Chapter XIX: , page 276 (7)

Early in 1904 the mission moved forward, over the Tang Pass,
to Tuna, where it halted again until the end of March, no
envoys appearing, but many marks of hostility shown. Then,
after being reinforced,—as the intention of Tibetans to oppose
its further advance had become plain,—its march was resumed.
Thrice attacked within the next few days and forced to severe
fighting, it reached Gyangtse on the 11th of April, where it
was halted again until near the end of June, in a camp
established on the plain. There Colonel Younghusband received
a communication from the Chinese Resident or Amban at Lhasa,
promising to meet him in three weeks. This was followed
immediately however by a fierce attack of the Tibetans on the
British camp. The assault was repelled, but bombardment of the
camp was opened from a neighboring fort. The Mission now
abandoned attempts to maintain its peaceful character, and
with approval of the governments behind it, both in India and
Great Britain, prepared to force its way to Lhasa and extort
fulfilment of the promises on the strength of which it had
been sent. General Macdonald, who held the military command,
brought up further reinforcements, and the expedition, now
numbering about 1000 British and 2000 native troops, after
capturing the fort at Gyangtse which had harassed it, set
forth on its march to Lhasa July 14th. It met with slight
resistance in the Karola Pass, across which a wall had been
built; but otherwise it found little but the natural obstacles
of the mountain country to overcome. Lhasa was reached, but
not entered in force, on August 3d. The Dalai Lama had left
the city, but had appointed an intelligent monk to act as
regent in his place. With him and with the Chinese Amban
Colonel Younghusband succeeded in negotiating the treaty
desired, which was signed September 7th. As soon as possible
thereafter the expedition started on its return, but suffered
severely from the cold and snows of the mountains before India
was reached. Its total death roll was 411, of which only 37
officers and men had died from battle-wounds.

By the treaty secured, the Tibetan Government was pledged to
carry out former agreements concerning the marking of
boundaries and the opening of trade at three marts; to arrange
a fixed tariff; to maintain certain roads from the frontier;
and to make no territorial, political, or commercial
concession to any foreign Power without granting similar or
equivalent concessions to Great Britain. It also undertook to
pay an indemnity for the cost of the British expedition,
pending the payment of which the Chumbi Valley should be held
by a British force.

TIBET: A. D. 1907.
Convention between Great Britain and Russia relative to Tibet.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1907 (AUGUST).

TIBET: A. D. 1910.
Chinese Authority strengthened in Tibet.
Flight of the Dalai Lama.
His formal Deposition.

The Dalai Lama, who had fled from Lhasa in 1904, on the
approach of the British expeditionary force under Colonel
Younghusband, did not return to Tibet until more than five
years later. Meantime he had visited Peking, where he was
coldly received, and seems to have wandered widely through the
Empire. During his absence the Chinese authority in Tibet had
been strengthened, and his return was followed by a
considerable reinforcement of troops to support the Ambans who
represent the Chinese Government at Lhasa. Exactly what
friction arose then has not yet been made clear; but, in
February, 1910, the Lama fled again from his capital, into
India, and on the 25th he was solemnly deposed from his sacred
office by an imperial decree.

TIEN-TSIN:
Delivered to the Chinese Viceroy.

See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1902.

TIGER HILL.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY).

TILAK, BAL GANGADHAR:
His Trial and Imprisonment.

See (in this Volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1907-1908.

TIRPITZ, Admiral:
On German Navy-building.

See (in this Volume)
WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: NAVAL.

TISZA MINISTRY.

See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1902-1903; 1905-1906.

{649}

TITTONI MINISTRY.

See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906.

TOBACCO FARMERS’ UNION, IN KENTUCKY:
Its Night-Riders.

See (in this Volume)
KENTUCKY: A. D. 1905-1909.

TOBACCO TRUST:
Suit of the Government against it.
Report of Commissioner of Corporations.

See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.: UNITED STATES:
A. D. 1901-1906; 1905-1906; 1907-1909; and 1909.

TOGO, Admiral:
In the Russo-Japanese War.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (FEBRUARY-JULY), and after.

TOLSTOI, COUNT LYOFF:
His Challenge to the Russian Government.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1909.

TOMUCHENG.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

TORONTO: A. D. 1909.
Meeting of International Council of Women.

See (in this Volume)
WOMEN, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF.

TOWN-PLANNING LEGISLATION.

See (in this Volume)
SOCIAL BETTERMENT: ENGLAND; A. D. 1909.

TRADE BOARDS BILL, THE ENGLISH.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR REMUNERATION: WAGES REGULATION.

TRADE UNIONS.
Disputes.
Agreements:

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION.

TRANSANDINE RAILWAY TUNNEL.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: ARGENTINE-CHILE.

_en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transandine_Railway_

TRANS-MISSOURI FREIGHT ASSOCIATION, The Case of the.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1890-1902.

TRANSVAAL, THE.

See (in this Volume)
SOUTH AFRICA.

TREPOFF.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1904-1905.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, THE: A. D. 1902.
Renewal.

The Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy,
originally negotiated in 1879, was renewed in June, 1902, for
twelve years from May, 1903.

TRIPLE ALLIANCE, THE: A. D. 1905.
Effect of the Defeat of Russia in the War with Japan.

See (in this Volume)
EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909.

TROUBETZKOI, PRINCE S. N.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.

TRUSTS.

See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL, &c.

TSAI-TSE, PRINCE: HIS MISSION ABROAD.

See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1905-1908.

TSONTSHEFF, GENERAL:
Operations in Macedonia.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903.

TSUSHIMA, NAVAL BATTLE OF.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (OCTOBER-MAY).

TUBERCULOSIS, THE CRUSADE AGAINST.

See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH.

TUNG FANG.

See (in this Volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1906.

TURBINE ENGINE.

See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT.

----------TURKEY: Start--------

TURKEY: A. D. 1901.
The Bulgarian Committee which directs Revolutionary
Operations in Macedonia.
Its Instructions to the Bands and Control of their Murders.

"The Committee which was originally formed at Sofia for the
purpose of conducting the nationalist campaign among the
Macedonians has been the dominant factor in the later
developments of the Macedonian problem, and is directly
responsible for all the periodical outbreaks which students of
Eastern politics have been accustomed to look for at the
approach of spring during the last few years. The nature of
this Society will be clearly appreciated from the following
document, which sets forth in unequivocal terms both the
Committee’s mission and the means resorted to for its
fulfilment. This document was seized on the Bulgarian
conspirators who in the spring of 1901 were arrested at
Salonica, tried, sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration at
Rhodes, and permitted to escape a few months after. I obtained
a literal translation of it from an official source at the
time …:

"‘Each armed band to consist of Bulgarians belonging to each
particular district. Their duty is to carry out secretly the
orders given by the president of the committee. The bands are
armed with weapons furnished by the Committee. These bands are
formed by the revolutionary committees of each district or
village, and receive the military training necessary for their
purpose. These bands depend on the committees, and in their
turn distribute arms among those whom they enrol or gain over
to the cause. … The armed bands are placed under the command
of the local committees in accordance with the following
rules:

"‘To obey received instructions. By means of persuasion or
intimidation to place new recruits at the committees’
disposal. To put to death the persons indicated by the
committees. … Each band, under the command of the
revolutionary committee established in the district, to be
ready to raise the standard of revolt on being so ordered by
the local committee, which cannot act except by the order of
the president of the Sofia committee. … The bands shall also
commit political crimes: that is to say, they shall kill and
put out of the way any person who will attempt to hinder them
from attaining their ends, and shall immediately inform the
Sofia committee of the crimes committed. The instructions of
the bands must be kept quite secret, as the least indiscretion
may lead to great disaster. … "Acts of personal vengeance,
attacks on villages, and generally all kinds of unauthorised
attempts to raise a revolution are strictly forbidden, and
those who are guilty of such acts will be sentenced to death.
No murder shall be committed by the bands without a previous
decision taken by the committee, except those which are
inevitable in an accidental encounter.’

"The reports of the action of the Committee in Macedonia
during the last twelve months alone form a _dossier_
which leaves little doubt to the reader of average candour
that the regulations printed above are not allowed to remain a
dead letter, but that practice goes hand in hand with, or
rather outstrips, precept. The exploits of the Committee and
its brigands in the country may be classed under three heads:
extortion, intimidation, provocation. …

{650}

"Cases of wanton massacre, though not so numerous as the
atrocities committed with a material object in view, are not
uncommon. The victims in these cases are generally
Mohammedans. … The motive of these outrages is purely to
provoke reprisals—that is, a general massacre—and then pose as
the victims of Turkish cruelty and fanaticism, a cry which
never fails to move the nations of Europe to sympathy and
their Governments to intervention."

_G. F. Abbott,
The Macedonian Question
(Nineteenth Century, March, 1903)._

TURKEY: A. D. 1901-1902.
Abduction of Miss Ellen M. Stone, by Brigands.
The Ransom paid for her Release.

In a communication to the President of the United States,
March 24, 1908, the Secretary of State, Mr. Root, recited the
circumstances which attended the abduction by brigands, in
1901, of Miss Ellen M. Stone, an American missionary to
Turkey, as she travelled the highway from Raslog to Djumabala
in the Turkish Empire, and the necessary payment of a ransom
to her captors, to secure her release. In the judgment of Mr.
Root the Government should refund the ransom money to the
citizens from whom it was obtained by subscription at the
time, and his communication, as follows, was to that end:

"Our diplomatic and consular representatives in Turkey, in
correspondence with the Department of State, shortly after the
capture, indicated their belief that the motive therefor was
to obtain a ransom, and stated that they had requested the
Turkish officials to abstain from too close pursuit of the
brigands, lest the death of the captured might result. From
later correspondence with our representatives it appeared that
the brigands had retired to the mountains with the captive,
probably over the border into Bulgaria. The exact location of
the party during the captivity, however, is not established by
any evidence in the possession of the Department of State, nor
does it appear clearly of what government the bandits were
subjects.

"About October 1, 1901, the bandits opened negotiations for a
ransom, demanding £25,000, and transmitting a letter from Miss
Stone, asking that the sum demanded be paid and that pursuit of
the brigands by the Turkish troops be stopped. Our diplomatic
representatives were of the opinion that Miss Stone’s release
could only be obtained by the payment of the ransom, and the
State Department shared this view. Miss Stone’s friends, of
course, entered into correspondence with the Department
regarding the payment of the ransom, and were told that it
must be raised by private means.

"On October 3, 1901, the State Department wrote to the
Reverend Judson Smith, of the American Board of Commissioners
for Foreign Missions, Boston, Massachusetts, as follows: ‘It
seems imperative that the amount (of the ransom) should be
raised or pledged, so as to be available by your treasurer at
Constantinople in season to save Miss Stone. Statutory
prohibitions make it impossible for this Government to advance
the money or guarantee its payment. If paid by Miss Stone’s
friends, every effort will be made to obtain reimbursement
from whichever government may be found responsible under
international law and precedent. In the event of its proving
impossible to hold any foreign government responsible for the
capture and to secure the repayment of the money, this
Government is willing in the last resort to urge upon Congress
as strongly as possible to appropriate money to repay the
missionaries.’

"It is claimed that this assurance given by the Department in
its letter to Mr. Smith, to the effect that, as a last resort,
a recommendation would be made to Congress looking toward the
appropriation of a sum sufficient to pay the donors, was
largely instrumental in enabling Miss Stone’s friends to
secure the sum of $66,000, which was raised through public
subscription in this country by October 23, 1901, for the
purpose of effecting Miss Stone’s release. After negotiations
of considerable length, the brigands finally consented to
accept the amount raised and arrangements were made by United
States Minister Leishman for the payment of the money at a
point near Bansko, Macedonia, the Turkish authorities
consenting to withhold their troops from the vicinity of the
place in order that the negotiations might have a successful
issue. The release of the captive was not obtained so soon as
expected, but was finally reported by Minister Leishman on
February 23, 1902.

"After careful consideration of all the facts my predecessor,
Mr. Hay, decided on January 19, 1905, that it was not
advisable to attempt to hold the Turkish Government
responsible for the capture and to secure the repayment of the
money. Upon the subsequent application for reconsideration of
this decision Mr. Hay again, on April 11, 1905, reaffirmed the
judgment which he had originally expressed. Upon a further
review of the same subject I have come to the conclusion that
it is not advisable to reverse or change the conclusion which
Mr. Hay reached.

"It would seem, therefore, that the Executive Department is
bound to make good its promise to recommend to Congress that
money be appropriated to repay the ransom money, a promise
which was probably relied upon by many of those who
contributed of their private means to save the life of an
American citizen believed to be in the gravest peril.
Accordingly I have the honor to advise that Congress be
recommended to appropriate an amount sufficient to repay the
contributors."

_60th Congress 1st Session, Senate Document No. 408._

TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903.
Conventions for Building the Bagdad Railway.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1909.

TURKEY: A. D. 1902-1903.
Insurgent operations in Macedonia.
Horrible Retaliatory Atrocities.
Misery of the Macedonian Peasants.
Contradictory Reports and Views of the Situation.

Insurgent operations in Macedonia were opened in the fall of
1902 and continued the following year, and into 1904. Besides
an activity of insurgent bands and collisions with Turkish
soldiery, there were many dynamite explosions, wrecking a bank
at Salonica, blowing up a railway train, a passenger steamer,
and other outrages of that kind. Then came confused and
revolting accounts of a terrible retaliation by the Turks.
According to Dr. Dillon, the monthly reviewer of "Foreign
Politics" for _The Contemporary Review_, the substantial
facts of what occurred were these:

{651}

"The insurrection in Macedonia planned by outsiders and fixed
for last autumn [1902] proved abortive. The first shot should
have been fired in August, but the members of the
revolutionary agencies which organised the scheme quarrelled
among themselves at the Congress held during that month in
Sofia, and then split up into hostile factions. In the
committee of one of these sections, General Tsontsheff
occupied the foremost position, and he resolved on his own
initiative to stir up the Macedonians to rebellion. Now it
should be borne in mind that all these committees are composed
of so-called outsiders—that is to say, mainly Macedonian
refugees in Bulgaria, and that whether their aim be to get the
provinces annexed to Bulgaria or Servia, or to demand simple
autonomy, they meet with but little sympathy and less active
support in Macedonia itself, where there is a very intelligent
native organisation in favour of self-government. Tsontsheff
was therefore left largely to his own resources. On the 23rd
of September his adjutant, Nikoloff, crossed the frontier, but
owing to the Shipka festivities, it was not until the 15th of
October that Tsontsheff himself, who had meanwhile escaped
from prison, took the field. The scene of action was the
valley of the Struma, which a week later was wholly occupied
by the Turks, and the insurrection, which had hardly even
flashed, suddenly fizzled and went out. The natives warned by
their own committee had generally held aloof. But there were
people among them who, not content with holding back, resolved
to act in the spirit of the admonitions vouchsafed to them by
the Great Powers, and ordered the revolutionary bands to quit
the country, and when the latter refused, actually drove them
off with arms in their hands. …

"When the people had gone home the Turks came to search for
arms. The peasants denied that they possessed any, and then
the work of torture began. All who could, ran away, and, owing
to the height of the mountain passes and the enormous
snowdrifts, had to leave their wives and children behind.
Before this calamity overtook the place, the district of
Razlog had twelve hamlets and 3,665 Bulgarian houses
containing about 25,000 inmates. Of these Madame Bakhmetieff,
the American wife of the Russian minister in Sofia, counted
961 fugitives, besides some hundreds who found a refuge in the
Peshtshersky district. The entire number of able-bodied men
driven away from Razlog alone is about 1,500!

"In that loyal and well-conducted district there were fourteen
churches with twenty-two priests; of the latter eight escaped
to Bulgaria, one was killed, one arrested, and the fate of the
remainder is unknown. According to the statement of the priest
who, having made good his escape, found an asylum in the
Principality, their churches were defiled and destroyed by the
Turks. A considerable number of the remaining peasants are
said to have perished on the way over the mountains. Over
one-third, therefore, of the male population of the best
behaved district of Macedonia has been thus forced to flee the
country. …

"We have the authority of Madame Bakhmetieff—who travelled
about in the deep snow with the thermometer at 22 Celsius
below freezing point, to bring succour to the fugitives—for
saying that two priests of the villages of Oranoff and Padesh
were tortured in a manner which suggests the story of St.
Lawrence’s death. They were not exactly laid on gridirons, but
they were hung over a fire and burned with red hot irons. In
the Djumaisk District six churches were destroyed, and the
Church of St. Elias was turned into a stable, while the shrine
dedicated to the same saint in Shelesnitza was converted into
a water closet. The churches of Padesh, Troskoff and Serbinoff
were razed to the ground; the school buildings in the Djumaisk
District were used as barracks, and the teachers put in prison
or obliged to flee. The horror of the situation is
intensified, Madame Bakhmetieff says, by the fact that large
numbers of fugitives have been driven back by the Turks into
the interior southwards towards Seres, where their horrible
sufferings and their miserable end will be hidden from all who
might give them help or pity."

_E. J. Dillon,
The Reign of Terror in Macedonia
(Contemporary Review, March, 1903)._

Another view of the Macedonian situation is presented in the
following, from another of the English reviews:

"The Macedonian problem is desperate mainly because it has
been overlaid with abstractions. We talk of trouble in the
Balkans, of insurgent excesses, and Turkish atrocities,
without realising that these occasional and startling
phenomena are the product of a misery that is as constant as
it is uninteresting—and unbearable. We think of Turkish
misrule as an isolated and irrational fact, without
comprehending that it is a highly organised and quite
intelligent system, designed to promote the profit of a small
minority of officials, tax farmers, and landlords. It rests on
a substantial basis of corrupt and anti-social interest. The
political mismanagement is the least of all the evils it
produces. The reality behind the whole muddle of racial
conflicts, beyond the Chauvinism of the Balkan peoples and the
calculations of the greater Powers, is the unregarded figure
of the Macedonian peasant, harried, exploited, enslaved,
careless of national programmes, and anxious only for a day
when he may keep his warm sheepskin coat upon his back, marry
his daughter without dishonour, and eat in peace the bread of
his own unceasing labour. All our efforts might fail to bestow
upon him an ideal government—there are not the makings of a
harmonious nation in Macedonia. But politics are, after all, a
mere fraction of life. While Servia earns the contempt of the
civilised world, the Servian peasant sows in hope and reaps in
peace, keeping for winter evenings the tale of murdered
forbears and ravished ancestors. The Macedonian villager is
ignorant. But his leaders have heard of a far-off England
which twenty-five years ago flung them back under the heels of
the Turk, after Russia had won their freedom at San Stefano.
The tale runs that this same England then guaranteed them, at
Berlin, the amplest of reforms. And thereupon these simple men
will talk about their rights. It is for these they are
fighting."

_H. N. Brailsford,
The Macedonian Revolt
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1903)._

{652}

And still a third view in this which follows:

"The Turks are honestly doing their best to administer justice
indifferently. Again and again during my travels in Macedonia
I have admired the energy of Valis and Kaimakams, who hold
thankless posts with courage and determination. If the
Albanians could be kept in order and Bulgarian anarchism could
be suppressed, there would be no grievances in Macedonia
to-day. The Albanians are turbulent sportsmen, engaging as
individuals, but intolerable as neighbours. They must be made
to understand that no further nonsense will be permitted. The
Porte would be quite capable of reducing them to order if they
had not a powerful protector at hand. The Porte could also
reduce the Bulgarian conspirators if she did not fear to
arouse prejudice in Europe. The echo of former Bulgarian
‘atrocities’ (as resolute government was dubbed), paralyses
effective action. The Turks cannot punish Christian criminals
so long as Exeter Hall is on the _qui vive_ to defend
them. Give the Sultan a free hand, and the Macedonian
conspiracy may be ended in a few weeks."

_Herbert Vivian,
The Macedonian Conspiracy
(Fortnightly Review, May, 1903)._

The British Government received the following representation
of facts from its Minister to Bulgaria, Mr. Elliott, in a
despatch dated May 19, 1903.

"There are some points which appear to me to be too frequently
lost sight of in apportioning responsibilities for occurrences
in Macedonia. In the first place, the term ‘Bulgarian’ is
applied indiscriminately to subjects of the Principality and
to Macedonians of Bulgarian race, and the former are made to
bear the blame for the actions of the latter. In the same way,
it appears to be believed that the ‘Bulgarian bands’ which
make incursions into Macedonia from the territory of the
Principality are composed of Bulgarian subjects, whereas the
latter probably do not contribute more than 10 per cent, of
the number of incursionists, the remainder being all
Macedonians, of whom there are some 200,000 in the
Principality."

The same Minister wrote from Sophia on the 1st of July: "All
the reports received concur in stating that every Turkish
official, civil and military, from Hilmi Pasha downwards, look
to war as the only means of escape from a situation which is
becoming intolerable. It is obvious that in such a war both
sides would have much to lose and little material advantage to
gain; but the Turks argue that if they could administer a
crushing defeat to Bulgaria, of which they have no doubt, they
would, even if they were afterwards obliged to withdraw,
obtain some years’ peace in Macedonia, by the destruction of
what they have been taught to believe, with some justification
in the past, is the centre of disaffection, though the real
cause of it is to be sought in their own maladministration.
The Bulgarians, although believing that the conquest of
Bulgaria would not prove the easy matter that the Turks seem
to imagine, are, for the most part, under no illusions as to
their ability to hold out single-handed against the Ottoman
Empire; they are unprepared, and they have apparently been
deserted by their protectors. They are, therefore, sincere in
their desire to do everything to avoid a conflict. But it does
not rest with them to avoid it. The Macedonian agitators will
naturally do all they can to provoke a war. It is therefore of
the most urgent importance that an attempt should be made by
the Turkish Government to restore the conditions of life in
Macedonia to something like their normal state. If the
persecutions of the last few weeks continue, it will be
impossible for the Government to restrain the Macedonians
established in this country."

_Parliamentary Papers, Cd. 1875._

The condition of suffering in the region of country tormented
by this inhuman strife is indicated by such despatches as the
following, from the British Vice-Consul at Monastir, writing
September 23, 1903:

"According to the best data actually available, the number of
persons now wandering on the mountains homeless and destitute
cannot be estimated at less than 40,000, while the number of
Christians massacred may be safely put down at 3,000. Some of
my colleagues, notably the Austrian, French, and Italian
Consuls, have sent even higher figures to their embassies."

_Parliamentary Papers
(Turkey, No. 2, 1904), Cd. 1879._

TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.
The Mürzsteg Programme of Reforms in the Administration of
Macedonia.

During a meeting of the Emperors of Austria-Hungary and
Russia, in 1903, at Mürzsteg, in the Austrian Alps, a plan of
supervised administration in Macedonia (known since as the
Mürzsteg Programme), to be pressed on the Turkish Government,
was agreed upon by the two sovereigns and their advisers. With
the assent and support of the other Powers in Europe this was
submitted to the Porte, and was accepted in principle on the
25th of November; but it was not until the following May that
it could be said to have been brought at all into action.
Turkey "agreed

(1) to the appointment, for two years only, of Austrian and
Russian civil agents, with a limited staff of dragomans and
secretaries, to reside in the same place as the
Inspector-General, and to make tours in the interior,
accompanied by a Turkish official, to question the inhabitants
as to their grievances;

(2) to the appointment of an Italian general to reorganize the
gendarmerie;

(3) to consider the question of altering the administrative
districts so as to establish a more regular grouping of the
various nationalities;

(4) that neither race nor religion shall be a hindrance to
official employment;

(5) that an amnesty shall be granted to all persons implicated
in the insurrection, except those guilty of dynamite outrages;
and

(6) to exempt the inhabitants of destroyed villages from all
taxation for one year."

_Annual Register, 1904, page 318._

General De Giorgis, of Italy, was appointed to the command of
the gendarmerie. Hostility to the arrangements of the Mürzsteg
programme in Albania was carried to the extent of open
warfare, and a number of serious engagements between Turkish
and Albanian forces occurred. Other collisions between the
various quarreling races—Greek, Bulgarian and Servian—were not
stopped by the reorganized _gendarmerie_. Turkish action
and inaction afforded about equal occasion for Bulgarian
complaints; but in April the Bulgarian and Turkish governments
came to mutual agreements, that the former would stop the work
of revolutionary committees within her territory, and that the
latter would carry out the reforms of the Mürzsteg programme
in good faith. No effective performance of either engagement
appears to have been secured.

{653}

TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.
Incursions of Armenian
Revolutionists from Russia and Persia into Asiatic Turkey.
Exaggerated accounts of retaliatory Massacre.

Many bands of revolutionary Armenians who crossed the
frontiers from Russia and Persia during 1903 and 1904, making
incursions into Armenian Turkey, and bringing upon the
inhabitants there the tender mercies of Turkish troops, appear
to have been acting generally in cooperation with the
Bulgarian revolutionists in Macedonia. The consequent
barbarities were dreadful enough, no doubt, but were found to
be greatly exaggerated in the reports current at the time.
This was the conclusion of the British Ambassador to Turkey,
derived from investigations made on the ground by a consular
officer who traversed it with care. In a despatch dated August
16, 1904, the Ambassador, Sir N. O’Conor, related a
conversation on the subject that he had had with the Armenian
Patriarch, Mgr. Ormanian, as follows:

"In the course of conversation I told his Beatitude that I had
heard with deep concern the statements he had made to several
newspaper correspondents, to the effect that he believed that
between 6,000 and 9,000 persons had been massacred in the
Sasun and Talori districts during the late troubles, and that
I deeply regretted that upon my applying for precise
information which would enable me to make earnest
representations to the Grand Vizier, his Beatitude has sent me
word that he was unable to indicate the places at which these
massacres had taken place or to affirm that his reports were
based on really trustworthy information. His Beatitude replied
that he had had no means of controlling these reports, and
that he had communicated them to others as he had received
them. I said that, judging from the reports of His Majesty’s
Consul at Van, who had visited many of the districts in
question, the numbers of victims mentioned by his Beatitude
was grossly exaggerated. Captain Tyrrell was more inclined to
estimate the number at 900 than 9,000, and he had, moreover,
been unable to confirm the statements in the public press that
there had been any massacre of Armenians in the ordinary sense
of these words, although, no doubt, many innocent persons had
been killed both by the insurgents and the troops. … I did not
despair of following to the end the investigations which had
been set on foot by the Grand Vizier. If, however, his
Beatitude could now furnish me with more definite information,
I would do all in my power, in conjunction with my French and
Russian colleagues, to bring about a searching investigation
on the spot. Mgr. Ormanian replied that he was not in a
position to give me this information."

TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1905.
A "Holy War" in Arabia.
The Sheik Hamid Eddin contesting the Caliphate
with the Sultan.

"Under the obscure heading of ‘Rebellion in the Yemen,’ a
series of brief telegrams has recently appeared in the British
and American press, describing in skeleton language the
exploits of Sheik Hamid Eddin, the Sovereign of Hadramaut,
against the troops of the Turkish Sultan. Absorbed in the
contemplation of the Far-Eastern struggle, neither the writers
nor readers of the newspapers have yet found leisure to
reflect upon the meaning of the movement, which the Lord of
the Land of Frankincense is leading. … But the Government in
Constantinople, though it would fain throw dust in the eyes of
Europe, is itself painfully conscious of the menacing
character of the challenge which has gone forth from Arabia.
It is, indeed, impossible for it any longer to doubt that
Hamid Eddin, the namesake of Abdul Hamid, is contesting not
only the possession of Yemen, but also the spiritual supremacy
of Islam. A Holy War, in fact, has started in Arabia, and upon
its issue depend the fate of Mecca and the title of Caliph. …

"For several years, the propaganda proceeded on comparatively
peaceful lines. Only occasionally it was marked by collisions
with the Turkish troops. But, towards the end of 1903, the
Sheik entered the northern district of the Yemen and laid
siege to the Turkish garrison of Assyr. The engagement ended
disastrously for the Turks. … For a whole year the Turks
refrained from attempting any serious resistance to the
Arabian movement. In February of this year, however, they
succeeded in inflicting on Hamid Eddin a slight reverse, which
the authorities in Constantinople, for political reasons, at
once magnified into a disaster."

_W. F. Bullock,
The Fight for the Caliphate
(North American Review, August, 1905)._

TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1906.
Demand in Crete for Union with Greece.
Resignation of Prince George as High Commissioner.
Appointment of M. Zaimis.

See (in this Volume)
CRETE: A. D. 1905-1906.

TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1906.
Anti-British agitation in Egypt.
Encroachments on the Sinai Frontier.
The Tabah Incident.

See (in this Volume)
EGYPT: A. D. 1905-1906.

TURKEY: A. D. 1905-1908.
Continued Reign of Terror in Macedonia.
Financial Reform forced on Turkey by a Naval Demonstration.
Barbaric Warfare of Greek and Bulgarian Bands.
Efforts of Great Britain to secure further action by the Powers.

On the 17th of January, 1905, the Austro-Hungarian and Russian
Governments proposed to supplement the Mürzsteg Programme by a
measure of financial reform, which would empower the agencies
of the Imperial Ottoman Bank to "act as Treasurer and
Paymaster-General in the three vilayets of Salonika, Kossovo
and Monastir," to receive the net revenues of those vilayets,
and to "be intrusted with the issue of payments of whatever
nature and in whatever form." The Turkish Government submitted
a counter proposition, somewhat to the same purpose, on the
5th of March; and, after much discussion between the six great
Powers, of Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany, Great Britain,
France, and Italy, they joined in a note to the Sublime Porte,
on the 8th of May, accepting the Turkish project of financial
reform, provided the Porte would consent to complete it by
adding the following:

"To supervise the execution of the financial reforms and the
application of the preceding Regulation, and to insure its
observation, the Governments will each nominate a financial
Delegate. These Delegates of the four Powers will act in
concert with the Inspector-General and the Austro-Hungarian
and Russian Civil Agents, whose functions were defined in the
Mürzsteg programme. The Commission thus formed will have all
the powers necessary for the accomplishment of its task, and
particularly for the supervision of the regular collection of
taxes, including also the tithe.
{654}
Before being finally settled, the budgets must be submitted to
the Commission, which will have the right to amend, under the
head of receipts and expenditure, any provision which may be
inconsistent with the existing laws or unsuited to the
economic and financial requirements of the country. With a
view to facilitating its task, the Commission will have the
power of nominating for each vilayet an inspector charged with
the supervision of the agents employed in the different
services of the Treasury."

The Porte declined to acquiesce in a proposal which it
declared to be "contrary to the essential principles of the
maintenance of the rights and independence of the Imperial
Government." The demand was persisted in by the six Powers,
inflexibly, and resisted as determinedly by the Sultan and his
Ministers, during more than six months of parley. By that time
the Powers had arranged for a joint naval demonstration, and
landed forces at Mytilene on the 26th of November. This
brought the Turkish Government to terms; details of the
financial reform were settled on the 16th of December, 1905,
and the international fleet was withdrawn.

Meantime conditions in the wretched country for which these
attempted reforms of government were being so deliberately and
laboriously prepared do not seem to have been much improved,
if at all. On the 4th of September, the British Ambassador,
Sir N. O’Conor, forwarded to his Government "a statistical
résumé of the despatches recording occurrences in Macedonia"
sent to him "by His Majesty’s Consuls at Salonica, Uskup, and
Monastir between the 1st of January and the 27th of August,"
giving "the number of deaths for which the various
nationalities and organizations are responsible" in those
eight months of the year. The statistics were as follows:

Christians killed by Bulgarian Komitajis [Committees], 69;
Moslems killed by Bulgarian Komitajis, 60;
Christians killed by Greek Komitajis, 211;
Moslems killed by Servian Komitajis, 12;
Christians killed by Servian Komitajis, 10:
total, 362.

Troops killed by various bands, 60;
Bulgar Komitajis killed by troops, 145;
Greek Komitajis killed by troops, 38;
Serb Komitajis, killed by troops, 83;
total 326.

Christians murdered by Moslems, 43;
Christians killed during military operations, 54;
total 97.

Throughout the next two years the monthly reports of British
consular officers and the despatches of the Ambassador at
Constantinople, as published in the British Blue Books, are
monotonous in their sickening enumeration of single murders,
wholesale massacres, destruction of villages, flights to the
mountains of starving refugees,—outrages and miseries beyond
description. On the 10th of June, 1906, the Consul-General at
Salonika wrote:

"The general state of insecurity in the disturbed areas tends
to grow worse rather than better, chiefly owing to the
increase in the numbers and activity of the Greek bands and a
slight recrudescence of Moslem crime, the most remarkable
cases of which are attributed to a band of fifteen Albanians,
who at the beginning of the month infested the forest country
north of Niausta, where they robbed and murdered with
impunity. The fact that their victims were nearly all Greeks
has given rise to the belief in Greek circles that they have
been acting in the interests of the Vlach and Bulgarian
propagandas, though, so far as I know, there is no evidence
whatever in support of this theory. The operations of Turkish
troops have been on the whole very successful as against the
small Bulgarian and Servian bands which still kept the field.
Four of the former and two of the latter were totally
destroyed, with comparatively small loss to the soldiery. It
will be seen that the loss of life by violence again amounts
to over 200 during the month. Of armed revolutionaries, about
40 Bulgarians, 19 Servians and 26 Greeks were accounted for,
at a loss to the Turkish army of 23 killed. The great majority
of the unarmed victims were Bulgarians, of whom 33 were killed
by Greek bands, 15 by soldiers or in operation by the troops,
about 15 by the Moslems, and 12 by Bulgarian Komitajis of
rival factions; while 11 Vlachs were killed by Greek bands, 14
Greeks by Albanian brigands, 1 Greek by Bulgarian Komitajis,
and 6 Mussulmans by Greek revolutionaries."

Conditions were still the same at the end of another year, and
in December, 1907, the British Government addressed a
memorandum on the subject to France and similarly to the other
Powers, reciting some of the recent facts reported by its
consular officers, and saying: "These facts and the
circumstances of the outrages committed afford striking
evidence of the manner in which the gradual extermination of
the Christian inhabitants is being tolerated in Macedonia,
where the Ottoman authorities have displayed an utter
incapacity to maintain public tranquility. It therefore
devolves upon the Powers to suggest the adoption of measures
which will put an end to such a condition of affairs, and His
Majesty’s Government earnestly hope that the French Government
will give their most serious consideration to the proposals
which they are about to put forward. … His Majesty’s
Government are profoundly convinced that the time has now
arrived when General Degiorgis and the foreign Staff Officers
should be intrusted with a full measure of executive control,
and when the force under his command should be properly
qualified for effective action by a substantial increase in
numbers and an adequate equipment."

To this communication there was no encouraging response from
any other Government; and on the 3d of March, 1908, the
British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, reopened the
subject, expressing the regret with which His Majesty’s
Government had received the replies made to their proposals.

"The situation is not beyond remedy, but it cannot be remedied
by half-measures. Were a Governor of Macedonia to be appointed
who would be given a free hand and be irremovable for a term
of years except with the consent of the Powers, and were an
adequate force of gendarmerie and European officers placed at
his disposal, His Majesty’s Government are convinced that the
country might be cleared of bands and pacified in a short
time."

{655}

The measure proposed to other Powers by the British
Government, in this communication of the 3d of March, 1908,
obtained the assent of none, but it opened a discussion of the
subject between London and St. Petersburg which brought Great
Britain and Russia together, in joint action that gave promise
of effective results. The negotiations ensuing, between the
two Governments led to the drafting of two schemes of further
reform in Macedonia, to be pressed upon the Porte. Great
Britain accepted the Russian scheme, submitted in the form of
an _aide mémoire_, dated July 2, 1908. Some inkling of
this new programme, which the European Concert of Powers was
about to be asked to support, had been given to the public by
this time, and it seems to have precipitated a revolutionary
conspiracy for the self-reformation of Turkish Government,
which had been in the process of organization for many years,
and which had now drawn near to the point of open action.

TURKEY: A. D. 1906.
A Troublesome Punctilio removed.
The United States represented at Constantinople
by an Ambassador.

"According to usage in Constantinople, an Ambassador may
obtain an audience at any time with the Sultan, and force many
items through even against the influence of both the Palace
and the Porte. But every representative lower than an
Ambassador can never appear before the Sultan except when
called for by His Gracious Majesty. This invitation can be
secured sometimes by indirect means; but when, for any reason,
the Sultan does not wish to see a Minister of any foreign
Power, the Palace officials can baffle him, if necessary, for
years. Now, the American representative is called ‘Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,’ and is outranked
by every Ambassador to Turkey. Hence, he lacks the
all-important privilege of approaching the Sultan uninvited."

_Americus,
Some Phases of the Issues between
the United States and Turkey
(North American Review, May, 1906)._

The obstacle to American influence with the Turkish Government
which is explained in the statement above was removed in 1906,
by raising the diplomatic representative of the United States
at Constantinople to the rank of Ambassador.

TURKEY: A. D. 1907-1909.
The Cretan Situation as dealt with by
the Four Protecting Powers.

See (in this Volume)
CRETE: A. D. 1907-1909.

TURKEY: A. D. 1908.
Building the Damascus to Mecca Railway.

See (in this Volume)
RAILWAYS: ASIATIC: A. D. 1908.

TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (March).
The Races in Macedonia.
Struggle for Political Predominance.
The Bulgarian Propaganda.

"Macedonia, although a country of numerous tribes and tongues,
has a population of which the chief ethnic elements are Serbs,
Bulgarians, and Greeks. The last-named are numerically the
most important, while the Turks are, so to say, intruders.
Between Bulgarians and Serbs, a bitter struggle has been waged
for political predominance, each party being supported more or
less effectively by its kindred in the kingdom of Servia or
the Principality of Bulgaria. Both races in Macedonia speak
almost the same language, profess the same religion, and
inter-marry, so that the need of distinguishing between them
did not arise until the Bulgarian Church, freeing itself from
the Greek Patriarch, established an exarchate. Then all the
flock of the Exarchate was deemed to consist of Bulgarians,
although in reality many were Serbs; and the vigorous
proselytising campaign carried on by agents from the
Principality was successful in gathering many thousands more
into the true fold.

"Bulgaria had luck from the outset. Before this people had
been freed from the Mohammedan yoke the Turkish Government
favoured them because it hated the Serbs, who were believed to
be trying to gather together all Slavs and to found a powerful
Slav state. After the creation of the Bulgarian Principality
the Turks continued to wink at the Bulgarian propaganda in
Macedonia, because of Stambuloff’s anti-Russian and Turcophile
policy. And in this way crowds of Macedonians were won over to
the Bulgarian Exarchate. Moreover, the Prince’s Government
warmly seconded the efforts of its agents. Money was spent
liberally and judiciously. Many Macedonians who distinguished
themselves at school were sent to finish their education at
Sofia, where the most gifted among them received high places
in the civil service or the army. In time, however, peaceful
agitation gave way to filibustering expeditions, culminated in
bloodshed, and drove the Turks to repressive measures against
the Bulgarian element in Macedonia."

_E. J. Dillon,
Foreign Affairs
(Contemporary Review, March, 1908)._

TURKEY: A. D. 1908 (July-December).
The Young Turk party and its Revolutionary organization.
Its Plans hurried by the Anglo-Russian project of a
new Macedonian Intervention.
Beginning and Rapid Spread of Revolt.
Proclamation of the Constitution of 1876.
Yielding of the Sultan.
Intense Joy in the Empire.
Election of a Parliament.

Until July 3, 1908,—the day after M. Isvolsky, Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs, had dated (as stated above) his
_aide mémoire_ of Macedonian Reform, which he and Sir
Edward Grey were about to submit to the Powers,—the Turkish
party since famous under the name of "the Young Turks" had
attracted not much general attention, and, even in diplomatic
circles, there does not seem to have been much known of the
extraordinary work of revolutionary propagandism and
organization it had done. Its leadership, seated at Salonika,
had been in a Committee, named formerly the Committee of
Liberty, but styled in later years the Ottoman Committee of
Union and Progress. Of the rise and origin of this Young Turk
party, the following account was written some years before it
leaped into public fame, by the veteran apostle of political
liberty, Karl Blind:

"I remember its rise and origin in the sixties, when, between
1867 and 1868, a small group of Turkish exiles—namely, Zia
Bey, Ali Suavi, and Aghaia Effendi—lived in London. They
published here and in Paris an ably conducted journal, called
the _Mukhbir_ (the ‘Advertiser’), copies of which are
still in my library. That paper came out under the auspices of
Mustafa Fazil Pasha, the well-known statesman who contributed
so much to the spread of public instruction and of Liberal
ideas by sending young students and others—among them, a
distinguished poet, Kemal—to Paris and London. In the
_Mukhbir_, parliamentary institutions and all other
desirable reforms were advocated.

{666}

"In 1876, the Sofia rising at Constantinople at last brought
about the introduction of a Charter under the young Sultan,
who had just come to the throne—the present Abdul Hamid the
Second. It was a popular movement, officered by the better
educated class of Mohammedans. In a famous rescript, the
Sultan said that ‘if his sire had lived longer, a
constitutional era would have been inaugurated under him.
Providence, however, had reserved for him (the son) the task
of accomplishing this happy transformation, which is the
highest guarantee of the welfare of his subjects.’ He went on
to denounce ‘the abuses which are the result of the arbitrary
rule of one or of some individuals.’ He then enumerated the
various reforms to be accomplished by the National Assembly:
responsibility of ministers; parliamentary right of control;
independence of the courts of justice; equilibrium of the
budget.

"All races and all creeds were represented in that Parliament,
which sat during 1877-1878: Turks and Armenians, Bulgars,
Greeks, Albanese, Syrians, and Arabs; Mohammedans,
Greco-Catholics, Armenian Christians, Protestants, and Jews.
Its debates, through the whole of which I went carefully at
the time in the French text of the Constantinople press,
exhibited a remarkable degree of ability. I learnt afterwards,
from men conversant with Turkish, and who had repeatedly been
present at the sittings, that these official reports had even
considerably toned down the liveliness of the discussions.

"I need not refer to the activity of Midhat Pasha, nor go into
the many useful reforms then debated, including freedom of the
press; equality before the law; liberty in matters of public
instruction; admission of all citizens, irrespective of race
and creed, to the various public employments; an equal
imposition of taxes; free exercise of every religious cult,
and so forth. …

"How did that Assembly come to grief? When the Russian army
arrived before the gates of Constantinople [in 1878], the
Sultan, pressed close by the Czar, and being at issue with the
representatives of the people on account of the exile of
Midhat and about budget questions, suddenly _prorogued_
Parliament. Alexander the Second, the ‘Divine Figure from the
North,’ was thus freed from the danger of hearing Liberal
subjects of his own uttering the cry: ‘Let us, by way of
reward for our sacrifices in blood and money in this war, have
parliamentary government as in Turkey!’

"Prorogued the Turkish National Assembly was, let it well be
remembered—not abolished; not dissolved even. Ever since, the
Young Turkish party has called for its restoration."

_Karl Blind,
Macedonia and England’s Policy
(Nineteenth Century, November, 1903)._

When it came to be known, in the spring or early summer of
1908, that Great Britain and Russia were concerting a fresh
proposal to the Powers of more thorough going intervention in
Macedonian affairs, the Young Turk leaders are said to have
been driven to a hurried rearrangement of their own plans.
They had not expected, it seems, to be in readiness for a
decisive movement until some months or a year hence; but they
could not afford to have the Concert of Europe as well as the
despotism of the Sultan to deal with in their revolutionary
undertaking, contemplating as that did a state of government
for Turkey which outside nations would have no right or need
to be meddlesome with. Hence they hastened preparations for an
explosion of the revolt they had organized so patiently, and
its first outbreaks chanced to occur just as M. Isvolsky had
signed and dated the statement of his scheme of intervention
for communication to other Powers.

The beginnings, on the 3d of July, were in the vilayet of
Monastir, where the officers and soldiers of two battalions,
at Resna and Presba, with some officials of the district,
formed themselves openly into a "Young Turk" band, seized arms
and the military chest, and went into the mountains. Similar
movements in the Kossovo and Salonika vilayets followed
quickly. On the 7th, at the city of Monastir, General Shemsi
Pasha, when setting forth to take command of operations
against the insurgents, was shot, and the soldiers of his
escort were reported to have allowed the assassins to escape
by firing in the air. Other murders of officers who showed
activity against the rebels were soon announced. The Ottoman
Committee of Union and Progress had now issued a manifesto,
announcing that the object of their League was to secure the
restoration of the Constitution of 1876, and appealing to the
Great Powers "to show their good will towards the peoples of
Turkey by earnestly urging His Majesty, the Sultan, to yield
to the legitimate demands of his subjects, who are loyal,
though in revolt against the shameful situation of their
country." The Committee protested solemnly that the League
entertained no hostility to non-Moslems; that it would avoid
useless bloodshed, and employ "energetic methods" only in
extreme cases against the enemies of liberty.

By the 22d of the month the Sultan had become sufficiently
alarmed to dismiss his Grand Vizier, Ferid Pasha, and call
Kiamil Pasha, the former Grand Vizier, to his council again.
Kiamil exacted conditions which his master was slow in
yielding to, and he seems to have been Grand Vizier _de
facto_ for a short time before he accepted the responsible
title. Change of Ministry, however, did not check the
deepening and spreading of revolt. On the 23d of July the
Young Turks, having complete possession of the cities of
Monastir and Salonica, and of several lesser towns, made
solemn proclamation of the Constitution, with popular
demonstrations and ceremonies of prayer and speech in which
Moslems and Christians were joined. That night the Sultan held
long counsel with his Ministers, at the Palace, and before
morning the reestablishment of the suspended Constitution of
1876 was decided.

See (in this Volume)
CONSTITUTION OF TURKEY.

The morning papers of the 24th gave the decree to the public
of Constantinople and the news of it was flashed throughout
the Empire and to the ends of the earth. This was the message
that went from the Grand Vizier to Hilmi Pasha, Inspector
General at Salonika:

"In compliance with the wish expressed by the people and by
order of His Majesty the Sultan, the Constitution promulgated
on the 11th (23d) December, 1876, which had for various reasons
been withdrawn, has been again enforced. The General Assembly
(Senate and Chamber of Deputies) may assemble on the terms
prescribed by law. I beg you to convey this news to the
public."

{657}