V 
 
 m
 
 €f)t 0Sn^ttxn (Bm^tion ^^^otMioix. 
 
 PAPERS ON THE EASTERN QUESTION. 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 FALLACIES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EASTERN QUESTION 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. WILLIAM DENTON, M.A., 
 
 Vicar of St. Bartholomew, Crip^legate ; 
 
 AUTHOR OF "SERVIA AND THE SERVIANS," "THE CHRISTIANS OF 
 TURKEY UNDER MAHOMEDAN RULE," ETC. ETC. 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE 
 
 EASTERN QUESTION ASSOCIATION, 
 
 28, CANADA BUILDING, WESTMINSTER; 
 
 BY 
 
 CASSELL FETTER & GALPIN, 
 
 London, Paris &= New York.
 
 FALLACIES OF THE EASTERN 
 QUESTION. 
 
 There may be a difference of opinion as to the amount of knowledge 
 possessed by the people of this country on the Eastern Question at the 
 moment when the news of the wholesale massacre in Bulgaria first 
 reached England ; there can be no difference of opinion as to the sym- 
 pathy felt and expressed by Englishmen at the terrible sufferings of the 
 people of Bulgaria. The country labourer, who rarely interests him- 
 self with what is passing at a distance ; the hard-worked artizan 
 in our towns; the busy commercial clerk, thought and spoke of 
 little else for some months of the past year. The sympathy felt was 
 almost universal, and would have been quite universal but for the 
 lack of information in some and the jealousy felt by others at the 
 possibility that the misrule of Turkey might be taken advantage of 
 by other Powers to the injury of English interests. A conversation 
 which I had a short time ago interested me so much that I noted 
 down, so far as I could remember, the line of argument and the 
 points raised by an old friend on the Turkish Question. 
 
 It was one of the unusually mild, almost warm, days which 
 occurred towards the end of the last month in the old year. I was 
 sauntering down the broad walk leading from the Uxbridge Road to 
 Prince's Gate, enjoying the rare advantage of a dry afternoon, when I 
 saw an old college friend seated on one of the benches eagerly 
 devouring the contents of a daily paper. He was so intent upon this 
 that he did not notice my approach, and it was only on my addressing 
 him that he looked up from his paper. 
 
 " So," said he, " I see your name among those present at what they 
 are pleased to call the Conference at St. James's Hall." 
 
 "Not only they," I said, smiling, "but I have been calling it a 
 Conference." 
 
 " Well," he rejoined, " it doesn't matter what it is called ; what I 
 want to know is what you think of doing in the matter of Turkey 
 and its people.?"
 
 " That is a large question." 
 
 " It's the real one," said G., with animation ; " it's of no use to pull 
 down unless you have a plan in hand to rebuild ; it's of no use talking 
 vvildly of turning out the Turk unless you have some one who can 
 take his place. I don't ask you what you are going to undo — that's 
 bad enough, I confess — but I want to know what you propose to do ?" 
 D. And yet to pull down precedes to build up— to turn out an un- 
 desirable tenant must go before putting in a new one. 
 
 G. Yes, I grant that ; but I don't turn out an undesirable tenant 
 unless I contemplate a better one taking his place. Now tell me — 
 what I have never been told yet — what do you propose doing? 
 Remember, I am not defending the Turk. 
 
 D. I don't venture to accuse you of that ; but now to answer your 
 question. I have no proposals to make of turning out any one. I 
 want — I should rather say we want, for happily I am not alone — we 
 want to see the people of Turkey — for remember the people of Turkey 
 are not the Turks, but the Bulgarians, the Greeks, the Serbs— we want 
 to see these people have some security for life and limb, to possess 
 the enjoyment of the fruits of their industry, and a fair measure of 
 their family rights. And we want one thing more, that Europe should 
 be freed from the incessant worry, danger, and ruinous expense of 
 having to keep its armies ready for war on account of Turkish 
 misrule. 
 
 G. Well, but the Turk has promised, and Midhat Pasha is striving 
 earnestly, to set things right. 
 
 D. Midhat Pasha may remain in power, or he may be set aside at 
 any moment. The Turk has promised at intervals during the last 
 forty or fifty years, at least, to do what Midhat Pasha promises anew. 
 He has never performed a single promise of mending the condition of 
 the people who obey his rule. 
 
 G. They have terribly misgoverned, I admit. If they had not, we 
 should not have the present embroilment. I am not so childish nor 
 blind as to deny there is much injustice and stolid misrule in Turkey, 
 but I say " of two evils choose the least." And a war of races, ending 
 in a general massacre and the convulsion of Europe and part of Asia, 
 is not a pleasant prospect for us, nor indeed for the people of those 
 countries whom you are taking under your protection. 
 
 D. A possible war of races — a possible massacre — a possible con- 
 vulsion throughout Europe and Asia ! Have you any grounds for 
 assuming that any of these terrible things will ever happen } 
 
 G. People who know these countries better than I pretend to do, 
 say all this is probable, and a wise man will avoid such a risk. 
 
 D. A wise man will not forecast evil when he is called upon to 
 think what is right. It is not a wise man but a slothful one who 

 
 shrinks from duty by saying, " a lion is in the path." But a handful 
 of experience is worth a waggon load of conjecture. The Turkish fleet 
 was destroyed at Navarino, Greece was freed from the Turkish yoke, 
 the Sultan was coerced, and yet none of these things happened which 
 you dread. Why think they will happen now ? We spent our trea- 
 sure, and poured out our blood in the Crimean war, for the defence 
 of Turkey, and our reward was Mussulman mutiny in India, massacre 
 of our people, and danger to the empire. I don't say we should have 
 the same return again, but I do say that experience is against the 
 notion of danger to ourselves if we do right now. 
 
 G. Yes ; but that is the question. Have we any right to interfere 
 between the Government of Turkey and its subjects ? 
 
 D. An Enghshman's house is said to be his castle; but, tell me, 
 have I not a right to interfere if my neighbour stores petroleum or 
 gunpowder in that castle of his ? If I hear cries for help proceeding 
 from his house, does not humanity demand that I should forget a 
 little about his house being his castle, and give help ? And Turkey 
 does store materials as dangerous as petroleum and gunpowder — a 
 justly discontented people. And every day we hear piteous cries for 
 help from fathers and mothers, and young maidens and infants, 
 whose first articulate cry is "Help! help!" and does not all this 
 constitute, I don't say a right, but an obligation to interfere ? 
 
 G. The sufferings of these people I grant. I don't deny that in 
 some cases we might even be called on to interfere. I don't think, 
 however, that has happened yet. Besides, whatever abstract right we 
 might have we have renounced by treaty, and as honest men we must 
 abide by our treaty, and that says — I mean the Treaty of Paris in 
 1856 — that neither collectively nor individually shall the Powers of 
 Europe interfere between the Porte and its subjects. I don't re- 
 member the exact words, I quote the substance of the treaty. 
 
 D. A treaty is a solemn thing. Under the Treaty of Paris, 
 however, we relinquished no right. We never bound ourselves not to 
 interfere between the Porte and its subjects. You have, I think, fallen 
 into a ver}' common error on that score. The ninth article of that 
 treaty, which is what you refer to, says that the firman which the 
 great Powers required the Sultan to issue " cannot in any case give to 
 the said Powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, 
 in the relations of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the 
 internal administration of his empire."* No one says the firman gave 
 any right, still less that it took from us any right. It did neither 
 one nor the other. The right of interfering when our safety is en- 
 dangered we have still, and our safety— the safety of all Europe— is 
 
 * General Treaty for the Establishment of Peace, with three Conveyitions 
 annexed thereto. Presented to both Houses of Parliament, 1856.
 
 endangered by the misgovernment and brutality of the governing- 
 powers in Turkey towards the bulk of its subjects. The right of our 
 common humanity was not given— it is not pretended that it is 
 diminished— by the firman which was issued, by the paper which was 
 blotted, and the promises which were made, and remain unfulfilled. 
 More than that, the history of the firman, or Hatt-i-Humayoon, 
 proves that we — whether from considerations of our safety, or of 
 our obligations as human beings, or from the fact that we had ex- 
 pended such great treasures, and so many lives, for the defence of 
 Turkey, because of one or all of these measures we assumed that we 
 possessed a right to interfere when humanity is outraged and the 
 peace of Europe endangered. The firman itself was an interference, 
 and the firman was demanded by the European Powers ; it bears, 
 indeed, the he upon its front of being granted "spontaneously;" it is 
 known that this is untrue. 
 
 G. What, then, is its history? I suppose some suggestion was made 
 by the great Powers, but was it more than a suggestion ? 
 
 D. The history of the firman is this : on January the 9th, 1856, 
 during the negociations which resulted in the Treaty of Paris, the 
 great Powers agreed that it was essential to the preservation of peace 
 that the Christian subjects of Turkey should have the guarantees, long 
 promised by the Porte, at length carried into effect. 
 
 G. Not guarantees, surely ? 
 
 D. I am citing the words of the Porte, drawn up and insisted upon 
 by Lord Stratford de Redclifife, after rejecting the terms proposed by 
 Fuad Pasha.* " Fourth guarantee" — some misgiving seems to have 
 struck the editor of the Blue Book from which I quote, at that 
 awkward word, "guarantee," so he translated it "Fourth point;" if, 
 however, you turn to the original, you will find that it stands thus — 
 "Fourth g7m7'antee" — i. Effective measures shall be taken that the 
 guarantees promised to all the subjects of His Majesty the Sultan 
 may receive their full and entire effects." f Then when this guarantee 
 had been entered into, not until then, the plenipotentiaries agreed to 
 the treaty. Now who were parties to this guarantee ? 
 
 G. Of course, the powers which signed the treaty. 
 
 D. There can be no question of this. The Sultan guaranteed to 
 England and to the other powers of Europe that " every distinction or 
 designation tending to make any class whatever of the subjects of His 
 Majesty the Sultan inferior to another class, on account of their 
 religion, language, or race, shall be for ever effaced from the adminis- 
 trative protocol." t It guaranteed protection to its Christian, subjects, 
 
 * Correspondence respecting Christian Privileges in Turkey. Presented to both 
 Houses of Parliament, 1856, p. 60. 
 
 + /^.,p. 47. J /<5., p. 50.
 
 equality of taxation, the abolition of tax-farming, the entrance of 
 Christians into the army, in short, everything which it has not per- 
 formed. All this was done at the dictation of the great Powers, 
 and in consideration of these promises the Treaty of Paris was signed. 
 But surely the right which was exercised in requiring these promises 
 may be exerted in demanding their fulfilment ; and the Powers by 
 whom these promises were required, and to whom these promises 
 were made, have a right, not under it, however, but by the law of 
 nations, to see they are performed. The integrity of the Ottoman 
 Empire was menaced, or invaded, in the demand for guarantees, and 
 in the acquiescence to such demand ; it is too late then, when we ask 
 for the performance of a promise, to say we had no right to receive 
 such promise. 
 
 G. They have not, I fear, been fulfilled ? 
 
 D. According to the unexceptional evidence of Sir Henry Bulwer, 
 the Turk never intended to perform what he had guaranteed. Writing 
 more than four years after the Treaty of Paris had been ratified, he 
 says — " The Ottoman Government, when it undertook to place the 
 empire on a new foundation, was neither entirely sincere in its pro- 
 fessions nor did it clearly understand what it was about. It accepted 
 the announcement of great, immense, and sudden reforms less with a 
 desire to re-invigorate Turkey than to gain Europe. It was less occu- 
 pied with the laws it was to make than with the newspaper articles it 
 would produce." * No wonder, then, since it was not " entirely sincere 
 in its professions," that all witnesses — consuls, ambassadors, and 
 foreign ministers, as well as travellers and residents in Turkey- 
 bear witness to these facts, that not a single one of these promises 
 made to better the miserable lot of its Christian subjects has ever been 
 fulfilled — has ever been attempted to be fulfilled — by the Sultan and 
 his advisers. 
 
 G. I grant that all this is bad — that the prospect is a very dreadful 
 one. But the Turks have been thoroughly frightened now, and we 
 cannot say what this new constitution may effect. I think, at least, 
 that we shall hear of no new massacres. 
 
 D. Resolutions taken in a moment of fright usually last as long as 
 the fright does. Turkey has been frightened before, and has promised, 
 but has forgotten its fright and its promises, and has gone on as it did 
 before it was frightened. I don't believe in resolutions so born, and 
 I should be more hopeful that the Bulgarian horrors would not be 
 repeated, but for this that they are nothing new. They are, on a 
 larger scale, what is taking place daily there as well as in Armenia 
 and elsewhere. Besides, this massacre of women and children in 
 
 * Papers relating to Administrative and Financial Reforms in Turkey^ 
 1854—61, p. 67.
 
 Bulgaria is the eighth or ninth large massacre which has taken place 
 during the last three-quarters of a century in Turkey. It is a faithful 
 revelation of the every-day life of the poor oppressed people of Turkey. 
 
 G. Well, it is very sad, I know. It would be easier to know how to 
 act, but we must take care of the interests of this country, and these 
 interests require us to protect the integrity of the Turkish Empire. 
 
 D. Is such an assertion true? Do you mean that this empire of 
 Great Britain, on which it is boasted the sun never sets — which is 
 called the " mistress of the seas " — whose possessions are the leading 
 states of four continents, and whose wealth, " the sinews of war," is 
 unbounded — depends for her pre-eminence, her safety, her existence, 
 upon the fact that a handful of barbarians is permitted to outrage 
 humanity at its will, and put women and infants to a cruel death at its 
 pleasure? Cannot England exist and flourish unless she be the 
 sleeping-partner in such atrocious deeds ? Is justice and righteousness 
 the strength of a nation, or a base connivance at injustice and corrup- 
 tion, and the misery of unoffending people ? 
 
 G. No, no ; you put a meaning on my words which I did not mean 
 them to have. 
 
 D. Pardon me. I am not taking your words, but I am stating a 
 common-place bugbear — I won't call it argument — and this I have 
 not distorted. It is said frequently enough — too frequently — that we 
 must support Turkey, even though it does commit these atrocities, for 
 our own interest and safety. 
 
 G. We cannot afford to see Russia in possession of Constantinople 
 and the rest of European Turkey. 
 
 D. Clearly expressed. I would not see Russia there, neither would 
 the other powers of Europe. Why, however, when we seek to secure 
 these people from wrong ; why, when we demand for them some 
 measure of freedom, must Russia be thrown in our teeth ? You do 
 Russia much honour if you mean that freedom is an advantage only 
 to Russia. You do this country much dishonour if you plead that our 
 interest is to perpetuate tyranny and the debasement of the people. 
 We say, secure to these people some of the blessings of freedom, and 
 you answer, that will make them Russian. I should have thought 
 their freedom would have been incompatible with subjection either to 
 Russia or to the Turks. Of one thing I am sure, and that is that a 
 free and flourishing state would be the surest barrier against any 
 advances from the north. But this perpetual dread that Russia will 
 take possession of European Turkey, hold Constantinople, and 
 threaten in some way the road to India, is irrational and childish. 
 To do so would endanger Germany and Austria more even than it 
 would injure us, and neither of these Powers have shown any dis- 
 position to permit Russia to possess the line of the Danube, and so
 
 hold these countries at her mercy. Russia could not then possess 
 European Turkey until she had annihilated Austria and crushed 
 Germany, and she is not likely to be allowed to do either ; but until 
 she has done both we have no cause for alarm. 
 
 G. But granting that Russia cannot hope to possess these countries 
 now, may she not, by keeping them in a state of discontent, pave the 
 way for eventual conquest ? 
 
 D. If you dread this, the very dread should enlist you on the 
 side of Bulgaria, and make you desirous of the dehverance of this 
 people. It is only their continued ill-treatment which will make their 
 submission to Russia a possibility ; whereas a free Bulgaria would be 
 the surest of all barriers against the possibility of what you dread. 
 
 G. Whatever truth there may be in this, yet overt acts show that 
 Russia desires to possess European Turkey. 
 
 D. I do not believe that the possession of European Turkey is — at 
 least at present — compatible with the existence of the Russian Empire. 
 The attempt to incorporate European Turkey with its other posses- 
 sions would almost certainly lead to the breaking up of the Russian 
 Empire ; and this is the opinion of many Russians. But grant for a 
 moment that Russia is desirous of possessing the country from the 
 Danube to the Bosphorus, what policy can be more insane than that 
 of the Foreign Office of England in insisting upon the maintenance of 
 the people of Turkey in their chronic state of discontent ; in turning 
 away, and taking good care that these people should know that we 
 turn away, from their cries for help ; that we never plead on their 
 behalf; that with us the Sultan and the seraglio, with all its unspeak- 
 able abominations, is ever>'thing, and the poor suffering people 
 nothing ; that for them our voice is never raised — nay, that if a too 
 zealous consul ever records some act of atrocity, it is carefully removed 
 from his report when laid before Parliament, lest the people of this 
 country should know of the evil doings of the Government of Turkey. 
 
 G. But are these charges true .'' 
 
 D. As to the consular despatches, look at the Blue-book on the 
 condition of Turkey published in 1861, and you will learn how they 
 were extorted and then pruned and garbled. As to our apathy to the 
 sufferings of this people, let me give you an instance coming within 
 my own knowledge. I was at Constantinople, as you know, about six 
 years ago. One day, whilst I was talking to a friend, a poor Bulgarian 
 woman came in with her tale of woe, and, with sobs and cries, asked 
 my friend to assist her in procuring redress. Her sad story was one 
 of shameful outrage — of the carrying off of one child, of violence to 
 another which threatened to end in death. It was a single instance of 
 what the English public is now familiar with through the exertions of 
 the correspondents of the Daily News and the Times. When she had
 
 ip 
 
 finished her story, my friend turned to me. I saw that he waited to 
 hear some suggestion from me. "Let us go," said I, "to Sir Henry 
 Elhott." " Sir Henry ElHott ! " said he ; "I have tried that before, 
 and the only answer I ever got was, 'The Enghsh Government 
 never interferes between the Porte and its subjects.'" "Not even," I 
 said, "in such an atrocious case as this?" "Not even in such a case 
 as this," repHed my friend. "Well," said I, "what can be done?" 
 "Nothing," said he, "unless General Ignatieff will take it up." The 
 poor woman went to General Ignatieff : he listened kindly to her, and 
 promised to do what he could ; and I went away with a feeling of 
 shame that England should force upon Russia the performance of 
 the simplest offices of humanity. This it is — this only it is — which 
 gives Russia influence in these countries. Russia needs not intrigue 
 with these people : we do that for her. Our inhumanity and compact 
 with the barbarians of the seraglio and the degraded beings of the 
 harem, give Russia the influence which she possesses, and stands in 
 lieu of all intriguing. 
 
 G. But when you say that England is losing the respect of these 
 people — for it comes to that — do you again speak from experience, or 
 report merely ? 
 
 D. More than once— more than twice — I have had almost identical 
 words used to me in different parts of Turkey. " What is the reason 
 that England is always our enemy — always the friend of the Turk ? " 
 When I heard these words for the first time I said, " I don't know that 
 England is your enemy." "Why, then," said my interrogator, who was 
 a priest — " why, then, is it, whenever any act of atrocity is perpetrated, 
 and a question is asked about it in your House of Parliament, persons 
 are always getting up to apologise for and defend the Turk ? " I felt 
 that the priest had some right to his conclusion — that England was 
 a country hostile to the Christian races of Turkey, and the thick-and- 
 thin ally of the Turks, and that we were acting mischievously as to 
 our future influence by this indifference to the woes of our suffering 
 brethren. 
 
 G. Of course there are difficulties ; though I own I wish that in 
 such a case as that which you mentioned just now we had interfered. 
 
 D. You need not utter your wish : I am sure you feel as every 
 man with a spark of humanity must feel. It is not the part of 
 England, it is alien to all her past history, to stand by the side of the 
 oppressor, to know of her evil deeds, to witness the tortures of the 
 oppressed, to hear their cries, and to shut its eyes and seal up its ears^ 
 and look complacently, and say, "It may be all very true that these 
 people are treated cruelly, but we must maintain all this, lest English 
 interests should suffer." The man who says this does not deserve the 
 name of man. He may have the form of man — he is but a brute.
 
 II 
 
 G. But again I say, What is the remedy ? 
 
 D. First and foremost, to understand the Eastern Question in its 
 simple broad outhne. We have a poor oppressed people, under 
 daily torture : ought we to sympathise with them or with their task- 
 masters ? We have a wretched race dying out, a subject race 
 increasing, notwithstanding all its sufferings. Is it even our interest 
 to ally ourselves closely with the dying race, and to share with it the 
 hatred felt for it by the increasing race ? I can use no more fitting 
 words than those of Lord Derby when he was candidate for election at 
 Lynn in 1864. He then said, " I do not understand, except it be from 
 the influence of old diplomatic traditions, the determination of our older 
 statesmen to stand by the Turkish rule, whether right or wrong. I 
 think we are making for ourselves enemies of races which will very 
 soon become in Eastern countries dominant races ; and I think we 
 are keeping back countries by whose improvement we, as the great 
 traders of the world, should be the great gainers ; and that we are 
 doing this for no earthly advantage, either present or prospective." 
 I ask only that the policy thus sketched should be carried out ; but as 
 yet I see no indications that this is being done. We coldly turn 
 away from the people, even when we do not, as we sometimes do, 
 treat them with ostentatious contempt. 
 
 G. Have you any reason for using such a strong expression — 
 " ostentatious contempt ? " 
 
 D. I was thinking just then of another scene which I also witnessed 
 a few years ago. I was at Belgrade at the first jubilee, in which the 
 Serbs celebrated the virtual independence of their country. Elderly 
 persons there were who had felt the oppression and survived the 
 barbarities of the Turkish rule: every child had heard from its 
 parents of the wrongs which at length had driven the people to insur- 
 rection, and had been the means of procuring their liberty. Many 
 whom I saw had witnessed the impalement of thirty-seven young men 
 on the slope of the fortress of Belgrade, of which Ranke speaks, and 
 had heard the cries of the tortured and dying men, and shared in the 
 other wrongs which maddened Servia and drove it to renew the war, 
 which ended happily in its independence. You may therefore imagine 
 the universal joy which reigned throughout Servia at this anniversary 
 of the accomplishment of its freedom. All the country flocked to 
 Belgrade, trade was at a standstill, it was a universal holiday. At the 
 sound of the cannon which proclaimed the festival, every European 
 flag was hoisted before the doors of the respective consulates save 
 that of England. England had no congratulations to offer to a free 
 people. As though this insult was not enough, the day after, when 
 Belgrade had resumed its usual state of quietness, and all flags were 
 struck, the English flag was hoisted in derision, and remained so until,.
 
 12 
 
 to calm the excitement of the Serbs at this unmannerly insult, the 
 Servian Minister sent and requested that it should be pulled down. 
 Is this treatment which a high-minded people ought to endure ? Is 
 this conduct worthy of England? Is this the way we are checking 
 "Russian intrigues ?" Is it not the way by which Russia is saved the 
 need of intriguing, even if she desired to intrigue ? 
 
 G. I had never heard of this affair of the flags ; I am sorry to 
 know it now. It does seem to me strange and impolitic. However, 
 you will not deny that Russia does secretly intrigue in these countries 1 
 
 D. What is done "secretly" can hardly be denied or indeed 
 asserted with any right. To talk of secret intrigues is to confess that 
 we are talking about that of which we have no proof, which it is as 
 easy to assert as to deny. 
 
 G. Well, I did not lay stress upon "secretly." I suppose it is granted 
 that Russia does intrigue and foster discontent in these provinces ? 
 
 D. I also will lay no stress on "secretly;" you have, however, only 
 used a word which some people are ever using. I don't know anything 
 about intrigues. It is the nature of an "intrigue" to be secret and 
 clandestine. The French accuse, or did accuse, the English of 
 perpetual intrigues ; and "perfide Albion" has passed into an accepted 
 form of speech with them. The Russians suspect and charge us with 
 intriguing ; I am not sure that the Americans would not join in the 
 cry. They may be all wrong ; but I know no principle which will 
 always make foreign nations wrong in their accusations of us, and 
 we always right in our charges against them. But suppose I grant 
 the probability of these intrigues, and that Russia does "foster 
 discontent in these provinces." To foster discontent implies that 
 discontent already exists ; you cannot foster what has no existence. 
 If so, and we were able to remove discontent, would there be any 
 room for intrigues ? It is the existence of this chronic state of dis- 
 content which makes an intrigue possible, and if we were to interfere 
 between the Porte and its subjects so far as to cause the governing 
 body to remove the grounds, the ample grounds, for discontent among 
 its subjects, we should provide not only for the well-being of these 
 poor oppressed people, but effectually check any movement of Russian 
 aggrandisement and prevent the success of any Russian intrigue. 
 You cannot persuade a well-governed people that it is ill-governed, 
 any more than you can make a full person believe that he is 
 starving from hunger. It is only the wretched misgovernment of 
 the Turkish provinces which makes it possible for Russia to intrigue, 
 if she does so. Therefore again I say, if Russia is intriguing in these 
 provinces, the foreign policy of England is the most strange and 
 senseless that can be imagined, the most calculated to realise what 
 we affect to fear, and to defeat its ends.
 
 13 
 
 G. But then, granting the truth of much that you say, you put out 
 of sight the incapacity of the Christian races for rule, so that we come 
 back to what we started from. If you put out the Turks, who can 
 take their place ? 
 
 D. Is it true that the Christian people of Bulgaria, Bosnia, and 
 other provinces are unfit to rule ? I ask you to look at Servia, which 
 has been at peace, and has made solid progress, ever since its virtual 
 independence. It has made greater advances in education, relatively 
 speaking, than we have. A school, well provided with the necessary 
 school apparatus, is to be found in ever}^ village. The children are 
 well taught. I remember strolling accidentally one day into a school, 
 to which I was attracted by hearing the hum of the multiplication- 
 table. My visit was wholly unexpected. A little boy happened to 
 be standing by the master's desk, repeating his lesson in geography. 
 Turning from the actual lesson, the master began to ask the little 
 village lad questions as to Enghsh geography ; and I venture to say 
 that no lad taken at random in an English school could have ap- 
 proached this lad in his knowledge of geography. Then as to the 
 fruits of their teaching, I appeal to all who know anything of the Serb 
 agricultural labourers and they will own their superiority, as a class, 
 to those of our own country. But I need not dwell on this. They 
 have proved their capacity for rule, and from them we may fairly 
 infer that the Serb districts under the Turkish yoke will acquit them- 
 selves as well when they also are free. Experience warrants us in this 
 conclusion. I ask you, again, to consider Roumania. There it is 
 confessed, though the elements of society were far more corrupt than 
 they are in Bulgaria, yet since the withdrawal of Turkish pashas 
 and Turkish troops the growth and improvement of the country have 
 been marvellous. Therefore, judging by the past, I conclude that the 
 people of Turkey are not so unfit, even for immediate freedom, as 
 many persons allege. Certain I am that every year they remain under 
 the degrading yoke of Turkey they are rendered more unfit for 
 eventual rule. But you forget one thing. Experience is better than 
 theory ; fact is superior to imagination. You don't think the Bulga- 
 rians fit to rule. You think Bulgaria free might be a spectacle of 
 misgovernment ? 
 
 G. Others think so. I have had no experience which would 
 warrant me in saying whether the Bulgarians would be fit for self- 
 government or the reverse. I can only rely on the judgment of others. 
 
 D. But the others who say so — have they experience ? Have the 
 Bulgarians ever failed in this way ? 
 
 G. No, for the best of all reasons: they have not misgoverned 
 their country because they have had no opportunities of governing. 
 
 D. And the Turks — have they governed or misgoverned Bulgaria ?
 
 14 
 
 G. Well, I can't deny that there has been much misrule. I have 
 said that before. 
 
 D. Then it comes to this. You know the Turks have misruled. 
 You know from the past they do not govern, but misgovern. At the 
 worst, the Bulgarians could only do the same, and therefore we cannot 
 -change for the worse : but we have no reason to believe they would 
 be incapable of managing their own affairs. All experience is against 
 the Turks, no experience is against the Bulgarians ; and in such 
 a matter again I say, " A handful of experience is worth a wagon-load 
 of conjectures." Many faults these people of Turkey no doubt have ; 
 but in their case the maxim is surely applicable, "The faults of the 
 people are the crimes of their governors." Slavery makes people 
 cringing ; it compels them to lie ; it makes them lazy, since they 
 have no security that they may reap the harvest of their industry ; it 
 implants and then fosters many evils ; but this is the strongest of all 
 reasons why slavery should end ; and when the material evils of 
 slavery have been removed, then only may we hope that the taint of 
 slavery will also be removed from the heart of the slave. 
 
 G. Well, you have not answered my question. How are we 
 driving these people into the arms of Russia ? 
 
 D. By our injustice toward them ; by our transparent partiality for 
 their oppressors. This is doing what you attribute to Russia. We 
 are prolonging the misery of our fellow-Christians. We encourage 
 the Turk in his wrong-doing toward them, and that is as unchristian 
 as it is impolitic. Continue to satisfy the Turk, as we are doing, that 
 no act of atrocity, however great, will ever induce England to use 
 coercion, and we shall have repetitions of Bulgarian and Syrian 
 massacres. Once satisfy the Christian people, as we have almost 
 done, that there is no hope for them from England, that we are not 
 deaf only but dead to their cries, and then they must in their misery 
 turn elsewhere for help, and may at length get over their repugnance 
 to Russia, and throw themselves into her arms. 
 
 G. But surely you would not have us go to war as the allies of 
 Russia ? 
 
 D. Thank God, the attitude of the English people will not allow of 
 our going to war as the ally of Turkey. But in reply to your question, 
 I say the determination to go to war would effectually preserve 
 peace. 
 
 G. Yet the Turks showed by their spirit at the Conference 
 that they would resist interference, that they would not endure 
 coercion. 
 
 D. They did so, but then the instructions to Lord Salisbury were 
 that no word as to coercion was to be used, and this the Turks soon 
 knew. Now tell me what would be the power of a policeman in the
 
 15 
 
 midst of a mob, if it were known beforehand that his power was 
 limited to persuasion, and that he was forbidden on any account to 
 use his truncheon or to arrest an offender. The knowledge that if he 
 sees fit he may use his truncheon and carry off an offender is the best 
 means by which he is able to keep the peace. It is so with Turkey. 
 Had they not known that coercion was not to be resorted to, they 
 would have done what was required, the demands of Europe would 
 have been deferred to, and the peace of Europe would have been 
 assured. 
 
 Well, said my friend, rising from his seat and folding his news- 
 paper, I don't say that you have convinced me, but I own you have 
 given me something to think about, and that I am not so sure as I 
 was on two or three points as when you came up. I shall be glad to 
 talk this matter over again when I have thought more upon it. 
 
 D. And in the meantime 
 
 G. Well, I'll think over what you have been saying. I promise 
 you so much. 
 
 And thus our conversation ended.
 
 Eifl
 
 ^-TT^ 
 
 \ 
 
 ■\, 
 
 m%