dealing at the Conference with the question of the
Straits he procured the affirmation of the principle that
while Russia could introduce no warships from the
Mediterranean into the Black Sea, Turkey was at liberty
to take in as many as she pleased. Thus with sufficient
energy and enterprise Turkey might within a short time
have purchased and introduced into the Black Sea a
far larger number of warships than Russia during the
same period could possibly have built. Needless to add
that Turkey did not profit by the opportunity.
1872] LAYING SIEGE TO BELGRADE 69
Although Mr. Odo Russell did not succeed—was not
allowed to succeed—in his diplomatic mission to Count
Bismarck at Versailles, he made an excellent impression
on the great statesman, and the Government saw that
he would for that and other reasons be the best possible
man to send, after the conclusion of peace, as Ambassador
to Berlin.
Mr. White had now his eye fixed on Belgrade, where
the Consulate was not yet vacant, but might soon
become so. He had still three years to wait; but the
time seemed already to have arrived for laying siege to
the old fortress. He had resolved to occupy the place,
and had consulted about the matter Lord Odo Russell,
Sir Robert Morier, and Lord Granville.
Two months later Lord Odo Russell's uncle, Earl
Russell, was to attain his eightieth birthday, and Mr.
White addressed to him on that occasion the following
congratulatory letter :
“BRITISH CoNSULATE, DANTzic.
“I5 August, 1872.
“My LORD,
“Next Sunday I believe your Lordship will cele-
brate your eightieth birthday, and I hope you will kindly
excuse the liberty I take of transmitting my sincere
Congratulations on so happy a day.
“It has been your good fortune to attach your name to
a long succession of constitutional enactments which stand
out as landmarks of political progress in this century, and
to see realised in your lifetime many changes at home
and on the continent of Europe highly favourable to the
development of civil and religious liberty. You have an
opportunity of looking back with pride on a life so well
spent, and during which you have contributed so success-
fully to the public good, and to the fulfilment of the
aspirations of your early years.
“Personally, I owe your Lordship the deepest gratitude
for the kind and generous manner in which you have
treated me as my Chief; and as I cannot unfortunately
70 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
make my appearance at the Lodge on Sunday next in
the circle of your devoted friends and admirers, I am
desirous of paying you and Lady Russell my respects on
that memorable day at least in writing.
“For whatever good I have enjoyed here, I am indebted
principally to your kindness, and I remain, dear Lord
Russell, wishing you many happy returns,
“Yours ever gratefully and most faithfully,
“ W. A. WHITE.
“THE RIGHT HONOURABLE EARL RUSSELL, K.G., &c., &C.”
To the above letter Lord Russell replied four days
afterwards in the following terms :
“PEMBROKE LODGE, RICHMOND PARK.
“Aug. 19, 1872.
“DEAR MR. WHITE,
“I thank you most heartily for your congratulations
on my eightieth birthday. Thank God, I am quite well;
but at my age life is very uncertain, and a little shake may
break the machine to pieces. Thank God, too, I have
been allowed to carry measures aiming at the liberty and
prosperity of the nation.
“The Whigs were the guardians of the public liberties
while the nation was in a pupil state. It has now
attained its majority, and must take care of its own
liberties against a Caesar or a Catiline,
“Ever yours truly,
“RUSSELL.”
Lord Odo found himself frequently called upon to
consult Mr. White on commercial questions; and in one
letter he informs Mr. White that, though he requires
no consul at Berlin, he has been instructed by Lord
Granville to offer the post of Consul-General to “Mr.
Bleichröder” who, he adds, “has graciously accepted
the unpaid office.”
The Bleichröder referred to was the well-known banker
formerly of Frankfort, where he enjoyed the friendship of
1872] HERR BLEICHRODER 71
Bismarck, then the representative of Prussia at the head-
quarters of the Germanic confederation.
Herr Bleichröder rendered an important service to
Germany and a dis-service to France when, in 1871,
Bismarck summoned him to Versailles in order to consult
him on the subject of the war indemnity. The keen-eyed
financier saw at a glance that the diplomatists who had
drawn up the treaty had committed an error of consider-
able importance; for, in imposing an indemnity payable
by instalments, they had forgotten to charge interest
on the balance remaining after each instalment had
been paid.
Bismarck thanked him heartily and promised to recom-
mend him to the notice of the newly created Emperor.
It had occurred to the Prussian Minister that his friend,
the banker, would like nothing so much as to place a
“Von " before his name, and he therefore begged His
Imperial Majesty to admit him into the ranks of the
nobility. In making the application Count Bismarck
pointed out to his sovereign that the postulant, though
the bearer of no title, was a man of ancient birth ; “for
your Majesty,” he said, “has only to look into his face
to see that he is a lineal descendant of Abraham, Isaac.
and Jacob.” Thereupon Herr Bleichröder, an excellent
man and a devoted friend of Bismarck's, was duly
ennobled.
Some weeks later, after his return to Berlin, Herr
Von Bleichröder determined to give a party, when not
possessing numerous acquaintances among the higher
society of the Prussian capital, he begged an acquaint.
ance, who “knew every one,” to draw him up a list
of guests; which the influential and highly connected
friend obligingly did.
“But we can’t have this man,” said Herr Von
72 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
Bleichröder when he came to the name of a gentleman
of distinction which had, nevertheless, no “Von " before it.
“We can't ask him. He doesn't belong to the nobility 1"
These anecdotes belong in a way to the present
biography, for it was from Sir William White that I
heard them.
In answer to a most friendly letter from Mr. Morier,
Mr. White wrote, July, 1874, as follows:
“Just a few lines to acknowledge your ever-memorable
epistle of the 23rd. I have destroyed it, as desired, but its
contents shall remain engraved on my memory as long
as I retain that valuable action of my brain. -
“I have had a sort of ahnung that something of the
kind was going on ; but you can imagine what an anxiety
the perusal of the first part of your letter produced in me.
I really do not know what to say as regards the step you
have taken on my behalf. I cannot attempt to thank you,
for any expression of gratefulness on my part would be
still wholly inadequate. Your action in this matter was
an intervention of the most kind and rare species of
benevolence.
“I had been bracing myself up for a great disappoint-
ment; and I shall continue to keep my moral condition
at a point at which it may bear any disappointment in
store for me. My motto is, Nil desperandum. But you
were perfectly right and justified in asserting as you did
that a failure now would be tantamount to a breaking of
backbone as far as my official life is concerned.
“The F.O.,” he afterwards writes, “are not in the habit
of leaving such a post unoccupied ; it is therefore highly
probable that it has been offered to my rival, whoever that
may be. I should not be surprised to hear that it is one
of the Oriental Secretaries at Constantinople.
“Somehow or other there are many people—even in
office—who jump at the most Superficial conclusion that
a knowledge of Turkey and of Semitic languages is a
qualification for a post on the Lower Danube, whether
Bucharest or Belgrade. What a fatal delusion | Longworth
and Green both owed their appointment to this deceptive
view of the requirements of these two posts.
“How sad for me to think that all my efforts—nay,
1875] PRUSSIA AND THE VATICAN 73
more, that the kind, affectionate, generous and powerful
arguments of two such friends as yourself and Lord Odo,
two giants of our diplomatic Service—gigantes magni--
should fail in setting the matter straight !”
On February 16, 1875, Lord Odo Russell wrote to ask
Mr. White, among other things if he knew what impression
“ those remarkable letters on Prussia and the Vatican "
had made in England. “Their cleverness and power
strike me,” he added ; “but I cannot quite agree. Perhaps
I do not know the subject so well as the author.”
I may here present a letter, a very lively one, from
Sir Robert Morier, the author of those very papers on
Prussia and the Vatican which Lord Odo Russell so
much admired, without knowing at the time who had
written them. They were published anonymously in
Macmillan's Magazine (1874).
“My dear White,” wrote Morier, Feburary 15, 1875,
“What in the name of all the devils has made you say
that you knew from me that I was the author of Vatican
and Prussia and of the letters to Manning P Surely I
impressed upon you over and Over again the necessity of
absolute reticence as regards the authorship. Do please be
careful. It would be an immense mischief to me; its
coming out authentically that I am the author. I know
many people surmise I am the author, but till one of
my friends, like you, says he knows I am the author and
Åmozws it from me, surmises will remain surmises.
“The 13th is over, and you ought to know about
yourself. Pray let me know as soon as ever you knozy
your fate for certain. Why can't you answer my letter
and tell me all the news?
“Try and put people on some other scent as regards
the authorship. You could say you knew for certain
it was Countess Leyden, or Malet, or, much better (now
I come to think of it), Cartzwright, who, I really believe,
did write them.
“Yours very sincerely,
“R. B. MORIER.”
IO
74 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
The letter in which Morier informed his friend that he
was writing a series of papers on the relations between
Church and State in Germany is dated “Munich,
Feburary 21, 1873,” and contains no caution as to
keeping silence in regard to the authorship. Here is
the letter :
- “BRITISH LEGATION, MUNICH,
“21 Feb., 1873.
“DEAR WHITE,
“I am truly ashamed of myself for having
shown myself in one of my worst fits of graphophoöy
(I invented the word to christen a disease from which
I suffer beyond most men) to a man who probably
was not aware of my constitutional infirmity, and was
therefore dams son droit if he declared me outside the
pale of epistolary law. I received your letter and books
all right. Then came your telegram which I answered ;
thereby obtaining a momentary rest for my conscience ;
and then—and then—I didn't write And now comes your
second letter, heaping coals of fire on my unprotected
head. I much wished, when I telegraphed to you, to add:
‘Come on here, and I will put you up'; but it was
impossible as we had only just got into our house and
had only one table and two chairs and one room for
everything. I like Munich very well—principally because
I have found a charming house outside of it. There are
many subjects of interest, and I cultivate much the
great Döllinger, who is personally the most delightful
of gelehrte. Socially I cannot say much for the place.
It is very petite ville, and a large petite ville is even in
Some respects worse than a small one.
“I am preparing a set of papers on the conflict between
Church and State in the new Empire, treated historically
and anhängend on the movements (Josephinismus, Zebron-
ianismus, Collegialismus, Territitorinlismus, etc.), which im-
mediately preceded the break up of the Empire, as well
as the absence of movement which characterised the
period between 1815–1848 and thence to now ! You
will wonder at my courage, or, more properly speaking,
audacity. But one must do something.
“I am inclined to lay much weight on what Wetherell
writes to you. He is more careful than any one I ever yet
1875] APPOINTED TO BELGRADE 75
met with, never to say more than about 75 per cent, less
than what he means, and would never say a thing of
this kind unless there was a good nucleus at the bottom.
Moreover, I convinced myself in England that you were
appreciated as you ought to be in the right quarters.
“In haste,
“Yours very truly,
“ R. B. MORIER.”
The letters at this period addressed to Mr. White by
our minister at Munich bear but little on current
politics. But everything that Morier wrote was lively,
clever, and thoughtful; and among all the letters of his
that are to be found in the plentiful collection left by
Sir William White, there is not one that is uninteresting
or dull. Here are a couple taken almost at random.
“28 February, 1875.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“You can do me a great service, and may be sure
that I shall be ready to return the like en tems et lieu.
I want you at your club (Athenaum, is it not?) to look
up a file of the Times for 1873 and to find me the
passage respecting Mr. Gordon's marriage to Mlle. de
Beulwitz—i.e., the marriage of the late "envoy at Stuttgart
to a lady with a wooden leg. I have the passage en long
et en large on a slip which I cut out at the time, and
therefore I do not want the passage, but I want the
date and number of the Times in which the article
occurs. It was, I am almost certain, in the month of
June, but possibly it might have been end of May or
beginning of July. It is headed Act of Declaration of
Marriage, and was, I think, at the bottom of a left hand
column. &
“I wish you would write me a gossiping letter. Your
last was a very meagre performance. It seems to me too
absurd their not telling you about Belgrade, as I don't
mind telling you now (though you must never say I told
you) that it has all been settled since I wrote to you in
August |!
“Yours ever,
“R. B. MORIER ‘’
76 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
“MUNICH,
“29/12/75.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I have been long exercised in my mind as to the
way I could repay you the £I you were so good as to spend
in grubbing up that Times notice of the Gordon marriage.
The new Imperial money has come in just d propos, as
2O marks are as nearly as possible {, I, and four 5-mark
notes are very handy things to travel with. Let me know
when you think of running to Vienna that we may com-
bine a meeting there. I very much want to see you and
have a great Oriental talk. I hear you have written a
splendid general report on S/avs and Slavism. Mind
you bring it with you if you run up to Vienna. I shall
be curious to see what the coming year will bring forth
politically: not a bed of roses, I expect. I wish I could
feel as sure that the last state of the Suez Canal purchase
will be as brilliant as the first was to the imagination,
at least, of poor old Philister Johannes de Bove, or, rather,
de Tauro, who would so like to feel himself once more
a fine fellow, and who cannot, with the best will in the
world, get any of his successive drovers to put him in
the way of doing so. I have very little faith in the present
set. If Dizzi was 20 years younger he might perhaps
have had backbone enough to make Something at least
original out of his Suez shares, but he is stiff in the joints,
and the others. . . . (Carnarvon at the Colonies always
excepted, for he has le courage de son opinion). . . . Well,
we’ll see.
“My essay on Local Government has been very much
appreciated in Germany (the old story of the prophet in
and out of his own country), but the result has been a
disastrous one for me. Holtzendorf thought it so good
he insisted on having it translated into German, and he
launched this translation with a flaming preface of his
own. But alas ! he trusted the translator, and never took
the precaution of reading the product.
“I knew nothing of the matter ; because though I had
in a general way told Holtzendorf that I would sanction
any translation he made himself responsible for, I never
knew that the matter had been really taken in hand.
When the work was out and had already been very favour-
ably reviewed (among others by Bismarck's Leiðreptil,
the M.D.A.), I got a copy, and, on reading it, found the
1875] BOSNIA AND THE HERZEGOVINA 77
most ghastly bit of work that was ever revealed to the eyes
of an unfortunate author. Not one page without the
gravest misunderstandings, not a remote conception of
the subject, not one technical term but was ingeniously
mistranslated ; in a word poor me exhibited as a complete
and total fool to a German scientific public. There was
nothing to do but to buy up the edition, and bring out
another one corrected—i.e., re-written by the author. This
has been the Christ-Étied with which the Fates have
ðescheert me ; and a blessed time I have had of it !
“Now, with all manner of good wishes for the new
year, believe me,
“Ever yours,
“ R. B. MORIER.”
About this time, when he had left Dantzic and was on
the point of starting for Belgrade, Mr. White received
from Mr. Morier a letter asking him, on behalf of Mr. John
Morley, to write an article for the Fortnightly Review on
Bosnia and the Herzegovina; where disturbances, first
arising from troubles with tax-gatherers, were gradually
assuming the form of an insurrection.
“I don't wonder,” began Morier, “that in your last
letter you take to cussin' and swearin’ and threatenin'.
In the matter of writing I am given to procrastination,
but this time it must have appeared beyond the reach
even of ‘ was ich bester kann' in that line. However, it
is all accountable for, and in a very disagreeable way too.
Ist, I did not answer your No. I to Dantzic because for
some reason or other the date of the letter and of its
reception did not fit, and I reckoned you would have left
before my letter would reach you. I did not write to
Belgrade because I did not know when you would get
there, as I heard you were going round by Northern
China. Then, when your two letters came shortly on
each other to Munich, where one is ordered not to write
letters (but I meant to indemnify you by a great letter on
my return)—then it was that all my miseries began. Two
or three days after my arrival at Munich from Wildbad
I was bowled over with a violent gastric attack just short
78 FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
of gastric fever. Though it only lasted a few days, I
was for four weeks absolutely prostrate ; morally, in-
tellectually, and physically mere pulp. I could hardly
crawl from my bedroom to the drawing-room, and had to
be carried downstairs. Then on the top I got a gout
attack, which keeps me again four weeks in bed ; and then
intermittent fever. A week ago only I was able to be
moved here, where I am beginning to pick up, having
walked IOO yards this morning with comparative impunity.
You will now, I hope, understand my not writing, and
also the impossibility we have been in to show any civility
to Mrs. White. From the 1st of July till last Monday I
have been either in bed or on the sofa, and Mrs. Morier
has been a sick-nurse.
“And now for business. I had a letter from John
Morley—as you know, the editor of the Fortnightly—
asking me for an article on the Herzegovina and present
South Slav movement. I answered that I had travelled
over all that country twenty years ago but knew nothing
of it now, but there was one man in the world who could
write such an article, and that was you. I had a letter
by return of post begging me to write to you to ask
if you would do it, and (to save time) begging you would
write directly to him (John Morley, Esq., 193, Piccadilly),
saying whether you would or would not write the article
or articles in question. In proposing to me to write, he
said that though it was an almost invariable rule to publish
the author's name, he would be ready to print my articles
anonymously. I have no doubt he would do the same
by you. You must of course be the best judge as to
whether or not it is desirable you should write on these
matters just now, even anonymously (knowing how difficult
it is to remain anonymous), and I consider that under
no circumstances you should write in any sense what
would set F. O.S teeth on edge. But without going
too much into politics, I think an objective, historical, and
statistical sketch just now might be made, which, while
remaining quite safe, might be very interesting. At all
events, I did not wish you to miss the chance of making a
£IO note (an article I find always acceptable), to say
nothing of a connection with the Fortnightly which may
bring in many more. I doubt whether you could master
the subject in one article (as they must be kept very short),
and whether less than two or three would suffice. But
1875] WRITES FOR F. O. ALONE 79
under all circumstances write at once to Morley telling
him Yes or No.
“Yours ever truly,
“R. B. MORIER.”
The article was never written. Sir William White told
me of the proposition that had been made to him, adding
that he could not possibly take advantage of it. In the
first place he was not accustomed to write for the Press
as Morier was, and he felt nervous about it.
I expressed some astonishment at this, seeing how
fluently and forcibly he made speeches, not only in
English, but also in French, German, and Polish.
The spoken word vanished, he said, but the written
word remained. Even if the speech was reported the
speaker was not answerable for the report. The reporter
might have made a mistake—like the reporter of Mr.
Hammond's speech, who made him say that Dantzic
was a federal fortress on the Rhine under the territorial
jurisdiction of Hesse-Darmstadt. But apart altogether
from the difficulty of the matter, it would be imprudent
to write about a burning question so closely affecting
the country to which he was now accredited. Sooner
or later the authorship would be found out, and “they "
didn't like their agents and envoys to be writing in the
Press. Anything that was worth writing should, according
to “them,” be written for the Foreign Office, and for
“them ’’ exclusively.
There is much to be said for the Foreign Office view ;
and Sir William White was undoubtedly wise in conform-
ing to it. He may have missed the pleasure of influencing
in a direct and visible manner the public mind; may
have missed also a few ten-pound notes. But the reports
he was constantly addressing to the Foreign Office from
his post at Dantzic on Church matters in Germany, on
8O FROM WARSAW TO DANTZIC [Ch. IV
the relations between Germany and Austria, between
Austria and Hungary, between Hungary and its Slavonic
provinces, and on the Slavonic provinces of Turkey, must
have strengthened his claims for promotion, which the
publication of these reports in the form of newspaper
or magazine articles would have weakened and perhaps
destroyed.
Sir William White's political reports from Dantzic as
distinguished from his commercial ones were unofficial and
did not find their way into Blue Books. Nor probably
did his best from Belgrade, Bucharest, and Constantinople.
Those better suited to the public eye were, before being
printed, sent to him, according to custom, for revision ;
and during the years 1876 and 1877 the letters he received
from the Foreign Office seem to have referred almost ex-
clusively to the preparation of his reports for publication.
One official wrote to him saying :
“We send you your despatches to revise as you wish.
We have not given many of them for fear of compromising
you and making it hot for you at Belgrade.”
“Please go carefully through your despatches,” wrote
another, “and say what additions or further omissions
you propose.” And again : “Please telegraph as soon as
possible any observations, corrections, and omissions you
wish to have made.”
Without such precautions the publication of diplomatic
documents would of course be impossible. It was in
reference to this necessary work of revision that Prince
Bismarck, asked one day in the Chamber why Prussia
did not, like England, publish despatches from her am-
bassadors and envoys abroad, made the following reply:
“Because, to do so, it would be necessary to double the
number of the clerks in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”
CHAPTER V
ARRIVAL IN SERVIA
R. WHITE owed his first opportunity of dis-
tinguishing himself to the Polish Insurrection of
1863; and on arriving at Belgrade in September, 1875,
he again found himself in the midst of armed risings,
some in actual existence, others in course of preparation.
At last he had attained the object, or, at least, the
first object of his great desire: to play an active
part in Eastern affairs. He had for several years been
endeavouring to get promotion in the direction of the
Lower Danube; and the letters of his correspondents
in the diplomatic service, from 1871 onward, are full of
references to this earnest wish of his. -
The Eastern Question, seldom slumbering for very long,
had begun to reassert itself in 1874; when the wretched
condition of the peasantry in Bosnia—Christian labourers
and farmers under Mahometan landowners—was the
starting-point. An agrarian movement had broken out
nearly twenty years before, in 1857, when there was a
rising at once against the tax-gatherers of the Turkish
Government, and the rent-gatherers of the local pro-
prietors. After being defeated in an engagement with
Turkish troops, the insurgents crossed the frontier into
Austria, returning, however, to their homes on the
proclamation of an amnesty.
In 1867 troubles of the same character took place in
*8.I II
82 ARRIVAL IN SERVIA [Ch. V
Bosnia, where at that time the peasantry were the most
disaffected, because perhaps the most destitute, of all the
peasant populations in the Christian provinces of Turkey.
Not that in Bosnia the Christians formed a strong
element as in the other Slavonic lands of the Balkan
Peninsula; for here the Slavonian landed proprietors
had at the time of the conquest accepted Mahometanism
in order to save their estates. According to some
statistical tables the population in 1875 was about half
Christian, half Mahometan, while others gave nine
hundred thousand Christians to five hundred thousand
Mahometans.
Bosnia, the Herzegovina, and Montenegro being all pro-
foundedly agitated the excitement could not but spread
to Servia ; and already a certain number of Servian
volunteers had taken up arms, and hurried across the
frontier in aid of the Bosnian Insurgents. The formation
of additional bands was prevented by the Servian
Government; and Prince Milan conveyed the assurance
of his pacific intentions both to the Porte and to the
guaranteeing Powers.
But the insurgents in Bosnia appealed to the Servians
for assistance, and the prayer of the petitioners was
accepted and supported by the Servian assembly. The
Prince, however, to the injury of his own popularity,
remained deaf to all entreaties. He nevertheless
despatched a former Servian Minister, Mr. Christitch, to
Montenegro with a view to an understanding between
the two principalities as to what course they should pursue
towards the insurgents, towards the Porte, and towards
the guaranteeing Powers.
The decision they at last came to was, that if all
representations on the part of the great Powers should
fail, they would themselves address the Porte, and
1876] SERVO-TURKISH WAR 83
recommend the pacification of the insurgent provinces
by means of an autonomic administration, entrusted for
Bosnia to Prince Milan of Servia, and for the Herzegovina
to Prince Nicholas of Montenegro.
This, in spite of the terms employed, was a demand
for the cession of the Herzegovina to Montenegro, and
of Bosnia to Servia; and Mr. Christitch, sent as Servian
agent to the Turkish capital, was assured, that if the
Prince's envoy had come to propose the extension of
the Servian administration to Bosnia, he would not be
received. Rebuffed in this manner, Mr. Christitch made
a last attempt, and submitted to the Divan in writing the
proposition he had been charged to lay before it.
The Grand Vizier refused to receive it ; and this was
the immediate cause of the Servo-Turkish War.
Servia took up arms as the advanced guard of Russia. ,
The advanced guard of Servia was, before long, to be
composed of Russian volunteers; and when Russians and
Servians had both been defeated by the Turks, Russia
herself was to appear on the scene.
This difficult situation was to manifest itself soon after
Mr. White's arrival at Belgrade. He had now once more
to do with Russians; for when Servia had openly taken
the part of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Insurgents
against the Sultan, whole companies and battalions of
Russian volunteers flocked to the Servian capital.
At Warsaw Mr. White had known the Russians assº
oppressors. Here they arrived in the character of *
liberators. Like the insurgents in Poland, these Russian
volunteers were of various kinds and actuated by various
motives ; and even as the mainspring of action in Poland
had been patriotism, so with the Russians in Servia, it
was patriotism of a kind; a desire to carry out Russian
views, at once imperial and national, together with love of
84 ARRIVAL IN SERVIA [Ch. V
adventure, and hope of promotion. For the officers (who
formed, however, but a small proportion of the volunteers)
had left the Russian Army with the certainty that they
would be able to rejoin it when their self-assumed mission
in Servia had come to an end.
The Emperor, Alexander II., in a conversation on
the subject with Lord Augustus Loftus at St. Petersburg,
told him that Russian officers had been allowed to
go as volunteers to Servia, “in order to throw cold
water" on the excitement. The inevitable effect, how-
ever, was to increase the excitement. Now that some
thousands of Russian volunteers were taking part in
the unequal struggle carried on by a small and, of
itself, helpless Slavonian State, against the Ottoman
Empire, all Russia was interested in the success of the
Servians. -
There seemed, however, but small chance of the Bosnian
troubles leading to a Servo-Turkish War, when, in the
autumn of 1875, Mr. White came to Belgrade; and,
apart from the condition of Bosnia, where the action of
insurgent bands was gradually affecting the neighbouring
principality, he had to occupy himself in the first place
with the condition of the Jews in Servia. To this the
attention of Mr. White's predecessors had been directed
for many years past ; whenever, indeed, no matter of
political importance was on hand. An article of the
Servian constitution declared all the inhabitants of Servia
to be equal before the law, “except Jews.” Yet, strangely
enough, all the highest offices in the state were open
to Jews—those very Jews who were denied the most
ordinary trading rights. So, by way of exemplifying
the liberality of Servian political institutions, a Jew was
put up for the Skuptchina and duly elected, in the midst
of the negotiations that were being carried on with the
1876] A JEW IN THE SKUPTCHINA 85
Western Powers on the subject of the general position
of Jews in Servia.
“A Jew has been made a member of the Skuptchina | *
cried the Servians. “Scarcely more than a quarter of
a century has passed since the English Parliament refused
to receive a Rothschild into its body after he had been
elected again and again by his fellow citizens. We have
done ourselves the honour to choose as a member
of the Skuptchina a real live Jew. What more do
you want?”
But the Western Powers wanted more still. They
thought that besides taking part in the legislation of
the country the Jews ought to enjoy the right, so dear
to them, of buying and selling.
The representations made to the diplomatic agents in
Servia and Roumania on the subject of Jewish disabilities
came to them, of course, from the Foreign Office; while
the Foreign Office acted on communications received
from various Jewish societies. Examples no doubt of
injustice and ill-treatment were often correctly cited. But
it is equally certain that some of the alleged cases of
persecution were pure inventions. A picture, for instance,
was published in a French pictorial paper (Le Monde
Illustré) of a raggia said to have been executed upon the
Jews at Jassy, the chief town of Moldavia, of which no
one at Jassy had ever heard ; while at a later period a
Jewish Member of Parliament, Sir John Simon, made the
fantastic declaration in the House of Commons that “every
atrocity committed in Bulgaria upon Christians had been
perpetrated in Roumania upon Jews.”
Attempts to introduce into a country, through the
pressure of foreign powers, legislative changes which
the Government of that country is unwilling to accept
can scarcely be attended with success. Interference with
86 ARRIVAL IN SERVIA [Ch. V
Russia in regard to the affairs of Poland was bitterly
resented in 1863, as in 1830; and nothing in either case
came of it but increased activity towards bringing the
insurrection to an end ; an activity which, if the inter-
vening powers had been in earnest, and the Power
intervened against weak, might easily have degenerated
into something worse.
To give some idea of the persistency with which the
Israelitish Alliance carried on its species of crusade against
Christians accused of persecution, it may be mentioned,
that when in 1874, just before Mr. White's arrival at
Belgrade, Prince Charles of Roumania paid a visit to
Queen Victoria at Windsor, Sir Francis Goldsmid lost no
time in asking Lord Derby to bring His Highness to book
on the subject of the Jews in Roumania ; “who must
be better treated,” said Sir Francis, “if Roumania is
to be looked upon as a civilised power.” Lord Derby,
however, excused himself from carrying out Sir Francis
Goldsmid's request.
The Ambassador of England at Constantinople was in
like manner importuned to make representations to the
Prince of Servia in favour of the Jews, when His Highness
was on a visit to the Sultan.
Apart from other objections, neither of the two Princes
to whom the Israelitish Alliance wished to appeal could
personally have done the least thing towards changing
his country's laws in regard to the Jews. If, as their
co-religionaries in other countries alleged, the Jews were
ill-treated in Servia and Roumania, why, asked Servians
and Roumanians, did they flock to these countries in
such large numbers from Galicia, the Kingdom of Poland,
and Russia P. They met with no encouragement, they
were not invited, they were turned back from the frontier
when their passports were not in order; and if, as often
1876]. LOVE OF RUSSIA FOR THE JEWS 87
happened, they eluded the vigilance of the frontier guard
and without passports and also without the means of
subsistence wandered into Roumania, then they were
arrested as Soon as possible and sent across the border
towards the country from whence they had come. In
these last cases it was not because they were Jews that
they were so inhospitably received, but because they
were vagabonds ; Christian vagabonds being treated in
precisely the same manner. As to refusing to admit
destitute foreigners, was not this done by other govern-
ments—as by the government, of the United States
and of our own Australian Colonies P
Not content with working through its own agents,
the Foreign Office once went so far as to instruct Lord
Augustus Loftus at Berlin to call the attention of Prince
Bismarck to the disabilities weighing upon the Jews
in Servia.
Sir Andrew Buchanan at St. Petersburg was directed
in like manner to bring the matter to the notice of Prince
Gortchakoff, who, hearing (apparently for the first time)
of the unfortunate position of the Jews in Servia, replied
that he would cause inquiries to be made. He promised,
also, to write to General Ignatieff, the Russian Ambassador
at Constantinople. But, according to his own personal
belief (he added), the restrictions of which the Jews in
Servia complained were more to be attributed “to a
desire to prevent the practices by which Jewish usurers
and dealers in spirits exercised a demoralising effect on
the peasantry than to any religious fanaticism.”
On another occasion, when addressed by Lord Augustus
Loftus on the subject of the Jews in Servia and Roumania,
Prince Gortchakoff protested that on the part of Russians
no ill feeling whatever was entertained towards Jews;
and he mentioned with grave humour that only the
88 ARRIVAL IN SERVIA [Ch. V
week before Russian decorations had been given to two
members of the Rothschild family
No such activity on the part of our Foreign Office
had ever been shown on behalf of the Eastern Christians
as was now exhibited in favour of the Servian and
Roumanian Jews. Not only were foreign governments
attacked on the subject in their own capitals, but foreign
ambassadors were similarly treated in London. Thus
Lord Granville, as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had a
long talk on the subject with the Austro-Hungarian
Ambassador, Count Beust; his lordship complaining that
juries in Servia and Roumania would not convict on
the evidence of a Jew ; whereas a Jewish prisoner, what-
ever he might be accused of, was tolerably sure to be
found guilty.
The Count replied that the only remedy for this was
to abolish trial by jury. Lord Granville suggested that
His Excellency probably meant abolition of the jury
system in cases where Israelites were concerned P. The
Ambassador, however, thought this might seem “invidious,”
and repeated his suggestion in its original form.
Lord Granville thereupon observed that Her Majesty's
Government “would not be supported by public opinion
in this country if it proposed the abolition of trial by
jury in all criminal cases. . . . There were certain persons
who thought it might be advisable in civil cases, but
their opinion had not been adopted ; while as regarded
criminal cases, even in Ireland, where it was often
difficult to obtain convictions in very flagrant cases, Her
Majesty's Government had not proposed any such
measure.”
This conversation between Lord Granville and Count
Beust took place in July, 1872. Within ten years the
Government, of which Lord Granville was a prominent
1876] JEWS, CHRISTIANS AND MUSSULMANS 89
member, proposed and carried the Bill for the “suspension
of trial by jury in Ireland,” the jury being replaced
by judges.
In the end neither Servia nor Roumania was called
upon to abolish trial by jury—not even in cases where
Jews were concerned.
Soon after Mr. White's arrival in Belgrade he received
through the Foreign Office a copy of a letter from the
Vice-President of the Anglo-Jewish Association on the
subject of the reforms in favour of Christians, which it was
hoped would soon be introduced into the Turkish Empire.
“As the time appears opportune,” began the letter,
“for remedying the serious grievances of the large Jewish
population in the Turkish dominion, we, members of the
council of the Anglo-Jewish Association, beg leave to
address your lordship [Lord Derby] in reference to this
important subject.
“We are especially induced to submit this matter to
your lordship's kind consideration in consequence of the
prevailing rumour that Her Majesty's Government intend
to urge upon the Government of His Imperial Majesty,
the Sultan, the concession of such reforms as would
remove the several disabilities under which the Christian
subjects of the Porte are labouring. The council of the
Anglo-Jewish Association would earnestly solicit your
lordship at this juncture to bear in mind the claims of
the Jewish inhabitants of the Turkish Empire, and would
beg you to include the Jewish people in any representation
that may be made to the Porte with regard to a removal
of these laws, the operation of which presses upon all
non-Mahometans, and in many instances with a special
severity on the Jewish community.”
Mr. White informed the Anglo-Jewish Association in
reply that the Jewish population would benefit equally
with the Christian by the removal of any disabilities
under which the non-Mussulman population had hitherto
laboured ; , and that although in most countries it had
I 2
90 ARRIVAL IN SERVIA [Ch. V
been the custom to speak of the “Mahometan and
Christian’” populations, the terms employed by the Porte
in its official documents were “Mussulmans and non-
Mussulmans"; these terms being used in the new
regulations issued by the Porte respecting the acquisition
of land, “which would apply to Jews exactly in the same
way as to Christians.”
When not occupied with the condition of the Jews
(whose demand, as defined by Sir Robert Morier, was
“to have the rite of circumcision placed on an equality
with the rite of baptism”), Mr. White had to devote his
attention to all kinds of projects for the solution of the
Eastern Question ; the one which at that time found most
favour with Servian politicians being the gradual replace-
ment of European Turkey by three independent Christian
states—ROumanian, Servo-Bulgarian, and Greek. There
would, of course, be all kinds of difficulties in connection
with the frontiers of the new states ; which were to be
decided according to some by ethnological, according to
others by geographical considerations.
Nor were the various theorists agreed, either as to their
geography or their ethnology. In a general way, however,
the idea of three independent Christian States, with
a military and political bond between them, was the
favourite one of the moment ; and it was afterwards
adopted in a very practical manner by the diplomacy of
the United States, which sent to these parts a very distin-
guished man, the late Eugene Schuyler (previously Consul
at Moscow and afterwards Secretary of Legation at St.
Petersburg), with instructions to reside in turn at Athens,
Belgrade, and Bucharest. Among the claimants of the
Turkish inheritance, Greece, Servia, and Roumania were,
in addition to other recommendations, the only States
that possessed each a university.
1876] TCHERNAIEFF IN SERVIA 9I
The future desired for the Balkan States by General
Tchernaieff, who was soon to appear on the scene as
Commander of the Russian volunteers in Servia and of
the Servian Army, was naturally of a different character.
In conversation with a correspondent of the Times
(October 31, 1876), he declared himself in favour of
“independent Slavonic Principalities, forming a kind
of loose confederation under Russian influence.” One
large Slavonic State south of the Danube he did not
desire ; at least, not an independent one.
Another part of General Tchernaieff's scheme, put
forward, as he frankly admitted, in order to gain the
approval and support of England, was that the tributes
payable to Turkey should be continued by the different
States under their new constitution, and that these tributes
should be used for payment of the interest on the Turkish
loans, taken up, for the most part, by English subscribers.
It was a little late for the Russian General's financial
proposal to be duly effective. Turkey already meditated
repudiation, and at the beginning of October, 1876, it
was officially announced that, for five years to come, she
had resolved to pay only half her debt charges in cash ;
a proclamation which at once dissolved the whole fabric
of Turkish credit. -
In one of his private letters, written soon after his
arrival at Belgrade, Mr. White calls attention to the fact
that just as for the Poles there are two Polands—the
so-called “congress kingdom’ formed in 1815 at Vienna,
and the ancient Poland partitioned at the end of the
eighteenth century—so for the Servians there are two
Servias —Servia within its actual political limits, and the
ancient Servia, which at one time included nearly the whole
of the Balkan Peninsula.
The new Servia looked forward to by the “Youth"
92 ARRIVAL IN SERVIA [Ch. V
Society or “Omladina,” corresponded nearly enough with
the Servia of the Middle Ages. This new Servia,
however, was, according to the views of the “Omladina,”
to be formed not merely on an historical, but on a positive
ethnological basis. It was to be a State in which the
majority of the population would belong to the same
Servian or South Slavonic race, and would speak with
but slight variations the same Servian language.
For between the various parts of ancient Servia,
—between the Servia of the present day, Bosnia, the
Herzegovina, Montenegro, and the whole of Austrian
Croatia—what in the days of the Schleswig-Holstein
Question used to be called a “nexus socialis,” exists. It
has been said, too, that the different lands had, and
of course have still, a common literature—that literature
of love-songs and heroic ballads which flourishes in all
Slavonian countries. When a certain writer, bearing
the un-euphonious name of “Wuk,” who had the literary
unity of Servia much at heart, undertook for the first
time the task of collecting Servian songs of every
description, he found that they had their origin equally
in Servia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. “One of the
rhapsodists brought to the court of Prince Milosch for
the collector's benefit was,” says a writer on this subject,
“a woodcutter and robber from Servia ; a very excellent
and honest man for a robber. A second was a Bosnian
brigand, old and covered with wounds, who would not
recite until he had been made half drunk, and who,
when he had once begun, could not be prevailed upon
to stop. A third was a Montenegrin bandit who was
in prison for killing a witch.” .*
They were all Servians, however, by language, and
by a common poetical and national sentiment ; and it
is interesting to note that this fact was established without
1876] THE BALKAN STATES 93
political motive in the year 1820, when no one was ...
dreaming of the “Omladina” or of the Servian revival. A
The ambitious programme of the “Omladina’’ was
rudely interfered with at the settlement of Berlin by
the assignment of Bosnia and the Herzegovina to Austria,
and by the erection of the Bulgarian country into a
separate principality; while seven years after the Berlin
Conference the Bulgaria and Servia, which were to have
been bound together within the frontiers of one great
Servian state, entered upon a war between themselves.
So in regard to all Slavonian and Pan-Slavonian
projects. Ethnical and linguistic arguments are worth
nothing in opposition to political reasons and the ultima
zatio regum.
The latest re-arrangement of the Balkan States (1901)
includes two separate groups, with Roumania and Greece
in one, and Servia and Bulgaria in the other ; the
latter a Slavonian, the former an anti-Slavonian, league.
Sir William White took particular interest not only
in the politics, but in the legends and historical associa-
tions of Servia ; and without entertaining any very
vivid admiration for the Turks, was indignant when,
during his residence at Belgrade, Some ultra-patriotic,
utterly barbarous Servians levelled to the earth the
tomb of Kara Mustapha, the unfortunate Pasha who, in
1683, commanded the Turkish forces before Vienna.
The news of the defeat reached Constantinople long
before Kara Mustapha, defending himself as he retired,
arrived at Belgrade. He had scarcely entered the city
when he was waited upon by an emissary from the
Sultan. He at once understood the object of the visit.
Asking for five minutes' grace, he knelt down on a piece
of carpet, said his prayers, and then submitted his neck
to the bow-string.

CHAPTER VI
SERVIA, IN 1876. BUL.GARIAN ATROCITIES
T has been seen that at the time of Mr. White's arrival
in Servia there were several favourite solutions of
the Eastern Question in its application to the Balkan
Peninsula. There were also two favourite explanations
of the constant risings of Christian subjects against the
Turkish Government. According to one view, the cause
of the insurrections was Turkish oppression ; according
to the other instigation on the part of native revolutionary
committees backed up by Russia, and especially by the
Slavonic societies of St. Petersburg and Moscow.
It is quite certain that when the Russians re-armed
a large portion of their infantry in 1863, the discarded
weapons were sent as a present to the Servians. General
Tchernaieff spoke to me personally of this “friendship's
offering” on the part of Russia to her dependent Slavonic
relatives as quite a natural thing, and of course saw
nothing discreditable in it. Lord Palmerston, to whom
the bills of lading had somehow been forwarded just after
the despatch of the arms by train from St. Petersburg,
took a different view of the matter and expressed it with
much force in a letter to Baron Brunnow.
That the obsolete Russian arms were sent to Servia
in order that they might some day be used against
the Turks can scarcely be doubted; but the receipt of
the weapons had no effect in stimulating the recipients
94
1876] RUSSIAN VOLUNTEERS IN SERVIA 95
to immediate action. There was a show of insurrection
in 1866. But the Servians made no use of the Russian
muskets until nearly thirteen years after their arrival ;
by which time they must have been considerably out
of date and more likely to lead their bearers to destruc-
tion than to enable them to destroy their enemies.
General Tchernaieff, an honest and ingenuous man,
made no secret of the fact that on entering Servia he
took with him a stock of arms for distribution among
the Bulgarian villages on the Servian frontier. The
terrified inhabitants, however, after receiving them carried
them back to their donors, awestruck by the recent
massacres—of which Tchernaieff had no knowledge at
the time. They feared lest the possession of arms, which
they were afraid to use, might be counted against them
and bring upon them and their families indiscriminate
slaughter.
The arrival of General Tchernaieff at Belgrade caused
the greatest excitement throughout Europe; and every
one interested in the Eastern Question came to the
conclusion that he and his volunteers were the advanced
guard of a Russian Army marching to the assistance of the
Servians. So in a certain sense they were. But they
were genuine volunteers, and in taking command of them
Tchernaieff was acting on his own responsibility without
authority and really in opposition to it.
Particularly instructed to find out all he could about
Tchernaieff's Russians, Mr. White reported that of the
men, some had only just quitted the Russian Army; but
that others were fully retired soldiers, and others, again,
enthusiastic, enterprising civilians. The officers, however,
had in nearly all cases quitted the Russian Army expressly
with a view to Servia, and apparently on the understanding
that they might rejoin their regiments after the war. The
96 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
Emperor Alexander's words to Lord Augustus Loftus
on this subject have already been referred to. He had
allowed his officers, said His Majesty, to retire from
the army and go to Servia, pour feter de l'eau froide;
though, if a figurative expression was to be used, “by
way of opening a safety valve" would perhaps have
been a more suitable one.
One strange thing mentioned by Mr. White, and even
now not generally known, is that out of three hundred
of Tchernaieff's officers, one hundred were Germans; men,
no doubt, who had acquired the habit of fighting in the
Franco-German War, and whose time hung heavy on their
hands when, after the making of peace, they retired into
private life.
Many persons have supposed, by reason of his frequent
contests with M. Nelidoff at Constantinople, that Sir
William White was a constant enemy of the Russians. If
so, he was a most candid, a most truthful foe. His
reports about the Russians in Servia are nearly all to their
advantage. Into the question of their right to be in the
country for war purposes he does not enter, but he asserts
positively that they have not been sent by the Russian
Government. They had come of their own accord ;
partly perhaps from love of adventure, chiefly from
enthusiasm.
After a brilliant career in Central Asia, Tchernaieff,
who had taken too many cities, and annexed too much
territory to suit at that moment the official programme
of the Russian Government, was presented, in acknow-
ledgment of his military merits, with a sword of gold,
and for political reasons was placed on the retired list.
A series of expectations and disappointments having at
last left him without hope of further employment in the
Army, he became a militant journalist, and attacked the
1876] BULGARIAN INSURRECTION 97
minister of war in the columns of the Rzussian World.
Three other officers, Panslavists like himself, belonged
to the newspaper staff of which Tchernaieff was chief.
One was Colonel Komaroff, who afterwards acted in
Servia as chief of Tchernaieff's staff in a military sense;
another, Colonel Monteverde whom Tchernaieff despatched
as military correspondent to the Herzegovina ; and a
third, General Fadeieff, who in a vigorously written
pamphlet had set forth the famous thesis that the
Russian road to Constantinople lies through Vienna—
now a difficult path in face of the triple alliance.
Tchernaieff wished to go himself to the Herzegovina.
But the Russian Government looked with disfavour on
the idea; and he had to content himself with opening at
his newspaper office a subscription on behalf of the
Herzegovinians and making an appeal in their favour to
the Slav committee of Moscow, which numbered him
among its members.
When, however, it became evident that Servia was
going to war, Tchernaieff could no longer restrain himself;
and he at once hurried towards the scene of action. At
Bucharest, Giurgevo, and Galatz he found Bulgarian
committees, their members consisting chiefly of persons
who had left Bulgaria and thriven in Roumania. They
all looked forward to a general insurrection in Bulgaria;
and the committees assured Tchernaieff that they had
bought up all the arms that could be purchased in
Roumania. Bulgarians who were officers in the Russian
Army quitted that service to join the projected insurrection
of which the Russian papers were full. About two
thousand Bulgarians, mostly peasants, were being made
into soldiers in Roumania, under the command of
Bulgarian officers from Russia and leaders who had
taken part in the Bulgarian insurrection of 1867.
I3
98 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
“Tchernaieff's belief,” said Mr. Archibald Forbes in
a highly interesting sketch of the Russian general, which
he was kind enough to write for me, “is that the Turks,
becoming aware that an insurrection was being organised,
anticipated its outbreak by the sweepingly effective
method of leaving nobody alive to carry out his intention
of becoming an insurgent. That does not disguise the
fact that a general rising of the Bulgarians was in course
of organisation.”
So far, however, was Bulgaria removed from the great
lines of European communication, that no news of the
massacres had reached Tchernaieff when, in the month of
June, he entered Servia. Nor had the Russian general
heard of them when on July 1, he invaded Bulgaria,
bent on provoking a Bulgarian insurrection on his own
account,
One man at least in Servia had received news of the
Bulgarian rising ; for Sir Henry Elliot had written to
Mr. White about it on May 26. But it was not news
that the English diplomatic agent was likely to put
into general circulation.
If Tchernaieff had invaded Bulgaria on May 1,
instead of July 1,–before, instead of long after, the
massacres, which took place in the middle of May—his
daring project might have had some chance of success;
though he never could have realised his dream of
penetrating to Constantinople at the head of an improvised
army of Servians and Bulgarians—not even with some
thousands of Russian volunteers to stiffen the invading
force.
He felt confident, however, that just as Servia had
taken the field on behalf of the South Slavonians, so in
the end Russia would take the field as leader of Slavonians
in general.
At last came Djunis, when the attitude of a few
1876] LETTER FROM SIR H. ELLIOT 99
thousand Russian volunteers showed that whatever the
head and front might be, the backbone of the Slavonian
movement against Turkey was indeed Russia. After
Djunis Alexander II. appeared on the scene and declared
that there must be peace and some sort of beneficial
arrangement for the defeated ones, or Russia would
declare war.
It was in May, 1876, that Mr. White's attention was
first diverted from the condition of the Servian Jews,
who theoretically were being persecuted, to that of the
Bulgarian Christians who as a matter of fact were being
massacred.
On May 26, 1876, the subjoined letter was addressed
by Sir Henry Elliot at Therapia to Mr. White at Belgrade.
Sir Henry had previously sent a similar one to the
Foreign Office. He already knew that the Bulgarian
attempt at insurrection had been suppressed, and felt
Sure, from irregular troops having been employed, that
it had been suppressed with much cruelty ; against which
he lost no time in making an energetic protest.
“My dear Mr. White,” the letter began, “the “
accounts from your parts are not calculated to inspire
much confidence ; and the whole state of this country
is such that the people are always asking what is to
happen next. The impression not only from Turkish,
but from impartial sources is that nothing will come of
the Bulgarian movement. The Russian Ambassador
declares that there is nothing political in it; but nothing
is more certain than that there were ample warnings
(neglected by the Turks) of a movement about to take
place, organised from abroad. Russian roubles are
circulating in unusual quantities: but equally good in-
formants differ in opinion as to the quarter from whence
they come. The common belief is that they are sent
by the Committees in Russia ; but some are under the
impression that this is not the case, and that the money
comes from wealthy Bulgarians settled in Odessa and
other Russian towns.
IOO SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
“The distinction is not perhaps a very important one.
“The Russian Consul at Adrianople and the Vice-
Consul at Philippopolis have both come here : the popular
agitation against them being so great that they did not,
I imagine, feel themselves in safety. The latter is a
Bulgarian long known to have been an agent of the
Committees ; and one of his brothers is at this moment
said to be in arms among the insurgents.
“There is no excuse for the measures adopted by the
Turks in arming Bashi Bazouks, Circassians and gipsies,
whose outrages are driving peaceful villagers to desperation
and revolt. I am doing what I can to have this put a
stop to."
“You may have received alarming accounts of the
dangers which are supposed to threaten the Christians
here. But although there was an extreme panic, people
are now satisfied that the movement was wholly political
and directed against the Government, without a vestige
of hostility against the Christians. Indeed, the harmony
existing between the two religions at this moment is one
of the most striking features in the present strange
position. But in the provinces this is different ; and
things might take a turn which would place them in
deadly hostility. -
“I hope that Servia will continue to be convinced, as
you say she is, that it is too late for her to move. But
if she does move she will be met with greater energy
than may perhaps be expected considering the general
embarrassments by which Turkey is at this moment
surrounded.”
Sir Henry Elliot wrote as follows to Mr. White on
June 29:
“I have written to Tenterden to say that you must
be worked off your legs and ought to have help.
“Your previsions appear about to be realised ; for we
are expecting every moment to hear of Servia and
Montenegro passing the frontiers.
* This passage, written just four weeks before news of the outrages
reached the English public, shows that Sir Henry Elliot was well in-
formed from the beginning as to the excesses with which the Bulgarian
movement was being crushed and that he at once did his best to bring
them to an end.
1876] SIR. H. ELLIOT WRITES AGAIN IOI
“I quite agree in all you say of the feelings which will
be caused throughout Europe through the excesses sure
to be committed by the Bashi Bazouks ; but what can
be done In a mountainous country irregulars may be
of more service or as much so as regulars ; and in the
face of such an utterly unprovoked attack the Turks will
retaliate with every instrument within their reach.
“It is difficult to believe that the Servians could calmly
play such an apparently desperate game unless they had
better reasons than we are aware of for counting upon
some powerful assistance.” *
The anticipations entertained by Sir Henry Elliot and
Mr. White as to the indignation that would be caused
“in England and in Europe generally ” by news of the
outrages committed by the Turkish irregular troops were
fully realised—at least in England ; for “Europe
generally” was much less agitated by the intelligence.
The information, however, received by the English
Government from its Ambassador at Constantinople was
kept back, in the evident hope that the horrible affair
would perhaps blow over and that the “Bulgarian
movement” with its immediate consequences might be
regarded as already at an end.
It was not until some weeks later (June 23) that light
was thrown on the subject by the Constantinople corres-
pondent of the Daily News; and it was on June 26, one
month after the date of Sir Henry Elliot's letter on the
subject to Mr. White, that the matter was first mentioned
in the House of Commons; when Mr. Disraeli declared
that, compared with the official accounts received, the
reports of the Daily News correspondent seemed greatly
exaggerated.
At last, when the horrible truth became known, it was
assumed by many that Sir Henry Elliot had not kept
his Government properly informed, and, worse still, that
he looked upon the outrages committed by the Bashi
I O2 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
Bazouks, gipsies, and Circassians, if not with tolerance
at least without strong condemnation. Sir Henry Elliot,
however, had done his duty from the first.
At last the attacks made upon him became so violent
that the Ambassador was forced to defend himself; and
he wrote in one of his despatches, when from his habitual
calmness he had been goaded into anger, that England
in accepting Turkey as an ally knew that she was
binding herself to a semi-civilised state, and that her
policy once decided upon had to be maintained, whether
her ally massacred ten, twenty, or thirty thousand
persons.
Had not the Turks, indeed, massacred Christians in
Scio and Syria long before the days of the Bulgarian
atrocities—just as they massacred Christians by tens
of thousands in Armenia twenty years afterwards 2
After a long delay Sir Henry Elliot on July 19 sent
to Bulgaria Mr. Baring, a member of his embassy, who,
accompanied by his father-in-law, Mr. Guarracino, went
to Adrianople, Philippopolis, and Batak, where the most
horrible of all the massacres had been committed, to
report fully both as to the rising and the atrocities
perpetrated in quelling it. Nothing could exceed the
cruelties, the indignities, the horrors related by Mr.
Baring ; the only important point in which his narrative
differed from that of previous correspondents being in
regard to the significance and magnitude of the insur-
rection by which the massacres had been provoked.
There had really been a rising, accompanied by violence
and bloodshed.
In an introductory letter, enclosing Mr. Baring's report,
Sir Henry Elliot admitted that the cruelties fully justified
the indignation they had called forth ; but he added
that the number of victims which at one time had been
1876] THE BUL.GARIAN PLAN IO3
estimated at sixty thousand, and afterwards thirty
thousand, had fortunately been exaggerated. Mr. Baring
had heard them calculated at figures varying from
eighteen hundred to three hundred thousand. By careful
inquiry he concluded that about twelve thousand had been
massacred at Philippopolis alone. The insurrection had
been planned by a number of schoolmasters and priests;
and, to encourage the rising, those who hesitated were
assured that a Russian Army in support of the movement
was already on the march and would soon cross the
Balkans.
“The schoolmasters,” said Mr. Baring's report, “are *
men who have many of them been educated in Russia.
They have returned to their homes with a smattering
of education and a mass of ideas respecting Panslavism
in their heads. The plan was as follows: To destroy
as much of the railway as possible, to burn the rolling-
stock, to set fire to Adrianople in a hundred, and to
Philippopolis in sixty places, and also to burn Sofia
and a number of villages; to attack the Turkish and
mixed villages and to kill all Mussulmans who resisted,
and take their property. . . . The rising to be joint
and simultaneous ; such Bulgarians as refused to join
the insurgents, to be forced into it and their villages burnt.”
Formidable, however, as the insurrection may have
been in design, it possessed no military importance, and
at the first appearance of the regular troops collapsed.
Mr. White knew nothing of the Bulgarian massacres
beyond what had reached him through Constantinople
in Sir Henry Elliot's letters and afterwards through
the English newspapers. But massacre was in the
air, the word “atrocities” was on every one’s lips, and
Mr. White, like all the British agents in the Balkan
Peninsula, was now instructed to send whatever informa-
tion he could obtain as to outrages committed by Turks
upon Slavonians, or by Slavonians upon Turks.
*
*
~ *
º y
i
IO4 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
This inquiry was extended later on to the conduct
of Russians and Turks in action and immediately
afterwards; the promoters of the inquiry in this case
being Russian generals whose indignation had been
roused by baseless charges brought in the vaguest manner
against the Russian troops. Colonel Wellesley, English
military attaché at St. Petersburg, who was accompany-
ing the Russian Army in an official character, thought
his own negative information as to the acts charged
against the Russians insufficient; and he appealed there-
fore to some of the principal correspondents who had
been more at the front. Thereupon, a paper was
signed by the late Colonel Charles Brackenbury, military
correspondent of the Times, and by the correspondents
of Le Temps, and other trustworthy representatives of the
foreign Press, testifying that at the end of a battle they
had seen on the Russian side the Turkish wounded
attended with every care by Russian surgeons, but
on the Turkish side Russian corpses mutilated and
beheaded.
The examples of revolting cruelty and barbarous mutila-
tion which had come within Mr. White's notice had all
been committed by Turks upon Servians.
At one time, the whole Consular service in the Slavonian
provinces of the Balkan Peninsula was put into commotion
by the account which Canon Liddon and the Rev. Malcolm
MacColl published of an impalement they believed them-
selves to have seen on the banks of the river Save.
The activity of our agents in regard to this matter
extended even to Pesth, where Mr. Harriss Gastrell called
attention to the fact that of the hundreds of persons
travelling by steamer and passing to and fro by other
means, close to the spot where the outrage was said to
have been committed, not one had seen anything of it
1876] BISHOPSTROSSMAYER ON THE TURK Io;
He added, however, that whether it happened or not,
it was the sort of thing that might well have occurred.
Bishop Strossmayer, consulted on the subject, lost his
temper and said it was ridiculous to trouble him about
one isolated act of barbarity, which the Turks might, or ,
might not have committed, when in so many massacres
they had perpetrated them by tens of thousands.
Scio, Syria, Bulgaria Armenia are indeed the names
associated with the most characteristic exploits of the
Turks during the last three-quarters of a century.
The public mind was over-excited at the time on the
subject of massacres, and all kinds of “atrocities”; and
the question of impalement or non-impalement was dis-
cussed by some as though torture and death by this
horrible means had never been heard of in Turkey. In
justice to the Turks, it must be said that they by no means
reserved this cruel punishment for Christian victims.
Moltke, when in 1839 he was attached as Adviser to the
Turkish Army sent against the Egyptians, saved by his
own personal intercession a party of Turkish robbers from
being impaled.
The practice, too, was common at the beginning of
the century in Egypt; where the French under Napoleon
impaled the assassin of General Kléber. For French
and English still adopt (at least for special occasions)
the favourite punishments of the people they subjugate.
It must not be supposed that the Turks had not on
their side well-founded, fully authenticated complaints
to make of cruelty and outrage on the part of Russians
and Bulgarians. The following statement as to what
took place in Bulgaria after the entry into that region
of the Russian troops was signed by the correspondents
of the Manchester Guardian, Koelnische Zeitung, Standard,
Frankfurter Zeitung, Journal des Débats, Morning Post,
I4
IO6 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
République Française, Pester Lloyd, Wiener Tagblatt,
Illustrated London News, Neue Freie Presse, Times, Morning
Advertiser, Wew York Herald, Scotsman, Graphic, Wiener
Vorstadt Zeitung, Daily Telegraph, and Manchester Et-
aminer:
“The undersigned representatives of the foreign Press
assembled at Schumla consider it their duty to record
under their own signatures the substance of the accounts
which they have sent separately to their journals of the
acts of inhumanity committed in Bulgaria against the
inoffensive Mussulman population. They declare that
they saw with their own eyes and interrogated at Schumla
children, women, and old men wounded by lance thrusts
and sabrecuts, without speaking of wounds from fire-arms
which might be attributed to the chances of legitimate
warfare. These victims give horrible accounts of the
treatment inflicted by the Russian troops, and sometimes
also by the Bulgarians on the Mussulman fugitives.
According to their declarations, the Mussulman population
of several villages was entirely massacred, either on the
roads or in the villages given up to pillage. Every day
fresh victims come in. The undersigned affirm that the
women and children are the most numerous among these
victims, and that most of the wounds are from the lance.
Schumla, 20 July, 1877.”
The names of the correspondents follow.
The despatches published in Blue Books between the
years 1876 and 1879 on the subject of cruelties committed
by Turks upon Bulgarians, Servians and Russians, and
by Servians, Russians and Bulgarians upon Turks, would,
bound together, form a considerable number of good-
sized volumes; a handsome library, in fact.
On August 24, 1876, Mr. White, with the other Consuls
and Diplomatic Agents at Belgrade, had been summoned
to the Palace where Prince Milan announced his willing-
ness to accept an intervention on the part of the great
Powers with a view to peace. Before, however, the
SERVIANS AS SOLDIERS to/
negotiations could be commenced, the Turks gained a
new advantage over the Servians, attacking their army
under the walls of Alexinatz and completely defeating
it. The Servians, and especially the Servian artillery,
are said to have fought well on this occasion. But,
according to an opinion expressed in friendly conversa-
tion by their leader, General Tchermaieff, the Servians in
general though satisfactory enough as militia were worth
very little as regular troops. They would defend with
courage, that is to say, their domestic hearths but
could not be counted upon for campaigning work on
a large scale and away from home.
The Battle of Alexinatz was fought on September 1,
and on the evening of that day England proposed a
month's armistice. Turkey would not consent to any sort
of truce, but was prepared to make peace if Prince
Milan would do homage at Constantinople. Four,
moreover, of the Servian fortresses were to be garrisoned
by Turkish troops, while the Servian tribute was to be
increased and the Servian Army diminished. Turkey
seemed resolved to make the terms of peace as difficult
as possible ; and the Powers all agreed in regarding
them as unreasonable. That, too, was Mr. White's
view.
Enough, however, of a war which was fought through-
out on the understanding that the Servians with their
Russian supporters might beat the Turks, but that the
Turks must under no circumstances beat the Servians.
The Turks showed during the campaign that they
could still make war. But their indignation at being
first provoked into taking up arms and afterwards com-
pelled in the moment of victory to lay them down
rendered them unable to make peace.
Some three weeks before the forced conclusion of the
to8 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
Turko-Servian War, Count Schuvaloff had already informed
Lord Derby that the Russian Emperor was most anxious
to bring it to an end; and he wished this result to be
attained not by Russia alone, but by the combined action
of Russia, Austria, and England. Russia, according to
the Emperor's suggestion, would occupy Servia and
Austria Bosnia; while the English fleet could pass the
Straits and show itself in the Bosphorus. If the naval
demonstration on the part of England seemed sufficient,
the Emperor was ready to abandon all idea of occupying
Turkish territory.
The English Cabinet was willing to press for a month's
armistice, but objected to the military occupation by
Russia and Austria and could not undertake by means
of a naval demonstration to impose terms of peace upon
Turkey. Lord Derby then proposed that a Conference
should assemble at Constantinople to consider the general
situation.
Turkey, however, stuck to her idea of an armistice
for half a year, during which period of delay she pro-
posed to introduce the most important reforms and to
set her house in order generally. Most of the Powers
accepted the Turkish view of the situation. Russia,
however, argued that Servia could not be expected to
undergo the strain of keeping her army for the next
six months on a war footing.
The usual appeal was made to Prince Bismarck who
informed Lord Derby that, though the German Govern-
ment considered the idea of a six months' armistice
reasonable enough, it could not press this idea upon
any other power. In the end the Turks accepted an
armistice for a month.
The arrangements for the Conference having all been
made, Lord Salisbury, on November 20, left London to
1876] LORD SALISBURY'S TOUR 109
attend it. Mr. White had been already informed that
he was to act as adlatus to his lordship.;
On his way to Constantinople, Lord Salisbury made
a diplomatic journey of an appropriately circuitous kind,
visiting in the course of his travels Berlin, Vienna and
Rome. Some of the incidents of this political tour, with
the conversations to which they gave rise, were set forth
in a series of despatches published in Blue Book form.
Nor did Lord Salisbury omit to relate the particulars of
his first interview with General Ignatieff at Constantinople.
This was of the most friendly character.
Every one had expected that England and Russia would
be in antagonism throughout the Conference, and this
anticipation was strengthened by Lord Salisbury's visit
to the Prussian, Austrian, and Italian, but not to the
Russian Court. But Berlin, Vienna, Rome were all
more or less on the way to Constantinople, whereas a
visit to St. Petersburg would have involved a very round-
about journey. There was another reason. But once
arrived at Constantinople, Lord Salisbury found it an
easy matter to come to an understanding with General
Ignatieff; as he did a year later in London with Count
Schuvaloff, before the Conference of Berlin.
France was represented at the Conference by Count
de Chaudordy, Ambassador Extraordinary, and Count de
Bourgoing, Ambassador Resident; Austria by Count
Calice, Ambassador Extraordinary, and Count Zichy,
Ambassador Resident. General Ignatieff, with character-
istic self-confidence, dispensed with the assistance of any
Ambassador Extraordinary from St. Petersburg; while
Germany and Italy were content to leave their interests
respectively to the care of their resident ambassadors,
Baron Werther and Count Corti.
The latter diplomatist is said to have observed just
I IO SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
before the Conference began its labours that the assembled
delegates were in the position of architects proposing
to make alterations in the house of a man who did
not wish his house to be altered. The Sultan, moreover,
in his character of “sick man,” was likened to a patient
whom a number of doctors assembled in consultation
insisted on treating without having been called in.
An understanding between Lord Salisbury and General
Ignatieff having so soon been reached, it was scarcely
possible that the representatives of the other Powers
would not fall into line. The harmony between the
counsellors was, in fact, perfect; and but for the counselled
one not a discordant note would have been heard.
Mr. White's particular duty in connection with the
Conference was to furnish Lord Salisbury with information
as to the condition of the Christian provinces and
principalities of the Porte ; the aspirations of their popula-
tions and their legal position ; the system of administration
under which they lived ; the way in which this adminis-
tration was conducted, and so on. He had passed scarcely
more than a year in Servia. But all that related to
the Slavonian provinces of Turkey was, so far as it
could be ascertained by study, known to him before
he went to Belgrade ; and he had been assiduous in
his journeyings and his researches ever since his arrival.
It will be remembered, too, that when Mr. White was
Consul at Dantzic he made, by the direction of the
Foreign Office, a political tour of observation in Hungary
and its Slavonian provinces.
Until now a knowledge of European-Turkey had been
held to mean knowledge of the Turkish language and
of Turkish methods of government, Sir Henry Layard,
as appears from more than one of his letters to Sir
William White, held, even after the treaty of Berlin, when
1876] VASSAL STATES OF THE BALKAN 111
European-Turkey in its old form had been destroyed,
that a mastery of the Turkish language was still an
all-important part of the necessary equipment of a young
man preparing himself for Consular and Diplomatic
Service in the East ; while Servian seemed to him, by
comparison, of slight value.
In connection with the affairs of Turkey in Europe,
Mr. White was the very man for whom, thirteen years
before, the late Lord Strangford had been seeking, and
seeking in vain, when in his famous chapter entitled
“Chaos,” appended to Lady Strangford’s “Eastern Shores
of the Adriatic,” he wrote as follows :
“The most remarkable fact in Turkey is the awakening
of the subject nationalities, the rising cultivation of their
languages, and the utter untrustworthiness of their talk
about themselves when not properly controlled. But we
have no Englishman who knows anything whatever about
Servian, about Bulgarian, or, beyond a moderate point,
about Wallachian ; yet the language of each nationality,
Turkish hardly excepted, is its life-blood.”
Lord Strangford did not at that time (1863) know of
Mr. White's existence, though he and Lady Strangford
were afterwards numbered among Mr. White's best friends.
The future Ambassador was still Vice-Consul at Warsaw,
where, towards the end of 1863, he made the acquaintance
of Mr. (afterwards Sir) M. E. Grant Duff, who, in the year
following, introduced him to Lord Strangford in London.
I find among Sir William White's papers an interesting
letter addressed to him by Lady Strangford in the
year 1887, in which she signs herself, “Your faithful
friend and admirer.”
To return to the Conference : in one of Sir Henry
Layard's letters to Sir William White, Prince Dondoukoff-
Korsakoff is said to have described the Berlin Conference
II 2 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
as “une comédie d'Offenbach.” That was a mistake. But
there was really a little of the opéra bouffe element in
the proceedings at the Conference of Constantinople.
After the Turkish President had made an impotent
attempt to explain away the Bulgarian massacres
discharges of artillery were suddenly heard, and the
President of the Conference surprised his fellow-
members by informing them that these formidable salutes
announced the promulgation of the Ottoman Constitution.
“A great act,” he said, “accomplished at this very
hour, changes the form of government which has endured
for six hundred years. The constitution which His
Majesty the Sultan has bestowed on his Empire is
promulgated. It inaugurates a new era of happiness
and prosperity for the people.”
The Sultan was now a constitutional sovereign. The
liberty of his subjects was guaranteed, and they were
all, whether Mahometan or Christian, equal before the
law, and alike eligible for public offices. The proceedings
of the law courts were to be public; suitors were to be
represented by advocates, and the judges were to be
irremovable. A Chamber of Deputies and a Senate were
to be established, and no tax could be imposed or levied
except in virtue of the law.
The French representative, Count de Chaudordy, re-
marked that until peace was established the Constitution
could not have a fair trial ; and this view was supported
by Lord Salisbury and General Ignatieff.
Safvet Pasha replied that the new Constitution must
be regarded as a means towards securing and perpetuating
peace. -
The Conference in general, however, looked upon the
Constitution merely as a device for impeding the business
of the Assembly. No one seems to have believed in
1877] THE TURKISH CONSTITUTION II 3
it except Sir Henry Elliot—and, above all, Sir Henry
Layard ; who, a year or two after its promulgation,
speaks of it in more than one letter to Sir William
as though it were a living institution, in full activity.
The author of the Constitution was an earnest reformer,
Midhat Pasha; a man of energy, of liberal views, and
of scrupulous honesty, who in the province placed under
his government made roads, built bridges, and provided
schools.
A dozen years later, in the pages of the Nineteenth
Century, Sir Henry Elliot wrote an interesting and in-
structive article on Turkish affairs, in which he pays a
high tribute to Midhat Pasha, and expresses his full
belief in the practical value of his constitution. The
reader of the article cannot but wonder why these views
were not insisted upon at the Conference when the Turk
was told, first, that he must introduce reforms, and secondly,
that the reforms he had ready for introduction could not
be considered. On the other hand it may be said that
if Turkey wished to introduce general reforms that
constituted no reason why she should not carry out the
specific reforms insisted upon by the Powers.
To the somewhat commonplace objection that Midhat
Pasha's constitution was only a “paper Constitution,”
Sir Henry Elliot well replies that it is impossible to
improvise an ancient constitution based on tradition,
and that every constitution has had for its origin a
document of some kind. Still, if the Turks generally
had believed very much in their Constitution they might,
on their own account, have introduced it after the war.
At the first two meetings of the Conference little was
done, the Turkish representatives declaring that they
could accept nothing without referring to their Govern-
ment. At the third meeting, General Ignatieff demanded
I 5
I I4 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
\
that the proposals made to the Porte should be accepted
or rejected forthwith. The Turks, however, while declining
to consider the proposals laid before them, insisted on
their own counter proposal—the acceptance of the Turkish
Constitution. -
One of the strangest suggestions put forward by the
Powers was that Bulgaria should be occupied by a
Belgian gendarmerie ; an arrangement to which the
consent of the Belgian Government had not been asked
and which the government of Turkey at once rejected.
The representatives of the European Powers showed
themselves in many ways most accommodating ; though
by diminishing their demands daily they encouraged
the Turks to refuse the little which was still required
from them.
In the end the Powers would not consider the Turkish
proposals, while the Turks refused to entertain the pro-
posals submitted to them. War even now was not
absolutely inevitable. It was just possible that Turkey
left to herself, might carry out her promised reforms.
Such a course, however, seemed to Russia so improbable—
perhaps so undesirable—that she hastened to commence
the hostilities which had for some time past been in
preparation.
Lord Derby addressed a strong protest to the Russian
Government, maintaining that Turkey should have been
allowed time to carry out the reforms she had pledged
herself to introduce. Disapproving of the war, it followed
as a matter of course that England could not be counted
upon to acquiesce in any advantages that Russia might
seek to derive from it.
While the Conference was going on, Mr. White
received the following letter from Sir Robert Morier at
Lisbon:
1877] LETTER FROM SIR. R. MORIER II 5
“BRITISH LEGATION, LISBON.
“MY DEAR WHITE,
“I have just seen in the papers that you have
been appointed to act as adlatus to Lord Salisbury;
you will readily imagine how great was my satisfaction
at this appointment. I ought to have told you long
ago (only you know I am weak as a correspondent) that
when I was in London this summer, I learnt not only
from the Dii Minorum Gentium at the Office, but
directly from the Olympians, that you had given the
highest satisfaction. You will be a deal too busy to
wish to have a long tartine from me, and besides, my
work here is not of a kind to interest a man and a
brother. I have bid adieu to Europe and can only look
on to this great crisis as if it were a pantomime or
Schatten-spiel played by silhouettes whom I used to
know in a former state of existence but all strange to
me now. Nevertheless, I cannot help taking an interest
in the plot and in the performances of the various actors,
and there is a solution which seems to me so obvious
that I do want to know, should you ever have time to
write to me, why it has never yet been proposed. The
only difficulty that I can see is the question of occupa-
tion. I cannot suppose that with the Syrian precedent
we shall obstinately refuse the principle of occupation
in any shape. The difficulty must be as to who should
occupy. The poco curantes won’t. The parties really in-
terested, Russia and England, are each jealous of the
other. Why has not a joint Anglo-Russian occupation
ever been suggested P. This seems to me to solve all
difficulties. As long as we are there the Turks have
nothing to dread from Russian occupation nor the
Christians from Turkish barbarity. By proposing this
joint occupation to Russia we checkmate any ulterior
views she may have, at the same time that we afford
her the guarantee she requires for the enforcing of the
new state of things in Bulgaria. But just conceive all
the benefits we might derive from such a comparative
study of Russian and English occupiers for our own
prestige in the East ! We have always had it in our
own power—I have not ceased to din that into the ears
of the F. O.-to make ourselves the point d'appui of the
Christians in the Turkish Empire, and thus take all
I I6 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
the wind out of the sails of Russia; and after the popula-
tion had seen the difference between an English and a
Russian occupation it would jump to the eyes even of
the blind, and we should débuter into a new policy at
Constantinople with an immense advantage.
“These, however, are all derivatory considerations The
importance of this solution suggests itself to me because
it is the only way out of a dilemma.
“If we assent to the occupation by Russia alone we
eat humble pie.
“If we dissent from that occupation, and no one else
is ready to occupy, we go against the whole feeling of
Europe. The joint occupation settles everything.
“Yours sincerely,
“R. B. MORIER.”
Before returning to his post at Belgrade, Mr. White
wrote to Sir Robert Morier, January 16, 1877, as follows:
“My DEAR MORIER,
“I was extremely gratified to receive your kind
and affectionate letter the other day; and though my time
here is not my own, and I have hardly any to spare, you
must nevertheless get a line before I leave this spot—
the most beautiful by nature, but rendered rather beastly
by man.
“When the secret history of this Conference is written,
it will be a strange revelation, as Lord Salisbury and his
mission are exposed to every kind of abuse and shaking
of the head, more especially on the part of the English
residents here, and particularly of those who stand well
with our own regular Embassy. The latter is very
unfortunately composed, and the selection does little
credit to F. O. I do not speak of the chief or of his
son Francis—the latter is a nice young man full of tact
and hope. But the other three secretaries (Baring is
away) are below the average of the ordinary class of
our Diplomatic Service and are chiefly distinguished by
their Russophobia which they bring prominently forward
in and out of season. The Dragomen, including the
first Oriental Secretary, are all Levantines of a very bad
type and suspected of being corrupt. The service of the
Embassy, i.e., its political influence, is reduced to nil.
1877] LETTER FROM SIR R. MORIER I 17
“Now Lord Salisbury during his diplomatic tour to
Continental Courts convinced himself that no Power was
disposed to shield Turkey—not even Austria if blood
had to be shed for the status quo; and his Lordship
came here determined to prepare for a new line of policy.
As soon as the regular Embassy twigged this they com-
menced opposing him more or less openly, saying he
was deceived by the Russians, enguirlandé' by Ignatieff,
ignorant of Turkish usages and ways, etc., etc. As I
have seen a good deal of Lord and Lady Salisbury, I have
come in for my share of unpopularity with the other
people and also with that queer set, our consuls in Turkey.
“You know me well enough. I did not come here
to deceive Lord Salisbury or to defend an untenable
Russophobe or pro-Turkish policy. The next Session
of Parliament will no doubt be greatly affected by the
negative results of this Conference which will be closed
probably to-morrow.
“There will probably be a difference of opinion in the
Cabinet as to our future line of policy, and I shall not
wonder if Lord Salisbury should upset Dizzy and take
his place or leave the Government on this question. If
he does the latter the coach is indeed upset.
“Bismarck aims at preventing every pacific Solution
and involving Russia in a costly and dangerous war. He
will continue to use Andrassy as his tool and will thus
prepare two great results : the weakening of Russia and
the partition of Turkey. If he can bring all this about
—and for this there must be war—he will find it easy
to isolate France permanently and to make some re
arrangement of the map of Europe which will, in his
opinion, strengthen and consolidate the Reich.
“The question for us is, first, to preserve peace on fair
terms advantageous to the populations of this empire ;
secondly, if this fails, to watch over such portions as bear
on our interests. It is certainly most important for us
to prevent Bismarck from having altogether his own way
in Europe. But to do this we must, whilst keeping well
with France and Austria, draw nearer to Russia; and
this has been Lord Salisbury's object, though he has been
* A term invented by M. de Custine in his brilliant but libellous book
on Russia to denote the Russian's alleged custom of “encircling with
flowers” those whom he wishes to deceive.
II 8 SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
thwarted by the Premier at home and, to a certain extent,
by some parties here.
“In my opinion the Conference is not a complete or
open failure, as some people think; for it will show the
people at home how obstinate and incorrigible the Turk
is, and that the F. O. must mind better whom it employs
in the service abroad. Your name has of course been
mentioned, and it will be a happy day for me should
I hear that the Olympians have determined to send you
out here to take charge even provisionally of this Embassy.
“Some one with your rank in the service will have to
be sent, as Sir Henry Elliot is not likely to come back
very soon—if ever; and it will be impossible to fill up
the ambassadorial post just now.
“I cannot say what Lord Salisbury will recommend,
nor how far his recommendations will be attended to ;
but your name has been mentioned.
“How I wish that we could be brought nearer to
each other and could work together
“I have applied for leave, and propose starting from
here on Tuesday the 23rd inst. I shall go at once to
Belgrade, and thence, I trust, to London, as I want to
follow Lord Salisbury there and hear what is going on.”
On March 21, 1877, Morier sent to the above letter
the subjoined reply:
“MY DEAR WHITE,
“I received your very welcome letter of the
16 January in due course of time. Later on I saw in the
correspondence from Belgrade that you had returned there,
and that you had been ordered to give up ‘your well-
deserved leave 'owing to the importance of your presence
on the spot. I therefore shall not write to you in
London as I had intended. Mrs. Morier, however, has
just read out from the Times a list of Beust's guests and
amongst them Mr. White. Now I do not believe that
this can be other than you (alas ! there are few Whites
in the world and an outrageous lot of Blacks) so I suppose
you have returned to the Fatherland and are enjoying
the excitement of the situation. I was exceedingly
interested in your letter as you may well imagine. It
1877] LETTER FROM STR W. WHITE II9
was the first perfectly authentic piece of intelligence
I had received in this out-of-the-way hole to which no
one ever writes. I need not say that every word it
contains is absolutely sacred. I have tried to use what
you say as a key to what has happened since, but, alas !
there was not enough to enable me to do so. Lord S 's
acceptance of the mission with the instructions he took
out with him and his attitude since his return alike
remain a complete puzzle to me. But as I know from
experience the impossibility of solving such puzzles
without the knowledge which only a few possess, I have
given it up as a bad job. The abiding fact that remains
after all is said and done, is the absolute and unconditional
ineptitude of our International machinery—and to this
there is no remedy. The country itself is mortally
diseased with a fatty heart, and those that guide her
destinies have the disease in an intensified form and
there is no use shuffling about this. The Departmental
people of the F. O. are the worst offenders. Their hatred
of anything that rises above routine or carries with it
the promise of a policy would be amusing if one could
look at it with indifferent eyes and not as an interested
party. I have felt it already here. There was plenty
of excellent work to be done—the not doing of which
is certain to lead to future catastrophes. . . . But verbum
sap, to quote your own words. I need not tell you the
kind of reception my proposals are likely to meet with.
The personal portion of your letter was not the least
interesting—Mais ſe me me fai's aucume illusion. I should
have liked nothing better than such an interim as you
describe as having been talked of, with a man like
Lord Salisbury at the F. O. to back me. But without
such backing up, I confess I should have looked upon
such an appointment with fear and trembling. There
was an obvious arrangement to be made, and I confess
I thought it would not have failed to be made with Lord
Salisbury out there. I mean that you should have been
left in charge of the mission as Chargé d'Affaires or Acting
Chargé d'Affaires or under any other name that would
have caused the fewest hysterics to F. O. clerks.
“When I saw poor dear old Jos had been left in
charge. . . . I ought perhaps to have cried, but I fear
I broke out into shrill and disagreeable laughter. I shall
be very curious to see whom they send out. In the
I2O SERVIA, 1876. [Ch. VI
profession there is absolutely no one fit for the place
except Odo, and I suppose they cannot spare him at
Berlin. Hudson is of course the man, but I fear there
is no chance of their thinking of him, and I do not know
whether his health would allow him to accept the post.
But he was to be had for the asking as late as three
or four years ago. It must end in their sending an
outsider, and there I am nearly as much puzzled as ever.
Bartle Frere and Dufferin would both be good men, but
they are employed elsewhere. I have been sent a very
ill-natured cutting from Labouchere's new paper Truth,
saying I am a candidate and that no worse man could
be chosen for the post. Then follows an unflattering
notice of Thornton as another candidate ; then a flaming
description of Lord Napier as the man.
“Let me have a letter of gossip. You do not know
what it is to be here high and dry, and for obvious
reasons the people I might write to for gossip are people
under actual circumstances that I would not for the world
address. I shall always be grateful to the Oriental
Question for one thing, which is that it has brought you
to the fore and got your merits at last acknowledged.
“Do not forget what I urged on you the last time
you were in England—to be chary of your good words
in reference to me. I don't so much care about Lord
Salisbury, but have specially Lord D in mind. He is
the sort might think we hunted in couples Verbum sap.
“Yours sincerely,
“ R. B. M.”
CHAPTER VII
SIR HENRY LAYARD AT CONSTANTINOPLE
CIR HENRY ELLIOT, having shown himself a
little too Turkish for the popular taste, was trans-
ferred after the Conference of Constantinople to Vienna,
when Lord Beaconsfield appointed an eminent Liberal,
Sir Henry Layard, to replace him as Ambassador to
the Porte. The ancient Liberals who had supported
Poland in 1830, and Hungary in 1848, and who were
bitterly opposed to Russia at the time of the Crimean
War, were for the most part thorough-going Turks,
and Sir Henry Layard was one of them. He was much
more Turkish now than any of his fellows of the 1848
period; some of whom had lost confidence in the Turk,
while others had never believed in him except as a
counterpoise to Russia, and only admired him for the
protection which, in spite of Russian menaces, he had
given to the Hungarian refugees of 1849.
But the Liberals of the year 1877, the “Gee-Gees,” as Sir
Robert Morier called them,-the followers, that is to say
of Gladstone and Granville,_could not abide the Turk;
for which reason Sir Henry Layard, though like them
he called himself a Liberal, was for Turkish affairs by
no means their man. He was far more Turkish than
Lord Salisbury, who had represented the Conservative
Government at the Conference of Constantinople; in-
finitely more Turkish than Lord Derby, Conservative
1:21 I6
I 22 SIR HENRY LAYARD [Ch. VII
Foreign Minister at the time, and quite as Turkish as
Lord Beaconsfield himself.
But there was scarcely a statesman in Europe (including,
of course, Sir Henry Layard) who, however well disposed
towards the Turks, did not think important reforms
indispensable in Turkey; and many no doubt believed
that it would be a good thing if, to employ a phrase
of Mr. Gladstone's (and of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe's),
the Turk could conveniently be turned “bag and baggage"
out of Europe.
For the English Ambassadors who have shown them-
selves most strenuous in maintaining the Turkish Empire
against its assailants have not for that reason been
admirers of the Turks ; and the statesman who first
expressed a wish to see the Turks turned out of Europe
“bag and baggage’ was indeed Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe. In a letter of the year 1826 to his cousin,
George Canning, he wrote as follows:
“As a matter of humanity I wish with all my soul
that the Greeks were put in possession of their whole
patrimony, and that the Sultan was driven bag and
baggage into the heart of Asia.””
Count Andrassy's favourite formula for Turkey—pre-
Scription, one might almost say—was “the status quo
ameliorated.” There is little or nothing in Sir Henry
Layard's very numerous letters addressed to Mr. White
from Constantinople to show that he thought any funda-
mental reforms necessary or even possible. He, also
preferred the “status quo very much ameliorated.”
* “Life of the Right Hon. Stratford Canning Viscount Stratford
de Redcliffe,” by Stanley Lane-Poole. Whether Mr. Gladstone ever
saw the letter from Mr. Stratford Canning containing the phrase in
question may well be doubted. Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet was
published in 1877, Mr. Lane-Poole's biography in 1888.
1877] “TURKEY IN EUROPE" I 23
“Turkey in Europe,” with its vassal states governing
themselves peacefully and paying tribute to the suzerain
only that he might defend them against foreign aggressors,
without putting them to the expense of keeping up
standing armies of their own : what could be better than
this state of things if fairly worked, and how, more-
over, could such an organisation be replaced P
At the time, however, of the Constantinople Conference,
“Turkey in Europe” was already in a condition of
complete anarchy. The vassal state of Servia and all
the Slavonian provinces had already taken up arms
against the Sultan, while the powerful vassal state of
Roumania was to join the rebellion soon afterwards.
An empire in which all the provinces and principalities
were at war with the Imperial suzerain may have been
a difficult one to replace; it was certainly not an easy
one to maintain.
When as a young man Sir Henry Layard first visited
Turkey the subject populations of the Balkan Peninsula
were still in a dormant condition. The Russians in their
latest war against Turkey (1828–29) had scarcely thought
it worth while to wake them up ; and some partial
experiments made in that direction had proved utter
failures. Roumanians, Servians, Bulgarians, Montenegrins
used at that time to be spoken of collectively as “Greek
Christians”; and the only constant champions of Christian
independence against Mahometan tyranny were the
Greeks with their bands of hetaerae. Panslavism had
not yet been conceived ; or, if conceived—chiefly as a
literary idea by professors and writers in Bohemia—had
not yet been promulgated in Servia, still less in Bulgaria,
as a political principle.
A curious record had been preserved by Sir William
White of Sir Henry Layard's first visit to Servia; on
I24 SIR HENRY LAYARD [Ch. VII
which occasion, he seems, as might have been expected,
to have taken less interest in the Servians than in the
Turks who ruled them ; less in the British Consul-
General and diplomatic agent at Belgrade, than in the
Turkish Pasha who commanded the Belgrade fortress.
Sir Stratford Canning (afterwards Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe) was at that time British Ambassador at
Constantinople; and he gave young Layard, in whom
he took much interest, a letter of introduction to Mr. de
Fonblanque, Consul-General at Belgrade. Here is the
letter :
“CONSTANTINOPLE,
“August 15th, 1842.
“DEAR SIR,
“The traveller who will deliver this letter to you
is Mr. Layard, an English gentleman, who has been in
several parts of Asia, and who wishes not to return to
England without seeing a part of European Turkey. I
have only known him since his arrival here, but his
talents, his information, and his estimable character make
me desirous of assisting him in the course of his travels,
and I shall therefore feel obliged by your lending him
such aid as your acquaintance with the country where
you live may enable you to afford.
“Believe me,
- “Very sincerely yours,
“STRATFORD CANNING.
“THOMAS DE GRENIER DE FONBLANGUE, ESQ.”
Sir Stratford Canning's letter of introduction bears the
following strange endorsement, apparently in the hand-
writing of Mr. De Fonblanque.
“CoNSTANTINOPLE,”
“August 15/42.
“Sir Stratford Camming
Introduces a
Mr. Layard who wishes
to see something of
1877] VISIT TO BELGRADE I25
European Turkey before
Åe returns to England.
(Mem. Mr. Layard
did return to
Constantinople
after seeing something
of European Turkey,
and undermining
me with the Pasha—all in the Ambassador's name.”
Servia, it will be remembered, was in those days a
self-governing state under a Christian Prince, but also
under the constant surveillance and occasional shell-fire
of a Turkish Pasha who commanded the garrison of the
citadel, from which the Servian capital could be bom-
barded and, if thought necessary, destroyed.
Mr. de Fonblanque does not seem to have been a
favourite with the Turks ; and he was once, when taking
a walk round the ramparts, attacked and seriously wounded
by Turkish soldiers. Mr. Layard, on the other hand,
entertained the most bitter contempt for the Servians;
and it can easily be understood that in any conversation
they may have held on the subject of Servia and the
Turkish garrison, Mr. Layard and Mr. de Fonblanque
would not have agreed.
Sir Stratford Canning's letter of introduction, with
Mr. de Fonblanque's sarcastic endorsement, may have
been found by Mr. White at the British Consulate when
he arrived at Belgrade in 1875, thirty-three years after
the letter was received and many years after Mr. de
Fonblanque's death, which was hastened, if not directly
caused, by the injuries he received at the hands of the
Turks.
Mr. Layard's visit to Belgrade may possibly have been
a visit of inspection ; for, on his return to Constantinople,
he did some work for Sir Stratford Canning's Embassy,
I 26 SIR HENRY LAY ARD [Ch. VII
to which he was afterwards officially attached. Then he
had a long and honourable career in England, where his
Assyrian researches and his work on “Nineveh and its
Remains” had made him famous. He was returned to
Parliament, and in 1852 held the post of Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs in Lord John Russell's administration.
Returned to Parliament for Southwark in 1860, Mr
Layard became in the year following Lord Palmerston's
Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He was in office
till 1866 under Lord Russell ; and he joined Mr. Gladstone's
Government as Chief Commissioner of Works in 1868,
from which post he retired in the following year to accept
the Legation at Madrid.
Having been promoted to Constantinople in 1877,
Sir Henry Layard remained there throughout the Russo-
Turkish War, during the Berlin Conference, and until the
return of the “Gee-Gees” to power in 1880, when he was
recalled, to be replaced by Mr. Goschen, who was sent
out with the title of Special Ambassador.
ſ" No one could have been more anxious to save Turkey
from the ruin which threatened her than Sir Henry
Layard. His sympathy inspired him with hope, and
his hope with conviction that Turkey was still a vigorous
power. For him “Turkey in Europe " had by no means
ceased to exist, and in two different letters he impresses
upon Mr. White how desirable it is for a young man
of ability bent on making his mark in connection with
Eastern affairs to master the Turkish language rather
\ than the tongues of the despised Slavonians.
“Do you wish to keep Mr. Cumberbatch permanently
at Belgrade P” he writes ; “and is he learning Turkish as
well as Servian P"
And again :
“I am glad to hear that you are pleased with
1877] TREATY OF SAN STEFANO 127
Cumberbatch. Impress upon him that if he wishes to
do well here and to get on he should work hard at
Turkish, and learn to read and write it.”
Mr. Cumberbatch, of whom Sir William White enter-
tained a very high opinion, is now H.B.M.'s Consul at
Smyrna.
Here are two highly interesting letters from Sir Henry
Layard, written immediately after the completion of the
“preliminaries" of San Stefano.
“BRITISH EMBAssy, CoNSTANTINopLE.,
“Feb. 1, 1878.
“My DEAR MR. WHITE,-
“Your last letter to me was of the 14th ultimo.
I am not surprised at its melancholy tone—it is fully
justified by the course of events. I telegraphed to you
yesterday that the bases of peace and the armistice
were to be signed that day. We are not yet officially
acquainted with the conditions of peace—as the Porte
has been warned so meaningly not to reveal them that,
for once in a way, the secret has been kept. However,
we know enough of them, if not all of them, to make it
pretty clear that if they are carried out there is an end
to the Turkish rule in Europe and to our influence in the
East. They are scarcely less disastrous to Austria than
they are to Turkey, for it is difficult to see how the
Austro-Hungarian Empire can hold together when the
greater part of Turkey in Europe is formed into a great
Slav state which will be entirely dependent upon Russia
if it be not speedily annexed to her. I should be very
glad to have your views on this subject. Whatever may
be the result of the war, and the peace ultimately concluded,
I see in the proposed arrangements abundant seed of
future disorders and wars. The Eastern Question will
be very far from settled, although it may pass into
another phase. -
“The terms of peace will, of course, much depend upon
the attitude of England and Austria. That there must
be great and fundamental reforms in Turkish Administra-
tion no one can doubt. The utter rottenness of the
I 28 SIR HENRY LAYARD [Ch. VII
present system has been fully proved by the present
war. The Empire has been sacrificed to palace intrigues,
corruption, and incapacity. The man to whom all the
disasters that have befallen Turkey must be mainly
attributed—Suleiman Pasha—has been sustained by the
palace party. He is either so utterly ignorant and in-
competent, that he ought not to have been entrusted
with a command, or he is a traitor. There are good
grounds for suspecting that he is the latter. Months
ago the Sultan and his ministers were warned that
Suleiman was Sacrificing the country, and yet some
occult influence enabled him to get all honest and capable
men out of the way, and to obtain for himself supreme
command. Had it not been for this, the Russians would
have been compelled to recross the Danube and to
enter upon a second campaign. My only hope now is
in the Turkish Parliament, which may yet do something
towards bringing about those reforms, which are absolutely
necessary for keeping together the fragments that may
be left of the Turkish Empire.
Pray remember me kindly to Christich," for whom I
have much esteem. I shall be glad to hear from you
whenever you have the means of writing to me, and
leisure to do so.
“Yours very truly,
“A. H. LAYARD.”
“CONSTANTINOPLE.
“March 1, 1878.
“MY DEAR MR. WHITE,
As I have no means of sending a letter safely to
you, I am somewhat discouraged about writing. My
last from you was of the 5th of last month. The Turkish
letter in it was duly presented. The gloomy view of the
state of affairs here that you express is, I fear, too well
justified. It is true that the peace will probably be
signed to-morrow ; but it is a peace which may lead
to many wars. You probably know the conditions so
far as they have transpired. I have yet no official
knowledge of them, but I believe that those given by
the Press are fairly correct. They amount to the end
* Late Servian agent at Constantinople, where he became one of
Sir Henry Layard's most intimate friends.
1878] LETTER FROM LAYARD I 29
of the Turkish rule in Europe. No bad thing if it could
be replaced by any other that would suit the interests
of peace, humanity, and civilisation. I am afraid that
this New Bulgaria, a mere Russian dependency, and a
number of small Slav states and communities, ready to
take each other by the throat, will promote neither.
As for Austria, I cannot understand how she allowed
matters to go so far. You say that Count Andrassy
has a regular scheme for replacing the old Ottoman Empire.
It is time that we should know what it is. But it is
not easy to form empires and states and to remodel
the map of Europe without having recourse to Russian
measures, which unsettle everything, and may lead to
consequences of which those who employ them may be
the victims.
“It has always appeared to me that the true policy of
England and Austria with regard to Turkey was to keep
matters as they were as long as possible; using at the
same time their joint endeavours to improve the govern-
ment of the country, and to secure, to Christians and
Mussulmans alike, justice and equal rights, thus preparing
them for the changes which were sooner or later, inevitable,
but which might have been brought about without the
frightful bloodshed and misery caused by this Russian
invasion, and without the risk of plunging Europe into
W2.1".
“England and Austria had no rival interests in Turkey.
On the contrary, we might have pulled earnestly and
sincerely together, and have effected a deal of good.
“I grieve with you about the course taken by the Liberal
party. Gladstone, carried away by a passionate hatred
of Lord Beaconsfield and without any of those sentiments
of national pride and dignity which distinguished the
order of statesmen who directed our foreign policy in days
gone by, has inflicted a blow upon his country from which
she may never recover unless she is prepared to make
enormous sacrifices.
“I hope Christich is well; pray give him my kind
remembrances. I hear that Servia is little satisfied with
the compensation to be given to her ; and with a
discontented Roumania, an anarchical Bulgaria, and
ambitious Greeks, we have a pretty prospect before us.
“Yours truly,
“A. H. LAYARD.”

17
I 30 SIR HENRY LAYARD [Ch. VII
The preceding letter is the last, or at least the last
preserved by Sir William White, of the very numerous
ones which Sir Henry Layard addressed to him at Belgrade.
The British Consul-General and Diplomatic Agent at
Belgrade was now transferred to Bucharest; but without,
for the moment, any promotion as regards rank.

CHAPTER VIII
MR. WHITE AT BUCHAREST
OUMANIA under the name of “Moldavia and
Wallachia,” “Moldo-Wallachia,” and in ordinary
parlance the “Danubian principalities,” was but little
known to the West of Europe until the time of the Crimean
War, when Turkey's twin vassal states on the Danube were
occupied, first by Russia, as a menace to Turkey, afterwards
by Austria, as a protection against Russia. The two self-
governing tributary States were under the rule of Christian
princes, or hospodars appointed by the Sultan. Their
“orthodox” religion was in no way interfered with ; and
in the whole of Moldo-Wallachia there was not and never
had been a single Mosque.
Originally the tribute payable to Turkey represented
the right of being defended against external enemies. But
this did not prevent the Sultan from ceding portions of
Wallachia to Austria, which thus gained possession of the
Bukovina; nor from making over a large piece of Moldavia
to Russia, which acquired in this manner the province
of Bessarabia.
Suffering, as they did in many ways, from the power
of their Turkish suzerain, Moldavia and Wallachia were
nevertheless self-governing States, with their own national
administration ; and so jealous were they of their
nationality and of their well-established system of self-


I31
I 32 MR, WHITE AT BUCHAREST [Ch. VIII
º
º
**
government that when, at the beginning of the eighteenth
century, some of the leading personages in Moldavia
signed a convention with Peter the Great who was about
to make war on Turkey, they stipulated that in case of
his liberating Moldavia from its dependence on the
Sultan he would introduce no Russian into the Mol-
davian administration. Positive pledges were given to
that effect. The Moldavians had enough political discern-
ment to see the necessity of guarding themselves before-
hand against the dangerous patronage of their would-be
liberators.
Roumania as an independent kingdom is little more
than twenty years old, and as a united State under Turkish
Suzerainty only forty-two years old. But Moldavia and
Wallachia (first brought together under the rule of Prince
Couza in 1859) had enjoyed a national existence as
separate principalities, with self-government, and a con-
tinuous political history for fifteen centuries.
The principalities were little known to the West. But
they occasionally produced a man like Prince Cantemir,
who, writing in the Latin language, made himself a
name among West Europeans by his interesting histories
of Turkey and the Turks, and by his descriptions of the
strange, unfamiliar regions in which he had passed his
eventful life.
In the present day no one has done so much to
popularise Roumania directly and indirectly in all parts
of the world as Carmen Sylva; so that many persons more
interested in literature than in politics know Roumania
only through the writings of her illustrious Queen.
To casual political observers, the Danubian principalities
seem to have been constantly getting “occupied ”—
now by Turkey, now by Russia, now by Austria. But
for the Crimean War (which many a thoughtless

1878] WHAT TO DO WITH ROUMANIA I33
politician now declares to have been waged in vain)
the Danubian principalities would have been annexed
to the Russian Empire ; and it was seriously proposed
before the meeting of the Conference of Paris, after
the Crimean War, that they should be ceded to Austria
so as to form a permanent bulwark against Russian
aggression in the direction of Turkey. Austria was, as
part of this arrangement, to make over her Italian
provinces to our good ally in the Crimea, the King of
Sardinia. But Austria was unwilling to place herself
in a position of permanent hostility towards Russia, nor
could she foresee that in a few years she would lose
both Lombardy and Venetia without gaining anything
in return.
In a project for the reconstruction of Poland, which
during the insurrection of 1863, met with the approval
of the Empéror Napoleon, Austria was to have ceded
Galicia towards the construction of a new Polish State,
and to have taken the Danubian principalities in exchange.
Possible objections on the part of the Roumanians were
not taken into consideration by the patriots of Poland.
So selfish is patriotism
In spite of the apparent uncertainty of her political
fate, Roumania has never shown the slightest leaning
towards consolidation with either of her powerful neigh-
bours. She cherishes her ancient nationality in the
most exclusive manner. Although ethnographers are not
absolutely agreed as to the origin of the Roumanians
—except, of course, that they are of Roman descent,
it is certain that for many centuries past they have
guarded and preserved their nationality, surrounded on
all sides by races of different origins, with the most
scrupulous care; regarding as foreigners from generation
to generation all settlers within their boundaries to
I 34 MR. WHITE AT BUCHAREST [Ch. VIII
whom special letters of naturalisation have not been
granted. The traditional customs and laws on this
head are referred to more than once by Mr. White
in his despatches on the subject of Jewish Disabilities in
Roumania.
Mr. White was transferred from Belgrade to Bucharest
in a somewhat unceremonious manner, without credentials,
without authority to recognise the independence of
Roumania, just freed from vassalage ; but with instructions
to obtain from the Roumanian Government the most
favourable conditions in a new commercial treaty.
Do at des is a sound commercial as well as diplomatic
principle. But Mego ut des was the parodoxical formula
which Mr. White had to apply.
“I am very glad,” began the letter, addressed to him by
Lord Salisbury, May 4, 1878, “that you are going to
Bucharest. I believe your presence and action there will
be of great value, and that during this Eastern crisis, at
least, your knowledge of Sclavonic tongues will be useful.
Of course, what we want of all things just now is in-
formation respecting the Roumanian and Russian Armies,
and the condition of things in Russia, Roumania and
Hungary So far as you are able to ascertain them. Of
course you will do all you properly can to encourage
the plucky attitude of Roumania. -
“We have sent you some work in the shape of a
Commercial Treaty. It ought to have been done long
ago, but they put it aside apparently from scruples as
to whether Roumania was or was not an independent
State. These, of course, are now at an end.
“Meanwhile, the Government will no doubt bear in
mind that we are a nation of shop-keepers, and that the
only sure way to our affections is through a liberal tariff.
“Believe me,
“Yours very truly,
“SALISBURY.”
Mr. (now Lord) Currie wrote to Mr. White from the
1878] ROUMANIAN INDEPENDENCE I35
Foreign Office on the same day as Lord Salisbury the
following complimentary letter :
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I congratulate you on your new post. It is a
very important one at the present crisis, and will give
Scope to your talents. .
“Of course, it will be independent, and we have no
wish that it should not be so. But any recognition of the
Treaty of San Stefano is undesirable at present.”
Mr. White then must have known tolerably well on
being appointed to Bucharest that he would sooner or
later be accredited to the Roumanian Court as Minister.
The rank of Consul-General and Diplomatic Agent which
he had held at Belgrade when Servia was a vassal State,
would scarcely be good enough for an envoy to inde-
pendent Roumania.
Six months afterwards, however, no decision had been
come to, as to what the rank of the new envoy should
be ; nor was the point settled until a much later date.
A letter received about this time (beginning of May)
by Mr. White from Lord Odo Russell, shows that the
British Ambassador at Berlin wished him to be called to
the Berlin Conference, “as you were to the Conference
at Constantinople.”
On May 17, 1878, three days after Mr. White's appoint-
ment to Bucharest, Sir Henry Elliot wrote to him as
follows from Vienna :
“BRITISH EMBAssy, VIENNA.
“Tuesday.
“My DEAR MR. WHITE,
“Let me begin by congratulating you on your
appointment to Bucharest, which I suppose is official.
It will be a more agreeable, as well as a more interesting
post than Belgrade, though I am not sure that our friends
the Egyptians would have selected you for it.
136 MR, WHITE AT BUCHAREST [Ch. VIII
“Mansfield' passed through Vienna three days ago. He
tells me that there is much exaggeration in the talk that
is going on, of there being a practical Russian occupation
of the Principality. On the other hand, the irritation at
the demand for the cession of Bessarabia seemed genuine
and universal, though there cannot be a doubt that the
Prince and his Ministers knew from the first that Russia
was determined to have it, and they went into the
alliance with their eyes open. This is the one point
upon which Gladstone thinks Russia open to some re-
proach. But Europe is not likely to go to war for the
sake of saving Roumania from being plundered by her
ally. The Roumanian Agents give it to be understood
that if we go to war with Russia, nothing will induce their
Government to move on her side, and if Austria went
in with us, they wish it to be believed that they also
would join.
The Roumanians were sorely puzzled by the task im-
posed upon them, and up to a certain point accepted, of
dealing satisfactorily with the Jewish Question before their
independence could be recognised. This was shown in
many ways ; and among others by a strange but heroic
plan formed by Prince Jon Ghika for the total abolition
of customs duties. Sir Henry Elliot brought this matter
to Mr. White's notice in a letter from Vienna dated
May 26, 1878:
“Jon Ghika,” he wrote, “and Demetri Stourdza were
here for a few days, the latter having gone back to
Bucharest, where you will no doubt see him. If you do
not already know him, you will find him a most reasonable
and sensible man. When he was the Prince's agent at
Constantinople, he always tried to keep matters straight
with the Porte, and if he had been more listened to many
misunderstandings would have been avoided.
“Ghika told me he is working to bring about the entire
suppression of all custom duties in Roumania, which will
singularly facilitate every commercial negotiation if it can
be brought about. But how the loss of revenue would be
* Late Consul-General and Diplomatic Agent at Bucharest,
1878] LORD ODO RUSSELL I 37
made up is more than I can see. He says it is the only
way in which the Jew Question can be got rid of, after
having been placed in such a bad position by the Austrian
Treaty ; that there are many articles largely consumed in
Roumania, the whole of which are smuggled, and that if
all duties were abolished the Principality would become
the entrepôt for goods of all descriptions destined for their
neighbours, and that as they have no industry or produce
to protect by duties, there is no class that would be injured
by the measure, while all would be gainers by it. All these
arguments are very plausible, but the question whether the
Principality can afford it will still remain.”
On July 11, two days before the Berlin Treaty was
finally signed, Mr. White wrote to Lord Odo Russell as
follows:
“MY DEAR LORD ODO,
“I congratulate you upon the happy termination
of your great task. It would have afforded me pleasure
to have been near you at such a time—affer man muss
sich fügen. Many friends were there, Sir Lintorn Simmons,
Currie, William Lee, etc., etc.
“Since my arrival here I have had two unpleasant
attacks of the indigenous fever. There has been very
great (and not quite unnatural) irritation here, though
the Prince, who is a most sensible man, has, like every one
here, been extremely kind to me. There was some fear
of the effects of a growing agitation, and it was not
exactly easy to preach resignation to races having Latin
blood in their veins. As a newcomer I had a little anxiety
on that account, especially as I saw that my colleagues
had still more. But the excitement has wonderfully
abated within the last few days.”
Three weeks after the Berlin Treaty had been signed,
Lord Odo Russell sent to Mr. White the subjoined
reply:
- “BRITISH EMBASSY, BERLIN.
“4 August, 1878.
“My DEAR MR, WHITE,
“I need not tell you that it was not my fault if
you were not summoned to the Congress, for I was most
I8
138 MR, WHITE AT BUCHAREST [Ch. VIII
anxious to have you here. But all was hurried. The
great object was to complete our task soon, and I think
you will agree with me that Lord Beaconsfield and Lord
Salisbury have made a capital treaty.
“To my mind the Roumanians have been vastly
benefited by the treaty ; but they were determined to
have a grievance which they could get no one to believe
in. If I were a Roumanian I should make the Kustendji
Canal and snap my fingers at Bessarabia. But they will
probably prefer to waste their means in making an army
and a diplomatic body like all the other minor Powers.
“Nothing could be more remarkable, more refreshing,
and more satisfactory than the manner in which Lord
Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury placed their ultimatum,
and carried their points with unflinching firmness in and
out of the Congress.
“I felt proud of our diplomacy.
“Au revoir—soon, I hope.
“Yours sincerely,
“ODO RUSSELL.”
In spite of Lord Odo Russell's opinion to the contrary,
the Roumanians had really very much to complain of
The territory of which Russia insisted on depriving them
formed an integral part of Moldavia ; and those who
talked of Roumania “giving back" the territory which
Russia had ceded to Moldavia after the Crimean War
forgot that Russia had taken this territory from Moldavia
forty-four years previously, in 1812. One result of
replacing the Danubian mouths in the hands of Russia
has been that the Lower Danube is now navigated by
Russian gunboats which have already paid (1901) an
unexpected, undesired visit to Galatz.
When the Berlin Treaty had been signed, and the
time had come for applying its provisions, Mr. White's
difficulties, instead of being diminished, were greatly
increased. The high contracting parties had pledged
themselves to recognise the independence of Roumania
1878] CONDITIONS OF INDEPENDENCE I39
on its fulfilling the conditions laid down in the two
following articles of the treaty :
“ARTICLE XLIV.—In Roumania the difference of
religious creeds and confessions shall not be alleged
against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity
in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil and political
rights, admission to public employments, functions, and
honours, or the exercise of various professions and in-
dustries in any locality whatsoever.
“The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of
worship will be assured to all persons belonging to the
Roumanian State, as well as to foreigners, and no hindrance
shall be offered either to the hierarchical organisation of
the different communions, or to their relations with their
spiritual chiefs.
“The nationals of all the Powers, traders or others, shall
be treated in Roumania without distinction of creed, on
a footing of perfect equality.”
“ARTICLE XLV.-The Principality of Roumania
restores to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia that
portion of the Bessarabian Territory detached from Russia
by the Treaty of Paris in 1856, bounded on the west
by the waterway of the Pruth, and on the south by
the waterway of the Kilia Branch and the mouths of
Star-Stamboul.”
There were two conditions, moreover, not mentioned
in the Treaty with which it was absolutely necessary
that Roumania should comply before her independence
could be recognised by England, France, Austria, Germany,
and Italy. She was to refuse to Russia the right of
military way through the Dobrudja, which that Power
was demanding, and to accede to certain terms required
by Prince Bismarck in connection with one of her
railways.
That the situation was serious in regard to the right
of march through the Dobrudja is shown by documents
which Mr. White received at this time from the Foreign
I4O MR. WHITE AT BUCHAREST [Ch. VIII
Office. The following memorandum sets forth the views
entertained by Austria, probably also by England.
“If Roumania consents to give this right of military
way, she will in fact be making herself Russia's ally for
the purpose of carrying into effect the object which this
demand for military passage must be assumed to contem-
plate. As this cannot possibly be in harmony with the
Treaty of Berlin, Roumania is very likely to find herself
held responsible for the facilities which she is now asked
to give ; and if the fortune of war should go against Russia,
it is very likely that European Statesmen will provide
against any future dangers from Russia's ambition by
making a new disposition of Roumanian territory. The
absorption of a considerable portion of it into Hungary
is not at all impossible. To this danger Roumania will
have exposed herself if she now makes any arrangement
with Russia inconsistent with or menacing to the Treaty
of Berlin. If she refuses to give the required right of
way, she may yet, when the time comes, find herself too
weak to resist the demand of Russia. But then she will
be yielding to force majeure. She will not be an accomplice
in the guilt ; and if there is punishment, she will not have
incurred any share in it. The commonest prudence ought
therefore to lead her to keep clear of this quarrel.”
In the first letter of instructions addressed to Mr. White
after his appointment to Bucharest, Lord Salisbury had
told him, among other things, to encourage, as much as
he fairly could the “plucky attitude of Roumania.” In
the next few pages it will be seen what the attitude of
Roumania really was.
CHAPTER IX
“THE PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA ’’
HEN the Russian Colossus, attacked in his
vulnerable heel by England, France, Turkey, and
Sardinia, with Austria keeping the ground against him
in the Danubian provinces, was at last compelled to make
peace, then a small cession of territory was required from
the wounded and enfeebled giant, not for either of the
attacking Powers, but for Moldavia; not so much because
the Powers which had proved victorious considered
Moldavia entitled to it (though it had been violently torn
from her forty-four years before), as because the territory
demanded back from Russia contained the mouths of the
Danube, and because Russia had failed to keep these
mouths open—to the injury and destruction of the
Hungarian and Moldo-Wallachian corn trade, and to the
advantage, therefore, of the Russian corn trade and of
Odessa.
No humiliation was intended towards Russia, and it
was expressly set forth in the treaty that the cession of
territory was stipulated for in order that the mouths of
the Danube might be kept open ; with which object the
river was placed under the care of a European commission.
But Russia felt mortified ; and at the Conference of
Paris, Prince Gortchakoff, present as one of the representa-
tives of Russia, abstained from putting his name to the
treaty because in the post he was about to assume—that
I4I
142 PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA [Ch. IX
of Minister of Foreign Affairs—he had resolved to make
it the work of his life to destroy two most obnoxious
clauses in the treaty: the clause neutralising the Black
Sea, and the clause ceding the Black Sea districts of
Bessarabia to Moldavia. This interesting and important
fact is recorded with some emphasis in the Étude Diplo-
matique sur la Guerre de Crimée, issued by the Russian
Foreign Office and attributed to Baron Jomini.
In the series of Acts and Documents, published in
1893 by the Roumanian Minister of Foreign Affairs,
M. Kogolniceano, in reference to the Roumanian War of
Independence (1877–1878) a conversation between General
Ignatieff and an unnamed Roumanian diplomatist is
recorded which shows the view entertained by the
Emperor, Alexander II., both as to the freedom of the
Black Sea and the cession of Bessarabia.
“Seven years ago,” writes the Roumanian diplomatist,
“General Ignatieff said to me that in the Treaty of Paris
there were two blots on the life of Alexander II.-
the neutralisation of the Black Sea and Bessarabia ; and
that the Emperor considered himself bound in honour to
efface them before his death. Later, when the question
of the Black Sea had been disposed of, General Ignatieff
said to me, that everything between us had now been
arranged and that we could henceforth live on friendly
terms. I reminded him of what he had previously said
about Bessarabia.
“‘Yes,’ he replied ; “let us forget it ! Let us say nothing
about it !’”
The Roumanians, however, bore well in mind the fact
that Russia wanted back the piece of Bessarabian territory
on the Black Sea which she had been required to cede to
Moldavia after the Crimean War; and they accordingly
stipulated in the formal convention, signed with Russia
when the Russians proposed, in 1877, to pass through
1878] A RUSSIAN GUARANTEE I43
Roumania towards the invasion of Turkey, that, whatever
might happen, the independence and integrity of Roumania
should not be interfered with.
“That no inconvenience and no danger may be caused
to Roumania,” ran the clause dealing with this point, “by
the passage of Russian troops through her territory, the
government of His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias,
binds himself to maintain and cause to be respected the
political rights of the Roumanian State as established by
internal laws and by existing treaties; also to maintain
and defend the actual integrity of Roumania.”
This was explicit enough, and that there should
be no possibility of any misunderstanding about it, the
Roumanian Government published the convention in the
official journal of Bucharest. M. Kogolniceano, Roumanian
Foreign Minister at the time, called attention to it, more-
over, at every opportunity until at last Baron Stuart,
Russian Diplomatic Agent at Bucharest, showed some
irritation and said that to doubt the Emperor's words
was “an offence to His Majesty.”
The Roumanian Government continued then to hope
—but with serious misgivings—that the Emperor would
keep his word. While taking certain precautions for
the defence of their territory, the Roumanians did not
engage in hostilities against Turkey until One day a
message was received by Prince Charles from the Grand-
Duke Nicholas telling him of the critical position of affairs
before Plevna, declaring that “Christendom was in danger,”
and calling upon him with or without conditions to hasten
at once to the assistance of the Faithful.
Prince Charles did not hesitate. He marched with an
army of fifty thousand men to the point where help was
so urgently needed ; and before the combined attack
of Roumanians and Russians the Plevna fortress fell. A
144 PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA [Ch. IX
year afterwards the Grand-Duke Nicholas, mindful of
the services rendered by Prince Charles, sent him the
following telegram :
“Bobran, 28 September, 1878. Anniversary of the
memorable day of the battles beneath Plevna, where our
two armies for the first time fought together under your
Orders and in conjunction took the first redoubt of Gravitza.
Cannot help testifying to you once more my gratitude
for all the time during which I had the honour of having
your young army under my command, which showed
itself worthy of its young prince who himself led it for
the first time to its baptism of iron. Allow me, your old
friend, to embrace you and Elizabeth also with all my
heart. My compliments to all who remember me.”
The Grand-Duke Nicholas had been unable meanwhile
to admit Prince Charles to the negotiations on the subject
of peace; explaining to him that he himself took no active
part in them but was obliged to receive all his instructions
from St. Petersburg. The Treaty of San Stefano gave
back Roumanian Bessarabia to Russia, the Dobrudja
being made over to Roumania by way of compensation.
Roumania, meanwhile, had not been in any way consulted
about this retrocession, which was obtained direct from
Turkey—still Roumania's suzerain, but not the owner of
her soil.
It was necessary to ignore Roumania in the matter,
it being known beforehand that she would never consent
to such an act of Spoliation which was, moreover, an
absolute violation of the Russo-Roumanian convention.
The time having arrived for the Russian Government
to break the news delicately but seriously to Roumania
that the convention on the subject of her integrity had
been set at nought, Baron Jomini took up his best pen
and addressed to the Roumanian Minister of Foreign
Affairs a long homily on the merits and advantages of
1878] JOMINI'S EPISTLES I45
acting in good faith, as illustrated by a striking example
of the contrary practice, borrowed substantially from his
own Etude Diplomatique sur la Guerre de Crimée.
Here is the Baron's first epistle to the Roumanians."
“ST. PETERSBURG,
“Jan. 17, 1878.
“I received with much pleasure the telegram from your
Excellency on the occasion of the Ist of January, and
I was deeply touched by this mark of your friendly
recollection. I beg you to accept all my thanks, and
to believe in my sincere wishes that the year just beginning
may bring you all possible kinds of prosperity. Amongst
these wishes I form one that you may succeed in maintain-
ing and consolidating the good relations which have been
established between Roumania and Russia, and which
have been cemented on fields of battle. Many temptations
will assail you, and crafty endeavours will be made to
persuade you that in politics perfidy is cleverness. Do
not believe it. Straightforwardness, good sense, and reason
are the best and surest guides; my experience of forty
years has given me this conviction. This is above all
applicable to nations. Individuals may sometimes find an
advantage in duplicity; but men pass and nations remain.
Politics are like whist—what one side gains the other
side loses; and the losing side desires its revenge. That
is what statesmen entrusted with the fate of nations too
often forget. When this desire for revenge is inspired in
a neighbouring and powerful state, in a state to which
much is due for the past, and from which there is nothing
to fear in the future—since it is great enough to have no
feeling of covetousness, and strong enough not to be in
a position to desire compensations—then a great fault is
committed ; for a friend is lost and an enemy created.
And this fault is greater still when, like you, one is
surrounded by perils.
“History is full of testimonies to this truth. Take
the example of Austria in /54. Admiration has been
expressed for the Machiavellian cleverness of Count Buol,
who, without firing a shot, turned us out of the Princi-
palities, condemning us to an impossible defensive
| Actes et Documeuts, vol. i., p. Io. Bucharest, 1893.
I9
146 PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA [Ch. IX
attitude, and finally detaching us from the Danube by
depriving us of a province.
“Now what came of it all P Three years after the peace
Austria lost Lombardy, and, ten years later, her whole
position in Germany. God preserve Roumania from such
cleverness as that I Do not, moreover, allow yourself to be
deceived by the humbug" of neutrality. That of Belgium
which is preached to you as a model does not rest at all
on treaties, which in our days are, alas ! but scraps of
paper. It is guaranteed by the powerful interest of
England, her neighbour, not to allow a great Power to
establish itself at Antwerp.
“In the same way the best guarantee of your neutrality,
and, above all, of your independence, is the friendship of
Russia, and the interest she has in so high a degree to
insure your co-operation in order to maintain the work of
emancipation she is at this moment accomplishing, in case
her position should be threatened. Forgive me these
political digressions. I conclude by asking a favour.
Having received from H.M. the Emperor his authorisation
to accept the decoration which you have sent me on the
part of Prince Charles, I beg you to be kind enough to
express to his Highness my profound gratitude.
“Accept, Excellency, the homage of all my respects,
“JOMINI.”
The meaning of Baron Jomini's political “digressions”
was that he advised Roumania to accept willingly the
retrocession of Bessarabia, and to remain on the best
terms with Russia in case the Western Powers should
wish to impede that Power in her “work of emancipation.”
What Russia at this time wanted was not only Bessarabia,
but also the right of march through the Dobrudja (about
to be made a Roumanian possession) into Bulgaria; a
continuous military line, that is to say, from the newly
acquired Bessarabia to the environs of Adrianople.
A daring programme, which, however, was to be sub-
stantially torn up at the Conference of Berlin.
* Writing in French, Baron Jomini introduces this word in English.
1878] BULLYING ROUMANIA I47
The Roumanian Government, in reply, took its stand
on the Emperor Alexander's promise to respect the in-
tegrity of Roumania ; and General Prince Ghika, the
Russian Diplomatic Agent at St. Petersburg, was instructed
to remain firm, and to ascertain from Prince Gortchakoff
whether the decision of the Russian Government was
unchangeable on the subject of Bessarabia.
“Prince Gortchakoff,” wrote General Ghika in reply,
“says that in spite of all our clamour at home and
abroad Russia's intention will be carried out ; that he
will not introduce the question at the sittings of the
Congress because it would be humiliating to the Emperor;
that if another Power wished to do so he would not agree
to it; that he wishes to treat with us alone ; that if he
cannot make us give way he will take Bessarabia by force ;
and that if we should resist by arms such resistance would
be fatal to Roumania. Nevertheless, we can neither treat
nor give way. I am now preparing a reply to the Cabinet
of St. Petersburg which I hope to be able to send you
to-morrow."
On hearing that Russia would not allow the question
of Bessarabia to be brought before the Conference of
Berlin, M. Balaceano, Roumanian Diplomatic Agent at
Vienna, telegraphed to his Government at Bucharest:
“The Russian Government is in error. . . . The
Bessarabian Question will come before the Conference or
there will be no Conference; in which case there will be
33
Wall".
It is now said that if the Roumanians had consented
to treat in a direct manner with Russia, they could have
had magnificent terms, including a large war indemnity
and much additional territory. But the whole feeling
of the country was against the cession, and no minister
would have dared to propose it.
Actes et Documents, etc., vol. i., p. 54. Bucharest, 1893.
148 PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA [Ch. IX
Prince Bismarck sent several times to Bucharest
urging the Roumanians to give way, and assuring them
that they would have to do so in the end ; but without
effect. &
When Prince Bismarck brought the matter before the
Conference he did so in such an emphatic manner that
the cession was at once voted. Russia would have to give
way on so many other points that on this one it was
thought desirable to meet her wishes. The two Powers
most likely to take a just view of the matter, France and
England, agreed reluctantly and almost under protest
to the retrocession of Bessarabia. M. Waddington
remarked that Roumania was being treated “rather
hardly,” and Lord Beaconsfield in giving his consent
said he did so “with regret.”
When at last Roumania was formally called upon by
the Russian Agent at Bucharest to make over the territory
which as one of the conditions of her independence the
Conference had summoned her to give up, she still refused
until the authorisation of the Roumanian Parliament should
have been obtained. The cession was of course voted.
What had been refused to Russian dictation was accorded
to the representations of the European Powers.
But the exactions of Russia were not yet at an end,
and once more an attempt was made to bully Roumania
into subservience. The rude messages on these occasions
were sent by Prince Gortchakoff; the polite ones, modify-
ing in some degree the offensiveness of his chief, by the
always amiable Baron Jomini.
In addition to the Bessarabian districts on the Black
Sea, Russia acquired by Article 8 of the Treaty of San
Stefano the right of marching troops during a period of
two years through Roumania into Bulgaria ; which, as
before said, would have enabled the Russians to keep up
1878] GORTCHAKOFF’S THREATS I49
a direct line of military communication between Russia
and Bulgaria—the Bulgaria of the San Stefano Treaty
extending in one direction to the neighbourhood of
Adrianople, in another to the shores of the AEgean.
The Roumanians objected strongly to the right of
march through Roumania, feeling that the two years'
occupation might easily degenerate into a permanent one
Informed of this, Prince Gortchakoff sent for General
Ghika, and on his arrival said to him :
“Is it true that your Government means to protest
against the eighth article of the Treaty of San Stefano
which reserves to the Army of Bulgaria its communications
with Russia through Roumania P. If the Emperor, already
ill-disposed towards you on account of your attitude on
the Bessarabian Question, learnt that any such declaration
had been made he would lose all patience. He has
commissioned me to tell you, for communication to your
Government, that if you have any intention of protesting
against or of opposing the Article in question he will have
Roumania occupied and the Roumanian Army disarmed.”
General Ghika expressed his astonishment at receiving
such a message, and promised to communicate at once
with his Government ; who replied, that an arrangement
made with Turkey could not be binding on Roumania,
and, in regard to Prince Gortchakoff's threats, “that the
Roumanian Army might be crushed, but would never allow
itself to be disarmed.”
Prince Gortchakoff in his Babylonian haughtiness had
now made two mistakes, by which Roumania with
her skilful and courageous diplomacy was not slow to
profit. He had previously declared that Russia would
not allow the Bessarabian Question to be brought before
the Conference ; and he now threatened that if Roumania
objected to the continued passage of Russian troops
150 PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA [Ch. IX
during a period of two years through Roumania and
the Dobrudja he would occupy Roumania and disarm the
Roumanian Army.
By telegraphing to their diplomatic agents in the chief
European capitals, the Roumanian Government ascer-
tained that Russia would be obliged, if peace was to be
preserved, to submit the Bessarabian Question to the
Conference ; and they now learned that Roumania would
be supported in her refusal to recognise the two years'
right of march claimed by Russia through Roumania and
the Dobrudja. The Roumanians, however, had taken up
their ground boldly from the first without knowing on
either point whether they would be supported or not.
The insulting threat not merely to attack and possibly
vanquish the Roumanian Army, but to “disarm " it, did
not leave the valiant Prince Charles unmoved. He sent
for the Russian Agent, Baron Stuart, to the Palace
and in reference to Prince Gortchakoff's menaces said
to him :
“Russia must not forget that there is a Hohenzollern
on the throne of Roumania, and that he commands an
army which will do its duty towards the throne and
towards the country.”
A circular despatch from M. Kogolniceano to the
Roumanian Diplomatic Agents, reporting the interview
between Prince Charles and the Russian Diplomatic
Agent, ended with these words: “Measures are being
taken for rendering the menaced attack a costly one to
its authors.”
Prince Gortchakoff, having threatened not only to
seize Bessarabia, but in case of resistance to take possession
of all Roumania, Baron Jomini wrote to General Ghika,
explaining that “His Majesty's intentions would only
be carried out in case of certain eventualities,” and
1878] GORTCHAKOFF RETIRES I 5 I
recommending him to telegraph at once to Bucharest
desiring that “nothing should be done until his return.”
Baron Jomini, however, could not with such a chief
keep up his conciliatory attitude very long; and, in
answer to a request from General Ghika for an audience
from Prince Gortchakoff, he wrote that “the Prince
Chancellor was so much occupied that it was quite im-
possible for him to make an appointment. His Highness,”
continued the latter, “begs you to send your communica-
tion to M. de Giers, who in due time will inform you of
the answer, should there be one.”
This was extremely discourteous ; but all talk about
occupying Roumania and disarming its brave troops was
at an end.
Prince Gortchakoff wished now to escape from the
awkward position in which he had placed himself by his
declaration that he would never allow the Bessarabian
Question to be brought before the Conference. News
of this declaration had at once been flashed by General
Ghika from St. Petersburg to Bucharest, and by M.
Kogolniceano from Bucharest to all the European capitals.
Prince Gortchakoff heard of it on all sides, and was
enraged. It was the insolence of the Roumanian diplo-
matists in taking advantage of his declaration and wiring
it all over Europe that above all excited his wrath.
He had evidently intended General Ghika and his govern-
ment to keep it to themselves. He now informed General
Ghika that he did not recollect saying anything of the
kind ; when the Roumanian Agent assured him in return
that he had made a note of the conversation immedi-
ately afterwards, and had at once despatched its substance
to Bucharest. --
M. Novikoff, too, at Vienna was instructed to deny
the reports circulated by the Roumanians as to Prince
152 PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA [Ch. IX
Gortchakoff's threats, which, said M. Novikoff, “ had
been invented by the Roumanian Government in order
to raise up a feeling in Europe against Russia.”
“This accusation,” wrote M. Kogolniceano to the agent
at Vienna, “is a very grave one. I therefore declare to
you, and I beg you to declare on your side that, accord-
ing to an official despatch from General Ghika, Prince
Gortchakoff threatened to occupy the country on a more
extended scale, and to disarm the Roumanian Army in
case we protested against Article 8 of the Treaty of San
Stefano. I will send you a copy of this despatch and
of a letter which Jomini afterwards addressed to General
Ghika, in order to attenuate a little the effect of the
threats.”
M. de Giers, too, had an interview with General Ghika
on the subject of Prince Gortchakoff's menaces, in which
the future Foreign Minister made some curious suggestions
as to the possible significance and value of diplomatic
language.
“Prince Gortchakoff did not,” said M. de Giers, “wish
to deny General Ghika's assertions. But His Highness,”
he continued, “may have used words which do not quite
express his thoughts, or which are contrary to them "
(“des mots qui rendent mal ses pensées ou qui leur
sont contraires "). *
Finding that the Roumanians persisted in their protest
against the Russian Convention with Turkey authorising
the passage of Russian troops through Roumania, Prince
Gortchakoff sent a special agent to Bucharest in order
to conclude a new convention with Roumania herself.
But the Roumanians still argued that a two years'
occupation might easily become a permanent one. Nor
could any Government retain power in Roumania which
consented to such a humiliation. They continued there-
* Actes et Documents, vol. i., p. Io9. Bucharest, 1893.
1878] A COMPROMISE I 53
fore to protest ; and they were saved some natural
anxiety on this head through being informed at Vienna
by Count Andrassy on the part of Austria-Hungary,
and by Sir Henry Elliot on the part of England, that
neither of these Powers would consent to Russia's being
allowed a military passage through Roumania. M.
Balaceano, the Roumanian Agent at Vienna, was struck
by the fact that the assurances on this point given to
him by Count Andrassy and Sir Henry Elliot were in
almost identical language.
Ultimately Russia had to give way in regard to the
military communications between Russia and Bulgaria
through Roumania. The right of passage, however, was
authorised by the Conference for a single year. Roumania,
at the same time, by decision of the Conference, and as
one of the conditions of her independence, surrendered
to Russia that portion of Bessarabia on the Black Sea
coast which had been detached from Russia and annexed
to Moldavia by the Treaty of Paris; receiving by
way of compensation the Dobrudja. Prince Bismarck is
known to have settled the Bessarabian matter by a few
emphatic words in which he pointed out, besides other
reasons, that Russia, victorious in her recent campaign,
felt deeply on that particular point and that her feelings
ought to be respected.
Not so the feelings of Roumania, who had also been
victorious and, moreover, had saved Russia from defeat.
But great Powers feel more strongly than small ones.
It was in connection with the Bessarabian Question
alone that Prince Bismarck justified a boast he had
recently made to the effect that he was the Conference.
Before the Conference assembled the Roumanian agent
at Berlin, M. Varnac, wrote, April 23, 1878, to Bucharest
that, in the course of a conversation he had had the night
2O
154 PLUCKY ATTITUDE OF ROUMANIA [Ch. IX
before with Lord Odo Russell, the British Ambassador
had said that up to the present time, Prince Bismarck had
done nothing in connection with the Eastern Question
but utter mots.
“He has just made one,” added Lord Odo, “which
surpasses all the others.” In memory of Louis XIV. he
said just as he was starting for the country, “Le congrès
c'est moi!”
“I replied that I had read a few days before, in the
Débats an article which cited all the Chancellor's bons mots
in reference to the Eastern Question and showed that
not one of them had hit the mark. I added that I
hoped the latest would have the same fate as the others,
and that England also would be the Congress.”
“England will be listened to or there will be war,”
said the Ambassador. “But I think,” he added, “that
things will be arranged pacifically and that they will
end well for you and for all Europe.”
Like so many great men, Prince Bismarck suffered
at times from what is called in the language of science
“megalomania,” and in American slang, “swelled head.”
If at the Conference at Berlin he made himself the
mouthpiece of Russia and claimed for her the retro-
cession of Bessarabia, he did so because he knew that
Alexander II. had declared that he regarded the loss of
Bessarabia as one of the two “blots” on his reign which
he was bound to efface. Prince Gortchakoff wiped out
one of them when, towards the end of the Franco-German
War, he procured by the Treaty of London the aboli-
tion of the clause in the Treaty of Paris forbidding Russia,
equally with Turkey, to build ships on the Black Sea.
Yet Prince Bismarck ended by persuading himself that
the idea of destroying the neutralisation clause was his
own particular conception originated at a critical moment
1878] ROUMANIAN HEROISM I55
in order to render it impossible for England to come
diplomatically or otherwise to the aid of her Crimean
ally.
Prince Gortchakoff, however, could have said with truth
that the destruction of the Black Sea clause was the
object held immediately in view by Russia from the very
beginning of the Franco-German War, and that Prussia's
assistance towards that end was the price paid for
Russia's more than benevolent neutrality at the outset
of the campaign, when the attitude of Austria was still
uncertain. -
On being sent to Bucharest, Mr. White as we have seen
had been instructed among other things to do all he fairly
could to encourage “the plucky attitude of Roumania.”
This attitude, approved equally by France and by England,
had inspired him with sympathy and admiration when he
was still at Belgrade. The only service he could render to
the Roumanians he certainly did render, by keeping his
Government fully informed as to their perilous situation ;
in which their attitude was more than “plucky’: it
was heroic.
CHAPTER X
ROUMANIA AND THE JEWS
HE trials of Roumania were far from being at an
end. In recognising Roumanian independence
the Conference had stipulated as a condition that
Roumanian Jews should be admitted to the same
rights as Roumanians in general. This stipulation filled
the Roumanians with dismay ; and the reply made by the
Government, the Parliament, and the people was succinctly
that there was no such thing as a “Roumanian Jew,”
and that, to require the admission of three hundred
thousand foreigners (four hundred thousand, according to
some estimates) of the same race and religion to the rights
of Roumanian citizens with whom they had nothing in
common—neither language, nor traditions, nor sympathy,
nor aspirations—was to demand an injustice and an
impossibility.
“Better go on paying tribute to the Turks,” wrote
M. Kogolniceano, Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he
first heard of the conditions on which Roumanian inde-
pendence was to be recognised.
“Better make terms with Russia than have the Jews
imposed upon us,” said to me, some time later, another
Roumanian Minister.
No foreigner had ever acquired Roumanian nationality
by simply “giving himself the trouble to be born " in
Roumania. The rights of Roumanian citizenship were
only for Roumanians of Roumanian blood ; and it had
I56
1878] ROUMANIAN CITIZENSHIP I 57
always been made an object of the first importance to
preserve the purity of the race, since Roumania was
surrounded and frequently traversed by populations of
the most diverse origins.
In 1848, when Moldavia and Wallachia were occupied by
a combined Russian and Turkish Army, Count Nesselrode,
the Russian Foreign Minister of those days, sent out a
circular in which, by way of destroying all claims on the
part of Roumanians to serious consideration, he declared
that their national origin had been “lost in the night
of ages.”
After his arrival then at Bucharest, one of Mr. White's
first and most important duties was to study the Jewish
Question and report upon it to his Government; and
without allowing himself to be misled by the usual
commonplaces on the subject of religious equality, he at
once saw how important it was for Roumania, hemmed
in by dangerous enemies, to entrust her Government
exclusively to Roumanians.
He showed that Roumanian nationality had never been
acquired by the accident of being born on Roumanian
territory, nor even by prolonged residence in the country;
and that, except in cases of special service to the
community or to the Government, it had always been
confined to persons of Roumanian blood. The Jews were
excluded from Roumanian citizenship less as Jews than
as aliens; just as Ottomans were excluded less as
Mahometans than as Turks.
Mr. White's views on this point were partly set forth
in the following letter to the Marquess of Salisbury:
“My LORD,
“With reference to the programme for the solution
of the Jewish Question, taking special categories as a basis,
| Actes et Documents, etc. Bucharest, 1893.
"sº
I 58 ROUMANIA AND THE JEWS [Ch. X
and including a qualification depending on taxation of
urban property, the objection made by public men here
rests on the results to which it would lead in many of the
towns of Moldavia, where persons of the Jewish creed
constitute one half of the population.
“Some data on this subject accompany my despatch
of the 28 March of this year to your Lordship, and it
appears from statistical returns, that, out of one hundred
births in the districts there referred to 47% per cent, were
of Jewish children.
“It is asserted that the admission of so many persons
of that creed at Jassy and other boroughs to the franchise,
would inevitably lead to the return to the Roumanian
Chambers of members linked together by the tie of a
community of creed and race, who, though not numerous,
would hold in comparatively small assemblies a position
somewhat similar, but in reality much more prejudicial
to that occupied by the Home Rule faction in the House
of Commons. And there is evidence that the feeling
against any proposal likely to modify the electoral regis-
tration in Moldavia in this sense is so intense that the
objections to extending the categories so as to include
the qualifications under Sections 6 and 7 of the memor-
andums appear insurmountable.
“This has become still more apparent since two of the
eading Bucharest journals, the Roumania Libera and the
Bien Public have printed the programme, inclusive of
these two categories, so as to irritate and prejudice the
public mind against the ministerial scheme.”
In regard to the Bessarabian Question an attempt was
now made to cause a false impression in the minds of the
representatives assembled at Berlin by spreading reports
as to the non-Roumanian character of the Bessarabian
districts of which Russia demanded the retrocession. It
is recorded in the Roumanian Acts and Documents that
one of the German delegates, Herr von Bülow, asked a
Roumanian diplomatist “with a smile” whether it was
true that when in 1812 the districts in question passed
for the first time into the hands of Russia, they were
“inhabited by wandering tribes.”
1878] THE ARROGANCE OF STUART I 59
Besides being seriously menaced by Russia, the Rou-
manian Government was a good deal annoyed during the
period that followed the signing of the Treaty of San
Stefano by the arrogance of the Russian Diplomatic
Agent at Bucharest, Baron Stuart.
To celebrate the making of peace, he took upon him-
self to order a Te Deum in one of the Roumanian
churches, and at the last moment—twelve o'clock on the
night before the appointed thanksgiving service, invited
M. Bratiano to attend.
M. Bratiano replied that Baron Stuart had taken a
great liberty in ordering a thanksgiving service in the
capital of the foreign country to which he was accredited ;
and that Roumania, which had not been consulted about
the conditions of peace, and which strongly objected to
many of them, had nothing to return thanks for.
The liveliness of the situation in the Balkan Peninsula
had been much increased by the creation of the Princi-
pality of Bulgaria; which, though its territory had been
diminished at Berlin by about two-thirds, was none the
less in want of a prince ; for, whatever satirical poets
and cynical philosophers may say to the contrary, a
crown, even in the Balkan Peninsula, is still a most
attractive object.
Bismarck had told Prince Charles of Hohenzollern in
1866, when he was hesitating whether or not to ascend
the throne of Roumania, that to have reigned even for
a short time in that apparently unstable land would
always be “a souvenir for his old age.”
To begin the monarchical career, even as a vassal
prince in what the late Lord Strangford used to call “the
E.C. district of Europe,” was sufficiently tempting ; for the
vassal might become independent and the prince a king,
I6O ROUMANIA AND THE JEWS [Ch. X
The candidates for the throne of Bulgaria were only
too numerous. Members of the great reigning houses
were excluded from the competition ; and it was tolerably
certain that the actual rulers of the various Balkan
States, each anxious for an increase of power, would
not be encouraged. Prince Nikita, of Montenegro, how-
ever, was ready to mount the untrodden steps of the
Bulgarian throne; and equally so were Prince Milan, of
Servia, and even Prince Charles, of Roumania. Never
would the Russians have accepted Prince Charles, of
Roumania, already chief of the one powerful state in the
Balkan Peninsula.
It was rumoured, indeed, that they would possibly
force Prince Charles to abdicate and then seize and
annex the whole of Moldavia, as they had already taken
possession of that much-coverted corner of Moldavian
territory on the Black Sea.
Bratiano, the eminent Roumanian statesman, had
assured Sir Henry Layard at Constantinople (who com-
municated the information by letter to Sir William White)
that “the existence of his country was threatened,” though
whether by Austria or by Russia he could not say.
Possible the menace came from Russia and Austria
simultaneously if not in combination ; one to take Moldavia,
the other Wallachia.
Meanwhile, England had engaged to back up France on
the Jewish Question ; and Germany was with them both.
Italy was less pronounced in regard to the Jews than
the three Western Powers; but she gave them her
Support.
Austria cared very little for the Jews; Russia nothing;
Turkey less than nothing.
As for the Bessarabian territory on the Black Sea,
1878] THE IRON WAY g I6I
Russia had sworn to retake it, and every one knew she
would somehow get hold of it.
There was also the railway bill which Prince Bismarck
wished the Roumanian Chambers to pass in an amended
form, so as to give special advantages to German share-
holders and German directors; and it was well under-
stood that though there was nothing about this in the
Berlin Treaty, it would be necessary all the same to
carry out Prince Bismarck's wishes.
To avoid, then, all chance of being partitioned, and
to enjoy the honour of no longer being considered a
vassal state, which, as a matter of fact, she had ceased
to be, Roumania had to make concessions to the Jews,
to give up Roumanian Bessarabia to the Russians (in
exchange for the Dobrudja), and to let the man of iron
have his own iron way about the iron road.
2I
|
CHAPTER XI
ROUMANIA IN 1878
OWARDS the end of 1878, Sir Henry Elliot re-
ceived many inquiries from the Roumanian Agent
in the Austrian capital, M. Balaceano, as to whether and
when his government would recognise the Independence
of Roumania. There was of course only one answer :
“As soon as Roumania executes the conditions of the
Treaty of Berlin.”
“When I was at Berlin,” wrote Sir Henry Elliot to
Mr. White, “I asked Lord whether it was intended
that if Roumania did not fulfil the conditions she should
be considered as still under the suzerainty of the Sultan ;
but I got no very distinct answer.”
The question put by Sir Henry Elliot was indeed a
poser. What a grotesque situation would have been
created if England and the other Powers had insisted on
regarding Roumania as still under the suzerainty of the
Sultan when the Sultan had already surrendered his
suzerain rights Roumania was de facto independent
from the moment that her independence was recognised
by the Porte.
Soon afterwards the Roumanian Agent at Vienna con-
sulted Sir Henry Elliot about a matter of more pressing
and more substantial importance than even the recognition
of Roumanian independence.
I62
1878] OBJECTIONABLE CONVENTION I63
“Two days ago,” wrote Sir Henry Elliot (Nov. 3, 1878),
to Mr. White, “Balaceano asked me whether the conclu-
sion of a Convention allowing Russia passage for her
troops through the Dobrudja, would be contrary to the
Treaty of Berlin. I told him that whether it would be
regarded as an active violation of the Treaty or not, the
Powers which decided on the Dobrudja being made
over to Roumania had certainly not intended that it
should become practically Russian territory for military
purposes. I added also that if in the spring we should be
involved in hostilities with Russia on questions arising out
of the Treaty of Berlin, and found that Russian troops and
supplies were allowed free passage through Roumanian
territory, I believed H.M. Government would feel justi-
fied in taking any steps towards the Principality that
our interests might seem to call for. If it suited us to
look upon Roumania as an ally of our enemy for afford-
ing those facilities, she must be prepared for the con-
sequences. I gather from Balaceano that some of the
ministers are inclined to yield to the Russian demand,
and I thought it might be useful to say very openly that
they would run the risk of finding themselves in hot water
with us.”
Sir Henry Elliot now wrote to Lord Salisbury about
the Russian demand, and informed Mr. White of what
he had done in the following letter:
“PESTH,
“AVov. 17, 1878.
“DEAR MR. WHITE,
“I send you the copy of despatch to Lord Salisbury
about the Military Convention. Nothing can be more
satisfactory than Count Andrassy's language; and Bala-
ceano, whom I saw this evening, is delighted. It seems
to me an impossibility that the Russians can insist; and
there is nothing that the Roumanians need be frightened
about, for the immediate possession of the Dobrudja is
not a matter of life and death to them ; so that I hope
they will turn a deaf ear to all the invitations of their
troublesome neighbour.
“Yours sincerely,
“HENRY ELLIOT.”
I64 ROUMANIA IN 1878 [Ch. XI
In the Acts and Documents relating to the Roumanian
War of Independence, published by the Roumanian
Foreign Office, it is interesting to read a letter from Mr.
Balaceano which is in exact accordance with the above
letters from Sir Henry Elliot. The Roumanian Diplomatic
Agent at Vienna was much struck by the fact that Count
Andrassy and Sir Henry Elliot told him in almost identical
terms that Roumania might meet the Russian demand
with a direct refusal, and that, whether she refused or not,
the desired right of march through the Dobrudja would
not be permitted.
In the autumn of 1878 Mr. White was still without
credentials, and uncertain as to what rank would be
definitely assigned to him in connection with his new
appointment. Roumania, however, was sure eventually
to be acknowledged as an independent kingdom ; and
the representative now sent to the Roumanian Court
by Austria, held the rank of “Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary.”
On August 22, Sir Henry Elliot wrote to Mr. White
in these terms:
“I telegraphed yesterday to Lord Salisbury at the
same time as to you, saying that Count Hojos was
going to be sent from here to Bucharest with the rank
of Envoy, which he already had been holding at Wash-
ington ; and as I cannot for a moment suppose that
there can be any hesitation about giving you a position
equal to that of your colleague, I hope Soon to be able
to congratulate you upon an appointment of the same
rank. Gould probably told you, as he did me, that
Lord Salisbury was thinking of deferring his nomina-
tion till the passing of the law establishing full religious
equality in Servia, which is one of the conditions on
which the independence of the two Principalities was
to be acknowledged. But I am not aware whether he
proposed to follow the same course towards Roumania.
1878] LETTERS FROM SIR. H. ELLIOT I65
In any case, Count Andrassy does not appear disposed
to do so; and I expect Count Hojos’ appointment to
be made very soon.”
“I should be very glad,” added Sir Henry, “if I could
think there was any chance of a modification in favour
of Roumania being made in the Dobrudja frontier as
decided at Berlin ; but there is little likelihood that
Russia would agree to one. I should have liked to see
Silistria left to Roumania, and the line drawn from
there to Baltchik, but nothing of the sort is now possible.
The retrocession of Bessarabia is a bad job for Europe, as
well as for Roumania.
“But I cannot, for the life of me, expend an ounce of
pity on the Prince or his Government for having to give
it up, as they knew from the very first they would have
to do so, and they were perfectly well known to be ready
to give that or almost anything else for the sake of the
independence that they were aiming at. They could
not be expected to try to resist Russia or to side with
the Porte. But by maintaining a neutrality they would
have acquired a claim to the consideration of the Powers,
which they chose to sacrifice by taking part in the War;
and their proclamation of their independence put them
entirely out of court as regards any appeal to the
treaties. The only matter on which I think the Rou-
manians have a right to feel sore is that all the European
Governments should have lent their weight to Russia
in obliging them to give way, by making the recognition
of the independence of the Principality conditional upon
the cession demanded by their inconvenient ally. This
was certainly going further than I liked to see in sup-
porting a detestable act of Spoliation, and it may well
make the Roumanians feel sore.
“The Austrian Government are disposed to be very
conciliatory towards the Roumanians; and, as we no
doubt shall wish to be the same, the two Governments
Ought to be able to pull well together.
“Yours sincerely,
“HENRY ELLIOT.”
Sir Henry Elliot took a genuine interest in the Jewish
Question, and though the Government to which he was
accredited cared little or nothing about it, he wrote
I66 ROUMANIA IN 1878 [Ch. XI
frequently to Mr. White for information with respect to
the disabilities weighing upon the Jews of Roumania, and
the various means of relief proposed.
The Roumanian dialectics on the subject were, however,
difficult to follow ; and the paradoxical declaration that
there was not, never had been, and never could be, a
“Roumanian Jew,” and that the term was an illogical
name for an inconceivable thing must have stopped
many a student at the very threshold of the inquiry.
To Mr. White belongs the honour of having explained
to the Western mind, that, though it was in the very re-
motest degree possible that a Roumanian might become
a Jew, yet that it was quite impossible for a Jew to
become a Roumanian.
In a despatch on this subject to Lord Salisbury, Mr.
White set forth that by the ancient laws of the country
those only were Roumanians who could establish their
Roumanian descent ; children born in Roumania of foreign
parents not being Roumanians unless in virtue of special
letters of naturalisation. -
A commission of Roumanian deputies, appointed to
study and report on the Jewish Question, made in the
first article of their report the following statement:
“Roumanian Jews have never existed, but only in-
digenous Jews ; that is to say, born in Roumania without,
for that reason, resembling Roumanians either by language,
manners and customs, or aspirations.”
The Commission declared, moreover, that the simple
fact of having been born on Roumanian territory had
never, according to the most ancient laws and traditions,
conferred in itself Roumanian nationality; “and the case,”
it added, “remains the same even when birth has been
followed by permanent domicile or long residence; this
1878] JEWISH QUESTION 167
principle having been adopted and maintained for national
reasons alone, and in no way through feelings of religious
intolerance.”
Placed in the way of Tartars, Turks, Slavonians,
Magyars, Gipsies, and Jews, the Roumanians, unless by
rigid means they guarded the preservation of their own
nationality, did indeed run the risk of being swamped by
the influx of foreign races.
The Commision recommended, however, that naturalisa-
tion should be accorded to all foreigners applying for it,
apart from religious considerations; but always individually
and in each case by a special legislative act.
Count Andrassy, who knew from his own experience
in Austria and Hungary by what difficulties the Jewish
Question was surrounded, thought the Roumanians were
doing all that could be expected of them; and this opinion
he communicated to Sir Henry Elliot at Vienna.
Among the letters addressed to Mr. White at Bucharest,
those of Sir Henry Elliot were very numerous; and during
the autumn and winter of I878 the British Ambassador
at Vienna was certainly not suffering from the malady
described by Sir Robert Morier as “graphophoby.”
“The German Ambassador,” he wrote (February 16,
1879), “is very hostile to Roumania in his language, and
has told the Austrians that his Government do not re-
cognise the right of Prince Charles's Government to make
any claim in virtue of the Treaty of Berlin, till they have
themselves fulfilled, the conditions laid on them by the
Congress. The different Governments have shown them-
selves ignorant of the difficulties that surround the
Jewish Question ; but the Roumanians cannot be acquitted
of having allowed much time to pass without taking a step
to put themselves in the right; and they now feel the ill
effects of their hesitation.”
The Roumanians had decided from the first not to
I68 ROUMANIA IN 1878 [Ch. XI
place their three hundred thousand Jews (born as regards
a large majority beyond the Roumanian frontiers) on
an equality with Roumanians of Roumanian blood ; and
by the spring of 1879 Lord Salisbury seems to have
been much troubled by their obvious unwillingness to
comply with Article 44 of the Berlin Treaty. Bismarck
did not regard their concessions as at all adequate ;
while M. Waddington, from whom, as from Prince
Bismarck, Lord Salisbury was most unwilling to sepa-
rate himself, thought the treatment of the Jewish
Question by the Roumanians “unworthy of them and
of the Treaty.”
“The present state of the Roumano-Jewish Question,
wrote Lord Salisbury to Mr. White (March 12, 1879), “is
unsatisfactory enough. I gather from your last despatches
that even the admission of native born Jews is more than
can be expected of the Roumanian legislature, while it
is certainly the very least the Berlin Treaty can be held
to mean. Neither Paris nor Berlin can be moved a
hair's breadth lower than that ; indeed, Bismarck can
scarcely be induced to go so low. To emphasise his
hatred of Roumania the more clearly, he has recently
proposed to recognise Servia. We have consented, but
have explicitly reserved to ourselves liberty to recognise
Roumania as soon as she has placed herself in the position
which Servia now occupies. Whether we shall do so or
not must depend certainly on the question whether there
is any fair probability of the legislative assembly acting
up to the stipulations of the Treaty.
“Your credentials as Minister Plenipotentiary go out
by this messenger, so that you may be ready to present
them when we telegraph to that effect.”
As it was impossible to force the Roumanian Chambers
to adopt a legislation contrary to the interests and
quite out of harmony with the feelings of the nation,
Mr. White's credentials had to remain in his drawer
unpresented for another year.
1878] LETTER FROM A DIPLOMATIST 169
Meanwhile, Lord Salisbury continued to write to
him about the eternal, insoluble Jewish Question. He
was animated by the best wishes towards the new
kingdom. But at Berlin he had been fortunate enough,
in opposition to all probability, to secure the support
on vital questions at once of France and of Germany,
and he now felt bound to conform as much as possible
to the wishes of those two Powers : to let Bismarck
have his own way about the railway job, and France
hers about the Jews.
For several months the great danger against which
the English Government had to guard was that Russia
should be able to divide the other Powers. If she had
succeeded in doing so she would not have left the
Balkan Peninsula peaceably. Therefore, it was of im-
portance to keep well with Germany and France—and
especially France; and both these Powers for some reason
or other thought fit to attach a special importance
to the Jewish Question. It was more necessary to
keep the line unbroken in face of Russia than to con-
ciliate the people of Roumania.
“My dear Mr. White,” wrote Lord Salisbury on this
very point (December 4, 1879), “I can but offer you my
commiseration at the part we are compelled to assign to
you. In most games of chess some piece has to be
sacrificed ; and you are the selected victim in this case.
“Bismarck has behaved very well to us about Egypt,
and very fairly about Turkey and the Balkan Peninsula ;
and he has a right to claim our acquiescence in a matter
which is less essential to our interests. I have no doubt
that—balancing losses and gains—it is Our policy to
humour him in this Roumanian matter. But I am not
surprised that you should ardently wish to bring this
unpleasant state of transition to a close.”
“It is a melancholy conclusion to come to,” wrote an
eminent diplomatist to Mr. White about this time,
22
17O ROUMANIA IN 1878 [Ch. XI
“but I believe it to be sound—that none of the greater
Powers take Roumania as serious. They look upon it
as good exercising-ground for the autumn manoeuvres of
diplomacy,” continues the writer; “but they think, or at
least act, as if they thought the present state of things
not permanent. What each of them expects to see take
its place I have no means of guessing. Bismarck in his
curiously frank conversation treated it as a mystery and a
puzzle; but the story which went the round of the papers,
that he recommended Prince Alexander to accept Bul-
garia “as a souvenir for his old age,’ was really true of
Prince Charles of Roumania—at least, B. told me so at
Berlin. All his conduct looks like it, he cannot really
believe in the permanence of a nation he treats in such
a fashion.
“The same listless feeling seems in their several ways
to prevail in both Austrian and Russian policy when
Roumania is in question. But what do they contem-
plate doing with her P I do not pretend to guess. But
in the present state of Europe the Roumanians must,
I fear, accustom their palates to the occasional taste of
humble pie.”
Meanwhile Mr. White endeavoured to see things from
the Roumanian standpoint, so as at least to be able to
understand them ; and his despatches on the various
questions which had to be decided before the independence
of Roumania could be recognised are full of explanations
as to this view and that view as held by Roumanian
politicians.
In spite of the awkwardness of his position, it was
only in an official sense that he was at all out of place.
He had been glad to get away from Warsaw, where his
impartiality and sense of justice exposed him to suspicions
alike from the Russians and from the Poles. At Dantzic
1878] AT HOME IN ROUMANIA 171
his official duties had been only those of a commercial
consul ; though it has been seen that he also occupied
himself, by the express wish of the Foreign Office, with
work of a highly varied political kind. At Belgrade
he made but a short stay ; and both politically and
socially the place possessed far less importance, far less
interest for him than Bucharest.
In the Roumanian capital he made many friends, and
he took particular delight in the Society of the King
and Queen, for whom he entertained the highest respect,
the sincerest admiration.
CHAPTER XII
RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE
HE war of 1877 was in many ways a severe
trial to Roumania, but one which she managed
to Support.
“It is really a wonder,” wrote Mr. White from Bucharest
to Lord Salisbury, “that Roumania was able to emerge so
satisfactorily from all her complications, and to meet the
increasing claims on her public purse without having had
to submit, at that critical juncture of her modern history,
to the onerous terms of a loan. The unfunded debt
was alone increased, and the country was thus enabled
to continue to pay without interruption the interest and
annuities due to her foreign and domestic creditors—a
circumstance which produced, as it invariably does, a
naturally increased confidence on the principal exchanges
of Europe, where Roumanian stock has acquired a degree
of firmness not possessed by some larger states.”
With all the interest he took in the country, Mr. White
still held no official position in Roumania. His friends
could scarcely make it out ; and even the most exalted
members of the diplomatic service wondered why the
“Agent” (as Lord Lyons calls him in one of his des-
patches of this period) remained without definite rank.
Unable to stand it any longer, the functionaries of
the Foreign Office named him “Minister” of their own
accord.
“As I see some packets from the F. O. addressed to
172
1879] A DIPLOMATIC TOUR I73
you as Minister,” wrote Sir Henry Elliot on April 12,
I879, “I hope I may congratulate you at last on having
your frontier regularised. I don't know that much has
been gained by the long hesitation in recognising, or that
there is any great prospect of a real relief of the Jews
from their disabilities; for if those born in the country
are not to be entitled to be treated as Roumanians, the
mere repeal of the obnoxious article of the constitution
[setting forth that the privileges of a Roumanian are
confined to Christians] will have little effect.”
Sir Henry Elliot's congratulations were premature. Mr.
White (though he had his credentials carefully locked up
in his drawer) was still unaccredited, still without definite
rank.
A few months afterwards M. Boeresco was despatched
from Roumania to enlighten the Ministers of foreign lands
on the subject of the Jewish Question—or, perhaps, to
obscure their views, already far from lucid.
“I am afraid,” wrote Sir Henry Elliot on this subject,
August I I, 1879, “there is no great prospect of much
coming out of this journey of M. Boeresco, whose object
is apparently to recede from an essential part of Stourdza's
project. He says that under his nominal list of Jews to
be emancipated more will be benefited than would have
been under the categories ; but at the same time he
admitted to me that the Government could carry the
present proposal because the Chamber imagined that it
would apply to fewer. Lord Salisbury has telegraphed to
me to let Boeresco know that not much could be gained
by his going to London—first, because he would probably
himself be away, and also because his propositions seem
so unsatisfactory that they would produce no result.”
“The Germans are very much put out with the
Roumanian Government,” wrote Sir Henry Elliot,
December 16, 1879, “for having as they consider, broken
faith about the Railway Bill, by accepting the exclusion of
the agreement by which the transfer of the seat of adminis-
tration from Berlin to Bucharest can only take place,
on its being sanctioned at a general meeting of the
174 RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE [Ch. XII
shareholders; and without such sanction they declare
that the transfer cannot legally be made. The recognition
will consequently be again delayed as far as Germany
is concerned ; but I cannot at all guess the course that Our
Government will now take. It was intelligible that all
the Powers should agree to defer the recognition till they
were satisfied about the religious question ; but they have
pretty well made up their minds to pretend to be satisfied
with what has been done upon that matter, though of
course no one is really satisfied. I take personally the
same view as you have recorded in one of your telegrams,
of the more than doubtful policy of making our recognition
depend upon the settlement of a question that is purely
German, and has nothing earthly to do with the non-
fulfilment of the religious-liberty clauses of the Treaty,
which has hitherto prevented it; but Bismarck is making
strong appeals to us all to hold together. The Italians
announced their recognition only after it had been notified
to the Roumanians, and without previous hint to the other
Governments whom I suspect to have spoken in a manner
that has induced the Italian Government to stop Tornielli
on his way to Bucharest.
“Yours sincerely,
“HENRY ELLIOT.”
At last, in the following letter, Sir Henry Elliot informed
Mr. White that the moment for recognition had arrived,
or was on the point of arriving ; for there were still some
preliminary matters to be settled.
“VIENNA,
“ Feb. 14, & March 8, 1880.
“DEAR MR. WHITE,
“I send you an official despatch received under
flying seal from F. O. authorising you to notify the
recognition of Roumania, in concert with the French and
Germans. The intimation that what has been done for
the Jews is considered as an instalment is not put in a
way that need offend the Roumanians, and I congratulate
you in escaping at last from your equivocal position
The Austrian Government will join the others in express-
ing the expectation that the principle of religious liberty
agreed to at Berlin should have a further development.”
1880] RELIGION AND BLOOD I75
There were no longer any religious disabilities in
Roumania. But among foreigners not entitled to the
franchise the Roumanians made no special exception in
favour of the Jews.
They were placed on an exact equality with Englishmen
and Frenchmen, with Catholics and Protestants. The
principle of religious liberty agreed to at Berlin could not
then have any further development.
So far in theory; though in practice the Roumanian
chamber might show itself less inclined to grant letters
of naturalisation to foreign Jews than to foreign
Christians.
In vain did Baron de Worms and Mr. Montefiore
protest in a letter to Lord Salisbury that Clause 44 of
the Berlin Treaty was not being carried out. In vain,
moreover, did they attribute to the Roumanians the
doctrine no longer held by them that a Jew born in
Roumania of Jewish parents was an alien by reason of
his religion. He was an alien, like all other children
of non-Roumanian parents, by reason of his not being
of Roumanian blood. A Jew converted to Christianity
would be in the same position as any other Jew. Of
all the foreigners established in Roumania, the Jews
seem to have been the only ones who claimed the -
suffrage; or the only ones, rather, for whom the
suffrage was claimed.
Immediately before recognition was determined upon,
Mr. White had written to Lord Salisbury, informing him
that the mysterious Railway Bill was being hurried
through the Chambers in order to satisfy the exigencies
of the German Government.
Lord Salisbury wrote in reply that without deferring
any longer the recognition of Roumania, he wished an
intimation to be conveyed to the Roumanian Government,
176 RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE [Ch. XII
“that the alteration made by them in the constitution
was accepted by the Governments of France and England
in the full confidence that, by a liberal execution of it,
the Roumanian Government were resolved to bring the
working of their law into exact conformity with the
spirit of the ‘Treaty of Berlin.'”
The English text of the identical note presented to
the Roumanian Government, February 20, 1880, was in
these terms:
“BUCHAREST,
“Aebruary 20, 1880.
“The Undersigned, British Representative at Bucharest,
has the honour, by order of his Government, to convey
to M. Boeresco, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Roumania, the following communication :
“Her Britannic Majesty's Government have been in-
formed, through the Agent of His Royal Highness the
Prince of Roumania at Paris, of the promulgation, on the
25th October, 1879, of a Law, voted by the ‘Chambre
de Révision’ of the Principality, for the purpose of
bringing the text of the Roumanian Constitution into
conformity with the stipulations inserted in Article 44 of
the Treaty of Berlin.
“Her Majesty's Government cannot consider the new
Constitutional provisions which have been brought to
their cognizance—and particularly those by which persons
belonging to a non-Christian Creed domiciled in Roumania,
and not belonging to any foreign nationality, are required
to submit to the formalities of individual naturalization—
as being a complete fulfilment of the views of the Powers
signatories of the Treaty of Berlin.
“Trusting, however, to the determination of the Prince's
Government to approximate more and more, in the
execution of these provisions, to the liberal intentions
entertained by the Powers, and taking note of the positive
assurances to that effect which have been conveyed to
them, the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, being
desirous of giving to the Roumanian nation a proof of
their friendly sentiments, have decided to recognize the
Principality of Roumania as an independent State. Her
1880] NO SEMITES NEED APPLY 177
Majesty's Government consequently declare themselves
ready to enter into regular diplomatic relations with
the Prince's Government.
“In bringing the decision come to by his Government
to the knowledge of the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
the Undersigned, &c.
“(Signed) W. A. WHITE.”
It may here be mentioned that in connection with the
recognition of Roumanian independence a semi-official
pamphlet on the Jewish Question was issued, in which
the important fact was dwelt upon, that in order to
comply with the requirements of the Berlin Treaty, a
Roumanian assembly elected for that purpose had revised
a fundamental article of the Roumanian constitution.
The article which had to be dealt with was as follows:
“The character of Roumanian is acquired, preserved,
and lost conformably with the civil law. Foreigners of
Christian denominations can alone obtain naturalisation.”
Thus Jews and Mahometans were alike excluded.
The Roumanians could scarcely be expected to alter the
first clause of this article. They changed entirely, how-
ever, the second clause by placing naturalisation within
the reach of all foreigners, without distinction of religion.
According to the semi-official publication just referred
to, Jews under the new system would enjoy all the rights
belonging to foreigners in general, who possessed the
right of serving in the army and the national guard, the
right of buying houses, or plots of land in towns, the right
of becoming barristers and of Serving on juries in towns,
and of exercising freely every profession and every trade.
They would enjoy the same legal position as Roumanians;
they would be protected in the same manner by the law;
while on applying for complete naturalisation by a petition
23
178 RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE [Ch. XII
to the Roumanian Parliament, they could obtain every
right and privilege enjoyed by a Roumanian of Roumanian
birth and descent.
After discussions by letter and despatch, special missions
from Bucharest to the chief European capitals, protests,
representations, and misrepresentations on the part of the
Alliance Israélite, the Roumanians still refused to place
Jews on an equality as regards civil and political rights
with Roumanians of Roumanian blood. But they placed
them on an equality with Englishmen, Frenchmen,
Germans, Italians, and foreigners generally. All religious
disabilities were removed ; while the other disabilities
attaching to all aliens were suffered to remain, and remain
still. The various propositions and counterpropositions on
this subject occupied a great deal of Mr. White's attention
during the years I878, I879, and 188O.
On March 2o, I88O, Mr. White presented his letters of
credence to Prince Charles I., who expressed much grati-
fication, and replied in the following words :
º M. LE MINISTRE,
" Je suis heureux de recevoir les lettres par les,
quelles Sa Majesté la Reine votre auguste Souveraine vous
accrédite en qualité de son Envoyé Extraordiniare et
Ministre Plénipotentiare auprès de moi. Je saisis avec
empressement cette occasion de vous assurer du désir que
j'éprouve de voir s'établir les meilleurs rapports entre la
Roumanie et la Grande Bretagne, espérant que les liens
d'amitié qui existent entre les deux pays se consolideront
de plus en plus dans l'avenir. Les sentiments affectueux
que Sa Majesté la Reine veut bien me témoigner me
touchent tout particulièrement ; j'ai vu une nouvelle preuve
de ses sentiments dans l'empressement que vous avez mis
à présenter vos lettres de créance. Je suis charmé que
votre Souveraine ait fait choix de votre personne pour la
représenter à ma Cour, ayant pu apprécier les hautes
qualités qui vôus distinguent et connaissant l'intérêt
sympathique que vous portez à la Roumanie. Mon
1880] THE TREATY OF COMMERCE I79
Gouvernement s'empressera de faire tout ce qui dépendra
de lui pour faciliter votre mission, que je Souhaite vous
voir remplir pendant de longues années auprês de moi.
Mr. White now received his Treaty of Commerce, for
which he was warmly thanked by Lord Salisbury, who on
April 12, 1880, addressed him from Biarritz the following
letter :
“My DEAR MR. WHITE,
“I am very much obliged to you for your letter
and for the copy of the Roumanian Treaty which you
have forwarded to me. It will, I hope, be of considerable
value to the commerce of this country, and the negotia-
tion of it under circumstances of peculiar difficulty will
reflect great credit on your diplomatic career.
“I have submitted to the Prime Minister the question
whether the bestowal of a red ribbon on the Prince of
Roumania ought to be taken in hand now, or whether
it is properly a matter to be left to our successors. I
shall now hold office very few days longer. As I shall
probably not have occasion during that time to write
to you again, allow me to take this opportunity of
expressing my very cordial gratitude for the zealous
co-operation you have given me during my short term
of office, and for the judgment with which your duties
have been performed.
“Believe me,
“Yours truly,
“SALISBURY.”
So far everything in regard to the Commercial Treaty
at which Mr. White had laboured with varying fortunes,
in the midst of Jewish questions, railway jobs, and
cessions of territory had gone well ; when suddenly, on
reading the report of a Parliamentary debate, it seemed
to him that his services in connection with the Treaty,
together with the Treaty itself, were ignored by the
Foreign Office.
A question had been asked in the House of Commons
180 RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE [Ch. XII
as to whether of late any commercial treaties had been
made with foreign Powers, to which the Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs replied in the negative. This was
startling news to Mr. White, and it must have surprised
also Prince Charles of Roumania ; for only six months
had passed since the signing of the Commercial Treaty
between Roumania and England.
Mr. White thereupon wrote, on September 8, 1880,
the following letter to Sir Charles Dilke, Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs at the time:
“BUCHAREST,
“8 September, 1880.
“MY DEAR DILKE,
“The London papers received here dated Thursday
morning September 2, bring a reply of yours to Mr.
Bourke, your predecessor in office, in the House of
Commons in which you are reported as having said,
“‘That as far as you were aware no changes (i.e.,
favourable ones to British Commerce) had been made
by foreign countries in their tariffs within the last six
months.”
“Considering that our Commercial Treaty with Rou-
mania was signed on April 5, and ratified on July 12, 1880,
and that it stipulated some important tariff reductions
on British goods which have been very favourably com-
mented on in the German and Austrian Press, I should
have hoped that a memorandum to that effect would
have been placed by the proper department in your hands
previous to your going down to the House.
“The value of the cotton yarn imported here from
Great Britain is estimated at the lowest at one million
Sterling (£1,000,000 stg) per annum, and on these
the reduction is from 2 I to I5 per cent, IOO kilos or
nearly two-and-sixpence per hundred weight. The other
reductions affect copper, tin, brass, iron chains, rails
and bedsteads, hoops, cutlery, hardware, and machinery.
The omission of any mention of this is unfair, not only
to myself, but still more to the country where I have the
honour of being accredited, and it is chiefly on that
account that I deplore it. Here at Bucharest every one
1880] UNAPPRECIATED EFFORTS I8I
is aware, and no one better than my colleagues and the
Government, with what difficulties I have had to contend
in order to obtain a satisfactory conclusion of this part
of my negotiations; and it will appear very strange that
the results obtained are so little appreciated at home, and
that they were not thought deserving of the slightest
notice in your reply.
“One might have imagined that this single exception
of tariff charges in a more liberal sense might not have
escaped unnoticed, and would have rather deserved some
public recognition and encouragement at a time when
increasing duties appear to be the rule on the Continent.
“The close of the Session will prevent the matter from
being put straight now for many months, but I trust you
will think it but natural on my part that I should make
this apparent to you.
“I fear these lines will not reach the F.O. till after your
departure, and I have taken the liberty therefore to send
them under flying seal to Mr. Sanderson, as I should
also like Lord Granville to see them.
“I am, yours sincerely,
“ W. A. WHITE.”
The question put by Mr. Bourke in the House was
one which he himself ought better than any one to have
been able to answer, at least as regarded the Commercial
Treaty with Roumania; for it was he, not Sir Charles
Dilke, who was in office as Under-Secretary for Foreign
Affairs when the Treaty was signed.
Some months before the recognition of Roumanian
Independence Mr. White received two interesting letters
from Sir Robert Morier, which may here be given.
“CINTRA,
“29 /une, 1879.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I fancied you were to be off to Bucharest at once,
but I see you were at the Cobden Club dinner, and so
this may perhaps reach you in London. I feel no heart
in writing to a man at Bucharest with only a probability
of getting an answer a year hence. It's like writing to
182 RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE [Ch. XII
the moon. I very much regret that I saw so little of you
in London and that in such a hurry. But never was a
poor devil so harried with work as I was the last 14 days
of my stay. Well, I won the game all round there (not
the way to make friends), and left very cheerfully, believing
all my troubles at an end, and that within three weeks
of my return to Lisbon my two treaties would be through
the Cortes and about ready for ratification. Imagine what
was my consternation on arrival to find the Ministry on
the point of resignation I have been bowled over once
or twice before in my life, but such a bowl over as that
I never dreamt of as belonging to the possibilities of
even Portuguese politics; and such a consequent three
weeks as I had l—never, I hope, may I have the like again.
Some day I hope to tell you the story, for it is as good
as a play. And now of yourself, the last day I was in
London the great Philip [now Lord] Currie condescended
to let the light of his countenance fall on the humble person-
age who represents the Queen at Lisbon, and so I asked
him a variety of questions. He spoke disparagingly and
disagreeably of many persons I asked about, till I came
to you, and on this topic had not too much praise to
bestow, saying you had done most admirably—I am
particularly anxious to constater this, because this was not
his tone on his return from Constantinople. I always
think it a service to a real friend to communicate these
commerages, because it makes the whole difference in the
efficiency of one's work whether one knows that your
employers are satisfied with it.
“I wish you could find time to give me some gossip.
I am extremely vexed at Petre not getting Rio. It
seems to me a crying shame.
“Then I should like to have a notion or two about
Egypt—ſe my vois gue du feu. What are we about?
Must we invoke Bismarck's aid even there P And can we
do nothing by ourselves? How absolute has been the
imbecility of leaving Chelmsford at the Cape Conceive
a man with 36,000 troops being unable to do anything
without asking for 4 more regiments when there is neither
food nor transport for those he already has
“Ever yours faithfully,
“R. B. MORIER.
“Mind you answer before leaving.”
1880] ROGGENBACH IN LONDON 183
“CINTRA,
“IIth July, 1879.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“Mrs. Morier, looking over an old Times this
morning, chanced to stumble on your name at the last
levee as H.M. Envoy-Extraordinary and Minister Pleni-
potentiary at Bucharest. I write most heartily to con-
gratulate you. Of course I knew you were to be Minister,
and believed the matter was only delayed till circumcision
had been placed on a footing of equality with baptism in
Roumania. As I go on the principle of being always very
exact, I had addressed you as still Consul-General. Please
pardon me for doing so, and accept my best wishes on
your promotion to the highest rank of the hierarchy short
of Ambassador.
“I see that Roggenbach is in London. You know that
for years I have wished you to meet, because in every
way and for IO,OOO reasons you should know each other.
He is a perfectly honourable man—one out of the three
or four perfectly honourable (as a man and a politician)
I have as yet succeeded in discovering after 30 years'
search. He is a liberal Catholic. He is the amicus curiae
of the Roumanian Hohenzollern. Do all you can to
cultivate him.
“Let me know how long you remain in London. I
should like to send some letters I wrote at the time of the
Congress about Roumania—but don't like to send them
all the way to Bucharest.
“Yours,
“R. B. MORIER.”
CHAPTER XIII
ROUMANIANS IN TRANSYLVANIA
OR a man who, like Sir William White, took a keen
interest in “questions,” there could be no more
delightful country than Roumania at the time of the
Berlin Conference and for nearly two years afterwards.
I. Roumania and the Jewish Question.
2. Roumania and the question of the retrocession of
Bessarabia.
3. Roumania and the question of the mouths of the
Danube.
4. Roumania and the question of a Russian military
road through Roumanian territory.
5. Roumania and the Bismarckian Railway Question.
6. Roumania and the question of her continued exist-
ence as an independent State, with the further question
whether her life was threatened by Russia, by Austria, or
by the two in combination.
7. Roumania and the Roumanian Question in Transyl-
vania.
These were the questions—some of them burning ones
—which Mr. White had to keep before him during the
first two years of his stay at Bucharest.
For him personally, moreover, there was the very in-
teresting question which for so long a time remained
undecided: whether he was to be accredited to the
Roumanian Court (I) as Consul-General and Diplomatic
I84
1880] THE SEVEN QUESTIONS 185
Agent—his rank at Belgrade; (2) as Minister Resident ;
or (3) as Envoy-Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo-
tentiary.
He, in fact, leapt from the rank of Consul-General to
that of Minister Plenipotentiary—the highest point but
one in diplomacy—at a single bound.
Except, meanwhile, the question of the Roumanians in
Transylvania and the injustice to which they were ex-
posed at the hands of the Hungarians, there was not one
of the above questions which at the beginning of 1880
had not, temporarily at least, been settled ; though the
question of the Danubian mouths was later to be made
the subject of a special conference. It signifies but little
what was said at this conference. As a matter of fact
the Danube up to Galatz is now navigated by the
Russians.
The question of the Roumanians in Transylvania and
their alleged oppression by the Hungarian rulers of that
province seems to have puzzled Lord Salisbury when he
first came across it; and his Lordship was disposed to
regard it as a recently-got-up question, by which the
Roumanians of the kingdom hoped to gain some advan-
tage for themselves.
So at least it appears from a passing reference to the
matter in an unofficial letter from his Lordship to Mr.
White.
The question, however, was a genuine one, with real
grievances beneath it, by which not the Roumanians
of the kingdom, but the Roumanians of Transylvania
alone suffered ; while, far from being new, it dated from
the great year of nationalistic aspirations and uprisings,
1848.
The Roumanians of Transylvania were scarcely at that
time in an inferior position to the Roumanians of the not
24
I86 ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIII
yet united provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia; both
under the suzerainty of Turkey, and both threatened
alternately by Russia and by Austria—to say nothing
of an occasional occupation on the part of the Turks.
Since, however, the existence of Roumania as an in-
dependent state, the oppressed Roumanians of Transyl-
vania had accustomed themselves to look to their
Roumanian kinsfolk beyond the border for sympathy
and support.
Apart from the compulsory use of Hungarian as the
language of the schools, the public offices, and the
tribunals, the Roumanians of Transylvania complained
that even those among them who had mastered the
Hungarian tongue were largely excluded—not legally,
but as a matter of fact—from Government service.
In connection with the compulsory use of Hungarian
as the sole language of instruction, a curious difficulty
had arisen. Patriotic Roumanians in the kingdom of
Roumania, have from time to time made bequests for
the maintenance of Roumanian Schools in Transylvania.
The funds bequeathed are at the disposal of the
Roumanian Minister of Public Instruction, who, how-
ever, if he hands them over to the Hungarian Minister
of Public Instruction for the purposes of the legacy,
finds that they cannot be so applied, the object of the
Hungarian Government being not to encourage, but to
extirpate the Roumanian language in Transylvania.
Yet the Roumanian Minister must do something with
the money confided to him ; and he finds himself exposed
to the attacks of the party out of office, whether he
gives it or withholds it.
In the Bukovina, where the bulk of the population
is Roumanian, the administration is in the hands of
Austrian officials, who, as in the adjacent Galicia and
1880] MAGYARIZATION 187
other parts of Austria, recognise the right of the in-
habitants to use their native tongue. They are not
represented in any assembly. But they do not suffer
from the annoyance, humiliation, and positive injury of
having a foreign language forced upon them.
There are no complaints, then, from the Roumanians
of the Bukovina, nor need there be from the Rou-
manians of Transylvania, if the Hungarian Government
would only abstain from unavailing attempts to turn
them into Hungarians. These endeavours have, of course,
no effect but to stimulate their national feeling and render
them more Roumanian than ever.
It would be impossible indeed, to cite one instance
of a foreign population rendered loyal by having an
alien tongue forced upon it.
The constantly increasing importance of Roumania as
an independent State has rendered more and more
difficult for Hungary the government of her Roumanian
subjects in Transylvania. The strong national character
of the Roumanians cannot be destroyed, and it is only
developed and hardened by the endeavours so persistently
made to turn them into Hungarians.
The oppressed condition of the Roumanians in Tran-
Sylvania has, unfortunately, an injurious effect upon the
relations between Roumania and Austria-Hungary, which
might otherwise be of the most friendly character. It
causes bad blood, moreover, between the only two races
in Eastern Europe—the Hungarians and the Roumanians,
—who, according to Sir Henry Layard, understand self-
government and can be counted upon to defend their
liberty and independence.
That not the Roumanians alone, but in an equal degree
the Saxon inhabitants of Transylvania, are subject to
grave injustice at the hands of the Hungarian Government
I88 ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIII
is shown by a much esteemed writer who, in her delightful
work on Transylvania, concludes as follows an edifying
account of a criminal process against two Saxons :
“Characteristic of Magyar legislation was the circum-
stance of the whole trial being conducted in Hungarian,
though this language was absolutely unknown to the
two German prisoners, who were thus debarred the
doubtful privilege of comprehending their own death-
sentence when finally pronounced about a year after
their crime. Its meaning, however, was subsequently
made known to them ; for Anton von Kleeberg and
Rudolf Martin were executed at Hermannstadt on the
16th June, 1885.”
As with the Saxons, so it would be with Roumanians
brought to trial in Transylvania. They would be accused,
borne witness against, and sentenced in an unknown
tongue.
“There is no doubt,” writes the English lady just quoted,
“that the bulk of Roumanians living to-day in Hungary
and Transylvania consider themselves to be serving in
bondage and constantly gaze over the frontier to their
real monarch ; and who can blame them for so doing P
In the many Roumanian hovels that I have visited in
Transylvania I have frequently come across the portrait
of the King of Roumania hung upon the place of honour,
but never once that of His Austrian Majesty. Old wood-
cuts representing Michael the Brave, the great hero of
the Roumanians, and of the rebel Hora, are also pretty
sure to be found adorning the walls of many a hut. It
is likewise by no means uncommon to see village taverns
bearing such titles as ‘To the King of Roumania,” “To
the United Roumanian Kingdom,’ &c.”
The writer then relates a strikingly suggestive incident
which came beneath her notice at Hermannstadt on the
Roumanian frontier.
* The Land Beyond the Forest. By E. Gerard, Blackwood,
1880] ROUMANIANS IN TRANSYLVANIA 189
“Two Roumanian generals, engaged in some business
regarding the regulation of the frontier, being at Hermann-
stadt for a few days, paid visits to the principal Austrian
Military authorities, and were the object of much courteous
attention. One evening the Austrian Commanding
General had ordered the military band to play in honour
of his Roumanian confrères, and seated along with them
on the promenade we were listening to the music.
Presently two or three private soldiers, passing by, stopped
in front of us to stare at the foreign uniforms. Apparently
their curiosity was not easily satisfied, for after five
minutes had elapsed they still remained standing as though
rooted to the spot; and other soldiers had joined them
as well, till the group soon numbered about a dozen heads.
“Being engaged in conversation, I did not at the
moment pay much attention to the circumstance, but,
happening to turn round some minutes later, I was
surprised to see that the spectators had become doubled
and quadrupled in the meantime, and were steadily increas-
ing every minute. Little short of a hundred soldiers were
now standing in front of us all, gazing intently. Why
were they gazing thus strangely P What were they
looking at P I asked myself confusedly, but luckily checked
the question rising to my lips, when it suddenly struck
me that all these men had swarthy complexions, and
each one of them a pair of dark eyes; and simultaneously
I remembered that the infantry regiment whose uniform
they wore was recruited from Roumanian villages round
Hermannstadt.
“They were perfectly quiet and submissive-looking,
betraying no sign of outward excitement or insubordina-
tion ; but their expression was not to be mistaken, and
no attentive observer could have failed to read its meaning
aright. It was at their own generals they were gazing
in that hungry-looking manner ; and deep down in every
dusky eye, piercing through a thick layer of patience,
stupidity, apathy, and military discipline there smouldered
a spark of something vague and intangible, the germ of
the sort of fire which has often kindled revolutions and
overturned kingdoms.
“Heaven only knows what was passing in the clouded
brain of these poor ignorant men as they stood thus
gaping and staring in the intensity of their rapt attention ;
visions of glory and freedom, perchance, dreams of peace
I90 ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIII
and prosperity, dim, far-off pictures of unattainable
happiness of a golden age to come, and an Arcadian
state of things no more to be found on the dull surface
of this weary world. -
“The Austrian generals tried not to look annoyed, the
Roumanian generals tried not to look elated, and the
English looker-on endeavoured (I trust somewhat more
successfully) to conceal her amusement at the serio-
comicality of the situation which one and all we tacitly
ignored with that excellent hypocrisy characterising well-
bred persons of every nation.”
Probably nothing could now stop the attraction exercised
by free and independent Roumania upon the more or less
enslaved Roumanians of Transylvania. The effect of
rational government might of course be tried. But the
Hungarians are unfortunately resolved on carrying out
their own impracticable system of Hungarianizing all the
non-Hungarian populations subject to their rule.
CHAPTER XIV
MUTUAL ANNEXATION PROJECTS IN THE BALKAN
PENINSULA, LETTERS FROM SIR HENRY LAYARD
ROM 1878 until the beginning of 1881, Mr White
received at Bucharest an immense number of letters
from Sir Henry Layard at Constantinople. The following
is an extract from one of these, dated September 5, 1878.
“Roumania will now, as you say, Occupy a very im-
portant, and at the same time dangerous position, in the
midst of the Slav and Slavonian-speaking races, whose
ambitious designs and aspirations have been vastly en-
couraged by recent events. It will remain for her and
Hungary to fight the battle of liberty and national
independence against an unscrupulous and greedy people.
I could never understand the hostility of the Liberal party
in England to Hungary, and the denunciation of her by
Liberal leaders. One would have thought that a country
which had bled for Liberal institutions, and had upheld
the course of freedom for so long in the midst of the
despotic Powers of Eastern Europe, would have deserved
the sympathy and support of Liberal England. But the
world seems turned upside down.
“I trust that Roumania will persist in her disposition
to establish good relations with the Porte. She must
not be discouraged if at first her advances are coldly
received. After all she behaved towards Turkey with
unparalleled treachery, and has been the main cause of
'the disasters of this unhappy country. In the course of
time the feelings of the Turks may soften down, and the
Porte may see then that it is to its interest to be on the
most friendly terms with Roumania. Your interest and
I9I
I92 ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIV
advice will contribute a good deal towards establishing such
relations. D. Bratiano will, I think, be a good choice for
Roumanian representative here. . . . You write about a
project of assuring to Roumania Bulgaria up to the
Balkans. Does the possibility of such an arrangement
enter into Roumanian calculations P It would certainly
be a good way of putting an end to Russian influence
and progress in European Turkey; but would it ever be
effected without a great war in which Russia were com-
pletely defeated P”
Notwithstanding his contempt for Servia and his
condemnation of Roumania for the part she had taken
against Turkey during the war (and for that alone),
Layard entertained a genuine admiration for Christitch,
the Envoy of Servia at Constantinople, and for Demètre
Bratiano, (elder brother of the eminent statesman), who
represented Roumania at the Porte.
It was when Bratiano was on the point of arriving at
Constantinople that Sir Henry Layard, on October 4, 1878,
addressed to Mr. White the following letters:
“My DEAR MR. WHITE,
“I shall be glad to see Mr. Bratiano and will do
what I can for him. When the idea of uniting Bulgaria
to Roumania was first suggested to me I did not think
the arrangement desirable or practicable. But after what
has taken place, I have changed my opinion to a certain
extent. However, I doubt whether Russia would ever
consent to it. She would resist it to the extent of war.
It appears to me that the best policy of the Roumanian
Government would be to establish the most friendly
relations with the Porte founded upon mutual interests,
to conciliate the Mussulman population of the Dobrudja
and to govern that province justly and well.
“Dondakoff Korsakoff states openly that the Treaty and
Congress of Berlin are une comédie d’Offenbach, and that
Russia has no intention whatever of permitting the Treaty
to be carried out. But his language is not perhaps to be
taken au pied de la lettre, and I trust that when the
1878] PACIFICATION OF BOSNIA I93
commission arrives at Philippopolis, which it should do as
soon as possible, the Prince will think better of it.
“The deplorable manner in which Austria has effected
the annexation of Bosnia adds very much to the diffi-
culties with which we shall have to contend in executing
the treaty.
“I should doubt whether Austria would permit the
Prince of Montenegro to be elected Prince of Bulgaria
also, unless she has entirely changed her policy.”
On October 18, 1878, Sir H. Layard wrote to Mr.
White as follows:
“I communicated an extract from your letter of the
7th, relating to the policy of Turkey as regards Austria,
to high quarters, suppressing, of course, your name, and
stating that the advice came from a true friend of both
countries, who had the best means of forming an opinion
on the subject. I think what you wrote made some
impression ; but the unfortunate circulars about the
cruelties attributed to the Austrian troops in Bosnia had
already been launched. It is a most unwise and suicidal
act on the part of the Porte to make public accusations
of this nature against Austria.
“Although I know by official reports that I have
received from very trustworthy sources that some of
the Austrian generals have behaved with great harshness
and cruelty towards their prisoners, and the Mussulman
population; yet in order to bring the matter to the notice of
Europe, the Porte might have taken other measures less
offensive to Austria. Unfortunately, nowadays, patriotism
is a crime; and a man who ventures to defend his country
and his property is an insurgent, and must be summarily
shot when taken. This is unlucky for patriots, but they
have nothing else to do but to give up their country, their
wives, and their property, and make the best of it. It is,
however, not a little curious that we are come to this in
the nineteenth century, and that such principles should
be sanctioned by solemn treaties.
“The wholesale destruction of the Mussulman popula-
tion, and the shocking outrages practised upon them, are
still continuing. It will be completely destroyed in
Bulgaria, and will be so reduced in Roumelia that it will
soon perish there.

25
I94 ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIV
“I should think that at least a million Mussulman lives
have already been sacrificed. I am glad to hear that the
Roumanian Government is disposed to encourage and
treat kindly the Mahommedans. It will be good policy,
I am convinced, for it to do so.”
After M. Bratiano had arrived at Constantinople Sir
Henry Layard wrote again to Mr. White:
‘‘THERAPIA,
“Octr 28/78
“My DEAR MR, WHITE,
“Affairs in European Turkey are going on ill,
and we are threatened with a serious insurrection in
Macedonia.
“I see by the telegram that the new Ministry in
Austria is disposed to abandon the policy that has led
to the present unfortunate state of affairs as regards
Bosnia, and to come to some arrangement with the Porte.
I earnestly hope that such may be the case, and that
close and intimate relations may be established between
the two countries. This is very necessary to both in
the presence of the determined intention of Russia to
carry out her designs for the destruction and partition
of this Empire. Unless they are united, they are both
doomed. I shall be very glad to see M. Bratiano again,
and to give him all the support in my power. I never
lose an opportunity of endeavouring to persuade the
Turks of the importance of maintaining the most friendly
relations with Roumania, and I think they feel it ; but
unfortunately they are lukewarm and dilatory in all
their movements, instead of hastening to establish such
relations by every possible means. I hear that Suleiman
Bey is clever and intelligent, but I should say that he
was too young and inexperienced for the post of Turkish
Minister at Bucharest. You must kindly aid him with
your advice.
“Yours very truly,
“A. H. LAYARD.”
“I am glad,” wrote Sir Henry, on November 1, 1878,
“ that Lord Salisbury has spoken so plainly to the
Russian Government as to our intention of compelling
1879] BRATIANO’S MISGIVINGS 195
the Russians to evacuate Eastern Roumelia and Bulgaria
when the time comes for their doing so, and has warned
Roumania of the danger of falling into the Russian trap.
I have only seen Bratiano once. He was to have dined
with us and passed the night here, but he was unwell
and unable to come. I shall invite him again. The
Porte is desirous of meeting the Roumanians in the most
friendly and conciliatory spirit, but you know how slow
it always is in putting its good intentions into execution.
This constant procrastination and dilatoriness drive one
to despair in dealing with the Turks, and frustrate all
one's attempts to serve them and to deliver them from
the terrible troubles into which they have fallen.”
A few days after the arrival at Constantinople of
M. Bratiano as minister for Roumania, Sir Henry Layard
wrote to Mr. White as follows:
“I saw Bratiano yesterday. He seems to be much
satisfied with his reception here, and tells me that he
finds the Porte very much disposed to come to a cordial
understanding with Roumania; but he is very anxious
that England and France should lose no time in recog-
nising her—Jews or no Jews—and he urges me to write
to Lord Salisbury on the subject. I told him that it was
out of my province to do so, and that I knew that you
were doing all that could properly be done in the matter.
He professes himself very much alarmed at the designs
of Russia with regard to the Dobrudja, and seems to
think that she will not give it up before securing a
secret agreement with the Roumanian Government. He
communicated to me a telegram on the subject a day
or two ago from Mr. Kogolniceano, which he had been
authorised to submit to me.
“The Commission at Philippopolis has great difficulties
to contend with. It is, however, doing one useful thing
—verifying the atrocities committed by the Russians and
Bulgarians upon the Mussulmans, and protesting publicly
against them.”
A letter from Sir Henry Layard, dated April 14, 1879,
contains the following remarkable passage, which by all
I96 ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIV
who are interested in the Eastern Question is well worth
bearing in mind :
“The great danger to be apprehended in the East
of Europe is that Roumania and Hungary should be
enveloped and crushed by the Slavs, which they will
inevitably be if Russia is allowed to form all the so-
called Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula into a great,
compact Slav nationality, which will ultimately extinguish
all elements of independence and civilisation.”
“Bratiano,” wrote Sir Henry, December 20, 1878,
“spoke to me about his plan for getting Prince Charles
elected Prince of Bulgaria, and asked my opinion. It was
too grave a matter for me to express any opinion about it.
I told him that I could not answer for the policy that
H.M. Government might think fit to pursue. He then
asked my advice as to whether he should proceed to
London to place the matter before Lord Salisbury and
endeavour to obtain the support of England for his
scheme. I could not advise him on this point. I
recommended him to keep the matter quiet, and to
sound Zichy and Fournier, which he appears to have
done, and to have received encouraging replies from
them—according to his own account. The Grand Vizier,
he says, and one or two of the Turkish ministers,
expressed their approval.
“But would Russia consent to such an arrangement as
Bratiano proposes? Would she not defeat it by force or
intrigue P And would the Bulgarians themselves consent
to it under the constraint and influence of Russia as they
now are P Therefore, however good Bratiano's scheme
may be, I doubt very much whether it is practicable.”
The two next letters from Sir Henry Layard are very
interesting in connection with a new understanding, now
for the first time observed, between France and Russia.
At the Berlin Conference Lord Beaconsfield and Lord
Salisbury had succeeded in obtaining for England the
co-operation both of France and of Germany—a com-
bination which to the Russians might well have seemed
impossible; and Russia now considered it absolutely
1879] FRANCO-RUSSIAN UNDERSTANDING 197
necessary to detach France, since she could not separate
Germany, from the European League which she had
found arrayed against her at Berlin.
The Franco-Russian understanding now formed was
anterior to the understanding between Germany and
Austria—its natural consequence as soon as Prince
Bismarck was able to enlighten Count Andrassy as
to what was really going on. -
The idea that Russia and France were working
together had already been suggested to Sir Henry Layard
by Mr. White, who had been much struck by the friendly
relations between the Russian and French Ministers at
Bucharest.
“The policy,” wrote Sir Henry, “of French agents
in the East, to which you refer in your letter, is
somewhat mysterious. They appear to be everywhere
supporting the Russians and Russian policy—here, in
Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, and also in Roumania.”
In a letter dated May 9, 1879, Sir Henry speaks of
“intrigues in the Palace to which the Russians and, I
am afraid, my French colleague are not strangers. What
line,” he asks, “are the French now taking in Roumania?”
The Franco-Russian understanding is again referred to
in a letter dated December 2, 1879, explaining to Mr.
White a movement of the English fleet in connection
with possible disturbances, sure to be followed by out-
rages, in Armenia.
“It is absolutely necessary,” he writes, “that every
effort should be made to induce or compel the Porte to
introduce the reforms promised to us, and it ought to
be understood that it is only by doing so that it can
secure the support of England.
“I have a strong suspicion,” he adds, “that the French
are going with Russia; many circumstances have come
to my knowledge which seem to confirm it.”
198 ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIV
Here is another letter of December, 1879, from Sir
H. Layard to Mr. White:
“A small retrograde anti-European clique have taken
advantage of the constitutional timidity and suspicious
nature of the Sultan to impose their influence upon him,
and to induce him to enter upon a line of policy which
may end in his ruin and that of his Empire. This is
especially lamentable when Turkey, through a combination
of circumstances—amongst them, the understanding arrived
at between Andrassy and Bismarck to which you refer
in your letter—had an excellent chance of recovering
herself and of securing the sympathy and support of
England. All the most liberal-minded statesmen have
been exiled from the capital on the pretence of giving
them provinces to govern. I see no one capable of
directing the affairs of the state in the present crisis.
“The alliance between Germany and Austria must, as
you say, have an immense effect on European politics.
I trust that it may be for good, and that it may at least
secure peace to us for some years to come. It could
not but be favourable to Turkey if she knew how to
take advantage of it. . . .
“I am glad that the visit of Prince Alexander of
Bulgaria to his fellow prince passed off well, and that
you were pleased with him. He will have no little
difficulty in governing his province in the face of Russian
intrigue, and it is thought not unlikely that Aleko will
be driven to resign in order to make room for Alexander,
who will then be at once elected Prince of United Bulgaria;
the union, being effected by a coup de main similar to
that practised in Moldo-Wallachia.”
Six years afterwards what Sir Henry Layard had
foreseen was accomplished.
Towards the end of January, 1880, Bratiano was once
more at Constantinople, when he spoke of his country
“in terms of despair.” He told Sir Henry that Bismarck
evidently intended to drive the Prince to resign, and to
make the Principality disappear as an independent state.
1879] FRANCO-RUSSIAN UNDERSTANDING 199
“But whether his policy is that it should be absorbed
by Austria or Russia he (Bratiano) cannot tell. He
believes that Bismarck's object will be effected within a
year and a half or two years, and seems to take a very
gloomy view of the affairs of his country—I hope, an
exaggerated one. But there are certainly strong reasons
for suspecting that Bismarck is meditating something in
that direction.”
In regard to the Franco-Russian understanding he adds:
“France is going entirely with Russia and against us
in questions connected with Turkey. Whether this is
the personal policy of my colleague, M. Fournier, or
that of his Government I cannot tell you ; I can only
say that from all our consuls I hear that the French
and Russians act together. The conduct and policy of
the Porte are in the meanwhile just leading the Empire
to ruin. Anarchy, mis-government, discontent, and dis-
affection are prevailing on all sides. The catastrophe
may come sooner than the worst enemies of this country
have anticipated. I have done my best to avert it, and
can do no more. I can only hope that the Sultan will
open his eyes in time and rid himself of the evil counsellors
who form a clique in his palace and now virtually govern
the country.”
The following letter, the last on political matters that
Sir Henry Layard addressed to Mr. White, was written
after the return of the Liberals to power; also after the
recognition of the independence of Roumania:
“PERA,
“DEAR MR. WHITE, “April 27, 1880.
“I rejoice that I have again the means of corre-
sponding direct with you. The welcome appearance of
your letter of the 5th April, for which pray accept my
thanks, was like that of the leaves in spring. It is of
particular importance that I should be able to write to
and hear from you. At the present time the state of
Turkey is about as bad as it can be ; and the accession
of the Liberal Government to office will encourage the
various elements of disorder which exist in this unhappy
country to show themselves, unless they are speedily
2OO ROUMANIANS IN HUNGARY [Ch. XIV
warned, that they will receive no sympathy and support
from England. I am very glad that so experienced and
moderate a man as Lord Granville is to be Foreign
Secretary—at least so the public telegrams say. He will
not be disposed to encourage attempts to upset the order
of things established by the Treaty of Berlin and to
countenance the uprising of Eastern nationalities which
would lead to fresh bloodshed and to renewed European
interference. Something will have to be done with regard
to Eastern Roumelia. Aleko Pasha is simply defying
the Porte and all Europe. The former appears hopeless
and helpless with respect to him, and the latter has
hitherto shown no disposition to interfere. The result
is that Aleko and his Bulgarian advisers are quietly setting
aside the Treaty of Berlin and the organic statute, playing
the game of Russia, and preparing the way for the cession
of the province to Bulgaria.
“The Porte seems anxious to establish very friendly
relations with Roumania, and the Sultan has shown
marked attention and civility to Bratiano, inviting him
more than once to dinner, and conferring all kinds of
honours upon him.
“Yours very truly,
“A. H. LAYARD.”
In spite of Sir Henry Layard's confidence in Lord
Granville as “an experienced and moderate man,” he
received from his lordship, in the first month of 1881,
a letter, dated January 14, recalling him in a not very
friendly manner, and with a certain forced courtesy, from
his post at Constantinople. If Sir Henry Elliot, however,
had been found too Turkish for the political situation
at home when a Conservative Government was in power,
what must Sir Henry Layard have been after the
Liberals had come into office P
Lord Granville's despatch was in the following terms :
“For EIGN OFFICE,
“SIR, “January 14, 1881.
“The Queen having signified her pleasure that
Her Majesty should for the present continue to be
1879] RETIREMENT OF SIR H. LAYARD 201
*
represented at the Porte by an Ambassador as a Special
Embassy, Her Majesty has been pleased to command
that the termination of your Excellency's Embassy shall
be notified to the Sultan, and as it might be inconvenient
for you to proceed to Constantinople to deliver your letters
of recall in person, arrangements have been made for their
delivery to the Sultan through Her Majesty's Acting
Representative at the Porte.
“In thus notifying to you officially the termination of
your Embassy, it is my agreeable duty to convey to
you the Queen's appreciation of the energy and ability
with which you conducted the business under circum-
stances of exceptional difficulty, and I have at the same
time to express the hope that your services may not
hereafter be entirely lost to the country.
“I have advised Her Majesty that your salary as her
Ambassador at the Porte should cease and determine on
the 31st December last, and Her Majesty has signified
her pleasure to that effect accordingly.
“I am, etc.,
(Signed) “GRAN VILLE.”
It appears from the above that, on being dismissed
from his post, an English ambassador receives a fortnight's
notice counted backwards, with deduction from salary to
correspond.
26
CHAPTER XV
A SERIES OF AMBASSADORS
IR HENRY LAYARD was a little sanguine in the
conviction he had expressed that the new Foreign
Minister would do his best to see the provisions of the
Berlin Treaty put into execution. The introduction of
reforms in Armenia which had so often and so ineffec-
tively been pressed upon the Porte by Lord Salisbury
was now to be taken up with equal unsuccess by Lord
Granville.
The culpable withdrawal of the military vice-consuls
appointed by Lord Beaconsfield, and the intentional
failure of the Turks to form and despatch to Armenia
the promised gendarmerie under English officers (for
which the English officers alone were forthcoming), helped
to prepare the way for the massacre of the unarmed
undefended population ; and when Mr. Goschen arrived
at Constantinople, towards the end of May, 1881, as
Special Ambassador, not only were no reforms being
introduced into Armenia, but the Kurds and other savage
tribes were ravaging the country. Hundreds of villages
were destroyed by these barbarians, and their inhabitants
forced to take refuge in Russia, where they were welcomed
as living proofs of the iniquity of the Turkish Govern-
ment. All serious intention of forcing the Turks to
furnish the gendarmerie for Armenia seemed now to
have been abandoned.
2O2
1880 MASSACRE By BUL.GARIANs 2O3
In Eastern Roumelia were being repeated by Bulgarians
upon the Turks, the acts of murder and outrage which
had caused such indignation and horror when perpetrated
by Turks upon Bulgarians. A rising of Mahometans
having taken place at Philippopolis, where it was sup-
pressed in the most savage manner by the Bulgarian
Militia under Russian officers, some twenty Turkish
villages were plundered and partly destroyed ; the in-
habitants being, for the most part, massacred.
Some of the worst excesses were committed by the
societies of “Gymnasts,” which were really companies
and battalions of volunteers; their gymnastic exercises
being exclusively of a military kind. Numbers of Turkish
mosques and schools were burned, and the government
of the new province seemed to have no power over its
own troops. When the late Mr. Thomas Michell, C.B.,
the newly appointed Consul-General and Diplomatic
Agent in Eastern Roumelia, despatched to the Foreign
Office a faithful account of the scenes he had witnessed
at Philippopolis, his report was looked upon as exag-
gerated. But Colonel Green, who was sent out to verify
Mr. Michell's account, declared it to be very moderate,
and well within the limits of the bare truth.
Mr. White would soon have to occupy himself with the
affairs of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, and of Servia
in its opposition to Bulgaria ; and he had already at
Bucharest given his attention to the strained relations
existing between Bulgaria and Roumania. Repeated
complaints had been made by the Roumanian residents
at Rustchuk of the treatment to which they were subjected
by the Bulgarian authorities, but without effect.
Soon afterwards bands of armed Turks entered Bulgaria;
and it was alleged that they had been formed in the
Drobrudja, with the knowledge and approval of the
2O4. A SERIES OF AMBASSADORS [Ch. XV
Roumanians. This produced such an outcry against
Roumania, both in the assembly and in the Press of
Bulgaria, that a breach of diplomatic relations between
the two countries seemed imminent. M. Stourdza, the
Roumanian Agent, was, in fact, recalled from Sophia, and
a commission of inquiry was appointed by the Bulgarian
Government; when it appeared that the accusation brought
against the Roumanian authorities of having taken
part in the formation of the Turkish bands was quite
unfounded.
All complicity on the part of Roumania having been
disproved, there seemed for the moment to be no further
cause for dissension between the the two states. But
a fresh misunderstanding soon broke out in connection
with the naturalisation or non-naturalisation of a Bulgarian
in Roumania; and at the time of Mr. Goschen's arrival
in Constantinople the attitude towards one another of the
newly formed and newly liberated states of the Balkan
Peninsula was by no means encouraging.
There could be no question as to Mr. Goschen's high
ability. But the plan of sending out special ambassadors
accredited only for a short, indefinite time was scarcely
a good One. No previous knowledge of Turkey was
thought necessary on their part, nor did they remain
long enough to inspire confidence.
Mr. Goschen, who had been preceded by Sir Henry
Layard who had been preceded by Sir Henry Elliot,
was to be followed by Lord Dufferin ; who exercised
great influence and had indeed become a power at
Constantinople when he was called away to fill a still
higher post : that of Viceroy of India.
Some six months after his arrival at Constantinople
Lord Dufferin addressed to Mr. White at Bucharest the
following letter about Egyptian affairs :
1882] EGYPTIAN QUESTION 2O5
“THERAPIA,
“30 June, 1882.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I am so much obliged to you for your kind letter
of the 28th of June. I quite agree with you in thinking
that this Egyptian business is the most troublesome we
have had for some time. The position of every one
concerned—England, France, the Sultan and the Khedive
—is equally thorny. I am doing my best to get the
Sultan to move ; but, naturally enough, he cannot bear
the thought of coming into collision with a Mahommedan
people, and having the task of cutting their throats in the
interests of two infidel Powers. The French abhor the
notion of Turkish military intervention, and though we
drag them to the pond we may have difficulty in making
them drink. I hear that in Egypt the French agent
and the leading French officials are hand in glove with
Arabi. That is not the Marquis de Noailles' line. I only
hope your friend, Mr. de Ring, will not be able to impress
him with his ideas.
“In England the great mass of opinion seems to be
against the Egyptian national party; but it must be gall
and wormwood to some of the radicals to send Turkish
troops against the champions of Arab independence; I
myself don't like it.
“Yours sincerely,
“DUFFERIN.”
Some months later, in the year 1883, there was a chance
of Sir William White's being sent to Egypt, where he
would have met, as a possible political antagonist, his
intimate and much-esteemed friend, M. Camille Barrère,
now French Ambassador at Rome. “He was somewhat
disappointed at not going there,” writes M. Barrère ;
“but he said to me with that genial laugh that you
know, “After all it is better so ; we know each other
too well.’”
I cannot here do better than give another extract from
M. Barrère's letter; written in English, of which he is
as much a master as of French.
206 A SERIES OF AMBASSADORS [Ch. XV
“White was anxious to know Gambetta who at the
time was President of the Chamber of Deputies. I took
him to the Palais-Bourbon, where they had a long talk
and were much struck and pleased with each other.
White admired Gambetta greatly.
“White was one of the most genial diplomatists I ever
met. His athletic form contained a mind of extraordinary
shrewdness; he showed me a kind of fatherly liking ; and
I owe him many a profitable lesson on men and things.
Brilliant as was his career, my impression has always been
that it might have been greater if the times had helped
him more, and if he had attained a higher sphere of public
service younger. Anyhow, such as he was, he can be
quoted as one of the most striking figures of modern
diplomacy; and I am very glad to hear that his life is to
be told by you.
“Yours very sincerely
“CAMILLE BARRERE.”
CHAPTER XVI
THE NEW BALKAN STATES
HE truth of Sir Henry Layard's oft-repeated saying,
that it would be found very difficult to replace
“Turkey in Europe,” was proved by the number of
different projects brought forward for that purpose when
European-Turkey. had been virtually destroyed. -
Sir Henry Layard would have liked to keep it going
in its old shape, introducing reforms and endeavouring
to place Mahometans and Christians on an equal footing,
until at last the inevitable change would have come with-
out too great a shock. Now that the change had come
(with a frightful shock) Sir Henry had little or nothing
to propose in the way of constructive policy.
The idea of a Balkan Confederation was much in
favour—one might almost say in fashion—at the time.
But such a combination would have been at the mercy
of Russia, of Austria, or of both together.
The difficulties in the way of an independent Con-
federation were well set forth by Sir Charles Dilke in
the following letter to Sir William White :
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I fancy you inclined to the Balkan Federation,
which also seems Chamberlain's view. I shall be writing
soon about this and I find great difficulties. A Federa-
tion of Bulgaria and Greece is a Federation of a cat
and a dog. There are no two countries that hate each
207
2O8 THE NEW BALKAN STATES [Ch. XVI
other more. Then Roumania detests Bulgaria also. The
Federation would be directed against Austria as well as
against Russia, and the two would combine to prevent
it, I should have thought.
“Yours ever truly,
“ C. W. D.”
Sir William White's idea seems to have been a
Federation of Balkan States supported by an Austrian
Alliance. No such Federation could exist for any length
of time except under the protection of either Austria
or Russia ; and the fate of any one Balkan State
endeavouring to effect a union (or to destroy one) by
force of arms was shown by what took place during the
war between Servia and Bulgaria after the bringing together
of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia. Austria would not
allow Bulgaria to penetrate far into Servia ; while Russia
was prepared to arrest any too forward a march of Servia
into Bulgaria.
A Balkan Confederation in the impossible case of its
being strong enough to be self-supporting might be
desirable; but if it were only strong enough to present
a threatening aspect it could be disposed of by Austria's
taking Wallachia and leaving Moldavia to Russia; by
Russia's taking Bulgaria and leaving Servia to Austria.
There are writers on this subject who declare that
Austria, having already so many Slavonian subjects, would
be afraid to increase the number. Sir William White,
who knew this question thoroughly, was convinced, on
the other hand, that the alleged Slavonisation of Austria
constituted no danger whatever to that Power.
Lord Edmond FitzMaurice, Under-Secretary for Foreign
Affairs at the time, having consulted Sir William White
on this subject, received from him the following reply:
“It was a great pleasure for me to receive your last
1884] LETTERS FROM SIR W. WHITE 209
welcome note, and to read in it that you were desirous
of hearing my views about the increase of Slav influence
in Austria. It is a subject to which I have lately devoted
much attention, as I think its importance is considerable,
and it would be a great pity if we were on the wrong
scent with regard to it. I have been thinking frequently
of writing a private memorandum on the subject of Austria,
and mentioned this once, I believe, in one of my private
letters to Dilke.
“I shall be but too glad to tell you gradually all that
comes under my notice with my usual freedom, should
you continue to wish it.
“I am strongly of opinion that all that has been said
lately about the Slavonisation of Austria being brought
about is more than an exaggeration ; it is actually incorrect.
A cry has been uttered by some Germans, taken up by
the Opposition (or Verfassungspartei), has been re-
echoed by some, and even most, of the Consuls at Vienna,
and has found credulous listeners at some of the Foreign
Embassies and Legations there, but certainly not at the
German Embassy, the best and most competent judge
in the matter.
“The greatest efforts have been made by the alarmist
Germans in Austria to get this their view endorsed at
Berlin, but hitherto in vain ; and this would be decisive for
me, even if other proofs were wanting of the incorrectness
of this estimate. -
“Of course, it is said at Vienna that this change is
brought about by Count Taaffe and his colleagues ; but
of these six gentlemen two are well-known Polish patriots,
while one only, Pracak, is a Czech. The fact of the matter
is, that Austria has to undergo a great many changes to
satisfy her Slav subjects, without, on that account, jeopardis-
ing her Germanic character ; though, without the adoption
of such changes, her very existence becomes precarious.
No one knows this better than the great German
Chancellor, who has covered with sarcasm the pretensions
of the German-Austrian patriots, and does not appear to
think that in Austria Slavonisation is making too rapid
strides.
“It is not Taaffe and his measures that have created
suspicion at Berlin, but rather and his foreign sym-
pathies, which, no doubt, are Russian. There always has
been, and there is still, a pro-Russian party at the Hofburg.
27
2 IO THE NEW BALKAN STATES [Ch. XVI
Political partisans who are desirous to upset Taaffe have
brought forward and are constantly decrying the Slavonic
proclivities of his Government in internal administration,
and thus wish to make him odious and suspected through-
out Germany. What you appear to have heard, and what
I hear constantly, is the echo of this sort of thing ; but
a careful study of his measures leads me to the opinion
that this estimate is incorrect.
“A Parliamentary Government in a country like Austria,
where the Germans are a minority, must be constantly
doing something to satisfy the various nationalities con-
stituting the majority; and as the Ultramontanes and
aristocracy happen to side with Taaffe, also the Poles and
Slavs and Tyrolese, there is always some new accusation
ready at hand against him.”
The Slavonians of the Balkan Peninsula both of the
Servian and of the Bulgarian variety, have equally their
champions in England. It is difficult, however, to under-
stand how either Servia or Bulgaria can be looked upon
as capable of offering any—even the slightest—resistance
to Russia.
The much more powerful Roumania might possibly do
so. A Russian army, now that Bucharest is strongly
fortified, could at least be delayed in front of the Roumanian
capital until Austrian troops had time to come up. But
without the Austrian Alliance, Roumania would practically
be as powerless as Bulgaria or Servia.
In writing to Sir William White at Bucharest, Sir
Henry Layard at Constantinople expressed again and
again the hope that Roumania, now that she was
independent, would cultivate the most friendly relations
with Turkey. He seems, indeed, at times to have desired
for Roumania a free Alliance with Turkey in place of the
vassalage of former days. He looked, however, very suspici-
ously upon the Slavonian States, with their “unscrupu-
lous and greedy populations,” and regarded Roumania
1884] SCLAVONIANS AND SLAVONIANS 211
and Hungary as islands in the midst of threatening
Slavonian seas, sure to be called upon to defend their
liberty and independence in circumstances of great
difficulty.
“Roumania,” he wrote to Sir William White, “will
now, as you say, occupy a very important, and at the same
time dangerous position in the midst of the Slav, or
Sclavonic *-speaking races whose ambitious designs and
aspirations have been vastly encouraged by recent events.
It will remain for her and Hungary to fight the battle of
liberty and national independence against an unscrupulous
and greedy people.”
Roumania was at this time, just after the recognition
of her independence, in considerable danger with her
two formidable neighbours; each mindful, no doubt, of
the Roumanian territory absorbed by them in former
days—from Moldavia on one side, from Wallachia on
the other. M. Ghika, son of Prince Jon Ghika, told Sir
Henry Layard at Constantinople, that attempts were
being made in his country to kindle animosity between
* Sir Henry Layard, like Lord Salisbury, spelt this word in the
ancient English way, as sanctioned by standard authors, which is
not, however, the way in which it is pronounced, whether among the
Slavonians themselves, or among the Germans, French and English of
the present day. In France the old word “Esclavon" has long been
replaced by “Slave"; probably ever since Mickiewicz delivered at
the Collège de France his admirable course of lectures on “Les
Slaves,” some sixty years ago. The Slavonians derive their self-given
name from slava, signifying “glory.” The West-Europeans on the
other hand have derived from the racial designation of the Slavonian,
so often captured and subjugated, such words as sklave, esclave and
slave.
A more probable derivation of the name is from slovo, a word.
The person who uses the word—slovo–is the Slavonian. The dumb
person, like the foreign person who cannot use the “word,” is called
nemets, which in Russian stands equally for the “dumb" and for the
“stranger.”
212 THE NEW BALKAN STATES [Ch. xvi
Moldavia and Wallachia; and chiefly in Moldavia, with
the view of detaching it from Wallachia.
Bratiano declared to the same ambassador that
Bismarck had evidently resolved to make Roumania
disappear as an independent state ; though whether it
was to be given to Austria or to Russia, or divided
between the two, he did not know. Lord Salisbury, too,
had heard that a project existed by which a great part
of Roumania might possibly be absorbed into Hungary;
that Wallachian portion, no doubt, which adjoins
Transylvania. -
Finally Russia had threatened the Roumanians that
if they protested against or opposed her demand for a
military passage she would occupy Roumania and disarm
her troops.
Without actual anarchy, then, there was certainly an
anarchical state of things in the Balkan Peninsula, when,
in 1880, Lord Granville replaced Lord Salisbury as Foreign
Secretary.
Lord Granville does not seem to have written much
to Sir William White at Bucharest or elsewhere. Sir
William in any case preserved very few of Lord Granville's
letters—all brief and to the point, without the least ampli-
fication on political subjects.
A letter from Sir William White to Lord Edmond
FitzMaurice, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the
government of Mr. Gladstone, has already been given.
Here is another of the year 1884, to the same corres-
pondent, in which Sir William speaks of the visit to
Bucharest of the Austrian Crown Prince. Lord Edmond
had written to him on the “interminable difficulties”
he had met with the previous year, in inducing the
Austro-Hungarian Ambassador to make necessary con-
cessions to Roumanian national feeling in regard to the
1884] AUSTRIANS IN ROUMANIA 2 I 3
navigation of the Danube, and expressing a hope that
the visit of the Crown Prince to Bucharest might be the
occasion of establishing friendly relations.
“BUCHAREST,
“4th May, 1884.
“MY DEAR FITZMAURICE,
“The Austrian Archduke's visit here came off
extremely well. He and the charming Princess Stephanie
appeared delighted—but it is really surprising to feel
how little the wornehmer Austro-Hungarian knows about
this country. sitting after dinner with the Queen
of Roumania, asked H.M. whether the lady sitting
close to them could speak anything but Roumanian,
and was quite surprised to be told that she could also
speak French, German and English equally well. The
lady about whom this question was asked was y
the wife of —. The persons of the suite were surprised
that Roumania was so large a country ; that the educated
classes spoke French ; that everything was on the
European pattern, etc.; in fact, imagined the upper
classes here did not know the use of knives and forks,
though they did not say so. When one considers the
important interests Austria has at stake here, all this
is lamentable and perplexing. But the Archduke took
full notice of their common interests in his toast at the
dinner, and I am sure he went away a wiser man.
“I am told that H.I.H is more intelligent and more
firm in character than his father : his scientific instruction
has been more soignée, but it is to be feared that he is
deficient in that souplesse which has contributed so much
in enabling the present Emperor to tide over difficulties,
and cement that monarchy which had been in such danger,
by means of a common loyalty and affection towards
the dynasty amongst the different and heterogeneous
races which compose it. At Bucharest the Russian
Legation tried underhand with some boyards to strike a
note hostile to the Hapsburgs, with a view to create some
discordance during this Archducal visit. Nothing came of
it, but my Austrian colleague was greatly alarmed.”
A new minister, Mr. Kallimaki Katargi, had, a year or
two previously, been sent from Bucharest to London,
2I4 THE NEW BALKAN STATES [Ch. XVI
carrying with him letters to several of Sir William White's
English friends.
“Kallimaki” was a name which, in a country where
so many Greeks had ruled, could not but suggest
“Callimachus” as its origin. Mr. Kallimaki Katargi, how-
ever, assured me that he was not of Greek, but of Tartar
descent, and that his name was derived from “Calmuck.”
The Phanariots must have left a very bad reputation in
Moldo-Wallachia if it was thought more honourable to
be descended from a Calmuck than from a Callimachus.
This minister was a charming man and seemed by no
means out of place in modern society, though according
to Sir William White there was nothing he regretted so
much as not having been born in the Middle Ages. * -, -
Modern thought and, above all, modern equality were
too much for him. These, however, were mere fantasies
of the mind, known only as theoretical ideas to a few
of his intimate friends.
The saddest event for Sir William White of the year 1884
was the death of his friend Lord Ampthill, the “Odo
Russell’ of former days. Sir Robert Morier, another
warm friend and sincere admirer of Lord Ampthill, wrote
to Sir William the following letter in reference to the loss
they had both sustained:
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I was grateful for your letter about our dear Odo,
but I couldn't answer it. I feel his loss more every day.”
Among Sir William White's letters I find one written
by Mr. Odo Russell just fifty years ago to Mr. de
Fonblanque at Belgrade, which is interesting as an example
of the formal letter-writing then in vogue—especially,
no doubt, in official circles. It is dated November 12,
1851, from Vienna, where Mr. Odo Russell was attached to
1884] BISMARCK AND ODO RUSSELL 2I 5
the Embassy of Lord Westmorland ; and the ceremonious
conclusion preceding the signature is in four lines, where
one would now be found sufficient.
“I have the honour to be,
“Sir,
“your obedient,
“humble servant,
“ODO RUSSELL.”
The letter is addressed to Thomas de Grenier de
Fonblanque, Esq., with three etcs. after his name; the
same Mr. de Fonblanque to whom Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe, in still earlier days (1843), gave Mr. Layard a
letter of introduction on which, after it had been presented,
Mr. de Fonblanque jotted down critical and sarcastic
remarks to the disparagement of its presenter.
England had never had an abler representative at
Berlin than Lord Ampthill; and his appointment to the
English Embassy in that capital is said to have been
in a great measure due to the excellent effect he produced
on Prince Bismarck at Versailles, whither he had been sent,
as we have seen, towards the end of the Franco-German
War to make representations in connection with Russia's
announced intention to disregard the Black Sea clause
in the Treaty of Paris.
Bismarck was much pleased with what he saw of Mr.
Odo Russell at Versailles, and this was held to be, and
probably was, a sufficient reason for sending him to Berlin.
It might be said that the sort of ambassador whom a
foreign minister like Bismarck would prefer, would be one
of a soft and yielding disposition. Nevertheless, England
had never more influence at Berlin than in the days of
Odo Russell, who occupied his important post for some
dozen years until his death in 1884. Prince Bismarck
speaks of him with marked respect in his Memoirs, and
216 THE NEW BALKAN STATES [Ch. XVI
refers to him as one of the few Englishmen he could call
to mind who spoke good French without being a bad man.
Then, however, he reflects that, by way of corrective,
Lord Ampthill spoke excellent German.
Lord Ampthill had all the suavity of the trained
diplomatist who has had influence enough to get trans-
ferred in his promotion from one great capital to another.
I had the pleasure of meeting him several times at
Versailles, and once dined in his company at the quarters
of a Prussian officer of my acquaintance who had
established himself in a house near the outposts, where
he had a fine set of apartments, his own cook, and his
own well-stocked wine cellar—practically his own, by the
sometimes agreeable customs of war.
Lord Ampthill was singularly unlike Sir William White,
who had never been stationed at any of the great
European capitals; though Warsaw, Belgrade and
Bucharest had prepared him admirably for Constantinople.
The diplomatic mill turns out excellent men; Lord
Ampthill and Sir Robert Morier had both been through
it. But for Constantinople the best sort of man is the
one who has studied the Eastern Question in all its
branches, in all its bearings, and as much as possible on
the spot. To have practised diplomacy at Paris and
Berlin, at Madrid and Rome, can help but little. The
diplomatic routine may give its followers suppleness and
style. But for the Eastern Question knowledge of the
subject is above all necessary.
Towards the end of 1884 the diplomatic monotony of Sir
William White's life at Bucharest was rudely broken into
by Lord Granville with a letter from Walmer Castle dated
December 22, proposing that he should go to South America.
“Dear White,” begins Lord Granville's characteristically
laconic epistle, “Should you like me to propose you
1884] LETTER FROM LORD E. FITZMAURICE 217
to the Queen as H.M.'s representative at Rio or Buenos
Ayres? I presume you would prefer the former on
account of salary and pension ?
“Yours sincerely,
“GRAN VILLE.”
It appears from the interesting memoir of Sir William
White contributed by Lord Edmond FitzMaurice to the
Speaker for January 2, 1892, that towards the end of 1884,
when a considerable movement took place in the Diplo-
matic Service, Sir William White was on the point of being
promoted to Constantinople. But difficulties were at the
last moment interposed,
“Sir Edward Thornton,” writes Lord Edmond Fitz-
Maurice, “was transferred from St. Petersburg to the
Shores of the Bosphorus. And then for a moment there
seemed a chance of Sir William White's career not
receiving the appropriate crowning of the edifice. The
Legation at Rio fell vacant, and was offered to him
by Lord Granville. He hesitated, and had all but
accepted, when he one day appeared in my room at
the Foreign Office, and asked my advice. I told him
that if he persisted in asking it inside the Foreign Office
I had of course but one duty, which was to advise him
to accept the post which my chief had offered him, but
that, if he would walk round the Park with me, I thought
we might discuss the question on its merits. With one
of his great shouts of laughter he accepted the suggestion,
and we started. Then I told him that I thought that
at Rio, away from his beloved Roumans, Poles, Croats,
Turks, Serbs, Slovenes and Bulgars, he would die of sheer
ennui in three months; that he had only got to wait a little
longer and the big prize must be his ; and that if he did
not get it, he was a great man at Bucharest and would be
comparatively nobody at Rio, though his official dignities
might be greater. I had my reward when, at the end of
1886, I received the following letter, dated,
“THE EMBAssy,
“CoNSTANTINOPLE,
“‘MY DEAR FITZMAURICE,
“‘I have no news of any kind to give you from
28
2 I 8 THE NEW BALKAN STATES [Ch. XVI
here; but I feel very happy not to have gone to Rio
or Pekin in 1884 or 1885.
“Ever yours truly,
“‘W. A. WHITE.
Another excellent friend of Sir William's, Sir Charles -
Dilke, wrote to him as follows about the Rio business:
“MY DEAR WHITE,
“I am very glad you're not going into South
American exile. That's all I can say.
“Yours,
“ C. W. D.”
Of the year 1884 in connection with Mr. White there
is little to add. It may be mentioned, however, that
in this year, when he was still at Bucharest, an endeavour
was made to introduce at Constantinople the greatest
reform that had been attempted since the abortive
proclamation of the Turkish constitution. Eight years had
passed since the sittings of the Constantinople Conference
which had witnessed the promulgation, to the sound of
artillery, of the measure guaranteeing to all Christian
as to all Turkish subjects every kind of civil and religious
liberty. It was now proposed to establish a national postal
system ; and a note was addressed to the representatives
of the Great Powers informing them that the foreign
post-offices hitherto tolerated must now be suppressed,
Turkey having taken steps for establishing a General
Post-office of her own. This ambitious project, however,
proved a hopeless failure ; and the privileges of foreign
governments in regard to the collection and distribution
of letters were not again interfered with until nearly
twenty years later when another false move in the same
direction was made.
1884] SERVIA AND BUL.GARIA 2 IQ
Though nothing took place from 1881 to 1884 that
demanded Sir William White's immediate diplomatic
attention, troubles of a menacing kind arose between
Servia and Bulgaria. The affairs of Servia no longer
concerned Sir William White in any direct manner now
that he was Minister at Bucharest. But the little mis-
understanding between the two neighbouring Slavonian
States gradually assumed a character which menaced the
tranquillity of the whole Balkan Peninsula.
It was understood that Russia would interfere no more
with the development of the new Balkan States, which
maintained friendly relations with one another until the
the summer of 1884, when trouble occurred between
Bulgaria and Servia in connection with a number of
Servian refugees, who, in spite of the protests of the
Servian Government, had been allowed to pass the winter
in the Bulgarian towns adjoining Servian territory.
A dispute, moreover, arose about a corner of frontier
land called Bregova, so small that it was overlooked by
the Plenipotentiaries at Berlin. Bregova had belonged to
Servia before the Conference; and, though it lay on the
Bulgarian bank of the river Timok, now dividing Servia
from the newly created Bulgaria, it was still guarded
by a couple of Servian sentinels. Six years after the
signing of the Berlin Treaty, in the summer of 1884,
the few acres held by Servia on the wrong side of the
stream were entered by a Bulgarian regiment, the Servian
sentinels retiring before it.
Servia now ceased diplomatic relations with Bulgaria.
But the two princes—Alexander and Milan—exchanged
letters and soon came to an ingenious arrangement by
which the Bulgarian regiment occupying Bregova was
to be withdrawn and replaced for one hour by a Servian
regiment. Then the Servian regiment was in its turn
22O THE NEW BALKAN STATES [Ch. XVI
to be marched back, after which the question as to the
ownership of the Bregova field was to be referred to
the Great Powers.
Nothing could have been fairer on both sides. But the
Bulgarian Premier refused to be bound by the arrange-
ment which Prince Alexander had accepted ; and as
a constitutional sovereign, the Chief of the Bulgarian
State had to bow to the decision of the Prime Minister
and his Cabinet.
Negotiations, however, were still going on, when
suddenly the Servians heard of the revolution at Philip-
popolis by which Northern Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia
became united and the population of Bulgaria doubled
in number. Instead of rejoicing at the formation of a
strong Bulgaria in the interest of Slavism generally,
Servia felt indignant at Bulgaria's increase of power and
prepared to attack her.
For Bulgaria, a state for the most part Slavonian,
wished now to take precedence of Servia, the Slavonian
State par excellence of the Balkan Peninsula; and this
could not be endured. The Bulgarians began by re-
treating ; and the Servians, following them, occupied
Slivnitza.
Prince Alexander had not enough troops in hand.
But he saw that if he could only delay the Servian
attack for a day or two, he should be able to repel it.
Then, hurrying up fresh regiments, keeping the Servians
meanwhile at bay, he at last on the third day inflicted
on his enemy a signal defeat But he was not allowed
to pursue the beaten foe. Austria and Russia had both
been looking on, and the Austrian Consul-General at
Belgrade informed Prince Alexander that if he advanced
any farther he would find himself confronted by Austrian
troops, while the Russians would at the same time take
1884] SERVIA AND BULGARIA 22 I
up a position in his rear. The “war was now at
an end. -
The conflict between Servia and Bulgaria was admirably
calculated to bring into disrepute the petty States formed
out of the remains of what Sir Henry Layard insisted
to the last on calling “Turkey in Europe.”
-
º
º
i
!
y
*


CHAPTER XVII
AN EVENTFUL YEAR
IGHTEEN hundred and eighty-five was the year
of Sir William White's appointment as Ambassador
ad interim to the Porte, the year also of the election of
Prince Alexander of Bulgaria to the Governorship of -
Eastern Roumania, and of the war between Bulgaria and
Servia, to which the bringing together of the two Bulgarias
naturally led.
What changes had taken place in European Turkey
since 1875, the year of Sir William White's arrival at
Belgrade. Then Servia was still a vassal State without
any apparent intention of drawing the Sword against
her Turkish suzerain, while Bulgaria was not even a
‘geographical expression,” but merely the name some-
times given to a vague region inhabited by Bulgarians,
Greeks and others in varying proportions. He had seen
European Turkey destroyed by the Treaty of San Stefano,
and only partly restored by the Treaty of Berlin.
Russia, meanwhile, had in the Balkan Peninsula gained
nothing from Turkey except the Dobrudja, of which
she made a compensatory present to Roumania, while
depriving her ally of the corner of Bessarabia ceded to
Moldavia after the Crimean War.
Servia had acquired her independence (apart only from
formal recognition by the European Powers) before Mr.
White left Belgrade; and Roumania had practically
gained hers before his arrival at Bucharest.
222
1885] BOSNIA PROTECTED 223
While Roumania and Servia became independent, Bosnia
and the Herzegovina passed beneath the “protection ” of
Austria ; a solid acquisition for the “protecting” State,
since though at first Austria was only to “administer’”
the two provinces, this did not prevent her from raising
taxes and levying troops in her new possessions.
Thus as one of the results of the Panslavist Crusade,
Bosnia and the Herzegovina—two purely Slavonian
countries—became lost to the Slavonians.
If the States of the Balkan Peninsuala should ever
form a general confederation, Bosnia would be out of it;
while if a specially Slavonic Confederation, apart from
Greece and Roumania, should be brought about, Bosnia
will be equally out of that.
The political Panslavic cry of 1877 could not, of course,
include Roumania; and it was not strong enough to save
Bosnia. Nor did the Slavonic brotherhood which should
have bound together Servia and Bulgaria prevent these
little states on small provocation from falling upon one
another's throats.
In the days before Panslavism, Roumanians, Slavonians
and Greeks were all, as “Greek Christians,” under the
political patronage (if not legal protection) of Russia.
Now, between the three great nationalities of the Balkan
Peninsula, endless jealousies and dissensions have arisen.
It must in fairness be admitted that in their darkest days
these oppressed nationalities looked for succour and aid to
Russia—nor looked in vain. The late Eugene Schuyler,
in his excellent History of Peter the Great dwells on
the fact, as testifying to the sincerity of the Russians
in their sympathy for the Eastern Christians, that the
first combination against Turkey in which Orthodox
Russia took part was formed under the auspices of the
Pope, with two Catholic Powers, Austria and Poland, as
224 AN EVENTFUL YEAR [Ch. XVII
leading members of the league. Peter the Great's father,
moreover, Alexis Mikhailowitch (son of Mikhail or
Michael, first of the Romanoffs) had previously en-
deavoured, though in vain, to bring about a general
European alliance against the Turks ; and there was no
more reason for accusing him of interested motives than
for bringing a similar charge against him in connection
with his offers of troops, money and a safe asylum to
Charles I.
The Russian sovereigns have again and again given
help to their co-religionaries of the Turkish Empire;
often at a time when the members of the Greek Church
were scarcely regarded as fellow Christians by the Church
of Rome.
At first the Russians looked for nothing in return. But
how could they help those they were protecting except
by entering into alliance with them P And in any alliance
so formed, was it not natural and inevitable that Russia
should be the principal ally In time the chief partner
in the alliance began consciously to exercise pressure,
until at last, towards the end of the eighteenth century,
Catherine II. looked upon the “Greek Christians "merely
as counters in the game she was playing. At the be-
ginning of the nineteenth century, Alexander I. pro-
claimed the annexation of Moldavia and Wallachia to
the Russian Empire—though without being able to
incorporate them in his dominions. At the making of
peace, however, he detached from Moldavia the province
of Bessarabia, which Turkey had no lawful power to cede
and Alexander still less right to claim.
Russia was now playing a political part in Turkey for
her own advantage. But the Eastern Christians still
looked to her and her alone for assistance ; and there
might still, but for Russia, have been no Eastern Question.
1885] BULGARIAN DELEGATES IN LONDON 225
The visit of the Bulgarian delegates to London in 1876
seemed quite a novelty. But, like so many apparent
novelties, this was only a revival. Emissaries from various
parts of Turkey had ever since the Turkish Conquest
visited the West in quest of assistance and with plans
for the expulsion of the Turks from Europe.
As time went on and Turkey became less powerful
these agents, more or less authorised, increased in number
until towards the end of the seventeenth century the
representative of the oppressed Christians in Turkey
became in political circles a figure comparable to that of
the distressed Pole of 1831, or the Hungarian refugee
of I849.
Apart from the feebler action in Western Europe of
volunteer diplomatists from Greece, Servia, and even
Armenia, direct communications were constantly kept up
between the clergy of Moscow and the Patriarchs of
Constantinople; and when Peter the Great sent for the
first time a Resident Ambassador to the Turkish Capital
the Turks at once saw in Tolstoy—the personage in
question—the embodiment of a great danger in the future.
“My residence is not pleasant to them,” wrote
the ancestor of the great writer of the same name,
“because their domestic enemies, the Greeks, are our co-
religionaries. The Turks are of opinion that by living
among them I shall excite the Greeks to rise against
Mussulmans, and therefore the Greeks are forbidden to
have intercourse with me. The Christians have become
so frightened that none of them dare even pass the house
in which I live.”
The Greeks, Servians and Armenians who came to
Western Europe for purposes of study as well as with a
view to the liberation of the Christians suffering persecution
in the regions of the Unfaithful, brought with them schemes
for the partition of Turkey and for the redistribution of
29
226 AN EVENTFUL YEAR [Ch. XVII
its territory among the nations of the West. Seraphim,
who had studied at Oxford, who enjoyed the patronage
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and who published
in London a revised edition of the New Testament, had
a project of dismemberment in which France, Spain,
Abyssinia and Greece were to take part ; Constantinople
and Anatolia being assigned to France, Syria and Jerusalem
to Spain, Egypt to Abyssinia, Macedonia and the islands
to Greece.
It was to Russia, however, that the representatives
of the Greek Christians usually addressed themselves.
England had no interest at the time in connection with
Constantinople—our Indian Empire had yet to be created ;
and, in the various schemes of dismemberment proposed,
England's active co-operation was not even asked for.
Apart, indeed, from our sympathy with Greece, as
Greece, in the days of Byron, no one in England
bestowed a thought upon the condition and aspirations
of the Eastern Christians in Turkey. Lord Strangford
in 1863, in his admirable additional chapter to Lady
Strangford's Eastern Shores of the Adriatic, was the first
English writer to call attention to the general awakening
among them, just then becoming noticeable. But the
English nation as a whole remained indifferent to their
fate, until suddenly it was filled with indignation and
horror by the news of the Bulgarian massacres.
The Bulgarians had long before that signal for their
liberation been the pet children of Lord Strangford,
who may fairly be said to have discovered them. He
looked upon them as better for practical purposes than
Slavonians of a finer breed ; a Finnish alloy giving them,
as to the Russians themselves, a consistency and power
of resistance in which the pure-blooded Slavonian is
supposed to be wanting.
1885] LIBERATED POPULATIONS 227
Sir William White considered it not only an error, but
a culpable error to believe that the Christian populations
liberated from Turkish rule must of necessity fall beneath
the domination of Russia; and the alternative he appears
to have held in view was a Balkan Confederation under
the protection of Austria.
CHAPTER XVIII
BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA
HEN in 1885 Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was
elected to the governorship of Eastern Roumelia or
“Southern Bulgaria,” as it was henceforth to be called, it
seemed as though the whole of the Eastern Question was
about to be re-opened. England and Russia were equally
puzzled by the event, and each Power thought the other
responsible for it.
The news of the union of the two Bulgarias and of the
apathy with which the intelligence was received by the
Porte took Lord Salisbury by surprise. But he soon saw
that the true policy of England was to support the
combination and help the Bulgarians, North and South,
to maintain their independence.
Sir William White, temporarily at Constantinople but
expecting at any moment to be sent back to Bucharest,
received from Lord Salisbury this note :
i. Foreign OFFICE,
“Septr. 30., 1885.
“DEAR SIR WILLIAM WHITE,
“In the presence of this crisis I have asked Sir E.
Thornton not to go to Constantinople for the present, as
the matter had better not be taken out of your hands.
I hope you will stay there till the atmosphere is a little
clearer.”
All through the months of September and October
Sir William White's position was uncertain. His appoint-
228
1885] LETTER FROM LORD SALISBURY 229
ment was only ad interim. There was just then no
permanent Ambassador at Constantinople. But, in
addition to Sir William White as Ambassador ad interim,
a special Ambassador had been sent out in the person of
Sir Drummond Wolff, whose difficulties, according to Lord
Salisbury, were very great, “more owing to our political
position in England than to any other cause.”
“It is like the difficulty,” continued Lord Salisbury,
“that a man has in getting credit from the neighbouring
tradesmen when he is only staying at an hotel. Never-
theless, I think the mission is doing good, and is dissipating
a good deal of suspicion.”
Lord Salisbury, moreover, thanked Sir William for “the
hearty and vigorous assistance " he was giving to the
mission, and added :
“I should be very glad if I had an opportunity of
liquidating the debts under which I feel we stand to you
for the public service you have done both now and at
other times in the past. I will gladly take such an
opportunity if I have it. I may mention confidentially
to you that Her Majesty has expressed to me strongly
her opinions in favour of your claims. I hope some
practicable arrangement may be thought of.”
As soon as it became evident that the enlarged Bulgaria
wished to be self-governing and to dispense, therefore,
as much as possible with assistance and advice from
Russia, then the enlarged Bulgaria was looked upon
with favour in England; and Sir William White in the
fulfilment of his mission took it as much as possible
under his care. It was perfectly right that this should
be so, in the interest of England, of Turkey and of
Bulgaria itself. But it was natural, perhaps, that the
Russians should feel annoyed.
One of the ablest of Sir William White's correspondents,
23O BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA [Ch. XVIII
Sir Robert Morier, suggested to him in a series of most
interesting letters from St. Petersburg, that since Russia
and England had professedly the same object in view—
the welfare, that is to say, of the Bulgarians—some joint
course of action might possibly be devised to which
neither Power could logically object.
Our Ambassador in Russia believed, at the time,
like the Russians themselves, that the union of the two
Bulgarias was due to some action or suggestion on the
part of England. But Lord Salisbury had at first con-
demned it as likely to lead to fresh complications and
possibly a renewal of war; which did not prevent him,
when he saw that the union could not be undone, from
supporting the Bulgarians and helping them to maintain
their independence within their new frontiers.
It has been seen that Sir Henry Layard predicted
from the first a union of the two Bulgarias ; which,
according to him, would be brought about through
Russian agency. A union by the means through which
it was really accomplished had been foreseen neither by
Sir Henry Layard nor by the English, nor by the Russian
Government. It took every one by surprise.
Here, meanwhile, is the first of Sir Robert Morier's letters
on the subject:
“St. PETERSBURG,
“19th Woz., 1885.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I meant to write you a long letter, the gist of which
would have been the expression of my dissatisfaction
with the very strong line taken by H.M.'s Government
in going against the status quo ante. I am not speaking
of you, than whom no one could have done better in
carrying out a line quite clear and statesmanlike but,
in my opinion, wrong.
“I have only three minutes and cannot develop my
theme. But in a few words I will say that our Asiatic
1885] LETTERS OF WHITE AND MORIER 231
concerns are for me en première ligne—our rivalry
with Russia in Europe en seconde ligne, and very far
behind. We were beginning very well in Asia. If the
rivalry in Europe gets more and more accentuated we
shall fare ill.
“One word more. I am convinced Russia does not
want a general war in Europe about Turkey now, and
that she is really suffering from a gigantic Katzenjammer
caused by the last war. We should make her task easy
for her.
“Please write to me by messenger. He leaves London
every other Wednesday—next Wednesday, which will be
SOOIl.
“Yours ever,
“R. B. MORIER.”
The Ambassador at St. Petersburg received from the
acting ambassador at Constantinople the following reply:
“ConstANTINopLE,
“7 Dec., 1885.
“MY DEAR MORIER,
“I wish I could have had a safe opportunity
(i.e. a bag) available earlier for the purpose of replying
properly and fully to your kind lines of Nov. 19, so
as to disabuse you, and set your mind straight on
certain points of our policy here. First of all as regards
M. de Giers. H. E. is certainly a most peacefully dis-
posed and conciliatory Russian Foreign Minister, but
he will only remain in office as long as the policy of
the Empire has an interim character and is in a state
of transition. He is not a star, and is spoken of very
lightly by all his Russian subordinates in the Service.
Nothing we can do or not do will affect his official
career, the duration of which entirely depends on the
relations of his Imperial master with Vienna or
Berlin.
“Nelidoff imagines himself one of the possible heirs to
de Giers's succession ; and his neurosity and ambitious
views have combined with the Czar's personal vindic-
tiveness against Prince Alexander, in no small degree,
to embitter matters here and to complicate an imbroglio
232 BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA [Ch. XVIII
which will certainly not turn out to Russia's political
advantage.
“The Czar was at Copenhagen during the second part
of last Sept., and M. de Giers in the Tyrol. Accordingly,
Nelidoff put himself in direct communication with the
Emperor, and his ambition then began to Soar very
high.
“Il s'est fait fort to master the ill-timed popular
movement, recommending the drastic measure of recall-
ing all the Russian officers from Bulgaria, and suggesting
the informal meetings of ambassadors at Therapia. In
fact he appeared to be having everything his own way;
and he confided to a mutual friend that there was ‘a
great future' before him. At that time, and up to
Oct. IO or I 5, they were favourable here, at Vienna and
at Berlin to the personal union. If Russia had agreed
the whole thing would have been over by this time.
But Nelidoff would not have it so. He carries completely
some of the ambassadors here with him ; and their
theories as to popular movements make me fancy some-
times that I am living in the time of Verona, Carlsbad
and Troppau. They speak of ‘the poor Bulgarians
oppressed by a few adventurers, and sighing to be allowed
to return to legal order.” Their language is the same
as was old Metternich's ; and, later on, Bomba's about
Neapolitans and Sicilians. Nelidoff tries to persuade
every one, and he has evidently succeeded in persuading
his Imperial Master and de Giers, that the threat of a
Turkish military execution will be sufficient by itself to
restore the Sultan's authority in Eastern Roumelia. But
that is not true, and never was ; and it is certainly not
the case nozv. Hence the theory of the loaded gun of
which you speak so often in one of your despatches
(No. 384 B). But, the premises being false, Russian policy
in this question must arrive at fatal results. The status
quo ante never could (since Oct. last) be re-established
in Eastern Roumelia and cannot be now.
“A Turkish execution, to which Nelidoff is pushing and
urging the Sultan by every means in his power, may
subdue the Bulgarians for a time, but will bring on with
it some disaster or other, which will be resented by
Russia in such a way, you may be sure, that M. de Giers
will find it extremely difficult to remain in office.
“It is not our attitude but his own policy of counting
1885] LETTERS OF WHITE AND MORIER 233
on threats and recommending a concentration of 80,000
fine Turkish troops at Adrianople which will jeopardise
his official position.
“If Nelidoff had taken the least trouble to seek for a
formula at the Conference which might have ensured
unanimity he might have got one. But he wanted
to carry things with a high hand, thought the status quo
ante could be reimposed by threats, and landed Russia
where she now is, recommending the Turk to put down
with the sword in his own fashion Christian orthodox
Slavs.
“You will soon hear the cry from Moscow, that this
could only happen under the rule of a Lutheran Foreign
minister, or I am much mistaken. It is only the Sultan's
personal antipathy to the dangers he may be incurring
that has hitherto prevented Abdul Hamid from resorting
to the use of force and taking the advice of Nelidoff
eZ CO/2,507’les.
“By the time you receive these lines he may have
yielded, and blood may be flowing. Yes, blood shed
under Russia's dictation ; or wiser counsels may prevail
and negotiations with Prince Alexander may already
have been initiated.
“As to the line we have adopted, I am sure you
must approve of it. The future European Turkey—to
Adrianople, at any rate—must, sooner or later, belong
to Christian races. There is no example in history, since
the siege of Vienna, two centuries ago, of the Turk's
having regained any inch of soil that he has once yielded
to native races. Is Eastern Roumelia to constitute an
exception to this rule P. We have always been accused
by Russia and her agents in the East of being the
chief obstacles to the emancipation of Christian races in
European Turkey. The reasons for a particular line of
policy on our part have fortunately ceased to exist, and
we are free to act impartially and to take up gradually,
with proper restraints, the line which made Palmerston
famous in regard to Belgium, Italy, etc. The Russians
have made sacrifices to liberate Greece, Servia and the
Principalities. But they have lost all their influence in
Greece, Servia and Roumania. - *
“Montenegro alone has remained faithful and grateful.
“They are now about to lose the Bulgarians. They
accuse us of trying to supplant them in the affection
3O
234 BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA [Ch. XVIII
of these people. Like most of the accusations sown
broadcast against la perſide Albion in Russia, these
charges are either untrue or shallow, and will not bear
Critical examination. These newly emancipated races
want to breath free air and not through Russian nostrils.
A qui la faute 2 The Russian official world looks upon
its own system as perfect; but others cannot see it in
this light. The real genuine Slav hatred in Russia is,
by the way, against the Germans; though it suits
the Court and the official world to direct it against
England.
“I feel, of course, that all these things may have a
contrecoup in Asia, but we cannot shape our course in
Europe by purely Asiatic considerations. Of course, our
great interests are there; but we still have European
duties and a European position, and even European
interests.”
Then came this rejoinder :
“St. PETERSBURG,
“27 Aec., 1885.
“My DEAR WHITE,
“Your letter of the 7th inst, just received has
given me the liveliest satisfaction. It has cleared up
what was before quite obscure, and given me the key
to the enigma which I had vainly sought ; how, with
the undoubted, all-prevailing desire here to avoid a great
fire there, they did not jump on to the golden bridge
made for them in Conference, and, instead, contributed
so much to the risk of the match being put to the
magazine by a bond ſide intervention of Turkey. I was
sure the key would be found in a personal intrigue; and
if Nelidoff's game was to unseat Giers, tout est dit.
“I need not say that I take a different view of our
policy now from what I did when I wrote my last
letter. I had not seen enough of it then to judge it
correctly. What I saw was a unisonous Parteinahme,
on the part of the Press of all shades for Bulgarians
as such. I saw what seemed the sudden change from
the standing-ground of the Treaty of Berlin to that of
Bulgarian atrocity-mongering, and feared this was another
instance of the curse inseparable from our foreign policy;
1885] LETTERS OF WHITE AND MORIER 235
the shaping of it, not for the good of the country, but
for momentary Parliamentary effect.
“Having no faith in the Panslavist heroes of the Roume-
lian revolution, and being naturally unable to guess what
the Bulgarian nation led by a German Prince was capable
of on the field of battle, I certainly thought our right
policy would have been to stick to the Treaty of Berlin
and take the sudden conversion of Russia to the sacred
obligation of treaties au serieut. I believed then, and,
I confess, I still believe now (for without our moral
support, Prince Alexander could not have played the
dangerous game he did) that the perfectly unanimous
pressure of Europe, had it been at once seriously exercised,
would have sufficed without a Turkish army of occupation
to restore the status quo ante, which I certainly deemed
the lesser of the many looming evils. I did not, of
course, for one moment suppose that Lord Salisbury
was going in for a vulgar imitation of the G. O. M.
Bulgarian atrocity No-policy; but I did think it possible
that he might not resist the great temptation of dishing
the Russians, taking the cards with all the trumps out
of their hands, winning the game, and pocketing the
stakes.
“I saw arising a great crisis of rivalry between the
mammoth Empires in connection with the Oriental Ques-
tion, and this at the very moment when I had arrived
at St. Petersburg penetrated (and this will give you the
key of my attitude) with the conviction that the one
object I Ought to try and compass was at the very least to
secure a modus wivendz between the two Governments. . . .
“Was it unnatural that I should think Bulgarians hardly
worth the jeopardising so important an object P For a
game of rivalry it has been—it was instinctively felt to
be such here. The very great prudence shown by Lord
Salisbury and the consummate ability (passes moi l'expres-
sion) with which you played your part have made it a
successful game ; but the one crowning good fortune which
we mainly owe to the incalculable folly of the Servian
attack has been that Prince Alexander's generalship and
the fighting capacities of his Bulgaro-Roumelian soldiers
have placed our rival action in perfect harmony with the
crushing logic of facts. The rivalry is thus completely
swamped in the bit of cosmic work so successfully
accomplished. A state has been evolved out of the
236 BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA [Ch. XVIII
protoplasm of Balkan Chaos—a living joint been added to
the European megatherion—and we can wear the wreathed
Smiles of a successful sage femme at a christening, and
boast that we alone had foretold that it would be a
beautiful live child, and that it was one that we had
successfully midwifed.
“This, though not in these exact words, is the language
which dams / intºmité I have used to Giers. I have of
course never admitted the possibility of rivalry. I have
said that Russia and Great Britain are the only two countries
who will go hand in hand in this matter. We start, it
is true, from different principles, but we follow the same
end ; “you from your sympathy for your kindred ; we
from our sympathy for people struggling to be free and
for the right to shape their own destinies. Why, instead
of looking out for every point on which we can disagree,
not fix our eyes on those on which we can agree ? I
quite admit that governments cannot shape their course
by abstract principles, however noble and however sound ;
but in this matter by deviating from your principles, whilst
we have stuck to ours, you have been fighting against living
forces which will prove too strong for you, whereas we have
been fighting with those forces at our back.’
“I have not of course supposed that I could produce
any effect by such arguments; this was not dams muon rôle.
I had nothing to do with the fighting ; that was your
business at the seat of war. But I believe, within my
sphere and with a view to the future, that a friendly and
sympathetic attitude of this kind and an attempt to place
fairly before H.M.G. the Russian point of view, from
which Giers so far as he has been able has acted, was
more statesmanlike than had I made myself a violent
partizan of Prince Alexander and his Bulgarians.
“Then I must confess to a congenital hatred of unfairness.
To ignore the fact, as is done by every blessed official and
non-official, by every paper and every sect in England, that
the Bulgarians and other Balkan populations owe their
actual independence from Turkey, and the prospect of
their future autonomy, to the blood and treasure of Russia,
is the culmination of unfairness, and from my point of
view at the same time grossly stupid. For what good was
ever got by refusing to look facts in the face P To get
into hysterics, as certain people do, when the word
Panslavism is mentioned seems to me the supreme of
1885] LETTERS OF WHITE AND MORIER 237
absurdity. Panslavism is a force, and, like every other
force, is potent for good or evil. Will it survive in the
great struggle for existence? or will it succumb to pan-
Germanism P Is it in our interest that it should put forth
its strength in Europe, or be driven eastwards and put
forth its strength in Asia P. These are the questions which
are interesting me and which I am trying to understand,
or at least to ascertain how far they are understandable ;
and it is on these questions that I yearn to have a great
fulness of talk with you, because you only could give me
a real guidance.
“But all this is not politics. As regards the immediate
present, I quite agree with you that it's all to the good
that the idiotic Russian bureaucrats, after shedding the
blood of hundreds of thousands of wretched peasants on
the Balkan ranges, should have so managed as to earn
the bitter hatred of the people they have by this blood
made free. If we can help to build up these people into
a bulwark of independent states and thus screen the sick
man at Constantinople from the fury of the northern blast,
for God's sake do it—as long as you do it in the natural
course of business, and called thereto in your character as
one of the great European signatories, but don't go for it
as a special British Mission. This is what I think Lord
Salisbury and you have succeeded in doing, and why I
So highly commend you. Only don't make this the one
goal and object of your policy. Don't let your wheels
heat from the rate at which you go. Don't forget that
for us, after all, India is the dermier mot, and that we must
never so embourðer ourselves in Europe as to lose our
liberty of action in Asia. In other words, we can only
finally settle with Russia by a war of the most portentous
proportions or by an Auseimandersetzung in which each
shall have a fair share. Don't make the latter impossible
until you see your way quite clearly to the former, and
don't think of the former unless you can get a huge
European coalition against the Colossus pressing down
on the west.
“To make a practical application you have had a great,
an enormous diplomatic success. If we get safe out of
the wood (and we are still in it), if you build up a Bulgaria
under Prince Alexander without more bloodshed, if
you succeed in establishing intimate relations between
this Bulgaria and Roumania, the two only living states
238 BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA [Ch. XVIII
-- . .
thereabouts, and get them to make of Silistria a common
fortress garrisoned by both, like Mayence in the days of
the deceased Confederation (a favourite idea of mine) you
will have done the greatest feat of diplomacy of the highest
kind which has been performed since poor Hudson
obtained for England a more influential position in Italy
than France after Solferino.
“Having done all this, or at least a great part of it,
don't degenerate into partizanship and egg on Prince
Alexander against Russia or throw obstacles in the way
of reconciliation. Thanks to his good sword, he has made
it impossible that he should ever again be treated as a
vassal. To keep up a state of chronic hostility between
the new Bulgaria and Russia would serve no earthly
purpose—except forcing us to take up the rôle of per-
manent godfather, and thus to establish a permanent
state of hostility between us and Russia which, I think,
from my point of view, would be a fatal mistake. These
views are not held in certain high quarters, and I am in
very bad odour for holding them. But I feel sure you
will agree with me.
“Yours sincerely,
“R. B. MORIER.”
The year 1885 was a critical one not only for the
two Bulgarias and for Servia, but also for Afghanistan,
and the relations between England and Russia in
connection with Central Asia; and the one dangerous
situation seems to have influenced and to have been
influenced by the other—to the advantage of peace. Sir
William White had of course nothing to do with Central
Asian affairs. But the Central Asian Question and what
is generally known as the Eastern Question are closely
connected ; and in a private letter of the year 1885, when
the Pendjeh matter was still unsettled, Sir William sums
up the Russian policy in Central Asia very briefly by
saying that its object is to bring the Russian and English
frontiers close together, so that Russia, with a long
military line, which she could well afford to keep up, may
1885] ENGLAND AND RUSSIA 239
be in contact with a long military line which England
could only with difficulty maintain ; ready at any moment
to provoke a breach of the peace if her interests in the
direction of Constantinople should seem to demand it.
Here the line of policy presents itself which Sir Robert
Morier in his correspondence with Sir William White
was so fond of advocating : That England should
accommodate herself to Russia in Europe in order not
to be disturbed by her in Asia.
Trustworthy English statesmen seem now to hold
that Austria and Italy are chiefly interested in stopping
the advance of Russia towards Constantinople. But at
a critical moment England would be interested in aiding
them, and Russia thinks it advisable to take steps in
Central Asia against the Strong probability of such aid
being rendered. As Sir Robert Morier was never so
energetic in recommending his favourite policy as when
he was Ambassador at St. Petersburg, it may be pre-
sumed that it was in harmony with the views of the
Russian Ministers, by whom he was highly appreciated
and much liked. But, according to Sir William White,
to give way too much to Russia in Europe would be to
enable her to force us to give way to her in Asia.
Nearly sixty years ago, in 1844, the Emperor Nicholas,
in the course of his visit to England, proposed, not
that Russia should be allowed a free hand in her
dealings with Turkey, but that Russia and England should
take no action in Turkish affairs except by agreement.
His Majesty did not at all stipulate that Russia should
have Constantinople; but he declared, naturally enough,
in view of her Black Sea communications, that Russia
could not allow any other Power to establish herself
there in lieu of Turkey. According to that remarkable
work, Étude Diplomatique sur la Guerre de Crimee, written
24O BULGARIA AND ROUMELIA [Ch XVIII
by Baron Jomini, and published by the Russian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, the Emperor Nicholas engaged, in
consideration of a clear understanding between Russia
and England on the subject of Turkey, to leave untouched
the three Khanates of Khiva, Bokhara and Kokand ; and
the author adds that after the Crimean War and the
war against Persia by which the Crimean War was
followed, Russia for the first time since 1844 felt herself
at liberty to pursue in Central Asia the line of policy
which she has since been carrying out.
Anticipating Sir Robert Morier's policy, the Emperor
Nicholas wished England to show herself accommodating
in Europe in order that Russia should not disturb her
in Asia. But the accommodation required in Europe
at a critical moment was too great ; it included a pro-
tectorate over the Greek Christians in Turkey and a
temporary occupation (which, the Roumanians are con-
vinced would have become a permanent one) of the
Danubian principalities ; the independent Roumania of
the present day.
Thirty years after the Crimean War, Sir Robert Morier.
thought Russia and England, both professing the greatest
interest in Bulgaria, should work together towards the
advancement of its prosperity. But the welfare of
Bulgaria consisted, according to the Russian view, in its
dependence upon Russia; according to the English view,
in its absolute independence.
It may be here remarked that in criticising the policy
of his esteemed friend, Sir Robert Morier, as in his
contests with Nelidoff at Constantinople and his frequent
opposition to Russian policy in the Balkan Peninsula,
Sir William White was influenced by no general prejudice
against the Russians. To be convinced of this it is
only necessary to remember his attitude at Warsaw,
1885] PRINCE ALEXANDER 24I
where to the conciliatory measures of the Grand-Duke
Constantine and the important reforms introduced under
the Grand-Duke's auspices he gave, equally with Lord
Napier at St. Petersburg, the warmest possible support.
Meanwhile—to return from political theories to historical
facts—the three days' war between Servia and Bulgaria
was like a fight between two street urchins, tolerated for
a time by two grown-up lookers-on, who as soon as the
battle became serious threatened to punch the combatants'
heads unless they desisted : whereupon they left off.
Prince Alexander's military success ought, one would
have thought, to have strengthened his position. But a
series of plots were formed against him ; and nine months
after his victory at Slivnitza he was surprised in his
palace by a band of conspirators, compelled to sign an
act of abdication, and forcibly removed from the country
over which he had been called upon to reign.
The Russians showed themselves quite prepared for
the event, and at once sent Prince Dolgorouky to Bulgaria
to take charge of the government—ordering him back,
however, when it was found that Prince Alexander had
returned. It was avowedly in order to conciliate Russia
that Prince Alexander finally disappeared.
The English Consul-General at Sofia, Captain Jones,
V.C., a man of great energy, did all that was possible
to encourage the Prince and to discourage his opponents.
But as Russia did not wish Prince Alexander to remain,
and as he appears himself to have been under the .
impression that he had received his crown from Russia,
he was obliged to go.
Just after Prince. Alexander's return to Bulgaria the
English Consul-General sent a telegram to Sir William
White at Constantinople, asking him whether there was
any likelihood of a Turkish occupation ; to which a
3I
242 BULGARIA AND ROMELIA [Ch. XVIII
negative reply was sent. What the Bulgarians most
feared was a Russian occupation, the true suzerain of
Bulgaria being at that time not the Sultan of Turkey but
the Tsar of Russia. Had not Prince Alexander himself
said that he “owed his crown to Russia "?
But who would have supported Prince Alexander had
he remained in Bulgaria P. Not his own army; not in
any practical manner the population of Bulgaria—by its
Parliament badly represented, by its Government betrayed;
not the Sultan ; not any one of the powers under whose
auspices the Prince had been elected : only Captain Jones.
The policy pursued by England in connection with
Prince Alexander's final disappearance from Bulgaria was a
strictly legal one. The Foreign Secretary, Lord Iddesleigh,
instructed Sir William White at Constantinople to call
the Sultan's attention to the fact that Prince Alexander
had quitted Bulgaria, a vassal state of the Sultan ; and
that the country whose chief had acknowledged the
Sultan as his suzerain was now without a ruler.
But the Sultan didn't mind ; and to have urged upon
him the adoption of any definite course would have been
by implication to promise him support.
Here are two interesting letters addressed to Sir William
White on the subject (with occasionally a necessary
omission) by Lord Iddesleigh.
“August 27, 1886.
“DEAR SIR W. WHITE,
“Writing to you just now is rather like shooting
an arrow into the air, but I send a line to express a
hope that you will keep me fully and confidentially in-
formed of what goes on in Bulgaria, and will favour me
with your appreciation of the bearing of these events
upon the general question of Eastern policy. From my
conversation with the German and Austrian representatives,
I gather that they would rather prefer that the Prince
1886] REFORMS VERSUS REPOSE 243
should not come back again. “If he does not return,'
said Count Hatzfeldt, “matters will be easily arranged;
but if he does, there will be difficulties from the side of
Russia.’ He would not attempt to say precisely what
Russia would do, but he shrugged his shoulders signifi-
cantly. I told them I considered that the Porte ought
to summon the Prince to come back and restore order,
but that I found it would not do anything. Turkey, he
said, was mortally afraid of Russia, and would do nothing
to irritate her. Besides, Russia did not worry the Porte
with questions of reform as we did. She went to war
sometimes, and took a morsel of land, but then left them
to repose. England did not take the land, but she
destroyed the repose. . . .
“In great haste,
“Yours faithfully,
“IDDESLEIGH.”
“ Dec. 30, 1886.
“DEAR SIR W. WHITE,
“The Bulgarian delegates have arrived here, and I
have had a long conversation with them, if it is to be
called a conversation, ubi tu pulsas ego vapulo tantºm,
for I said very little beyond expressing general sympathy
and asking a few questions. I met Stoiloff later in
the evening. He expressed a hope that they would not
be allowed to return ‘empty handed.' I told him I
thought their visits to the different capitals had done
great good to their cause by showing Europe what
manner of men they were (I did not use that expression,
but it was what I meant to convey), and that their objects
were patriotic and reasonable. What did they think we
could do for them P They must remember that an ostenta-
tious display of interest on our part was likely to do them
more harm than good. They evidently hanker after
some encouragement on the part of one or two at least
of the Powers which would enable them to proceed at
once to the election of a Prince (not necessarily P.
Alexander); and if he were refused by one or more
powers they would go on quand méme. I explained to
him that we could not in such a case afford them
material support, and should only have done them an
injury. There is no doubt that the problem is an ex-
tremely complicated one.”
CHAPTER XIX
THE EVER-CHANGING EASTERN QUESTION
FTER Lord Salisbury's return to office in 1886
there was little to engage his attention in the East,
and the first letter from his pen to be found in Sir
William White's collection is dated 1887.
It dealt with an inquiry put by Sir William White as
to whether the Bulgarian Regents should be encouraged
to take advantage of the existing lull and of Russia's
apparent moderation, to settle up the Bulgarian Question.
Lord Salisbury could only repeat the advice which he
had given to the Bulgarian delegates in London : not to
quarrel with Russia, but not to give up any fragment of
their independence.
Sir William White thought time was on the side of
the Bulgarians; that Austria and Russia were more likely
to go further asunder than to come nearer together, and
that Austria, therefore, would probably work more with
Bulgaria in the future.
According to some of Sir William White's German
friends, Russia was becoming disgusted with the un-
grateful kinsfolk she had liberated, and now looked
forward to a complete vassalage of the Porte as the best
means of obtaining full power over the Straits and the
Black Sea.
Towards the middle of April, 1887, Sir W. White
received from Lord Salisbury a humorous letter setting
244
1887] BISMARCKIAN POLICY 245
forth that, according to representations made to him, the
interests of the English holders of Turkish bonds were
being neglected.
“I promised,” continued the letter, “to represent the
bond-holder to you in a favourable light, as the embodi-
ment and expression of the Sultan's financial good faith.
But at the same time I warned Bouverie that nothing was
at present to be got for him—especially out of the tributes
of Bulgaria and E. Roumelia. The utmost we can offer
him is a tender, but perfectly platonic, expression of
sympathy.”
A letter addressed about this time to Sir W. White
from an eminent Statesman, on the general aspect of
European affairs contained this remarkable passage:
“The present aspect of European affairs is rather
puzzling. The best explanation I can offer is that
Bismarck has tried to induce Russia to sit still and take
a bribe while France is being crushed ; and that Russia
has declined. Next, he has tried to get Russia involved
in the Balkan Peninsula ; and here too he has failed. And
now he is thinking what he shall try next. But I believe
he is still true to the main principle of his policy, employ-
ing his neighbours to pull each other's teeth out.”
The Sultan seemed now to be gradually becoming
reconciled to the idea of a big Bulgaria, and was even
said to look upon it as the best bulwark against Russia.
Some people, on the other hand, declared that the horror
of being obliged to rely on such a defence was enough
in itself to make Russian vassalage tolerable to him.
The year did not pass without a letter from Sir Robert
Morier, who, in November, 1887, wrote to Sir William
White, from St. Petersburg, the following vivacious and,
in the closing passages, somewhat startling epistle :
“My DEAR WHITE,
“I am so remiss in reading the confidential print
(indeed, it requires a supernatural effort for me to wade
246 THE EVER-CHANGING QUESTION [Ch. XIX
through these evacuations of infinite donkeys) that it was
only quite recently that I stumbled across your protest
about my conversation with Greppi. I was shocked to
see that you had fancied I had allowed what appeared
to you a démigrant observation respecting yourself to pass
unchallenged. But, though the matter is now so remote
that I cannot remember the exact words, I must most
positively assure you that there was nothing of the sort
said by Greppi, and that if there had been I should have
taken it up.
“We were both “put out’ at the persistent way in
which we heard on all sides that it was beyond doubt
that Giers had threatened an occupation of Varna or
Erzeroum when we knew this was not true ; and various
Suggestions were made—and amongst others, so far as
I recollect (I have not time to look up my despatch, as
messenger is just off), Greppi said that what with Nelidoff
and the Turks and the atmosphere created at Constan-
tinople, it almost seemed as if even men like Blanc
and White could not always diagnose correctly, or some
words to that effect. As he has the greatest admiration
for Blanc, and knows that you are one of my oldest friends
and I one of your oldest admirers it would have been
quite absurd for me to take up a perfectly innocent
remark.
“You and I occupy such absolutely opposite poles in
this Eastern Question that it would be a waste of paper
to enter into discussion of it, though perhaps we may
do so some day vivd voce ; I am, however as you know,
very Catholic in my views, and can admire a real work
of art, though it's not in my own style, and I cannot say
how highly I appreciate the splendid manner in which
you have geré your Embassy since your arrival at Con-
stantinople. I wish poor Odo had been alive to appreciate
it with me. Nevertheless, for the ultimate success of your
policy, you would require to have at your back a man,
with the very newest repeating-rifle, very sharp balls
and very dry powder, and not a Philistine carrying a
blunderbuss loaded with cowdung.”
Sir Robert Morier's picture of the typical English
statesman is not a flattering one. But possibly it was
of the nation at large that he was thinking ; that
Mr. Tower.
Mr. Findlay. Mr. Bax Ironside. Mr. Stronge. Mr. des Graz.
-- º -
* -
Mr. R. Kennedy. Colonel Trotter. Sir William White. Mr. Gerard Lowther.
Mr. Edmund Fame.
THE AM BASSADOR AND HIS STAFF. [To face p. 246.















1887] SIR H. ELLIOT AND THE SULTAN 247
“Johannes de Tauro” whom he mentions in a much earlier
letter as anxious to find a capable drover and unable,
meanwhile, to think himself the fine fellow he once used
to be.
In connection with Bulgaria, the year 1887 is memorable
as the one in which Prince Ferdinand of Coburg was
elected to the throne. Russia, Turkey and all the Powers
protested against the election. But the Prince, in spite of
orders to leave and attempts at arrest and assassination,
still remained and has already enjoyed a reign of
fourteen years.
Early in February, 1888, Sir William White received
an interesting but alarming communication (originating
with one of the Turkish Ambassadors abroad) on the
subject of a speech just delivered by Prince Bismarck.
The speech caused no particular sensation in Europe;
but, according to the Turks, it was nothing less than
an invitation to destroy Turkey without disturbing the
general peace; and this, it was said, could be done through
an advance upon Erzeroum. They did not believe in
an attack on Bulgaria, being convinced that the Russians
would endure almost anything rather than widen the
breach between themselves and a Slav nation.
There were no signs generally perceptible of any inten-
tion to march upon Erzeroum. But the Turkish appre-
hensions on the subject may be worth remembering.
Sir Henry Elliot had contributed to the Wineteenth
Century a very interesting article on Turkish affairs
(before referred to in connection with the Conference of
Constantinople) in which the account given of the cir-
cumstances attending the death of the Sultan's predecessor,
Abdul Aziz, could scarcely fail to displease Abdul Hamid,
the actual occupant of the throne. Rustem Pasha, Turkish
Ambassador in London, made a formal representation on
248 THE EVER-CHANGING QUESTION [Ch. XIX
the subject ; and he at the same time complained of an
attack upon the Sultan as Caliph published by the Punjab
Times. He was assured that the Punjab Times was
unknown in England, and that “the power of the
government of India over the Press was scarcely more
effective than that of the Home Government.”
Sir Henry Elliot was certainly the last person whom
his enemies of the year 1876 would have expected to
turn against the Sultan.
It seemed in 1888, as it has seemed so often since the
war of 1877, that Sir Henry Layard's favourite prediction
as to the impossibility of replacing the Turkish Empire
by a number of petty states, all jealous of one another,
might once more be illustrated. There had already been
a war between Servia and Bulgaria ; and now Greece,
against whose claims Servia, Bulgaria and Roumania
were all protesting, came forward to assert ancient
pretensions which modern developments had rendered
inadmissible.
In the old days, before nationality questions had taken
form, the Christian populations of the Balkan Peninsula
used to be described in a general way as “Greeks”: Greek
Christians, that is to say. In the time of the Greek
struggle for independence the “hetaerae" were the
champions of Christian emancipation in Servia and
Roumania as in Greece itself. The language of the
Church, of the schools, of business, and of educated society
in all the Christian provinces was Greek; and the replace-
ment of Turkey by a reconstructed Greek empire, with
Constantinople as its capital, was looked upon as a natural
and possible solution of the Eastern Question. Even Mr.
Stratford Canning—afterwards Lord Stratford de Redcliffe
—held this now untenable view in 1826; nor had Prince
Albert given it up in 1854. To Prince Albert's idealistic
1887] PRINCE ALBERTS PROJECT 249
project Lord Palmerston objected that it involved co-
operation with Russia our enemy, against Turkey our ally.
The rise of other Balkan nationalities, Roumanian and
Slavonian, has destroyed the dream of a greater Greece;
and now the only hopes the Hellenes have of advancing
their boundaries is through the predominance of the Greek
language in a few outside provinces or districts. On the
other hand, the Roumanian and Albanian populations on
the borders of the Greek kingdom have begun to cultivate
their separate nationalities, the Roumanians being en-
couraged in this direction by educational grants from the
Bucharest Government.
The constant agitation of the Greeks against their
Roumanian and Slavonian competitors for the Turkish
inheritance, called for no official notice on the part of
the English Ambassador at Constantinople, though it
could not but engage his attention. Meanwhile, Sir
William White's active interference was urgently demanded
by events in Armenia, where attempts were said to have
been made towards the re-establishment of the ancient
Armenian kingdom : feeble attempts suppressed with
ferocious cruelty.
Sir William White questioned the Grand Vizier on
the subject, and was assured that the Government
possessed evidence of a deeply laid, widely spread
conspiracy which must be routed out and put an end
to. The Armenians, on their side, appealed to the
English Government; which declared its inability to take
action under the Treaty of Berlin, though it professed
its readiness to do so if the other Powers would co-operate.
By a special article of the Treaty of Berlin, the Sublime
Porte was bound to grant to the Christians of Armenia
the same religious liberty and personal security enjoyed
by the Christian inhabitants of the European provinces.
32
250 THE EVER-CHANGING QUESTION [Ch. XIX
The English Government now made it its own special
duty to urge the Porte to do justice to the Armenians,
although the Berlin Treaty does not authorise any Power
without the consent of the co-signatories, to intervene in
the internal affairs of Turkey. A certain chieftain, Moussa
Bey, who had been the principal leader in the systematic
outrages against the Christians at Van, Bitlis and Mush,
was brought to trial without result ; and Sir William
White wrote to his Government that there was a powerful
clique at Constantinople ready to go to any length in
order to prevent this wretch from being fully examined.
Moussa Bey was in fact acquitted, and the trial of the
various generals and officials accused of complicity in the
massacres of Van, Bitlis and Mush was such a mockery
of justice that Sir William White addressed to his Govern-
ment an indignant complaint.
It is difficult to imagine an embassy more hardly
worked than that of Constantinople, where, apart from
the Eastern Question in its most oppressive form, the am-
bassador has to occupy himself with such minor branches
of it as the condition of Bulgaria, the rival claims of Bul-
garia and Servia, the aspirations of Greece and her conflicts
on the one hand with Turkey, on the other with the newly
created Slavonian States of the Balkan Peninsula.
There were the bond-holders, moreover, constantly
appealing to the Ambassador in connection with dividends
no longer paid and securities no longer worth verifying.
The ordinary office-work at the Constantinople
Embassy, apart from political affairs, is a serious matter;
and scarcely a day, seldom a week, never by any chance
a month, passed without bringing up one of those
“questions” which must often have been to Sir William
White what la guestion in former days was to a first-
class criminal.
CHAPTER XX
PASSAGE OF THE STRAITS
HE last important matter with which Sir William
White had to deal was the passage of the Straits
by Russian ships carrying troops.
Fifteen years before, in 1876, Prince Gortchakoff had
made known through a letter published in the official
Journal de St. Pétersbourg that all Russia desired from
Turkey was full liberty for her commercial ships to pass
in and out of the Black Sea ; and this, he added, could
be secured with comparative ease from a power in so
feeble a condition. Russia, therefore, desired nothing
more than the maintenance at Constantinople of the
Szałas q240.
That Russia in regard to the Straits could do with
Turkey much as she pleased was plainly shown in the
year 1891, when several vessels of the Russian “Volunteer
fleet,” with arms and troops on board, sailed from the
Black Sea to the Mediterranean, and thence to the Pacific,
and from the Pacific by way of the Mediterranean to
the Black Sea.
One of these ships was stopped by the Turkish com-
mander of the Dardanelles who pointed out that, though
the vessel sailed under the commercial flag, it carried
troops and munitions of war, and could not therefore
be regarded as a vessel of trade. Explanations were
25I
252 PASSAGE OF THE STRAITS [Ch. XX
made and assurances given; the result of the friendly
negotiations being that Russia, whenever she wished to
send troops under the commercial flag from the Black
Sea to the Pacific, was to give notice beforehand.
In regard to ships of the Volunteer fleet returning
from the Pacific, the Turks were even less exacting ;
all that was required from the Russian captain being
a declaration that his ship belonged to the Volunteer
fleet and carried unarmed soldiers who had served their
time.
The news of this arrangement between Russia and
the Porte—which, from the nature of the case could not
be kept secret—caused much excitement in England,
Germany, Austria and Italy, the first impression pro-
duced by the passage of the troop-ships being that
Russia had at last obtained the right of sending war-
vessels through the Straits.
She had done better than that. To pass war-ships,
avowed as such, from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean
would be to incur the risk of war with the European
Powers. To send troops through the Straits on ships
described as “commercial " and protected by the com-
mercial flag was to run no risk whatever.
As the Russian Volunteer fleet had been founded in
1885, during the tightly strained relations between Russia
and England on the subject of the Afghan frontier, and
avowedly with a view to the destruction of English
commerce, it was difficult to see how any “commercial"
character could now be claimed for it.
Against the privilege conceded by Turkey to Russia of
sending ships with troops on board through the Straits,
the English Government protested diplomatically through
Sir William White, and practically by means of a naval
demonstration.
1891] RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER FLEET 253
The Porte had some time before issued a circular
note refusing permission to foreign war-vessels to execute
manoeuvres within fifteen marine miles of the Turkish
coast. But in spite of this prohibition the British admiral
now landed a force on the small island of Cigri, sank
torpedoes in the harbour, and carried out a series of
naval operations, of which Sir William White was at
once called upon to furnish explanations.
Whatever explanations may have been given, they
had apparently some connection with the passage of the
Straits by the vessels of the Russian Volunteer fleet; for
the Russians now sent out a circular pointing out that
these vessels had been running for several years between
Odessa and Vladivostock, and that they had been granted
free passage through the Dardanelles only because
they sailed under the commercial flag. Inasmuch as
they sometimes carried convicts with military guards
and brought back time-expired soldiers, the Turkish
authorities had occasionally detained them by mistake ;
and, to avoid the possibility of similar misunderstandings
in the future an arrangement had now been made
which defined the rights of the vessels under the old
treaty, without introducing any new principle.
Nine years later, in the autumn of 1900, Russia took
full advantage of her new understanding with the Porte
in order to send troops through the Straits on their way
to China ; a proceeding to which not one of Russia's allies
could possibly take objection.
The interests of Russia in the Black Sea are so much
greater than those of Turkey, and Russia is so constantly
extending her Power along the coasts of this partly
Turkish, principally Russian lake, that the Russians have
at last got into the habit of looking upon the Black Sea
as their own and of asking why they should not go in
254 PASSAGE OF THE STRAITS [Ch. XX
and out of it freely; why, in short, they are not entrusted
(in the words first used by Alexander I.) with “the
keys of their house " ?
The fact is, the house has two occupants who cannot
live peaceably together; and the least important of the
two has alone a door-key and, much to the annoyance
of the other, can pass in and out of the house in peaceful
garb or in warlike attire whenever he thinks fit. The
Russian occupant has also the right of ingress and
egress, but always on the understanding that he does
not carry arms. Dangerous weapons he must neither
bring in nor take out. For buying and selling purposes,
however, his liberty is just as great as that of his fellow
occupant. He may, for example, send out corn to
England and take in wine from France without hindrance
or limit.
It seems hard that Russia should not be allowed to
indulge her bellicose tastes by sending armed vessels
through the Straits whenever she has a mind to do so.
But this would mean sending armed vessels to and fro
in front of the Turkish capital.
There are historical reasons, moreover, and reasons
derived from treaties against any such course. In the
reign of Peter the Great, when Russia had not even a
fishing-boat on the Euxine, the founder of the Russian
navy was anxious to place upon it a ship or two for
“purely commercial purposes.” The reply made to his
request was that “the Sultan would as soon see a stranger
inside his harem as a foreign vessel on the Black Sea.”
One of Peter's advisers in reference to the Black Sea
project was the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who seems to
have possessed something of the diplomatic talent which
distinguished the great political prelates of France. He
counselled Peter not to press for permission to place a
1891] ELPHINSTONE, DUCKWORTH, LYONS 255
vessel on the Black Sea, but to build on the Sea of Azov
as many ships as possible; saying that the day would
come when, without waiting for leave to enter the Euxine,
he would be able to force the passage.
Aided by workmen from Deptford and Amsterdam,
Peter built as many as eighty-six ships and boats of
various kinds on the Sea of Azov and placed many of
them under English and Dutch captains. He then
resolved to send to Constantinople an able diplomatist
named Ukraintseff, and to send him by sea. This, in
spite of strenuous objections from the Pasha in command
at Kerteh, he actually did.
Ukraintseff's arrival at Constantinople caused the
greatest consternation, and strange rumours were now
set going as to Russia's intention to bring ships from
Archangel to the Mediterranean in order to force their
way through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus into
the Black Sea.
No such operation, by the way, has ever yet been
performed by Russia. An English officer holding a high
command in the Russian navy, Admiral Elphinstone,
after destroying the Turkish Fleet in the Bay of Tchesmé,
forced the passage of the Dardanelles and sailed to
Constantinople, hoping vainly that the rest of the Russian
ships would follow him. Finding that they failed to
do so, he ordered a cup of tea, and returned to the
Mediterranean. Adequately supported he would beyond
doubt have taken Constantinople. Another English
officer in the service of his own country, Admiral
Duckworth, sailed through the Dardanelles and made
his way to Constantinople in 1807, when Turkey was
in alliance with France. One of Admiral Duckworth's
junior officers at the time was Mr. Lyons, who forty-
seven years afterwards, as Admiral Lyons, sailed once
256 PASSAGE OF THE STRAITS [Ch. XX
more from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea ; this time
in command of the British Fleet.
Russia does not, even to this day, claim as actually
belonging to her the right of sending armed vessels from
the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. But she has already
accustomed the Turks to the outward passage of Russian
convict ships with soldiers on board to guard the prisoners,
and to the homeward passage of ships bearing Soldiers
who have finished their term of service in distant Russian
possessions.
Soon after the inquiries on the subject of the passage
of the Dardanelles by Russian troopships, about the
middle of December, 1891, Sir William White left Con-
stantinople for Berlin, where he proposed to spend
Christmas with his wife and daughter. Although in
connection with the affairs of Bulgaria and Eastern
Roumelia he had acted with the greatest discretion, the
Bulgarians knew well enough who had befriended them
in their difficulty; and when Sir William passed through
Bulgaria, steps had to be taken at Sofia to prevent his
being made the object of a grand political demonstration.
The sudden change from the sunny south to the
wintry north proved very trying ; and it was said that
Sir William had started from Constantinople without a
sufficient provision of furs for the last stages of his
journey. He in any case took a severe chill, and on
his arrival at Berlin was advised to keep to his bed—
only, as was at first hoped, for a few days. The chill,
however, turned to influenza, the influenza affected
the patient's heart, and at last, almost suddenly, on
December 28, he passed away. **
The Emperor William lost no time in telegraphing to
the Ambassador's newly made widow the expression of
'57–65] LAST HONOURS 257
his sympathy and sorrow, while Sir Edward Malet, from
the British Embassy, despatched messages to the Queen,
Lord Salisbury, and the Sultan. A wreath sent by
the Sultan to be placed on Sir William's coffin, was
decked with the Ottoman colours. Another wreath was
forwarded by the Staff of the Embassy which Sir William
had so ably directed, and by whose members he was so
much esteemed and beloved. Sir Edward Malet laid
upon the coffin, by the Queen's command, a bronze wreath
of oak and laurel leaves, with the inscription, “A mark
of sincere respect and deep regret from Victoria R.I.,
and His Excellency deposited a like memento as a last
token of regard from himself and Lady Ermyntrude Malet.
Sir William White was buried with military honours
and with the funeral escort of a full general, in the
capital of the country where for ten years he had lived
as consul.
He began his career without influence or interest of
any kind. When, in 1857, he entered the Warsaw Con-
sulate, he had been occupied for fourteen years previously
with agriculture and the management of his mother's
and grandmother's land in a distant part of Poland.
But he inspired interest and created influence as he
went on—among his colleagues abroad and with his chiefs
at home. The Polish Insurrection of 1863 brought him
into communication with Lord Napier, British Ambassador
at St. Petersburg, and with Lord Russell, Secretary for
Foreign Affairs; and it was on Lord Napier's recom-
mendation that Lord Russell appointed him to the British
Consulate at Dantzic.
Lord Odo Russell, Ambassador at Berlin, and Sir
Robert Morier, Minister at Munich, pressed his claims
for the Agency at Belgrade at a moment, when, apart
from his appointed duties as Consul at Dantzic, he had
33
258 THE PASSAGE OF THE STRAITS [Ch. XX
been doing all kinds of special work for the Foreign
Office; and he was still Consul-General and Diplomatic
Agent at Belgrade when he was attached to Lord
Salisbury at Constantinople in connection with the
Conference.
It needed no interest, no influence, to get him appointed
a year afterwards to Bucharest; for the appointment,
accompanied by important promotion in the matter of
rank, was made by Lord Salisbury himself. The Foreign
Office now supported him, whichever of the two parties
happened to be in power ; and not only the Foreign
Office; but the Queen herself. So, in one of his letters,
Lord Salisbury assures Sir William. Sir William White's
success was due to his own personal character and to
fortunate circumstances, of which, in virtue of his character,
he took the fullest possible advantage.
Sir Edward Malet, in a very interesting paper on
diplomacy, has said that “more men have risen through
the luck of being in the places at the moment when the
glare of torchlight, the blaze of war lights them up, than
through any special brilliancy of their own.” Sir William
White had three of these bits of luck; and he had in
each case, to quote once more from Sir Edward Malet,
“sufficient ability to come with credit out of the ordeal.”
He had been only four years at Warsaw when Poland
entered upon the preliminaries of a formidable insurrec-
tion. He had scarcely reached Belgrade when Servia
rose against the Turks. Promoted to Bucharest, he found
himself in the capital of a country which claimed the
recognition of its newly gained independence, but had
many difficulties and even dangers to go through before
its claim was acceded to by the European Powers.
When the Prince of a tributary Roumania became king
of an independent Roumania, Sir William White, like the
’78–85] PROMOTION 259
ruler of the country to which he was accredited, gained
also two steps. As Roumania was now no longer a subject
state, nor Charles I. a vassal Prince, so Sir William White
was no longer a member of the Consular Service, but a
diplomatist with a rank second only to that of ambassador.
By this time, thanks to the skill he had shown in deal-
ing with difficult situations on so many different occasions,
in so many different lands, he had acquired a high
reputation as a diplomatist; and he was sent to
Constantinople in order to arrange a very difficult matter,
which if not quickly settled might have endangered the
peace of Europe.
Sir William White's success in bringing about an under-
standing with Russia in regard to the union of Bulgaria
with Eastern Roumelia was chiefly due to his securing
the co-operation of Austria.
-.
-
CHAPTER XXI
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
URING his fourteen years' adscription to the soil
in Poland—what a corvée it must have been to
the future diplomatist —Sir William White seems to
have acquired no taste for the ordinary pleasures of a
country life. In many of his letters he speaks of the
happy days he passed with his mother and grandmother
in Poland ; but neither hunting, shooting, nor fishing
possessed any interest for him. As for town life, he
cared little for the drama, and still less for music. He
pointed out to me, however, one day, that Rubinstein
could scarcely be called a Russian, inasmuch as, born
in Moldavia, he belonged to a Jewish family which had
migrated towards the Danube from Brody in Eastern
Galicia ; and he knew Wagner, not indeed as a composer,
but only in his character of Revolutionist at Dresden and
of courtier at Munich.
A German Ambassador of the present day, Herr von
Keudell, is a pianist of the first order. Sir Henry Layard
was a lover of pictures, and a collector of all kinds of
artistic curiosities. Sir Robert Morier wrote brilliant
pamphlets and magazine articles—see his unmistakable
papers on Prussia and the Vatican, published anony-
mously in the 1874 volume of Macmillan's Magazine.
But Sir William White occupied himself neither with art,
nor as a performer with literature, though he was a great
reader of new publications in various languages on all
26o
’85–'91] METHODS IN DIPLOMACY 261
kinds of political subjects. New novels he read when
they had become such engrossing topics of conversation
that it was difficult to get on at a dinner-party without
knowing something about them. I cannot say whether
he ever danced. But if so, he had, when I first knew
him, given up dancing. He had reached the age of thirty-
seven and with his grave air looked several years older.
He was no smoker; nor did he play cards—the favourite
diversion of so many diplomatists.
Talleyrand held that the man who did not play whist
was preparing for himself a sad old age ; and Nesselrode
invented, in addition to iced plum-pudding, whist with
trumps chosen not by chance but by the dealer: one
of the features of the famous game in its latest
development.
But Sir William White was neither a gourmet nor a
whist-player. He indeed disliked gambling in its mildest
forms; and his son once told me that, though his father
allowed him to play at cards, it was only on condition
that if he won he was to give away his winnings in
charity ; which most players would consider poor sport.
No one who has not transacted diplomatic business
with Sir William White can know positively what his
methods in diplomacy were. The diplomatist's remark
about “the bear” at the British Embassy has been already
cited. To a Chinese Envoy who was studiously courteous,
and rather circuitous in his forms of courtesy, I once
heard him say abruptly, the moment after they had been
introduced, “What is your rank in China P”
“Mandarin of the second class,” replied the surprised
Chinaman.
Never, on the other hand, did Sir William allow
himself to be disconcerted by a sudden and direct
question.
262 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS [Ch. XXI
“Do you know Count — ?” a friend asked him,
who had reason to believe that the Count and the
Ambassador were not on the best possible terms.
“I do,” replied Sir William.
“And what sort of a man is he P”
“Do you know him P”
“Yes.”
“Then you know what sort of a man he is.”
That was how he disposed of an abrupt interrogation
addressed to himself.
One day at Warsaw, he called with me at the Office
of Foreign Affairs, of which Baron Osten Sacken was
the so-called “Director.”
“How are things going on P” he inquired.
“Badly,” was the Russian's reply. “The military
government can now alone deal with them.”
This time he was not abrupt, he was conciliatory and
ingenious.
“The nation is sick,” he answered. “The case is one
for a physician, not a surgeon.”
As for his politics, they were those of a true diplomatist.
At Constantinople he had often to support Turkey
and often to oppose Russia; but not because he was
either a Turcophil or a Russia-phobe. The English
Ambassadors who have shown themselves most strenuous
in maintaining the Turkish Empire against its assailants
have not for that reason been admirers of the Turks.
The fact, previously mentioned, is worth insisting upon
that the statesman who first expressed the wish to see
the Turks turned out of Europe “bag and baggage”
was not Mr. Gladstone, but Lord Stratford de Redcliffe,
who in 1821 used these words:
“As a matter of humanity, I wish with all my soul
that the Greeks were put in possession of their whole
’85–'91] “BAG AND BAGGAGE * 263
patrimony, and that the Sultans were driven bag and
baggage into the heart of Asia.”
Whether Mr. Gladstone ever saw the letter from Mr.
Stratford Canning in which the above passage occurs
may well be doubted. Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet was
published in any case in 1876. Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole's
biography of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, from which
Lord Stratford's remarkable letter is quoted—not until
1888. The “bag and baggage” phrase belongs in any
case to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who used it fifty
years earlier than Mr. Gladstone and in the same
connection.
Sir William White entertained as much dislike as Lord
Palmerston himself for the trained official, the perfect
functionary, though the goings on of such personages
afforded him at times considerable amusement. I once
told him of a strange comedy that was being played
between two friends of mine, one of them a high official,
the other a retired Indian colonel. The Colonel invited
the civil servant to dinner, and the entertainment was
of such a magnificent character that the astonished guest
had his evidently wealthy host looked up in the Income
Tax papers, when it appeared that he paid on his
pension of 36 I, IOO a year (old East India Company's
Scale) and on nothing more. That house in Piccadilly,
that retinue of servants—the plate, the wine, the two
dozen guests represented an income of much more than
36 I, IOO a year; and the eminent functionary soon dis-
covered that his military friend drew in addition to his
pension several thousands a year from an Indian paper
of which he was proprietor. He caused some fifty letters
in succession to be addressed to the Colonel, demanding
particulars as to the profits derived from the journal
in question ; but at last, receiving no sort of reply, and
264 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS [Ch. XXI
poseessing no direct evidence against his friend, abandoned
the pursuit.
“That man was a thorough bureaucrat,” said Sir
William, when he heard the story. “The office before
everything. Friendship and the amenities of private life,
nowhere. In the midst of his pleasures he is always
thinking of the department. But the type is rare in
England ; and it is interesting to meet with it. In
Germany it abounds.”
The position and authority of Sir William White at
Constantinople, his frankness and urbanity, together with
a certain superficial roughness which his enemies sometimes
mistook for asperity of character, have been well described
by an American friend of his, Mr. Edward Grosvenor,
Professor at Robert's College in the Turkish Capital. At
the time of Sir William's death Professor Grosvenor had
retired to his native America, and on receipt of the sad
news, he at once published in the Independent of New
York, a most interesting article on the man he so much
admired.
“The position of British Ambassador at Constantinople,”
wrote Professor Grosvenor, “is almost Vice-regal, the salary
but little less than that of President of the United States.
An immense Winter Palace in Pera, and one for summer
hardly less sumptuous on the Bosphorus ; gunboats and
despatch boats, and steam launches, trains of carriages
and horses constantly at his disposal, troops of diplomatic
attachés and household servants, and crimson-coated
soldiers, and gilt-bedecked cavasses maintained for his
convenience and splendour by Great Britain, and a hundred
accessories more, of almost kingly rank and state, are
outward manifestations of his dignity and grandeur. Yet,
the recipient of so much, he is expected by the value
and importance of his services to merit it all the more.
But since Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, still reverently
called by the Ottomans ‘Buyouk Eltohi’’ (‘The
Great Ambassador'), the career of not a single British
'85–91] PORTRAIT BY PROF. GROSVENOR 265
Ambassador at Constantinople, with the possible excep-
tion of the versatile Lord Dufferin, could be called a
great success.
“Sir William White has revived the best traditions of
successful British diplomacy. With no act of meanness
staining his record, with no scandal resting upon him or
his house, in a humdrum period of peace, which afforded
no opportunity for spectacular display, he has vindicated
British claims, advanced British interests, and increased
British influence all through the East.
“In Sir William White not a feature or intonation
suggested the traditional diplomat. No inexperienced
stranger standing for the first time in his presence could
have dreamed that in that ambassadorial school of
Constantinople wherein are sharpened the keenest in-
tellects, he was of all proficients the subtlest and profound-
est. No man better loved a joke; no man could better
repeat a rousing story, not only once or twice; and after
each tale he told would come peals of roaring laughter
that seemed to reverberate from all the recesses of his giant
frame. In imagination, I hear him say again, ‘Isn't that
a good story P Hah?’ his invariable after-question, while
his form would be again convulsed with continued and
resonant mirth. His face inspired confidence and respect.
Frankness and honesty appeared a part of every word
he uttered. He seemed to be willing to tell all he knew
on every subject he discussed. A bluff urbanity and
courtesy he had ready for all. Yet none could be more
absolutely ignorant of what he judged it best not to know.
None could more charmingly discourse on some secret
and important matter and overwhelm with a sense of
frankness, and yet leave it all unsaid. . . .”
“Nor must Lady White be forgotten,” writes Professor
Grosvenor. “A main contribution to all his success was
that lovely and genial lady who for twenty-five years
never faltered at his side. It is reported that he once
said the greatest achievement of his life was winning the
hand of Miss Kendzior at Dantzic. The graceful suavity
and tact, and at times, because of physical ailments, the
fortitude and even heroism with which Lady White fulfilled
all the Social requirements of her station, contributed in
large measure to the official success of the Embassy.
Moreover, foremost in every philanthropic undertaking,
and ready not only to give, but to go wherever there was
34
266 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS [Ch. XXI
destitution, sickness, or distress, Lady White made a record
no less honourable, and perhaps even more permanent,
than the showier successes of her husband.
“On the Bosphorus there is a little village inhabited
by persons rendered destitute by fire, commonly called
Lady White's Cottages, as built by her initiative, and the
expenses defrayed very largely by her beneficence.”
Throughout his career Sir William White was a great
writer and receiver of letters, and it is interesting to
note that his letters from Ministers of State, Ambassadors
and other high functionaries are in their own handwriting,
with the exception only of two letters from Mr. Gladstone,
in which the opening line and the signature are alone
in the writer's hand. In the interests of caligraphy, and
for the discouragement of cacography, it may be added
that the letters of these exalted personages are almost
without exception clearly and legibly written.
To the Duke of Norfolk belongs an impressive scrawl
which is at least peculiar to His Grace, and which, however
startling, is quite readable; and if in a highly interesting
letter addressed to Sir William White by Lord Russell
there are signs of feebleness in the penmanship, it must be
remembered that the writer had already at the time
entered his eighty-first year.
In Lord Salisbury's longest letters, even when there
is evidence of their having been written in haste, there
are no corrections, no erasures; while their style is so
plain, so direct, so lucid, that the meaning of a whole
sentence can be taken in at a glance.
Lord Iddesleigh's style is less forcible, but equally
transparent. One of Lord Iddesleigh's letters contains the
happiest possible exposition (cited from Count Hatzfeldt)
of the different policies pursued by Russia and by England
towards Turkey: Russia attacking her from time to time,
and taking from her a piece of land, but afterwards leaving
'85–'91] CORRESPONDENCE 267
her in repose ; England defending her at every oppor-
tunity, but worrying her with perpetual advice, and
destroying her repose.
Lord Salisbury's and Lord Iddesleigh's letters, apart
from whatever words of wisdom they may contain, carry
with them in every case a fine literary flavour ; and as
much may be said of the one brief letter from Lord
Rosebery in the collection.
Lord Granville's letters consist of only a few sentences;
Lord Derby's of only a few phrases—sometimes only a
few words.
Sir Henry Layard is always serious, sometimes severe,
frequently in a rage ; what particularly provokes his ire
being the presumptuousness of upstart Slavonian Govern-
ments and the folly and feebleness of the Turks in dealing
with them.
Sir Henry Elliot, always sensible and fair, indulges now
and then in a piece of pleasantry; but it is pleasantry
of the diplomatic kind, as when he tells Sir William
White—at that time agent without credentials at the
capital of unrecognised Roumania—that he hopes soon
to hear “ that his frontiers have been rectified.”
“Sensible”—the epithet I have taken the liberty of
applying to Sir Henry Elliot—is, by the way, a favourite
one in the diplomatic vocabulary of praise; and for a
diplomatist to call a man “sensible” is to bestow upon
him eulogy of a high order. Sir Henry Layard, writing
from Constantinople to Sir William White at Belgrade,
about M. Christitch, Envoy from Servia, and, above all,
about M. Bratiano, Envoy from Roumania, describes them
both as “sensible” men. Sir Henry Elliot in advising
Sir William White from Vienna to make the acquaintance
at Bucharest of M. Stourdza, does so on the ground of
M. Stourdza's being a “sensible” man.
268 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS [Ch. XXI
Sir William White, writing from Bucharest to Sir
Henry Elliot at Vienna, concerning King Charles of
Roumania, declares with enthusiasm that His Majesty
is a most “sensible" man ; and I well remember Lord
Napier at St. Petersburg speaking of Vice-Consul White
at Warsaw as a “sensible” man.
Lord Odo Russell and, above all, Sir Robert Morier
(both “sensible” men), are in their correspondence with
Sir William White always on the laugh, though their
letters are often serious enough in import. But these
are not, it must be remembered, Service letters. No
official relations existed at any time between Sir William
White and Sir Robert Morier; and though Sir William
White was Consul at Dantzic when Lord Odo Russell
was Ambassador at Berlin, all Sir William's reports
on political questions—such as the Attitude of Hungary
towards Austria, after the war of 1866, Church Affairs
in South Germany, and so on, were (as appears from
Lord Hammond's letters on the subject) sent direct
to the Foreign Office.
In their stiff and serious moments diplomatists write
plain English. But diplomatists en robe de chamóre, like
Sir Robert Morier and Lord Odo Russell in their letters
to Sir William White, adopt a polyglottic style, to which
Sir William, who, in addition to indispensable French
and German, had various Slavonic languages alike at
his finger's ends and at the tip of his tongue, replies
in a similar jargon. Lord Odo Russell in his wanderings
from his native tongue confines himself to French,
German and Italian. But Sir Robert Morier goes back
now and then into the past, and introduces a phrase
of Latin or a word of Greek.
Lord Palmerston, who wrote both French and Italian
with correctness and ease, confined himself to English
’85–'91] POLYGLOTTISTS 269
when he was writing English; and he reproved with
severity secretaries and attachés who in their despatches
made use of foreign phrases, or, worse still, foreign idioms
in an English dress.
Lord Beaconsfield had such a horror of French words
in English sentences that he describes as “a stroke of
state” what one might almost be pardoned for calling
a “coup d'état.”
The linguistic revels of Sir Robert Morier are, all the
same, delightfully fantastic, and his English is vigorous
indeed when he chooses to confine himself to his native
tongue.
I have not yet spoken except in the briefest manner
of Sir William White's own letters, of which the most
important are those addressed to Sir Robert Morier on
Eastern politics. Many of Sir William White's very
interesting letters to Mr. Cadman Jones begin with a
few words of salutation in the Polish language, in
memory, no doubt, of the time they passed together
as young men at Gora Pulawska. Here is one :
“Jazz. 1, 1878.
“Neither of us has sufficient leisure to keep up a
regular correspondence, but the commencement of this
new year has reminded me that I should so much like
to hear of old, old friends; I therefore write to you with
my best and affectionate wishes for yourself and family
from me and mine. How sorry I was to have to leave
England without being able to see any of your children
I sometimes think of that pious, good soul, their grand-
mother, and often of mine. What an interest they would
have taken in the progress of the young generation
My two children are doing very well under God's blessing.
We have a good governess from England, and they have
improved very much. I trust that I shall be spared
sufficiently long to start them in life as good Christians,
and as devoted to our dear country as I am, though
almost a stranger to it.
27o GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS [Ch. XXI
“A most critical moment has arrived for this our
country, and the year 1878 will be for good or for evil
as far as Our European relations are concerned, a remark-
able one in the annals of Queen Victoria. On the one
hand, we cannot defend or perpetuate misrule in any
Christian province. -
“On the other, we must not be parties to spoliation—
to another partition of Poland. After the descendants of
Sobieski's countrymen have been so victimised in the
eighteenth century, the same Holy Alliance is about to
apply the same mode of treatment to those very Moslems
whose progress in Europe Sobieski stopped so nobly,
bravely, vigorously.
“Is not all this strange?
“Alas, the observations of our daily Press, whether Pro-
Turkish or Pro-Russian, or snobbishly + lukewarm, like
the , are all to my mind flippant in the extreme. As
if history did not exist for them, and as if Turkish rule
could only be replaced by a power so unscrupulous and
overbearing as that of the Czar !”
A letter addressed to the same correspondent from
Bucharest on April 1, 1879, was written at a time when
the negotiations on the subject of the recognition of
Roumania as an independent state seemed to be draw-
ing to a close, and when the time had at last come for
promoting Mr. White from the Consular to the Diplomatic
Service. -
“. . . I thank you likewise for the information you
give me about the edition of Gibbon.
“We are getting on, thank God, very well, and our
two children are flourishing. I continue to have plenty
of work, but I am likely to be well rewarded for it. It
has been settled in high quarters that my future rank
here shall be that of an Envoy-Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary ; the same as that of my principal
colleagues here, but more than I expected. It is a secret
1 The word “ snobbish" is evidently used in the French sense, as
signifying affectation of a belief not sincerely entertained. Sham
Ibsenites, sham Wagnerians are literary and musical snobs.
'85–'91] MR. CADMAN JONES 271
yet ; but I do not mind telling you confidentially as one
of my oldest friends and chums, and one who has no
connection with the Press. I wonder myself at my success
in life. This future rank is next to that of an Ambassador.
There are, it is true, four other Consuls who are now
occupying similar positions; but each of them got his
promotion out of Europe—where it is almost unexampled
that one who is not a scion of nobility or a Court favourite
should have attained it. Excuse all these details, but I
thought they might interest you and your children.”
A letter from Bucharest, dated April 4, 1885, begin-
ning with the usual “Kochany bracie moy” [“My dear
brother”], is in reply to a congratulatory one in regard
to the K.C.M.G. which Sir William had just received.
“My best thanks for your congratulations; none could
be more welcome. Our friendship is certainly of a very
old standing, and you are for me a link connecting me
with my college days and Gora, and all its early and
affectionate recollections. Indeed, you are the only person
in the United Kingdom representing to me a living witness
of those happy days long gone by. Your charming visit
here, in 1878, was made when I was just feeling my way
in this new country, where I have been pretty successful,
as I may say I have been in the profession to which I
took so late in life. You perhaps know that both my
parents and Mrs. Neville intended me for the Diplomatic
or Consular Service before I went to Cambridge. But
after I had been two years at Trinity it became clear
that they had no adequate means to support me as an
attaché or a vice-consul until I should be entitled to
sufficient remuneration. This made me give it up. But
my time was not lost during my long residence in Poland,
as I acquired a knowledge of Russian ways and doings
which has proved invaluable to me, and would prove
still more so were I serving under a chief more distrustful
of the Moskal" than our G. O. M. Their object on the
Afghan frontier is to compel us to become their immediate
neighbours in Asia, and to hold a frontier so insecure that
we should be living in constant dread of a breach of the
1 Polish for “Muscovite.”
272 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS [Ch. XXI
peace, because they imagine that by bringing this about
they may the more easily get to Constantinople, and
hinder our opposing them by making us permanently
uncomfortable in India.
“I have just had a nice letter of congratulation from
Cambridge, from a tutor at Downing. He sends me a
kind message from our common friend the master of
Christ's. I have not met Swainson for nineteen years,
but hope to do so next time I come over to England
on leave.”
When Sir William White wrote this last letter he
was on the point of being sent by the Gladstone Govern-
ment to Constantinople in order to take charge of the
Embassy ad interim until the arrival of Sir Edward
Thornton, to whom the post had been officially assigned.
In a subsequent letter to the same correspondent,
dated Therapia, September 12, 1885, Sir William White
writes as follows:
“It is many months since I heard from you ; not since
I got a line after I became a K.C.M.G. and placed a
“Sir” before my initials. Soon after that, five months’
ago, the late Government sent me out here to take charge
of H.M. Embassy—the greatest compliment that could
have been paid me. My mission is one of which I have
so far, I hope, acquitted myself creditably ; so, at least,
I am told by competent persons. I have made friends
with the Turk—not by acting on the definition some one
made of an Ambassador—one lying abroad for his country's
good—but by being truthful and courteous all round.
My mission, however, is almost over, or drawing to a
close, as the real Ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton, is
actually coming out from St. Petersburg : when I go.
“I hope to be in England with my children D.V. part
of the summer 1886. My boy is at School in the North ;
he spent his holidays here. My wife and daughter are
with me, and we have enjoyed Our Summer immensely.
“Excuse this egotistical letter, but I have written the
above particulars in the belief that you have not noticed
in the daily journals the references to your “Stary wierny’
[' old and faithful one']."
1891] SIR HAMILTON LANG 273
All the time that Sir William White was at Constanti-
nople in the character of Ambassador ad interim (from
April, 1885, until November, 1886) his rank was still that
of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary;
his post still Bucharest. He had been assured, moreover,
on the highest authority, that there was no Embassy
vacant to which he could possibly be appointed.
Sir Edward Thornton, however, continued not to arrive
at Constantinople; and when at last he reached his post
it was thought best that the work on hand should still
be done by his temporary substitute, who after a time
permanently replaced him.
The pressing matter was then the Bulgaro-Roumelian
difficulty, and in the words of one of Sir William's most
intimate and most appreciative friends—Sir Hamilton
Lang—it was “through the manner in which Lord
Salisbury's policy was carried out by Sir William White
that the union of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia was
accomplished without bloodshed and without a breach in
the harmonious relations between the European Powers.”
“Sir William White's death,” writes the same corre-
spondent, Sir Hamilton Lang, “was a very great loss
to England and to this part of the East. His foresight
would probably have prevented the Armenian Massacres.
He would intuitively have seen and understood what was
being plotted, and prevented the execution. Men of his
calibre appear only now and then on the world's stage.”
35

I N D E X
ABDUL AZIS, Sultan of Turkey,
247
Abdul Hamid II., Sultan of Turkey,
IIo, II2, I28, 205, 242, 245
Afghanistan, 238
Agricultural Society at Warsaw, 32
Albert, Prince, 248
Aleko Pasha, 198, 200
Alexander I., Czar of Russia, 224,
228, 254
Alexander II., Czar of Russia, his
treatment of Poland, 25, 29,
31, 32, 34, 43; allows Russian
officers to go as volunteers to
Servia, 84, 96; Turko-Servian
War,99, Io9; the Dobrudja, 139;
two blots in his life—the Black
Sea and Bessarabia, I42, I49,
I54; Jomini's gratitude, 146;
Giers, Nelidoff, and Prince Alex-
ander, 231, 232; the truesuzerain
of Bulgaria, 242
Alexander of Bulgaria, Prince,
Bismarck's reputed advice, 17o;
Layard on, 198; war with Servia,
219, 220 ; elected Governor of
Eastern Roumelia, 222; the
Czar's vindictiveness, 231 ;
England's moral support, 235;
Morier's view of 237; com-
pelled to abdicate, 241; “owed
his crown to Russia,” 242
Alexinatz, Battle of, Io?
Alliance Israélite, 86, 178
Ampthill, Lord.
Lord Odo.
Andrassy, Count, a scheme for
replacing the Ottoman Empire,
I29; refuses Russia a military
passage through Roumania, 153,
163, 164; the Jewish Question
in Roumania, I67; the Franco-
Russian understanding, I97;
Bismarck and, 197, 198
Anglo-Jewish Association, 89
Armenia, 202, 249
Augustus, King of Saxony, 58
Austria, her defeat in 1859 by
France and Sardinia,24; Turkey
and, 129, 193; proposed cession
of Danubian Principalities to,
I33; views on Roumania, I40;
loses Lombardy, I46; and
Bosnia, 193, 223; the Slavonisa-
tion of 209
See Russell,
BALACEANO, Roumanian Diplo-
matic Agent at Vienna, I47, I 53,
I62, 164
Balkan Confederation, proposals
for a, 207
Balkan Peninsula, mutual annexa-
tion projects in the, 191–2OI
Balkan States, 93; the New, 207;
Baring, Mr., his report on the
Bulgarian atrocities, IO2, Io9
Barrère, Camille, 2O5
Bashi Bazouks, IOO, IOI
275
276
INDEX
Beaconsfield, Lord, Coningsby, 15;
the Suez Canal, 76; the Bul-
garian atrocities, IOI ; appoints
LayardAmbassador to the Porte,
121 ; Gladstone's hatred of, 129;
the retrocession of Bessarabia,
I48; at the Berlin Conference,
196; his Vice-Consuls with-
drawn from Constantinople, 202;
“a stroke of state,” 269
Belgrade, 17, 81
Berg, Count, 49
Berlin Conference, 18, 135, 137,
I38, 148, I5o, I54, 196
Berlin, Treaty of, 137, 138, 163,
I75, 222, 249
Bessarabia and Russia, 19, 139,
I42, I44, I46–15 I, I53, I54, I58,
I6I, I65, 222, 224
Beulwitz, Mlle. de, 75
Beust, Count, Austro-Hungarian
Ambassador, 88, II6
Birkbeck, Dr., 44
Bismarck, Prince, his support to
England at Berlin Conference,
18; result of his attitude towards
Russia, 52; as a peacemaker, L
Russia and the Black Sea, 67,
68; Odo Russell, 69, 215;
Bleichröder, 71; the Jews in
Servia, 87 ; the Turko-Servian
armistice, Io8; his Railway Bill,
I39, 161, 169, 173, 175; the
Bessarabian Question, I48, I53,
I54; his megalomania, I54; his
advice to Prince Charles of
Hohenzollern, 159, 170; his
hatred of Roumania, 168, 212 ;
his strong appeals, 174; under-
standing between Andrassy and,
I97, 198; on the pretensions of
the German-Austrian patriots,
209; his speech about Turkey,
247
Black Sea, Russia and the, 67, 68,
I42, 251–256
Blairgowrie, 43
Bleichröder, Herr von, 7o
Blessington, Earl of, 3
Bloomfield, Lord, 64
Boeresco, M., Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Roumania, 173, 176
Bomba, 232
Bosnia, peasantry in, 81 ; insur-
gents, 82; annexed by Austria,
I93; passes under Austria's
protection, 223
Bourgoing, Count de, 109
Bourke, M.P., Mr., Under-Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, 181
Brackenbury, Colonel Charles, IoA
Bregova incident, the, 219
Brunnow, Baron, 26, 43, 94
Buchanan, Sir Andrew, Minister
at St. Petersburg, 87, 119
Bucharest, 17, 20; White at, 131–
I4O
Budberg, Baron, 29
Bukovina, the, 186
Bulgaria, Russia and, 20; insur-
rection in, 97; candidates for
the throne of, I60 ; war with
Servia,219–22 I; sends delegates
to London, 225; and Roumelia,
228–243
Bulgarian atrocities, I 5, 99
Bulgarians, Turks in Eastern Rou-
melia massacred by, 203
Bülow, Herr von, 158
Buol, Count, I45
Byron, Lord, 226
CALICE, COUNT, Io9
Cambridge, White at
College, 3
Campbell, Sir Colin, 9
Canning, George, 262
Canning, Sir Stratford. See Red-
cliffe, Lord Stratford de.
Cantemir, Prince, I32
“Carmen Sylva,”
Roumania, I32
Trinity
Queen of
INDEX
Carnarvon, Lord, 76
Cartwright, Mr., 73
Catherine II. of Russia, 58, 224
Central Asian Question, 238
Chamberlain, Joseph, 207
Charles I., King of Roumania, 17,
20, 143, I46, I50, 159, 165, 167,
170, 176–178, 18O, 259, 268
Charles of Roumania, Prince, 19,
86, 143, I44, 196
Charles XII. of Sweden, 4
Chaudordy, Count de, French
Ambassador Extraordinary at
the Constantinople Conference,
Io9, 112
Chelmsford, Lord, 182
Christitch, M., Servian Minister,
82, 128, 129, 192, 267
Cigri, Island of, 253
Circassians, their part in the
Bulgarian atrocities, IOO–IO2
Clarendon, Lord, 8, 22, 28, 54, 56,
63
Clark, W. H., Public Orator,
Cambridge, 44
Constantine, Grand-Duke, 30, 34,
35, 37, 38, 43, 24I
Constantinople, a series of am-
bassadors at, 21, 202; Confer-
ence at, I4, 17, 2I, IoS-II4
Convents, Polish, 61
Corti, Count, Io9
Couza, Prince, I32
Crimean War, 8, 24, 132, I4I
Cumberbatch, Mr., 126
Currie, Lord, II, 134, 137, 182
Czartoryski, Prince, 4
DANTzic, Consulate at, 16; White,
Consul at, 57; its history, 57–60
Danubian Principalities, I31–133
Dardanelles, passage by Russian
warships of the, 68, 251–256
Pébats, I54
Derby, Lord, 14, 19, 86, 88, IOS,
114, I 19, 121, 267
277
Dicey, Edward, 44
Dilke, Sir Charles W., 18O, 207,
218
Djuris, 98
Dobrudja, the, 139, 144, 146, 150,
I53, 161, 163–165, 195, 222
Dolgorouky, General, 58
Dolgorouky, Prince, 24.I
Döllinger, Dr., 74
Dondoukoff-Korsakoff, Prince, I I I,
I92
Duckworth, Admiral, 255
Duff, Sir M. E. Grant, III
Dufferin, Lord, 2 I, II 8, 204, 265
du Vernois, General Verdy, 52, 64
EASTERN QUESTION, 81, 90, 95,
I27, 154, 228, 244
Eastern Roumelia, Turks mas-
sacred by Bulgarians in, 203
Edward VII., King, 61
Egypt, 205
Elliot, Sir Henry, on the recog-
nition of Roumanian Inde-
pendence, I8, 162–165, 174;
Ambassador at Constantinople,
21 ; on the Bulgarian atrocities,
98–103; his article in Nineteenth
Century on Turkey, I 13, 247;
“is Buchanan shelved to make
room for ?” II9; too Turkish
for the taste of the day, I2O,
200; his congratulations to
White, 135; Russia and Rou-
mania, 136, I53; Jewish Ques-
tion in Roumania, I66, 167, 173;
pleasantry of the diplomatic
kind, 267; his letters to White,
98—IO3, I35, 136, I62–167, I73
Elphinstone, Admiral, 255
FADEIEFF, GENERAL, 97
Ferdinand of Bulgaria, Prince, 247
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond, 14,
2O8, 212, 217
Fonblanque, T. de Grenier de,
278
INDEX
English Consul-General at Bel-
grade, 124, 2I4, 215
Forbes, Archibald, 98
Fortnightly Review, 77
Fournier, M., 196, 199 -
Francis Joseph, Emperor of
Austria, 213
Frederick I. of Prussia, 58
Frederick II. of Prussia, 58
Frere, Sir Bartle, 120
GAMBETTA, 206
Gardiner, Colonel William, 3
Gardiner, General William
Neville-, 2
Gastrell, Harriss, IO4
Gerard, E., The Land Beyond the
Forest, 188
Gerstenschweig, General, 37
Ghika, M., 2II
Ghika, Prince Jon, I36, 147, I49–
I52, 2II
Giers, M. de, I2, 231, 234, 246
Gladstone, W. E., “a chief more
distrustful of the “Moskal’ than
our G.O.M.,” 7, 27 I ; “an
eminent leader of Radicals,” I4;
his opinion of Bishop Stross-
mayer, 65 ; Russia and the
Black Sea, 67 ; the “G.G.'s,”
I21, 126; his “bag and bag-
gage ’’ phrase, 122, 262 ; ap-
points Layard to Madrid, I26;
his hatred of Beaconsfield, 129;
his “Bulgarian atrocities No-
policy,” 235; his letters, 266
Goethe, Orpheisch, I
Goldsmith, Sir Francis, 86
Gordon, Mr., Envoy at Stuttgart,
75
Gortchakoff, General Prince, 25,
36; an interchange of ideas, 43;
Lord Russell and the Polish in-
surrection, 46, 49; Russia and
the Black Sea, 67, 68, I 54, 251 ;
the Jews in Servia, 87; refuses
to sign Treaty of Paris, 141;
Russia and Roumania, 147–152;
his rude messages, 148; Prince
Ghika and, I49, 152; his awk-
ward position, 151 ; wipes out
one “blot,” 154
Gortchakoff, Prince, “Can I poison
the Ambassadors P” II
Goschen, Viscount, Special Am-
bassador at Constantinople, 21,
I26, 202, 204
Gould, Mr., 164
Granville, Lord, his instructions
to White at Warsaw, 64; Russia
and the Black Sea, 67, 68;
Bleichröder, 70; his correspon-
dence with Count Beust, 88;
the “G.G.'s,” 121 ; recalls
Layard from Constantinople,
2OO ; his letters all brief and
to the point, 212, 267; proposes
to send White to Rio or Buenos
Ayres, 216, 217
Greece, 226, 248
Greek Church, the Graeci Uniatº,
65
Green, Colonel, 72, 203
Greppi, Signor, 246
Greville, Charles, Memoirs, 46
Grey, Sir George, 43
Grosvenor, Professor Edward, 264
Guarracino, Mr., IO2
Guizot, Memoirs, 2
“Gymnasts,” societies in Eastern
Roumelia, 203
HALL, W. H., Polish Experiences,
Hammond, Lord, Permanent
Under-Secretary, F.O., 62–64,
66, 268
Hart, Sir Robert (China), 13
Hatzfeldt, Count, 243, 266
Hennessy, Pope, 47
Herzegovina, the, passes under
Austria’s protection, 223
INDEX
Hojos, Count, 164
Holtzendorf, 76
Hudson, Mr., I 17, 238
Hungarians in Transylvania, I 17
IDDESLEIGH, LORD, 242, 266
Ignatieff, General, 87, Io9, IIo,
II2, II 3, I42
Independent (New York), 264
Indian Mutiny, 9
Israelitish Alliance, the, 86, 178
Italy, liberated by Napoleon III.,
39
JASSY, 85, 158
Jews, in Roumania, I4, 17, 18, 85–
90, 156–161, 166–169, 173–175,
177, 178; in Servia, 84
Jomini, Baron, Atude Diplo-
matique sur la Guerre de
Crimée, I42, I44, I48, I50–152,
239, 240
Jones, Cadman, 2, 3–6, 269
Jones, V.C., Captain, English
Consul at Sofia, 24.I
Journal de St. Pétersbourg, 251
KARA MUSTAPHA, PASHA, 93
Katargi, Kallimaki, 213
Keudell, Herr von, 26o
Kendzior, Miss, Lady White, q.v.
King William's College, Isle of
Man, 3
Kléber, General, Io;
Kleeberg, Anton von, 188
Kogolniceano, M.(Actes and Docu-
ments), 142, I43, I45, I5o, I52,
I56, I57, 195
Komaroff, Colonel, 97
Koscziusko, 3, 37
LABOUCHERE, MR., I 18
Lambert, Count, 37
Lang, Sir Hamilton, 273
Lansdowne, Lord, 22, 27
Laski, M. de, 53
279
Layard, Sir A. H., Ambassador at
Constantinople, 21, 121-130;
on importance of mastery of
the Turkish language, III; on
promulgation of Turkish Con-
stitution, I 13; Morier's ques-
tions about, I 19; his visit to
Belgrade—de Fonblanque, 124;
Bratiano, I60; on the Hun-
garian and Roumanians, I87,
2Io; his letters to White, I27–
I29, 191–201, 2II ; recalled
from Constantinople, 200; on
Roumania's relations with Tur-
key, 2IO, 2II; predicts union
of the two Bulgarias, 230; a
lover of pictures, etc., 260; in
his letters “always serious,
sometimes severe, frequently in
a rage,” 267
Lederer, Baron von, 50
Lee, William, I37
Leyden, Countess, 73
Lhuys, M. Drouyn de, 47
Liddon, Canon, IO4
Loftus, Lord Augustus, I5, 28–30,
54, 84, 87, 96
Longworth, Mr., 72
Lorraine, Duke of, 5 I
Louis XIV., I 54
Lüders, General, 34, 37
Lyons, Admiral, 255
Lyons, Lord, I72
MACAULAY, LORD, 45
MacColl, Rev. Malcolm, IO4
Macmillan's Magazine, 73, 26o
Malet, Lady Ermyntrude, 257
Malet, Sir Edward, 73, 257, 258
Malmesbury, Lord, 27
Mansfield, General Sir William
Rose, 6, 8, 17, 30, 56, 136
Martin, Rudolf, 188
Mayne, Sir Richard, 43
Memling, Hans, his “Last Judg-
ment,” 57
28O
INDEX
Metternich, Prince, 232
Michael, Grand-Duke, 35
Michell, Thomas, 203
Mickiewicz, 211
Midhat Pasha, 113
Mikhailowitch, Alexis, 224
Milan of Servia, Prince, 83, 86,
IO6, IO7, 160, 219
Milosch of Servia, Prince, 92
Moldavia and Wallachia—Moldo-
Wallachia. See Roumania.
Moltke, Io;
Monde Illustré, Ze, 85
Montefiore, Sir M., 175
Montenegro, 82
Monteverde, Colonel, 97
Morier, Sir Robert B., presses
White to accept Pekin Legation,
II ; England and Russia to be-
friend Bulgaria, 2O ; consulted
by White about Belgrade Con-
sulate, 69; Prussia and the
Vaticant, 73, 260 ; “grapho-
phoby,” 74, 167; Jews in Rou-
mania, 90 ; the “G.G.'s,” 121 ;
union of the two Bulgarias, 230;
his line of policy for England
and Russia, 239, 240; his poly-
glottic style, 268; his linguistic
revels, 269; his letters to White,
II–I3, 72–78, II 5–1 18, 181–183,
2I4, 23O, 234, 245
Morley, John, 77
Mountjoy, Viscount, 3
Moussa Bey, 250
“Mussulmans and non-Mussul-
mans,” 90
NAPIER, LORD, Ambassador at St.
Petersburg, 15; the Polish in-
surrection of 1863, ibid.; Russia
and Poland, 29, 33, 42, 61, 24I ;
his despatch on recruitment in
Poland, 40; Ambassador at
Berlin, 54; recommends White
for Dantzic, 54, 257; 7% uth on,
I 18; the epithet
268
Napoleon I., 57
Napoleon III., 39, 47, I33
Nelidoff, M., 96, 231, 234, 240, 246
Nesselrode, Count, I 57, 26.I
Neville-Gardiner, General William,
2
Neville, Mrs., 3, 4, 7, 271
Nicholas, Emperor, establishes
Consulates in Poland, 7, 49;
Poles exiled by, 25, 50; his
treatment of Poland, 31, 5o;
proposed understanding with
England about Turkey, 239, 240
Nicholas, Grand-Duke, I43, I44
Nicholas of Montenegro, Prince,
83 .
Mineteenth Century, I 13, 247
Nitika of Montenegro, Prince, 160,
I93
Noailles, Marquis de, 205
Norfolk, Duke of, 266
Novikoff, M., 151
“sensible,”
OLIPHANT, LAURENCE, 44
Omladina, or Youth Society,
Servia, 92
Ottoman Constitution, promulga-
tion of, I I2
PALMERSTON, LORD, 44, 126; on
Russia's despatch of arms to
Servia, 94; “Russia our enemy
—Turkey our ally,” 249; his
dislike of the trained official,
263; no foreign phrases, or
foreign idioms in an English
dress, 269
Panslavism, 16, 236
Paris, Treaty of 67, 68, 141
Paulucci, Marquis, 53
Pekin, Legation at, II
Pendjeh incident, the, 238
Peter the Great, 58, 132, 223, 225,
254
INDEX
Petre, Lord, 182
Philippopolis, massacre at, 203
Plevna, Battle of, I43, 144
Plow, Consul at Dantzic, 57
Poland, Partition of, 2, 3 ; insur-
rection of, I863, 15, 33–53;
under Alexander II., 25, 29, 31 ;
under Nicholas, 3I ; and Russia,
25, 29, 31, 33–40, 45–53; scheme
for dismemberment (1716), 58
Poole, Stanley Lane-, Zife of Lord
Strafford de Redcliffe, 122, 263
Potocki, Count Alfred, 46
Pracak, a Czech, 209
Prussia and the Vatican, 73
Pulawy (Poland), White's birth-
place, 2
Punjab Times, 248
RAILWAY BILL, Bismarck's, 139,
I61, I69, 173, I75
Redcliffe, Lord Stratford de, 2, 122,
215, 248, 262, 264
Reinkens, Bishop, 65
Ring, Mr. de, 205
Rio Janeiro, Legation offered to
White, 217
Rodolph, Arch-Duke, Crown
Prince of Austria, 212
Roggenbach, 183
Rosebery, Lord, 267
Roumania, “Carmen Sylva,”
Queen of, I32
Roumania, Independence of 17,
18, 20, 174–176; Jews in, 85–90,
156–161, 166–169; Moldo-Wal-
lachia, I31–133, I38; Treaty of
Commerce, I34, 179, I86;
plucky attitude of, I4I—I 55;
their national origin “lost in
the night of ages,” 157; in 1879,
I62–171 ; the Roumanian Ques-
tion in Transylvania, 184–190;
the Franco-Russian understand-
ing, 199; threatened Russian
occupation, 212
28I
Roumelia and Bulgaria, 228–243
Rubinstein, 26o
Russell, Earl, I4, 22, 27, 28, 126,
266; the Polish Question, 15,
4I, 42, 45–48; his deplorable
diplomatic comedy, 47; and
White, 54, 55; appoints White
to Dantzic, 57, 257
Russell, Lord Odo (Lord Ampthill),
67, 69, 70, 73, II7, 135, 138, I54,
214–216, 246, 257, 268
Russia and Roumania, 17, 141 ;
the Bessarabian Question, 19,
I39, I42, I44, 146-15I, I53, 154,
I58, I61, I65, 222, 224; and
Poland, 25, 29, 31, 33–40, 45–
53; and the Treaty of Paris,
67, 68; the Black Sea, 67, 68,
I42, 25I-256; Servia and, 83,
94–97; threat to occupy Rou-
mania, 212 ; the Dardanelles,
251–256
Russian World, 97
Rustem Pasha, 247
SABOUROFF, M., 26
Sacken, Baron Osten, 53
Safvet, Pasha, I I2
Salisbury, Lord, presses Pekin
Legation on White, Io; appoints
White to Bucharest, etc., 14,
I34, I40, 258; at the Con-
stantinople Conference, I4, 17,
IO9, I I5, 12I ; recognition of
Roumanian Independence, 18,
I64; his political tour, Io9; his
understanding with Ignatieff,
IIo; promulgation of the Otto-
man Constitution, II2; Morier,
117; the Jewish Question, 157,
I66, 168, 169, 173, 175, 195;
White on Roumania, 172;
thanks White for Roumanian
Treaty of Commerce, 179; the
Roumanians in Transylvania,
185; plain words to Russia, 194;
36
282
INDEX
at the Berlin Conference, 196;
presses Armenian reforms on
Turkey, 202; “Sclavonic,” 21 I ;
Hungary and Roumania, 212 ;
union of the two Bulgarias,
228, 330; White's “hearty and
vigorous assistance,” 229; Morier
on his great prudence, 235; his
advice to the Bulgarian dele-
gates, 244; White's death, 257;
style of his letters, 266
San Stefano, Treaty of, 127, 134,
I35, I44, I48, I49, I52, 222
Sardinia, 24
Schleswig-Holstein Question, 52
Schouvaloff, Count, Io8, Io9
Schumla, Ioë
Schuyler, Eugene, History of Peter
the Great, 90, 223 -
Sebastiani, Marshal, 24
Seraphim, 226
Servia, 82; and Russia, 83; Jews
in, 84; in 1876—Bulgarian
atrocities, 94–I2O ; and Turkey,
IO7; war with Bulgaria, 219–22I
Servo-Turkish War, 83, Io/
Simmons, Field-Marshal Sir John
Lintorn, 6, 22, 30, I37
Simon, Sir John, 85
Slavonisation of Austria, 209
Slivnitza, Battle of, 22O
Sobieski, 51, 270
Speaker, I4
Stanislas,
Poland, 2
Stanton, Sir Edward, I 5, 31, 40, 50
Stephanie, Princess (Austria), 213
Stoiloff, M., 243
Stourdza, Demetri, 136, 173, 204,
267
Strangford, Lady, Eastern Shores
of the Adriatic, III, 226
Strangford, Lord, I I I, 159, 226
Stratheden and Campbell, Lord, 44
Strossmayer, Bishop, 65, Io;
Stuart, Baron, Russian Diplomatic
Augustus, King of
Agent at Bucharest, I43, 150,
I59
Suez Canal, 76
Suleiman Bey, 194
Suleiman Pasha, 128
TAAFFE, COUNT, 209
Talleyrand, 261
Tchernaieff, General, 91, 94–98,
Io'7
Temps, Ze, IO4
Tenterden, Lord, 66, IOO
The Bratianos, J. and D., 19, 159,
I60, 192, 194–196, 198, 212, 267
Thornton, Sir Edward, Io, 21, I 18,
217, 228, 272
Tolstoy, 225
Tornièlli, 174
Transylvania, Roumanian Ques-
tion in, 184—190
Truth, 118
Turkey, the Bulgarian atrocities,
99 et, seq.; and Servia, IO7;
promulgation of Constitution,
II2; and Roumania, I31; Austria
and, I93; proposed national
postal system, 218; passage of
Straits by Russian warships,
251–256
Turko-Servian War, 83, Io'7
Turks, massacred by Bulgarians
in Eastern Roumelia, 203
UKRAINTSEFF, 255
Uniate Bishops, the, 65
VALBázEN, M. de, 50
Varnac, M., Roumanian Agent at
Berlin, 153
Vatican and Prussia, 73
Victoria, Queen, 257
Vienna, Congress, 31, 59; Treaty
of, 42
WADDINGTON, M., I48, 168
Wade (China), 13 .
INDEX 283
Wagner, Richard, 260
Walker, English police official,
43
Warsaw, 3 ; British Consulate at,
6–9; White, Vice-Consul at, 25–
44; character of the consular
body, 49
Wellesley, Colonel, military at-
taché at St. Petersburg, IO4
Werther, Baron, Io9
Westmorland, Lord, 215
Wetherell, Mr., 74
Whicher, English police official,
43
White, Governor of Trinidad
(father), 2
White, Lady, 23, 265
White, Mrs. (mother), 2
White, Sir William A., birth and
parentage, 2.; at Cambridge and
in Poland, 3; deaths of his
mother and grandmother, 4; at
the Warsaw Consulate, 7, 9,
24-44; Morier's letters to, II—
I3, 72–78, II 5–II8, 181–183,
214, 230, 234, 245; his habits
and occupations, I 5, 260, 261 ;
his punctuality, 16; his varied
duties, 17 ; making friends, 27;
Lord Augustus Loftus, 29;
Lord Napier's letters to, 33, 61 ;
his consular despatches, 41 ;
two English police officials, 43;
visits from friends, 44; Lord
Russell, 45, 55; Count Berg's
ball, 49; from Warsaw to
Dantzic, 54–80; the Slavonic
world in a microcosm, 60 ; a
dreary prospect, ibid.; the Prince
of Wales's visit, 61 ; his report
on the Slav countries, 62; on
Austrian affairs, 63; occupied
with military matters, 64; visits
Hungary, 65; Odo Russell, 67;
laying siege to Belgrade, 69; in
the right quarters, 75; writes
I36, 162–167, 173;
for the F.O. alone, 79; at
Belgrade, 81–93; the Servo-
Turkish War, 83; Roumano-
Jewish Question, 84, 157, 166,
168; Anglo-Jewish Associa-
tion, 89; projects for solu-
tion of Eastern Question, 90 ;
his interest in Servia, 93;
Tchernaieff's volunteers, 95;
Elliot's letters to, 98–103, 135,
Bulgarian
massacres, 99–IO3; Turkey's
peace terms, Io'7; adlatus to
Salisbury at Constantinople
Conference, Io9, IIo; the Strang-
fords, III ; Layard's first visit
to Servia, 124; Layard's letters
to, I27–129, 191–2OI, 21 I ; at
Bucharest, 131–140; Roumanian
Commercial Treaty, 134, 179,
I86; Currie's congratulations,
I35; the customs duties, 136;
the Dobrudja, 137, 163; still
without credentials, 164, 172;
recognition of Roumanian In-
dependence, 174, 176; Bis-
marck's Railway Bill, 175; pre-
sents his letters of credence to
Prince Charles I., 178; the
Roumanian Question, 184; the
Franco-Russian understanding,
197; strained relations between
Bulgaria and Roumania, 203;
a chance of Egypt, 205; the
Slavonisation of Austria, 209;
Austrian Crown Prince visits
Bucharest, 213; Odo Russell's
death, 2I4; Rio Legation, 217;
proposed national postal system
in Turkey, 218; Ambassador
ad interim to the Porte, 222,
229; a Balkan Confederation
under Austria, 227; Salisbury's
thanks, 229; de Giers: Neli-
doff, 231 ; Russian policy in
Central Asia, 238; not preju-
284
INDEX
letters to Mr. Cadman Jones,
269–272; Sir Hamilton Lang's
tribute, 273
Wielopolski, Marquis, 33, 35, 38–
4O, 42
William II., Emperor, 256
Wolff, Sir Drummond, 21, 229
Worms, Baron de, 175
Wuk, 92
ZAMOYSKI, Count ANDREW, 32
Zamoyski, Count Ladislas, 48
Zichy, Count, Io9, 196
diced against the Russians, 240;
Lord Iddesleigh's letters, 242;
time on the Bulgarian side, 244;
Bismarck's speech on Turkey,
247; events in Armenia, 249;
the passage of the Straits, 251 ;
his death, 256; and burial, 257;
his methods of diplomacy,
261; his politics, 262; his dislike
for the trained official, 263;
an appreciation by Professor
Grosvenor, 264; a great writer
and receiver of letters, 266; his
Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury.
--~~~~）;











�
.*ş
{4
J ----*
, , ）,
3
*';
•
*
ș
;|
}.}
|
| . ||
|į į*
«）* !# !
è
]
&
}
-į3
»
*
}
p
�
ș
}, ...!
ș
iI
! }
șº
�
*·
∞ ‘ş|
*
|
}
*
{




ºſº ºſº, º aeº，
ſae
∞ √° √≠ √∞.
|||
||||
3 9015 06378 #4
OF MICHIGAN
57
ERSITY
UNIV
|||||||





s'，
§§
38¿;
ºrºſaeĶ}}
¿
#$%$ſ;ſă§;∞§§§ſae
fhķ$ſ;};
¿ķķ###########ķ
}$$• №ſſºſ{{}}#########}}}}};{{{3}}}ſ
§§????? |#|$$$$·${}\\§§Ķ§§§§§
ķ§§ț####ķ}）;
§§§§§§§§§E，I，T，№aeae$$$$$$$$$$$$$%$&'）;|－|－№n ſaeº}
ķſºſķķķķķķ
$$$$$$$};{{8}}}{{#Ķ;################ģ#############{{ſae}#####}&{}####$$$$$$$$$######Ę
¿ķ;ķ####ķ####ķ}ķķţ;
Ķ§§§§§};#ff;}}§ķ####∞#######·Đ####8ķ####…ſłķ;####&###§§§§§§§§
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$##########################-ſſſſſſſſſſſä{{}}:}}}#####$$$$$$$$$$$
#$$$$$$$$$$$$$$§§######∞§§è:######}}}}};{{###};};}}Ķiģiķiſ####、§§§§
¿###§§§#######}ſiſ############§§§§$$$$$$$$$$$########$######§§§§
∞ √≠ √∞'，§§§§§;&####¿#####$¿}}}}}};{{##$$$$$$$$$§§##########$$$$$$
ſºſ：§§§####Ķ#§№ſºſ¿};iſiķ###3Daeae:º：-ſae;§§###Paeſae
$$$$$$}};ſſſſſſſſ[]#####$}}}}}}§§####$$$$$$$$$$$$$№Ď}}$（'##ſ§§§
!;#{{{{####################|#########$$$$Řț}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}ș#####};###§§
$$$$$$ķţķ##########################$$$$$$$$$#######$$$$ſae
ķķķ¿ķķķ#######
ſaeĶī£;&{};≡ſºſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſaešķģķ};$$$$$$$$|×：ae№
§§§§#####§§ķ}}}}}};{{#######}}}}}####}################}t.
،}ſae* …»，}}{}}：}};ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ:įžºſ（?）##$$$$$$§§ëſ
########################ğ######}ķ§§ķ####?
ķ###########ķī£;ķķ#########ķķ######ſ.
§§§§§§§;&#ffff;$ff;&#####ſae ſae:ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ***fael}}};{{{ſ}&{}ſºffºſſ№;×R
ķķ############§jį#########$$$$$Ķſºſ
#:Ķī£$######|-30#§§§};$ſ;};§§§§§}ķºſ£§§§
ķ;~ſae##ſaeķ#####}{{}}};#$$}}}}#ffff;"●};$ſ;¿∞
ſaeCaeſaeſaeſaeae∞&#fft
########ķšķ######§§§
#########ķ}}###################}}}}}}
ķģ########ķ$ſ;ģ############±
§§§§§№ſ$（'#ffffff;}º£ ，،§§§§§
§§§§########;#############ķ{}$ſ;
};#ffff;ķ0####{#######}}}}}}};ķķ∞
¿0}}######################################
ķķ$$$$ķķgaelķ
-ºſaeſae№ſſſſſſſſſſſſ}}&#3ſºſ|×{{ſiſ}}·■■■■
§§§ķţ####§§ķ######：ķķĶķ
ķģķ#####$######*ķ-ķ##§§§§
-###############■##################;&#！#}}}}#{ſſſſſſſ|}}}#{
ſaeaeaeſae####################：####ķſ#№.
∞！################|#####ģĶķ}}·§§
}###################ķiſ####{{}}#####}}}}}}{{§§§§§§§
$########¿#########ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ:ſ!!!į}}};§§și，¿
*：ķ##########ķķģĶķĻļ,-###ķšķ
#ķķ####################ķ$$$$$$########●
######################ķķiķ}#####§§1.§§§§
###########ķ####º.
}|-į####};§:ſſä}}{{{-};ķ###
H}§§§ģ};};};#{}}ķr.}}§$$$$$$ſ;ſº:§;
ſaeſaeſaeidaeſaeMaeſae;：， ， ， ， ，
ķ#######ķſ}}ķ
}$ſ;ſºſ####WB}}ķķ}}}}#####ķ;{{};
¿########}}|- ，;&###!!！!!！#}}}}};};};∞
ķ########£8#ķķ###########šķsºſ?
&#№ſſº;。ş，ſł###########}}########}}}}}}}}§§ſaeſ
#ķ}}}}}};ķ{{šķ#Ķķ，ļķ
£ſaeſae}}\，{}{};{ſae######}●ſººſ
}########ķ########$$$$$$$$$§{
¿##}};{{{ſ}}}ſ}}∞∞∞|#§§§:ſĶī£;&###}}
############}}}}}}}$ſ;####}}$ſ;ķ}}#}}ķ
ķ########ģķķſiļķ
∞、。、、、。ſaeſáſ，ſººſ######،ſaeſae
###ķķ##########################
$######ķ};ķ#####ķķķķķķķ$$$
¿¿ {{{}};*&{};########ſae}}};{{{#######}}$-§§ſae
{{}}}};}}};}}##§§}ț¢#ſº§§&#ğ####¿ººſłº§§
ĶĒģ:########{{}}:}}};}}{{##،ķ###############|§§§Ď
Ķķ}}}}§§§§$%$$$$};}};}}{{#ſĶiģĶķſki###########ķ{#：{∞∞∞ºſſºſ
ķ%），ķķįķ¿ķķķ
№ſſae;$#########! !！{{}{};{#########{{{{ſ}}}########§§§§§#######$ſ;~
ķ$$$$#ffff;;}}$ſ;$$$$$$$#########§$%$&######
|×};{{{ſ}}{\#}&{};§§§§};|×####ț}}}}}};įſº$$$$$$$$$$$$$|-
################ķğ}}， ， ，}ſiſ§§§§§§}}
ŁĘ∞∞∞§§§§§}}}}}######ſaeſſſſſſſſſſſ}}###}}}}§}{}{}ſaeſiſ}}
}}}}}}}}%}}*№g!§§§####################################}};{{#;，}}¿
ķķķķķķ####ķģ
§§${#####}}}}}}įU#############}}}}};ſ.ſae
：×}，%%%###########ºffſ{{#¡iſiſįſ.Ä${}}）;
ķģiķ##################[9;ķķºj-∞∞∞ſºſ[]±ķ
§ț¢;ķ#######################ſſſſſſſ،ķķķ;########ķ};}}ķ########
∞ſfºrſae****∞∞∞ſi ae ºffsC!\， ，------。w tº：ae·ffael·ſaeſººſ：Mae ſº∞ 1. （…） ：aeſae•ſae
ķ$ſ;ķſýſ;##};####ķğț¢Baeķ}}#######ĶķWķĶ};ķķķ}ķķķ#####};fjķ
№ſºrº¿ſae·$$$$$$$#######################ſſſſſſſſſſſſſ!！！#####$$$$$######################{######}}§§§####}};};
-};};#ſae}）;}ķķiſ#############################¿¿#ff;}}}}}}}{{########$$$$$$$$$$}}%$§$%$$$$$
ſaeaeaeae·aeſae}}#############$%################ſae}}{{{ğķ};ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ§§§}}}}}}}}&{};ſaeſae
§§£8;ķ};#################ſae#############}}$$$$$$$$$#####$ſ;§.$$$$$$$$$$$，58：
ſ}}№#######################################################$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$#########$$$$$$$$§§§
ſºſ########################}§§§§§§Ķķ}}}}}}§ţ############ķ!--$$$$$ſiſ
¿º.ſae-}}####§§ſºſ########§;#####}}}$$$$$}}&{}}}§§§§§§
####################§§§§§§§įķi#################$$$$$$ſaeſae
ķķſſſſſſſķ8}}ſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ####};ķ¿º§§#####}}#8-
ſae}}}}}}}}}}}}}}};}|#########……….………##########&#ffff;#####§§ĢģĶķ·
ſae}}§§§ſſſſſſ${{########§§§;}}ſººſ}）;ffſ#######ſae#$ſ|×$$$$$$};
}}ķ&###§§ķſaeķķķķķ{ķ
####}}}}#######ĒģĶķ#######$$$$$$$§#####################$$$$$$$$$$######};§§§############
¿######ººaeaeķ;};};#######}}}}}##############################}}}#}}}}}}Caeſ§§§##
$$$$$$$$$$$$ķ##########################################}#########}}}}}}}}}}
######ķ##ķ###################}}###########țiț¢·}##########}&##&###############};§§
ſººſ: įțţķķ
####§§$ſ;#ğį&##########ffff;}}}}}}}}}###}!}}{{}|،ķ）}}*：};}}};};};§§§###ĢģĶķŧ§§$$$$$$}
∞ √≠√∞¿¿.##################İſ#####ķ}}ķ#}}ķķģțģ
ŒĶ}}##############{{{{$###∞šķķ{{!}}{{####ģļķį#{{{{}}{{{}}:}}}}}}Đ}}}}}}ا§§§§§§$$$$$<ſae
įĢģĶķ#-ķķſë}ķ#######ț###};#####ķķķķķ}}ķËķ
§§Baeķ#####}}}}}}}}}}}}}#ğț¢;$$$$$$######################################################}}£}}}}}}¿§§§§§
¿ſae;ſºſģ}}}}}}}{{#######ſſſſſſſſſſſ:######§§}}}}}#####ſſſ####§§######§§#########}}####ſſſſſſſſſ}}§§----£§§§§#$）
§§##ķ############}}·ķ########################################ſae§§§§§§
ſººſ§§#####ği##########Ķ#ķ########ſºſ§§§}}######$%####§.#######aetae§§§§§ſae$$$$}}ſae
…··：،~§ſaeſae…∞8º£،ķeae}
ķ}}d######################################################§§§§ºffſ¿?§§§
#####}}}}}}}}}}};ķ########################}&{};####################?§§§§§§§§§
############}}%;ț¢##############$$$$$$#####$ſ;####################}§§ț¢##§§
|ķ###}}&{}{}¿§$%ſae}Ķķį#####Eį{{{}}ģ§§§§Ķſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſ##:;£§3}|-ț¢， $¿ğķ
ķķģ§§ſae##########%#######º， jº}}}}}}}###############################ķ######}{§§¿
ķ|ſiķ}ķķķķ#####################ķģķ،ķ#˧§
}§§§ķģķģ;||§;ķķ#}ķ}ķ}§§};};ķ};ķ|ſ######ķ#####}};{{#iffķ■ ■}}#####ķ#šº}}#}}}}∞§§
§§§###};};}}};{{######ț§§§§;}}$$#ffffffff;§§ģĶķĻļģ{{#¡ſ###########}}}};}}{{}{}#############§§§§§######{{###}$$$$$;&##ffſ######$$$$$$$$#§§№f§§§§§§
țķ##########}}############################ķ###############}};{{#########{{!}}{{#ffffffſ#################ſae§§$$$$$$$$$§§§§§}}ſy…Ģ
#######}};{{##$i;####################ķſae#########################}}}}}#ffffffff;####t.ķ;#################¿####}};}}{{#iffſae§ğ}}}}}}}}§§§§
4ķ§§§§،ķ}}}}}}##}};}}{{##}}##################################};}}}}################}}#############{{№}}&{};§§§
ſaeae[]----ºſº，}}};{{{ºff}}{}}{};ſae§§§§§§§§į######};###}};}}{{#}}{{!}}{}}ſaeſ?}}#}}}}}}}}{{#ĶķĻļģ}}،ķ}}{{#¡}ĘĢĢģĶķ}}§§§§§¿
${};#####}};};·ſſſſſſ###ſae#######§§§####Ķ&#######ķffff;ğı}}#ffff;ſſſſſſſſſſſſ|}}};{{#}|}########${};-¿ķ}{{ſae};ĶſſſſſſſſſſſſſſſĶīſiſſä
}ģĶķĹĺĻĢģĶķ##################}}}ý{########Ķķķ}}{{{3{{!}}{{#¡¿%|{{{!!!！!！§§§ſſſſſſſſſſſ:§§§§Ķ§§§§Ě§§§
ģiķiſ}}}}{{#########}################################¿####ģ·ſ.}}%;}¿∞######§§šķğı·$$$$$-§$$$$$$$$
Fae}}ſaeg};}}#####§§$ſ&#####}}ķķË}ſae{}####，ſaeķ}Ķ}Řj##}}ſ.}#######}$-};§§#ğae}∞∞∞§§§8%§§}}}-
ķĶi##################}ſºſ;#####################################ffff;Ķ}{ſ}ķği###############}}Daegķţi
#§§ķ${}%;####}}，}#{{{ſ}}}ſ##########|##}}§}ģ{};#########&################ſiſi###############ſº#######}§§###§§§§§§ſae§§§§
########}};{{{ſ{{!}}}}#{{{#ſ{}{}}{{#######ķ#####}}};{{{#¡¡¡¡¡ſ§§{{}}:}}}}####{}}}}##############}}}£&##ff;&#ģķğ}ſaeiķ#####Ķ}įſſſſſſſſſſ}}$$$$ģĶķții};|-§$%šķſ{&ſ$}
įğ{};}}$$$$$${};##############§##########}}}}}}########|######}}ķ#######&#####§§{!}}{{#####{|##&{};ķķiſ#ķļģ#######};ģ-----…--$$$$$$$$
}};};ķ§.ķ{ķ####################}###############ķ#8¿ſ#ffffffff;######################ffff;$$$$$$$$$
ķ#############################################};####ķ###########Ķī£#######################}}$ſ;$$$$$
-$$$$$$¿?§§§§##############ſae#################，###############Alſº，$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$įË}}¿
$$$$$$$$##{）\;\;C)ķļģiķiſ$$$$$ķğķ######}}ğ}}}};{{{ſ}}}};į§§ſaeķŒiſłłº$ſ;}##############};###ģ;§§
#ffffffff;}ķ{{#$$$$$$##fi############}}ķ#################ģķ};######################$$#}}##############$$$$$$$####§§
ķ;ſae!######}ģģ;&#ģķ}}###########};##################ķ{{{ſ}}#############ķķi#################ğ####{§
$[H§##############################################################################}}}}{{##########################}}$$$$$
ķķ¡ ¿########################ķ§§§
}}¿I¿ķģ################################ķ#####}ķ###########ķ################
ķ#####ſae|{}}}#####}}}}{{##}}&#############|§{$ķiļķ##############################ſae
}};{{{8}}|#|$$$$ſae###§§§|}}}}{{{ſ}}}}}}#{{#####$%ķ#####{{{{ſ}##############{{!§ț#ffffff;$$$$$$
}}}#####ſſſſ####}}$$$$#############}#####ſºſ####ķķ####################}į######}ģ###
};############${};{{{}}###########}}##########$$$$########################}#########ķģ}}};}}{{######
§§§###########ģ}}}}}}}}·#######ſº#########ķ#######№ț¢ïſºſ;|#########ffff;&#########}}{{####}}ſ
$$$$$#ķ######################ț¢#############################################################
################################B#{}ķ###&###ķ######§§}-
ķ$$$$$$$$$;###}}）;###Đ}{}##|}}{}}}#{{{{ſ{{!}######|iſ.ſſſſſſſ#：
ſae#######ģ###############};ķ}###########}}}}#{{{{{}}######D
ķ|###############ķ##############
ſaeķįįjį##############################
ſae}}ſºſſaeţş§§§§§§|-ſae{{#######ķ[#####}
###●ķķķ#…ķſi#{#}}{{{ſį}ķ|įįšķīſ}}}}{#}{∞
######################į}}################
############ķ}###ķ####
ķ#########################|####ķ. u 1 * n
####}}###########################################•~--~~~~.
§§§（）$ſ;jſ!）∞
№ ſº;;;;ſ:№ſ！”. №