Chapter CDXL: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (37)

"It was not to be expected that an event so remarkable as the
destruction of the Janizaries would fail to be taken advantage
of by the court of St. Petersburg. The Emperor Nicholas had
brought with him to the Russian throne a thorough
determination to carry out that aggressive policy of the
Empress Catherine, of which the terms of the celebrated treaty
of Kutschouc-Kainardji [see above: A. D. 1768-1774] afforded
so striking an illustration, and the annihilation of the
Ottoman army, as well as the distracted condition of many of
the provinces of that empire, afforded an opportunity too
tempting to be neglected. The Czar, therefore, demanded that
the Sultan should conclude with him a treaty, the provisions
of which were made the subject of discussion at Ackerman, a
town in Bessarabia; and Mahmoud, pressed by the necessity of
his condition, … had found it requisite to conclude the
arrangement, and the celebrated convention of Ackerman was
ratified in October 1826. This treaty proved of great
importance to Russia. In addition to other provisions, it
recognised the whole stipulations of the two treaties of
Bucharest and Kainardji, by which Russia claimed the right to
interpose in behalf of the members of the Greek church in the
Ottoman dominions. … During the year which succeeded the
ratification of the convention of Ackerman, Russia was
occupied with the Persian war, which was prosecuted with great
vigour by General Paskewitch, by whom very considerable
advantages were obtained; and in November 1827 the treaty of
Tourkmantchai was concluded between Russia and Persia. … It
left the Emperor … at leisure to carry out those hostile
intentions which his ready interference in the affairs of
Greece, and a variety of other considerations, clearly proved
him to entertain. The approaching war was indicated by the
mutual recriminations of the hostile powers. Russia accused
the Porte of an endeavour to cause a revolution in the
Caucasus, and of a violation of treaties by closing the
Bosphorus against Russian ships, and by its conduct towards
its Christian subjects. There was no inconsiderable foundation
for such a complaint, and especially for the latter part of
it. … Both sides immediately prepared for the struggle, which
a variety of circumstances have proved that the Czar had long
contemplated, and only waited for a suitable opportunity of
entering upon. … In the month of May [1828] the [Russian]
force began to assemble on the banks of the Pruth, and crossed
that river at three different points. Being unopposed by the
Ottomans, the Russian forces almost immediately entered Jassy
and Bucharest, took possession of Galatz, and in a few weeks
had occupied the whole of the left bank of the Danube. To
accomplish as rapidly as possible the objects of the campaign,
as well as to avoid having their very wide]y extended line
exposed to the enemy, it was resolved by the leaders of the
Russian forces to cross the Danube at Brahilow, and thence to
advance with rapidity upon Silistria, Varna, and Schumla. This
resolution they immediately proceeded to carry into effect. …
About the middle of July, the Russian force under General
Rudiger on the right, and Generals Woinoff and Diebitcb on the
left wing, accompanied by the Emperor Nicholas, moved toward
Schumia; and the Ottoman army, whose instructions were to
avoid general actions, and to throw their whole energy upon
the defence of their fortifications, having engaged in battle
with the enemy, retired within the entrenched camp surrounding
that fortress, which now contained a force of 40,000 men. …
The Emperor … resolved … to leave a corps of observation of
30,000 men before Schumla, under General Wittgenstein, and to
direct the principal efforts of his army, in the first
instance, to the reduction of Varna. … On the 5th of
September, after having been absent at Odessa for about a
month, during which he was engaged making arrangements for
obtaining levies from Russia, and in negotiating loans in
Holland, the Emperor Nicholas arrived at Varna, to inspect the
progress and encourage the operations of the besiegers. … The
besieging force, towards the end of August, amounted to 40,000
men, which, on the arrival of the Emperor, were reinforced by
more than 20,000, with a great addition to the artillery
already possessed by the invading army. This large force was
further supported by the Russian fleet. … The details of the
siege exhibit a series of assaults repulsed with the utmost
valour and spirit by the besieged, and entailing an immense
loss upon the Russians, both in men and superior officers; but
the circumstance that the reinforcement sent to relieve the
garrison could not approach, so closely was the place
invested, and the destruction of a part of the walls by the
cannon of the Russians, led to a surrender, and Jussouf Pasha
delivered up the fortress to the Emperor on the 10th of
October, after a siege of more than two months. The utmost
efforts were made to reduce Silistria, after Varna had been
surrendered, but the advance of the season, and the
difficulties of the attempt, as well as the disastrous
circumstances of the Russian army before Schumla, soon proved
that nothing more could be attempted till the following
spring. The campaign, therefore, was brought to a conclusion,
and orders were issued for the Russians to retire beyond the
Danube, and take up their winter quarters in Wallachia. The
fall of Brahilow and Varna were the only important events of
the campaign of 1828 in Europe, and even these successes had
been attained at a vast expense of human life. Out of nearly
160,000 men who had crossed the Danube at the beginning of the
campaign, only about one-half remained. … In Asia operations
were carried on by the Russians with equal vigour and much
more success, in consequence, in a great measure, of the
military genius and experience of General Paskewitch, who
commanded the troops on the east of the Black Sea. … The first
attack of the Russians in Asia was made upon the fortress of
Anapa. … After a siege of about a month, the place was taken,
with 85 guns and 3,000 prisoners, and the fleet sailed
immediately to Varna. … After some other successes, General
Paskewitch resolved upon attacking the town and fortress of
Akhalzikh, a very important place in the pashalik of that
name, and which was not only strongly fortified by nature and
art, but had for its chief strength a resolute garrison of
10,000 Ottomans, besides the armed inhabitants of the place.
The Sultan's troops defended this important fortress with the
most undaunted resolution. … The surrender of Akhalzikh was
followed by that of other important places of strength, which
closed the campaign of 1828 in Asia. … The campaign of 1828
had rendered the most active preparations requisite on the
part of both belligerents for the commencement of hostilities
in the following spring.
{3150}
The Ottoman soldiers, according to their usual custom,
hastened from the garrisons to pass the winter in their homes,
but the utmost efforts were made by the Porte to gather an
adequate force to meet the exigencies of the struggle so soon
to be renewed. Although only 10,000 men were left in Schumla
during the winter, 40,000 assembled in that fortress early in
spring. They were, however, for the most part new levies. …
The Russians, on the other hand, were no less energetic in
their arrangements. … It was impossible, however, before the
month of May, from the condition of the Danube, to commence
the campaign with the whole force, but by the tenth of that
month the passage of the river was completed at Hirchova and
Kalavatsch, below Silistria, the siege of which was
immediately begun, while General Kouprianoff was stationed
with a force at Pravadi, a fortress on the east of Schumla,
and which, lying in the line of communication between
Silistria and Varna, was important to the Russians as the
means of keeping open a communication between the army of
General Roth near Varna and the troops destined to act upon
Silistria. Redschid Pasha, who on being recalled from Greece
had been appointed Grand Vizier, had arrived at Schumla on the
21st of March, and on perceiving the position of the invading
army, formed the well-conceived design of attacking Pravadi
and the force under General Roth. … This movement of the
Vizier became immediately known to General Roth, who by means
of a courier conveyed information of it to Count Diebitch.
That General was too acute not to perceive the purpose of his
adversary, and too enterprising not to endeavour immediately
to take advantage of it. The Count therefore adopted a
movement of the highest importance, and which, indeed, had the
effect of deciding the campaign. Instead of marching to attack
Redschid Pasha at Pravadi, he resolved to intercept his
communication with the fortress he had quitted, and thus
compel the Ottoman general either to come to a general
engagement, which could hardly fail to result to the advantage
of the Russians, or to fight his way towards Schumla through
the Russian army, or leave the fortress of Schumla to its
fate, which, feebly garrisoned as it was, could not be long
delayed. This skilful manœuvre was no sooner resolved upon
than it was carried into execution. … While the Russian force
were rapidly advancing towards Koulevscha, a village between
Pravadi and Schumla, and scarcely three miles from the latter,
the Grand Vizier remained wholly ignorant of the fact that
Diebitch had quitted Silistria, and persisted in the belief
that the only opponents of his retreat to Schumla were
Generals Roth and Rudiger. … The mistake was fatal. The
Ottoman cavalry attacked the infantry of the Russians, who
were overwhelmed by their charge; and Diebitch, having waited
in expectation that the Vizier would descend from the eminence
on which he was posted to complete his supposed victory, and
finding that he did not make this movement, broke from his
concealment among the hills, and suddenly attacked the Ottoman
troops with his whole force. The effect was instantaneous. A
universal panic seized the Vizier's forces, his cavalry and
infantry fled in confusion, every attempt to bring them to a
stand proved abortive, and he himself escaped with difficulty.
The artillery and baggage all fell into the hands of the
enemy. … The muster at Schumla on the return of the Vizier and
his remaining troops exhibited the magnitude of their loss.
Out of a fine army of 40,000 men, who a few days before had
marched from the fortress full of confidence, only 12,000 foot
and about 6,000 cavalry remained. After the fatal battle of
Koulevscha, the siege of Silistria was carried on with
redoubled vigour, and on the 30th of June the fortress
surrendered, when the whole garrison were made prisoners of
war, and to the number of 8,000, and the Russians found on the
ramparts 238 cannon, in addition to those on board the vessels
in the harbour. The fall of Silistria now determined the
Russian commander-in-chief to push across the Balkans. … After
defeating with great facility such troops as opposed their
advance, the Russian army pressed on with the utmost activity
towards Hadrianople, and entered the city not only unopposed,
but amidst the rejoicings of a multitude of the Greek
population. … The terror which this extraordinary event
inspired at Constantinople may easily be imagined to have been
extreme. The very heart of the empire had been assailed by the
victorious invaders in Europe, while the tidings from the
Asiatic provinces of the defeats sustained by the Sultan's
forces opposed to General Paskewitch, greatly contributed to
the public alarm. … In the midst of this tumult of public
feeling, the ambassadors of England and Austria exerted
themselves to the utmost to bring about a pacification; and …
the Sultan reluctantly agreed to the conclusion of a treaty of
peace. … The celebrated treaty of Hadrianople, which concluded
the war of 1828-29, … contained sixteen distinct articles, by
which, among other matters, the following conditions were
agreed upon:—The principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, and
all the conquered places in Bulgaria and Roumelia, were
restored to the Porte, with the exception of the islands at
the mouth of the Danube, which were to remain the possession
of Russia. In Asia all the recent conquests were to revert to
the Porte, with the exception of Anapa, on the north-eastern
shore of the Black Sea, several important fortresses, together
with an extensive district situated to the north and east of a
line of demarcation supposed to be drawn from the then
existing boundary of the province of Gouriel, and thence by
that of Imeritia direct to the point where the frontiers of
Kars unite with those of Georgia. The conditions of the
treaties of Kainardji, Bucharest, and Ackerman were confirmed;
… the passage of the Dardanelles was declared open to all
Russian merchant ships, as well as the undisputed navigation
of the Black Sea; an indemnity for losses by Russian subjects
was fixed at £750,000, to be paid in eighteen months; and the
expenses of the war were to be paid to the Russian Government,
amounting to 10,000,000 ducats, about £5,000,000. … To this
treaty two separate acts were annexed, the provisions of which
are of scarcely less importance than the treaty itself.
{3151}
By these acts it was arranged that the Hospodars of Moldavia
and Wallachia should be elected for life instead of for seven
years; that no interference in the affairs of these provinces
by any of the officers of the Porte should take place; that no
fortified towns, nor any establishment of Muslims, should be
retained by the Porte on the left bank of the Danube; that the
Turkish towns on that bank of the river should belong to
Wallachia; and that the Mussulmans who possessed property in
such places should be required to sell it in the space of
eighteen months. … The conclusion of these treaties, on the
14th September 1829, terminated the war between Russia and the
Ottoman Empire."

_R. W. Fraser,
Turkey, Ancient and Modern,
chapters 30-31._

ALSO IN:
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, from 1815 to 1852,
chapter 15._

TURKS: A. D. 1830.
Recognition of the autonomy of Servia.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:
14-19TH CENTURIES (SERVIA).

TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.
Rebellion of Mehemed Ali, Pasha of Egypt.
Intervention of Russia and the Western Powers.
Egypt made an hereditary pashalik.

"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._