Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

"The peace of Adrianople (1829) had greatly discredited the
authority of the Porte; insurrections multiplied, and Turkish
armies had to enter Bosnia and Albania. In these and all other
matters by which the embarrassment of the Porte was increased,
the ambitious Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt, had a hand. As
payment for his services against the Greeks, he had demanded
the pashalik of Damascus. Sultan Mahmoud II. had refused the
demand, and only given him the promised Candia. Hence, while
the Western powers were occupied with the consequences of the
July revolution [in France], and all Europe appeared to be on
the verge of a new upheaval, he undertook to seize his booty
for himself. In consequence of a quarrel with Abdallah, Pasha
of Acre, Ibrahim Pasha [son of Mehemed Ali], notorious for his
barbarous conduct of the war in Peloponnesus, crossed the
Egyptian frontier, October 20th, 1831, with an army organized
on the European system, took Gaza, Jaffa and Jerusalem without
resistance, and besieged Acre, which was resolutely defended
by Abdallah. Mehemed Ali now demanded both pashaliks—Damascus
and Acre. The sultan commanded him to evacuate Syria. The
demand was naturally refused; so Mehemed and his son Ibrahim
were outlawed. But the latter proceeded with his operations,
took Acre by storm May 25th, 1832, and entered Damascus. In
the mean time, a Turkish army, under Hussein Pasha, had
advanced into Syria. Mehemed Pasha, Hussein's lieutenant, was
defeated at Homs, July 9th. Hussein himself, attempting to
retrieve this loss, was defeated at Beylan July 27th, and his
army scattered. The sultan sent a new army against Ibrahim,
under Reshid Pasha, the Grand Vizier, who had displayed great
efficiency in the reduction of the Albanians and Bosnians.
Reshid … was utterly defeated at Konieh December 20th, and was
himself taken prisoner. The sultan was in a critical
situation. He could not at the moment bring together another
considerable army, while Ibrahim had 100,000 well-trained
troops, and the road to Constantinople lay open before him."
Russia, having no wish to see the energetic Pasha of Egypt in
possession of that coveted capital, offered her help to the
sultan and he was driven to accept it. "A Russian fleet
appeared in the Bosphorus, and landed troops at Scutari, while
a Russian army was on the march from the Danube to cover
Constantinople. … At length England and France perceived how
dangerous it was to forget the East in their study of the
Dutch-Belgian question. Their ambassadors had enough to do, by
a hasty peace, to make Russia's help unnecessary. As their
threats made no impression on the victorious Mehemed Ali, they
filled the sultan with distrust of Russia, and by representing
a cession of territory to his vassal as the lesser of the two
evils, persuaded him into the peace of Kutayah (May 6th,
1833), by which Mehemed Ali received the whole of Syria and
the territory of Adana, in south-eastern Asia Minor. Russia
had to retire with her object unattained, but had no sooner
been thrown out at the front door than she came in at the
back. She called the sultan's attention to the favor shown to
the insatiable pasha by England and France in the peace of
Kutayah, and concluded with him, July 8th, 1833, the treaty of
Unkiar-Skelessi, by which he entered into a defensive alliance
with Russia for eight years, and pledged himself to permit no
foreign vessel of war to pass through the Dardanelles. The
Western powers took this outwitting very ill, and from that
time on kept a sharp eye on Constantinople." Mehemed Ali was
meantime giving another direction to his ambition. "The west
coast of Arabia, as far as the English post at Aden, had been
in his possession since 1829. He now sought to extend his sway
over the eastern coast, and subdue the sultan of Muscat. … If
this were to continue, the two most important roads to the
East Indies, by Suez and by the Persian Gulf, would be in the
hands of Mehemed Ali. … With Egypt, Syria, and Arabia in his
hands, England's position in the East would receive a blow
that must be felt. So it was a foregone conclusion which side
England would take. In 1838 she concluded with the Porte a
commercial treaty by which the abolition of all monopolies, as
well as free exportation from all parts of the Turkish empire,
including Egypt and Syria, was secured to her. Mehemed Ali
hesitated about accepting this treaty; and Mahmoud, full of
hate against a vassal who threatened ultimately to devour him,
declared him a traitor, deprived him of all his dignities, and
caused an army to advance into Syria under Hasiz Pasha. But
again fortune was not favorable to the Turks. In their camp,
as military adviser of the commander-in-chief, was a Prussian
captain, Hellmuth von Moltke. For two years he had been
assisting the sultan in planning and putting into execution
military reforms. Recognizing the weakness and unreliable
character of the Turkish army, he advised Hasiz Pasha to fall
back on the strong camp at Biridshik, bring up the
re-enforcements which were under way, and then risk a battle.
But the Pasha would not listen to Moltke's advice, pronouncing
retreat a disgrace. He was completely routed at Nisib, on the
Euphrates, June 24th, 1839, and his army scattered. For the
second time the road to Constantinople lay open to Ibrahim.
Misfortunes fell thick and fast upon the Turks. Sultan Mahmoud
died June 30th, and the empire fell to a sixteen-year old
youth, his son Abdul Medshid. Five days later, Capudan Pasha,
with the Turkish fleet, sailed out of the Dardanelles under
orders to attack the Egyptians. Instead of this he went over
to Mehemed Ali with his whole fleet—in consequence of French
bribery, it was said. … In order to prevent Turkey from
casting herself a second time into Russia's arms, four great
powers—England, France, Austria, and Prussia—declared, July
27th, 1839, that they would themselves take the Eastern
question in hand.
{3152}
To save herself from being wholly left out, Russia had to give
her consent, and become a party to the treaty. But there were
very different views as to the way in which the question was
to be settled. France, which was striving after the control of
the Mediterranean, and which, since Napoleon's campaign, had
turned its eyes toward Egypt, wished to leave its friend
Mehemed Ali in full possession. England saw her interests
endangered by the pasha, thought France's occupation of
Algiers quite enough, and was afraid that if Turkey were too
weak she might become the defenceless prey of Russia. The
latter wished at no price to allow the energetic pasha to
enter upon the inheritance of Turkey, or even of a part of it,
and was pleased at seeing the cordial understanding between
France and England destroyed. Austria and Prussia supported
England and Russia, and so France was left alone. The
Anglo-Russian view found expression in the quadruple alliance
which the great powers, with the exception of France,
concluded in London, July 15th, 1840. By this the hereditary
possession of the pashalik of Egypt, and the possession for
life of a part of Syria, were secured to Mehemed Ali, in case
he submitted to the conclusions of the conference within ten
days. … The allied powers began hostilities against Mehemed
Ali, who, relying on French assistance, refused to submit. The
Anglo-Austrian fleet sailed to the Syrian coast, and took
Beirut and Acre; and Alexandria was bombarded by Commodore
Napier. This and the fall of the Thiers ministry brought
Mehemed Ali to a full realization of his mistake. He might
consider himself lucky in being allowed to hold Egypt as
hereditary pashalik upon evacuating Syria, Arabia, and Candia,
and restoring the Turkish fleet. For this favor he had to
thank England, which sought by this means to secure his
friendship and the Suez road to India. The catastrophe of the
'sick man' [the Turk] was again put off for a few years."

_W. Müller,
Political History of Recent Times,
section 11._

ALSO IN:
_A. A. Paton,
History of the Egyptian Revolution,
volume 2, chapters 1-20._

_C. A. Fyffe,
History of Modern Europe,
volume 2, chapter 6._

_S. Walpole,
History of England from 1815,
chapter 16 (volume 3)._

TURKS: A. D. 1839.
Accession of Abdul Medjid.

TURKS: A. D. 1853-1856.
The Crimean War.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

A. D. 1861-1876.
The reign of Abd-ul-Aziz, and accession of Abd-ul-Hamid.

"Troubles broke out in the Lebanon in 1860, a French army was
dispatched to restore order, and in the adjustment of rival
claims an opportunity was afforded to Lord Dufferin for
displaying those diplomatic talents for which he is renowned.
In 1861 the Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid died, and with him passed away
the hope of regenerating Turkey. His brother and successor
Abd-ul-Aziz was an ignorant bigot, whose extravagance brought
his country to avowed insolvency (1875), and thus deprived her
of that sympathy which is seldom given to the impecunious. The
only remarkable thing he did was to travel. No Ottoman Sultan
had ever before left his own dominions, except on the war
path, but Abd-ul-Aziz ventured even as far as London, without,
however, awakening any enthusiasm on the part of his Allies.
In 1876 he was deposed, and—found dead. How he came by his
death is a matter of doubt, but his end is said to have turned
the brain of his successor, Murad V., a son of Abd-ul-Mejid,
who after three months was removed as an imbecile, and
succeeded by his brother, … Abd-ul-Hamid."

_S. Lane-Poole,
The Story of Turkey,
chapter 17._

TURKS: A. D. 1861-1877.
Union of Wallachia and Moldavia.
Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Reforms demanded by the Great Powers.
War with Servia.
Conference at Constantinople.
Russian preparations for war.

"Before four years were over [after the termination of the
Crimean War by the Treaty of Paris], one of the chief
stipulations of the treaty was set aside. Wallachia and
Moldavia, which it had been the policy of the Powers to
separate, displayed a constant desire to join. Two of the
great Continental Powers—France and Russia—favoured the
junction. England, Austria, and Turkey, thinking that the
union would ultimately lead to their independence, opposed
their fusion under one prince. At last, after discussions,
which at one moment seemed likely to rekindle the flames of
war, an administrative union was arranged, which resulted, in
due course, in the formal union of the two provinces in 1861.
[In 1858, the two provinces chose the same prince, or
hospodar, in the person of Prince John Couza, who took the
title of Prince of Roumania. The Porte protested, but was
induced, in 1861, to recognize this union of the coronets.
Prince Couza aspired to absolutism, and was forced to abdicate
in 1866. Then a German, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern, was
chosen by the two provinces to be his successor.] Thus, five
years after the Peace of Paris, one of the stipulations on
which England had insisted was surrendered. In 1870 the
Franco-German War led to the obliteration of another of them.
In November, when the armies of France were either beaten or
besieged, Russia repudiated the clause of the Treaty of Paris
which had limited the forces of Russia and Turkey in the Black
Sea. The declaration of the Russian Government came as a
painful shock to the British people. The determination of a
great European state to tear up the clause of a treaty excited
indignation. It was recollected, moreover, that it was for the
sake of this clause that the Crimean War had been prolonged
after the Vienna negotiations; and that all the blood which
had been shed, and all the money which had been spent, after
the spring of 1855, were wasted in its abandonment. … All that
diplomacy was able to do was to lessen the shock by persuading
the Russian Government to submit its proposal for the
abrogation of the clause to a conference. … The conference
met. … It had practically nothing to do but to record its
assent to the Russian proposal. … For five years more the
Eastern Question remained undisturbed. In the spring of 1875
an insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, two of
the northern provinces of European Turkey. The Porte failed to
quench the disturbance; and, its efforts to do so increasing
its pecuniary embarrassments, was forced in the autumn to
repudiate the claims of its many creditors. … In the meanwhile
the insurrection continued to spread, and attracted the
attention of the great European Powers.
{3153}
At the instigation of Austria a note was drawn up [by Count
Andrassy, and known, therefore, as the Andrassy Note], which
was at once signed by all the European Powers except England,
and which was ultimately accepted by England also, declaring
that 'the promises of reform made by the Porte had not been
carried into effect, and that some combined action by the
Powers of Europe was necessary to insist on the fulfilment of
the many engagements which Turkey had made and broken.' As the
note failed to effect its object, the representatives of the
Northern Powers—Germany, Austria, and Russia—met at Berlin,
proposed a suspension of arms for two months, and intimated
that if Turkey in the two months failed to fulfil her broken
promises, 'force would be used to compel her' to do so. The
British Government, unwilling to join in a threat, refused to
sign this new note. The insurrection went on; Servia,
sympathising with the insurgents, declared war against Turkey;
Russian officers and Russian troops fought in the Servian
battalions; and Russia herself, setting her legions in motion,
evidently prepared for hostilities. When these events
occurred, large numbers of the English people were prepared to
support the Turk. Though they had been partially estranged
from the cause of Turkey by the repudiation of the Ottoman
debt in the previous autumn, they recollected the sacrifices
of the Crimean War; they were irritated with the manner in
which one part of the Treaty of Paris had been torn up in
1870; and they were consequently prepared to resist any
further movement on the part of Russia. The Porte, however,
dreading the extension of revolt, allowed its officers to
anticipate disorder by massacre. The atrocious cruelty with
which this policy was executed [especially in Bulgaria—see
BALKAN and DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878] excited a general
outburst of indignation in this country [England]; and the
British Ministry, whose leader had hitherto displayed much
sympathy with the Turks, found himself forced to observe a
strict neutrality. In the short war which ensued in the autumn
of 1876, the Servian troops proved no match for the Turkish
battalions. At the request or command of Russia the Porte was
forced to grant an armistice to the belligerents; and, on the
suggestion of the British Ministry, a Conference of the Great
Powers was held at Constantinople to provide for the better
government of the Turkish provinces. The Constantinople
Conference, held at the beginning of 1877, formed in many
respects an exact parallel to the Vienna Conference held in
the summer of 1855. … The Porte rejected all the proposals on
which the other Powers were agreed. … In each case the failure
of the Conference was followed by war. But the parallel ends
at this point. … In the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, Turkey
was left to fight her own battle alone."

_S. Walpole,
Foreign Relations,
chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
volume 1, chapters 1-10._

_Duke of Argyll,
The Eastern Question,
volume 1, chapters 3-9._

_S. Menzies,
Turkey Old and New,
book 4. chapter 4 (volume 2)._

TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
War with Russia.
Heroic defense of Plevna.
Defeat and surrender.

"Russia had already massed large numbers of troops on her
frontier, and Turkey was also engaged in the work of
mobilization. On the 24th April the Emperor of Russia issued a
manifesto to his subjects, in which he recited the interest of
the empire in the Christian population of the Balkan
peninsula, and the general desire that their condition should
be ameliorated. He declared that all efforts at peace had been
exhausted. … He had given the orders for the army to cross the
frontier, and the advance upon Turkey was begun without delay.
… The Turks had not been idle, though their preparations were
by no means as complete as those of Russia. They had massed
heavy bodies of troops along the Danube, and were prepared to
resist the movements of the Russians south of that stream. …
The first crossing [of the Russians] was made at Galatz, on
the 22d June, by General Zimmermann, who went over with two
regiments in pontoons and drove out the Turks who were posted
on the heights on the opposite shore. Having obtained a
footing in the Dobrudja, as the peninsula between the Danube
and Black Sea is called, the Russians were able to throw
bridges over the great stream, by which the whole left wing of
the army moved across. Meantime the right wing, on the 26th
June, sent a pontoon force over the Danube from Simnitza,
under command of General Skobeleff, who drove out the small
force of Turks posted there, though not without hard fighting.
More pontoons followed, and then a bridge was thrown across on
which the army could march. … By the first week of July the
whole Russian army was safely encamped on the southern bank of
the Danube, and getting in readiness to assume the offensive.
… The advance did not begin in force until after the middle of
the month. But before that time General Gourko … had pushed
forward on the road to the Balkans, heading first for Tirnova.
… On the 5th July the cavalry occupied Biela, … and on the 7th
Gourko was in possession of Tirnova. … The Emperor joined the
army at Biela on the 8th or 9th. Gourko was soon reported past
the Balkans. … The first check of the Russians was at Plevna.
They had previously captured Nicopolis with its garrison of
7,000 men, having themselves lost about 1,300 officers and men
killed and wounded. Orders had been given to occupy Plevna as
soon as possible, and Baron Krudener sent forward General
Schilder-Schuldner to carry out the orders. …
Schilder-Schuldner had 6,500 men and 46 guns in the division
with which he went to capture Plevna; he was attacked by a
vastly superior force of Turks before he had reached his
objective point, and the first battle of Plevna was disastrous
to the Russians. … Nearly 3,000 men and 74 officers were
killed or wounded. … The Russians retired to Nicopolis, and
the Turks set to work to strengthen Plevna. … From the 20th to
the 30th of July the Russians were engaged in bringing up
reinforcements and getting ready for another attack. An order
came for the assault of the Turkish position; Baron Krudener
did not believe the assault advisable, but the command of the
Grand Duke Nicholas left him no discretion." The assault was
made on the 31st of July, and was repulsed, with a loss to the
Russians of 170 officers and 7,136 men. "There was nothing for
the Russians to do but send for reinforcements, and wait until
they arrived. The advance into Turkey had received a severe
check, from which recovery was not easy. From the offensive
the Russians were thrown upon the defensive, and all as the
result of a single battle of six or eight hours' duration.
Happily for Russia, the Turkish army had no competent leader,
or the army of the Czar might have been captured or drowned in
the Danube.
{3154}
The Turks had three armies in the field. … Mehemet Ali was at
Shumla with 65,000 men; Osman Pasha at Plevna, with 50,000;
and Suleiman Pasha at Yeni Zagra, with 40,000. … The order of
the Czar for reinforcements was quickly issued, and resulted
in the despatch of 120,000 regulars and 180,000 militia for
the front. With these reinforcements went 460 pieces of
artillery. … General Gourko took up his position in the Shipka
Pass whence Suleiman Pasha sought in vain to dislodge him. …
Towards the end of August the Russian reinforcements were
assembled in such numbers that an advance could again be
ventured. … The total Russian and Roumanian force for the
attack of Plevna amounted to 90,000 men and 440 guns, while
the Turks were estimated to have about 56,000 men—and Osman
Pasha. … The attack began with a bombardment on the 6th
September," which was kept up until the 11th, when the
Russians again endeavored to carry the Turkish works by
assault. Skobeleff, conspicuous, as he always was, in daring
and in success, took one of the redoubts and held it until the
next day, waiting vainly for reinforcements which were not
sent. Elsewhere the assault failed. "The Russian killed and
wounded were estimated at 18,000 to 20,000, and the Turkish
about 5,000 less than the Russian. The capture by assault
having been given up, the Russians sat down to invoke the aid
of that engine, more powerful than all their batteries, the
engine of starvation. … One by one the roads leading into
Plevna were occupied, but it was nearly two months from the
terrible battle of the 11th September before the routes for
supplies and reinforcements destined for Osman Pasha could be
secured. The investment was completed on the 3d November;
120,000 Russians and Roumanians were around Plevna." On the
morning of December 10 the beleaguered Turks made a desperate
sortie, attempting to break the line of investment, having
failed in which their stout-hearted commander surrendered
unconditionally. "With the fall of Plevna and the surrender of
its garrison of 40,000 men, the Turkish opposition practically
ceased. Within a month from that event General Gourko had
captured Sophia, and General Radetsky took the village of
Shipka, in the Shipka Pass, and compelled the surrender of a
Turkish army of 23,000 men. … Gourko and Skobeleff advanced
upon Philippopolis by different routes and narrowly missed
capturing Suleiman Pasha with his entire force. Skobeleff
advanced upon Adrianople, which the Turks abandoned, and
Slivno and Yeni-Zagra were occupied, all inside of thirty
days. Plevna had made the Russians the masters of the
situation, and they advanced upon Constantinople, the Turks
retiring before them, and occasionally making a feeble
resistance. Turkey asked the mediation of England, and
finally, despairing of her aid, signed an armistice that
became the basis of the treaty of San Stefano."

_T. W. Knox,
Decisive Battles Since Waterloo,
chapter 21._

The campaign of the Russians in Bulgaria was accompanied by
another in Asiatic Turkey, where they, likewise, met with a
temporary check, after pushing their first advance too
confidently, and with an insufficient force. They invested
Kars and advanced against Erzeroum, in May, 1877; but were
defeated at Sevin and withdrew from both undertakings. Having
received reinforcements, they resumed the offensive in
October, attacking the main Turkish army, under Mukhtar Pasha,
in its strong position at Aladsha, or on the Little Yahni and
Great Yahni hills. Their first attack, on the 2d, was
repulsed; they repeated it on the 15th with success, driving
one wing of the enemy into Kars and forcing the other to
surrender. Kars was then besieged and taken by assault
November 17. The Turks suffered another defeat at Deve-Boyun,
near Erzeroum, November 4, and they evacuated Erzeroum itself
in February, 1878.

_E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War._

ALSO IN;
_V. Baker,
The War in Bulgaria._

_F. V. Greene,
The Russian Army and its Campaign in Turkey._

TURKS: A. D. 1878.
Excitement in England over the Russian advance.
The British fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

"At the opening of 1878 the Turks were completely prostrate.
The road to Constantinople was clear. Before the English
public had time to recover their breath and to observe what
was taking place, the victorious armies of Russia were almost
within sight of the minarets of Stamboul. Meanwhile the
English Government were taking momentous action. … Parliament
was called together at least a fortnight before the time usual
during recent years. The Speech from the Throne announced that
her Majesty could not conceal from herself that, should the
hostilities between Russia and Turkey unfortunately be
prolonged, 'some unexpected occurrence may render it incumbent
on me to adopt measures of precaution.' This looked ominous to
those who wished for peace, and it raised the spirits of the
war party. There was a very large and a very noisy war party
already in existence. It was particularly strong in London. It
embraced some Liberals as well as nearly all Tories. It was
popular in the music-halls and the public-houses of London. …
The men of action got a nickname. They were dubbed the Jingo
Party. … Some Tyrtæus of the tap-tub, some Körner of the
music-halls, had composed a ballad which was sung at one of
these caves of harmony every night amidst the tumultuous
applause of excited patriots. The refrain of this war-song
contained the spirit-stirring words:
'We don't want to fight,
but, by Jingo, if we do,
We've got the ships,
we've got the men,
we've got the money too.'

Some one whose pulses this lyrical outburst of national pride
failed to stir called the party of its enthusiasts the
Jingoes. … The name was caught up at once, and the party were
universally known as the Jingoes. … The Government ordered the
Mediterranean fleet to pass the Dardanelles and go up to
Constantinople. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that
he would ask for a supplementary estimate of six millions for
naval and military purposes. Thereupon Lord Carnarvon, the
Colonial Secretary, at once resigned. … Lord Derby was also
anxious to resign, and indeed tendered his resignation, but he
was prevailed upon to withdraw it. The fleet meanwhile was
ordered back from the Dardanelles to Besika Bay. It had got as
far as the opening of the Straits when it was recalled.
{3155}
The Liberal Opposition in the House of Commons kept on
protesting against the various war measures of the Government,
but with little effect. … While all this agitation in and out
of Parliament was going on … the news came that the Turks,
utterly broken down, had been compelled to sign an armistice,
and an agreement containing a basis of peace, at Adrianople.
Then, following quickly on the heels of this announcement,
came a report that the Russians, notwithstanding the
armistice, were pushing on towards Constantinople with the
intention of occupying the Turkish capital. A cry of alarm and
indignation broke out in London. One memorable night a sudden
report reached the House of Commons that the Russians were
actually in the suburbs of Constantinople. The House for a
time almost entirely lost its head. The lobbies, the
corridors, St. Stephen's Hall, the great Westminster Hall
itself, and Palace Yard beyond it, became filled with wildly
excited and tumultuous crowds. If the clamour of the streets
at that moment had been the voice of England, nothing could
have prevented a declaration of war against Russia. Happily,
however, it was proved that the rumour of Russian advance was
unfounded. The fleet was now sent in good earnest through the
Dardanelles, and anchored a few miles below Constantinople.
Russia at first protested that if the English fleet passed the
Straits Russian troops ought to occupy the city. Lord Derby
was firm, and terms of arrangement were found—English troops
were not to be disembarked, and the Russians were not to
advance. Russia was still open to negotiation. Probably Russia
had no idea of taking on herself the tremendous responsibility
of an occupation of Constantinople. She had entered into a
treaty with Turkey, the famous Treaty of San Stefano, by which
she secured for the populations of the Christian provinces
almost complete independence of Turkey, and was to create a
great new Bulgarian State with a seaport on the Egean Sea. The
English Government refused to recognise this Treaty. Lord
Derby contended that it involved an entire readjustment of the
Treaty of Paris, and that that could only be done with the
sanction of the Great Powers assembled in Congress. Lord
Beaconsfield openly declared that the Treaty of San Stefano
would put the whole south-east of Europe directly under
Russian influence. Russia offered to submit the Treaty to the
perusal, if we may use the expression, of a Congress; but
argued that the stipulations which merely concerned Turkey and
herself were for Turkey and herself to settle between them.
This was obviously an untenable position. … Turkey meanwhile
kept feebly moaning that she had been coerced into signing the
Treaty. The Government determined to call out the Reserves, to
summon a contingent of Indian troops to Europe, to occupy
Cyprus, and to make an armed landing on the coast of Syria. …
The last hope of the Peace Party seemed to have vanished when
Lord Derby left his office [which he did on the 28th of
March]. Lord Salisbury was made Foreign Minister. … Lord
Salisbury's first act in the office of Foreign Secretary was
to issue a circular in which he declared that it would be
impossible for England to enter a Congress which was not free
to consider the whole of the provisions of the Treaty of San
Stefano. … Prince Bismarck had often during these events shown
an inclination to exhibit himself in the new attitude of a
peaceful mediator. He now interposed again and issued
invitations for a congress to be held in Berlin to discuss the
whole contents of the Treaty of San Stefano. After some delay,
discussion, and altercation, Russia agreed to accept the
invitation on the conditions proposed, and it was finally
resolved that a Congress should assemble in Berlin on the
approaching June 13. To this Congress it was supposed by most
persons that Lord Salisbury would be sent to represent
England. Much to the surprise of the public, Lord Beaconsfield
announced that he himself would attend, accompanied by Lord
Salisbury, and conduct the negotiations in Berlin. The event
was, we believe, without precedent. … The Congress was held in
the Radzivill Palace, a building with a plain unpretending
exterior in one of the principal streets of Berlin, and then
in the occupation of Prince Bismarck. The Prince himself
presided. … The Congress discussed the whole or nearly the
whole of the questions opened up by the recent war. … The
great object of most of the statesmen who were concerned in
the preparation of the Treaty which came of the Congress, was
to open for the Christian populations of the south-east of
Europe a way into gradual self-development and independence.
But on the other hand it must be owned that the object of some
of the Powers, and especially, we are afraid, of the English
Government, was rather to maintain the Ottoman Government than
to care for the future of the Christian races. These two
influences, acting and counteracting on each other, produced
the Treaty of Berlin."

_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Time,
chapter 65 (volume 4)._

_ALSO IN: J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapter 16._

_H. D. Traill,
The Marquis of Salisbury,
chapter 11._

_R. Wilson,
Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
volume 2, chapter 21._

TURKS: A. D. 1878.
The Treaties of San Stefano and Berlin.

"The First Article of the Treaty of San Stefano had reference
to the new boundaries to be assigned to Montenegro. The
accession of territory, which was not very large, was taken
from the provinces of Bosnia and Albania, and lay to the
north, east, and south of the original State. … It gave to the
mountaineers their much-coveted admission to the sea. It was
next provided that a European Commission, on which the Sublime
Porte and the Government of Montenegro were to be represented,
should be charged with fixing the definite limits of the
Principality. … By Article II., the Sublime Porte recognized
definitively the independence of the Principality of
Montenegro. … Article III. dealt with Servia, which was
recognized as independent. The new frontier of this
Principality was to follow the course of the Drina, the
Dezevo, the Raska, the Ibar, the Morava, and some other
streams, and was drawn so as to give Little Zwornik, Zakar,
Leskovatz, Ak Palanka, and Nisch, to the Servians. … In
Article V., the Sublime Porte undertook to recognize the
independence of Roumania, which would thus acquire a right to
an indemnity, to be hereafter discussed between the two
countries. The most important sections of the Treaty were of
course those which had relation to Bulgaria. They commenced
with Article VI., which set forth that Bulgaria was
constituted an autonomous, tributary Principality, with a
Christian Government and a national militia.
{3156}
The definitive frontiers of the new Principality were to be
traced by a special Russo-Turkish Commission before the
evacuation of Roumelia by the Russian army. … The new Bulgaria
was of very considerable dimensions. It extended from the
Danube in the north to the Ægean in the south; and from the
borders of Albania in the west to the Black Sea in the east.
All that was left to Turkey in this part of her Empire was an
irregular and somewhat narrow territory, running westward from
Constantinople along the shores of the Sea of Marmora and the
Ægean until it touched the limits of the new Principality, and
extending no farther north than was sufficient to include
Adrianople and its immediate neighbourhood. By this
arrangement, the territory so left to the Sultan was
completely separated from Thessaly and Albania. … According to
Article VII., the Prince of Bulgaria was to be freely elected
by the people, and confirmed by the Sublime Porte with the
assent of the Powers. No member of the reigning dynasties of
the Great European Powers should be capable of being elected
Prince of Bulgaria. … The introduction of the new system into
Bulgaria, and the superintendence of its working, would be
entrusted for two years to an Imperial Russian Commissioner. …
By Article VIII., the Ottoman army would no longer remain in
Bulgaria, and all the ancient fortresses would be razed at the
expense of the local Government. … Until the complete
formation of a native militia, the country would be occupied
by Russian troops. … Article IX. declared that the amount of
the annual tribute which Bulgaria was to pay the Suzerain
Court would be determined by an agreement between Russia, the
Ottoman Government, and the other Cabinets. … By Article X.,
the Sublime Porte was to have the right to make use of
Bulgaria for the transport, by fixed routes, of its troops,
munitions, and provisions, to the provinces beyond the
Principality, and vice versa. … Article XII. provided that all
the Danubian fortresses should be razed, and that in future
there should be no strongholds on the banks of the Danube, nor
any men-of-war in the waters of Roumania, Servia, or Bulgaria.
… Article XIV. imposed on Turkey the obligation to introduce
reforms into Bosnia and the Herzegovina." Articles XV. and
XVI. stipulated reforms in government of Crete, Epirus,
Thessaly, Armenia, and other parts of the Ottoman Empire. "The
question of the war-indemnities was arranged in Article XIX.,
which set forth that the Emperor of Russia claimed, in all,
1,410,000,000 roubles for losses imposed on Russia during the
contest. … The Emperor, however, did not desire to receive the
whole of this indemnity in the form of money-payments, but,
taking into consideration the financial embarrassments of
Turkey, and acting in accordance with the wishes of the
Sultan, was willing to substitute for the greater part of the
sums enumerated certain territorial cessions, consisting of
the Sandjak of Tultcha, on the Danube (including the Delta
Islands and the Isle of Serpents), and, in Asia, Ardahan,
Kars, Batoum, Bayazid, and the territory extending as far as
the Soghanli Dagh. With respect to the Sandjak of Tultcha and
the Delta Islands, Russia, not wishing to annex that
territory, reserved to herself the right of exchanging it for
the part of Bessarabia detached from her by the Treaty of
1856. … The ceded territories in Europe and Asia were to be
taken as an equivalent for the sum of 1,100,000,000 roubles."
The remaining Articles of the Treaty of San Stefano related to
details of minor importance. "The Treaty of Berlin, signed by
the Plenipotentiaries on the 13th of July, 1878, and of which
the ratifications were exchanged on the 3rd of August, was the
Treaty of San Stefano, with additions, subtractions, and
amendments. … Speaking generally, it may be said that the
objects of the Treaty of Berlin, as distinguished from its
predecessor, were to place the Turkish Empire in a position of
independence, and to protect the jeopardised rights of Europe.
These ends it accomplished, or partially accomplished, by
several important provisions. It divided the so-called
Bulgaria into two provinces, of which the one to the north of
the Balkans was formed into a tributary Principality, while
the one to the south, which was to be designated Eastern
Roumelia, was to remain under the direct authority of the
Sultan, with administrative autonomy and a Christian
Governor-General. It left to the Sultan the passes of the
mountains, and the right of sending troops into the interior
of Eastern Roumelia whenever there might be occasion. It
reduced the stay of the Russian army in European Turkey. … It
secured to Roumania, as compensation for the loss of that
portion of Bessarabia which had been annexed to Moldavia by
the Treaty of Paris (1856), a larger amount of territory,
south of the Danube, than had been granted at San Stefano. It
restored to Turkey the whole of the northern shores of the
Ægean, a wide extent of country in Europe, and, in Asia, the
valley of Alashgerd and the town of Bayazid. … It gave far
ampler guarantees for religious liberty than had entered into
the projects of the Czar."

_E. Ollier,
Cassell's Illustrated History of the Russo-Turkish War,
volume 2, chapter 9 and 21._

"In her private agreement with Russia, England had consented
to the cession of Batoum, but she now sought to diminish the
value of that post by stipulating that the fortifications
should be demolished and the port declared free. The dispute,
which at one time assumed a serious character, was finally
settled by a declaration on the part of the Czar that Batoum
should be a free port. Kars, Ardahan, and Batoum were ceded to
Russia, the district of Khotur to Persia, and the Sultan
pledged himself to carry out the requisite reforms in Armenia
without loss of time, and to protect the inhabitants against
the Kurds and Circassians. At the same time a secret treaty
was made known which had been contracted between England and
Turkey on the 4th of June. By this treaty the Porte pledged
itself to carry out reforms in Asia Minor, and England, on her
part, guaranteed the integrity of the Sultan's Asiatic
possessions. To put England in a position to fulfil her part
of the treaty, and as a pledge for the execution of the
promised reforms, the Porte surrendered Cyprus to England as a
naval and military station, the latter agreeing to regard the
island as an integral part of the Turkish empire, and to make
over the surplus revenue to the Sultan. This treaty, which had
received the consent of Germany and Russia at the time of its
execution, aroused great indignation in France and Italy. … To
pacify the former state, Beaconsfield and Salisbury entered
into a secret arrangement with Waddington, in accordance with
which England was to put no obstacles in the way of a French
occupation of Tunis—an arrangement of which the French
government finally took advantage in the year 1881.
{3157}
The English representatives had also entered into an
arrangement with Austria in reference to Bosnia and
Herzegovina. In the sitting of June 29th Andrassy read a
memorandum in which he set forth that Austria had been
disturbed for a whole year by the insurrection in those
provinces, and had been compelled to receive and provide for
over 150,000 Bosnian fugitives, who positively refused again
to submit to the hardships of Turkish misrule; that Turkey was
not in a position to restore order in the disturbed districts.
… Thereupon the Marquis of Salisbury moved that Austria be
charged with the occupation and administration of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, and … the congress … decided to hand over those
two provinces to Austro-Hungary. … The independence of Servia
and Montenegro was recognized on condition that full freedom
and political equality were accorded to the members of all
religions. Servia received an addition to her population of
280,000 souls, her most important acquisition being the city
and fortress of Nish. She also assumed a part of the Turkish
debt. The recognition of Roumanian independence was
conditioned on the cession of Bessarabia to Russia, and the
admission to political equality of the members of all
religions—a condition which had special reference to the Jews.
In compensation for Bessarabia Roumania was to receive the
Dobrudsha and the islands at the mouth of the Danube. …
Austria took possession of her share of the booty at once, but
not without the most obstinate resistance."

_W. Müller,
Political History of Recent Times,
section 30._

ALSO IN:
_Sir E. Hertslet,
The Map of Europe by Treaty,
volume 4, Numbers 518, 524-532._

_Duke of Argyll,
The Eastern Question,
volume 2, chapter 13._

See, also, BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1878.

TURKS: A. D. 1894.
Reported Atrocities in Armenia.

A disturbance of some nature—the causes and extent of which
have not yet been ascertained—occurring in Turkish Armenia
during the late weeks of summer or early part of autumn, gave
occasion for what is claimed to have been more horrible
atrocities on the part of the Turkish soldiery than were
committed in Bulgaria during the year 1877. The scene of
alleged massacres is in the mountainous district of Sassoun,
near the western end of Lake Van, where 6,000 men, women and
children are said to have been slain. The Christian world
having been roused, though not very promptly, by the reports
of this fresh outbreak of barbarism, the Porte has been forced
by pressure from the Powers to consent to the formation of a
commission to investigate the affair. England, France and
Russia are to be represented on the commission.

----------TURKS: End--------

TURLUPINS, The.

See BEGUINES.

TURNER, Nat, The Insurrection of.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832.

TURONES, The.

A tribe in ancient Gaul who gave their name to Touraine, the
district which they inhabited, and to Tours, the chief town of
that district.

See GAULS; also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

----------TUSCANY:Start--------

TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115.
The founding of the duchy.
The reign of Countess Matilda.
The rise of the free cities.

"The first Lombard duke of whom any sure record remains is a
certain 'Alovisino' who flourished about the year 685; and the
last, though of more doubtful existence, is 'Tachiputo,' in
the 8th century, when Lucca was the principal seat of
government, with the privilege of coining, although her Counts
were not always Dukes and Marquises of Tuscany. About the year
800, the title of Duke seems to have changed to that of Count,
and although both are afterwards used the latter is most
common: Muratori says, that this dignity was in 813 enjoyed by
a certain Boniface whom Sismondi believes to be the ancestor
of Countess Matilda; but her father, the son of Tedaldo,
belonged to another race: he was the grandson to Attone, Azzo,
or Adelberto, Count of Cannosa. … The line of Boniface I.
finished in 1001 by the death of Hugo the Great. … After him,
on account of the civil wars between Ardoino and Henry, there
was no permanent Duke until 1014, when the latter appointed
Ranieri, whom Conrad the Salique deposed in 1027, making room
for Boniface the father of Countess Matilda. This heroine died
in 1115 after a reign of active exertion for herself and the
Church against the Emperors, which generated the infant and as
yet nameless factions of Guelph and Ghibeline. …

See 'War of Investitures,'
PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122]

The fearless assertion of her own independence by successful
struggles with the Emperor was an example not overlooked by
the young Italian communities under Matilda's rule. … These
seeds of liberty began first to germinate amongst the Lombard
plains, but quickly spreading over the Apennines were welcomed
throughout Tuscany. …

See ITALY: A. D. 1056-1152.

It seems probable that in Tuscany, towards the commencement of
the 12th century, the Count's authority had passed entirely
into the principal communities, leaving that of the Marquis as
yet untouched; but there are reasons for believing that the
Countess Matilda in some of her difficulties was induced to
sell or cede a portion of her power, and probably all that of
the Count's. … Altogether, there appears little reason to
doubt the internal freedom of most Tuscan cities very early in
the 11th century."

_H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
book 1, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_P. Villari,
The Two First Centuries of Florentine History,
volume I, chapter 2._

TUSCANY: A. D. 925-1020.
The rise of Pisa.

See PISA.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1063-1200.
Cultivation of architecture at Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1077-1115.
Countess Matilda and her Donation to the Holy See.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1215.
Beginning of the wars of Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1248-1278.
The Guelf and Ghibelline wars.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1248-1278.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1250-1293.
Development of the popular constitution
of the Florentine Commonwealth.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1282-1293.
War between Pisa and Genoa.
Battle of Meloria.
War of Florence and Lucca against Pisa.

See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.

{3158}

TUSCANY: A. D. 1300-1313.
The new factions of Florence.
Bianchi and Neri.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1295-1300; and 1301-1313.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1310-1313.
The visitation of the Emperor, Henry VII.
His war with the Guelfic cities.

See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1313-1328.
The wars of Florence and Pisa.
The subjection of Lucca to Castruccio Castracani
and his war with the Florentines.
The hostile visitation of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria.

See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

TUSCANY: A. D 1336-1338.
War of Florence with Mastino della Scala, of Verona.

See VERONA: A. D. 1260-1338.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1341-1343.
Defeat of the Florentines by the Pisans before Lucca.
Brief tyranny of the Duke of Athens at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1341-1343.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1353-1359.
Sufferings and deliverance from "the Great Company."

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1378-1427.
The democratizing of Florence.
The Tumult of the Ciompi.
First appearances of the Medici.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1378-1427.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1390-1402.
Resistance of Florence to the conquests of the Duke of Milan.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1390-1402.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1433-1464.
The ascendancy of Cosimo de' Medici at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1452-1454.
War of Florence and Milan against Venice, Naples,
Siena and other states.

See MILAN: A. D. 1447-1454.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1469-1492.
The government of Lorenzo de' Medici, the Magnificent,
at Florence.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1469-1492.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1494-1509.
The French deliverance of Pisa.
The long struggle and reconquest by Florence.

See PISA: A. D. 1494-1509.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1502-1569.
Restoration of the Medici in Florence and
their creation of the grand duchy of Tuscany.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1502-1569.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1725.
Reversion of the grand duchy pledged to the Infant of Spain.

See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1735.
Reversion of the duchy secured to the ex-Duke of Lorraine.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1733-1735;
and ITALY: A. D.1715-1735.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1796.
Seizure of Leghorn by the French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (APRIL-OCTOBER).

TUSCANY: A. D. 1801.
The grand duchy transformed into the Kingdom of Etruria
and given to the son of the Duke of Parma.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1807.
End of the Kingdom of Etruria.
Cession and annexation to France.

See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1807.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1814-1815.
Restored to Ferdinand III.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF;
and ITALY: A. D. 1814-1815.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1848-1849.
Revolution.
Expulsion of the Grand Duke.
Proclamation of a Republic and union with Rome.
The old order restored.

See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

TUSCANY: A. D. 1859-1861.
Flight of the Grand Duke.
Formation of a provisional government.
Annexation to Sardinia.
Absorption in the new Kingdom of Italy.

See ITALY: A. D. 1856-1859; and 1859-1861.

----------TUSCANY: End--------

TUSCARORAS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

TUSCULAN VILLAS.

"In Cicero's time the number of country-houses which a wealthy
Roman considered it necessary to possess had evidently become
considerable, and the amount spent upon them very great. The
orator himself had villas at Tusculum, Antium, Formiæ, Bairn,
and Pompeii, besides his town-house on the Palatine, and his
family seat at Arpinum. … The Tusculanum of Cicero had
formerly been in the possession of Sylla. … Close to the Villa
of Cicero, and so near that he could go across to fetch books
from the library, was the Villa of Lucullus. … Many other
Roman villas, lay on the Tusculan hills."

_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14, part 3._

TUSCULUM.

"In the times of the Latin League, from the fall of Alba to
the battle of Lake Regillus, Tusculum was the most prominent
town in Latium. It suffered, like the other towns in Latium, a
complete eclipse during the later Republic and the Imperial
times; but in the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth
centuries, under the Counts of Tusculum, it became again a
place of great importance and power, no less than seven popes
of the house of Tusculum having sat in the chair of St.
Peter." The ruins of Tusculum, about fifteen miles from Rome,
on the Alban hills, have been considerably explored.

_R. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna,
chapter 14, part 2._

See, also, ALBA.

TUTELOES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

TUTTLINGEN, DÜTLINGEN, Battle of (1643).

See GERMANY: A. D. 1643-1644.

TWEED RING, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1863-1871.

TWELVE APOSTLES OF IRELAND.

See CLONARD, MONASTERY OF.

TWELVE CÆSARS, The.

See ROME: A. D. 68-96.

TWELVE PEERS OF FRANCE.

The Twelve Peers of France were the nobles and prelates "who
held the great fiefs immediately from the Crown. … Their
number had been fixed by Louis VII. at twelve; six lay and six
ecclesiastical. They were the Dukes of Normandy, Burgundy,
Guienne, the Counts of Champagne, Flanders, Toulouse; the
Archbishop of Rheims, and the Bishops of Laon, Noyon, Châlons,
Beauvais and Langres. … The immediate vassals of the Duchy of
France, who held of the King as Duke, not as King, were not
Peers of France."

_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 6, with foot-note._

TWELVE TABLES OF THE LAW, The.

See ROME: B. C. 451-449.

TWENTY-SECOND PRAIRIAL, Law of the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (JUNE-JULY).

TWIGGS, General, Treacherous surrender of.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860-1861 (DECEMBER-FEBRUARY).

TWIGHTWEES, OR MIAMIS, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
also ILLINOIS AND MIAMIS, and SACS, ETC.

TWILLER, Wouter Van, The governorship of.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1638-1647.

{3159}

TWO SICILIES, The Kingdom of the.

The kingdom founded in Southern Italy and Sicily by the Norman
conquest in the 11th century (see ITALY: A. D. 1000-1090, and
1081-1194) maintained its existence until recent times,
sometimes as a unit, and sometimes divided into the two
dominions, insular and peninsular, of Sicily and Apulia, or
Naples. The division occurred first after the rising against
the French and the massacre known as "the Sicilian Vespers".

See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.

The crown of Sicily was then acquired by Peter, king of
Aragon, succeeded by his son Frederick. Charles of Anjou and
his successors were left in possession of the kingdom of
Naples, alone, although still claiming Sicily in union with
it. "As the king who reigned at Naples would not give up his
right to Sicily, … his kingdom is often called Sicily as well
as the Island Kingdom; and so when at last the two kingdoms
became one [again-see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447], the strange
name of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies arose."

_W. Hunt,
History of Italy,
page 93._

See, also, NAPLES, and SICILY.

TYCHE.

One of the variously named parts of the ancient city of
Syracuse, Sicily. Its position was northwest of Achradina.

TYCOON, SHOGUN.

See JAPAN: SKETCH OF HISTORY.

TYLER. John:
Vice-Presidential election.
Succession to the Presidency.
Administration.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1840, to 1845.

TYLER, Wat, The Rebellion of.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1381.

TYLIS, Celtic Empire of.

"The empire of Tylis in the Haemus, which the Celts, not long
after the death of Alexander [the Great], and nearly at the
same time with their permanent settlement in Asia Minor, had
founded in the Moeso-Thracian territory, destroyed the seed of
Greek civilisation within its sphere, and itself succumbed
during the Hannibalic war to the assaults of the Thracians,
who extirpated these intruders to the last man."

_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome,
book 8, chapter 7._

TYNDARIS, Naval battle at (B. C. 257).

See PUNIC WARS: THE FIRST.

TYNWALD, Court of.

See MANX KINGDOM;
and, also, THING.

TYRANTS, Greek.