| |
CHAPTER LXXIV
1871-1878-
THE RECOVERY OF FRANCE AND THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR
THE Franco-Prussian war was followed by six years of peace. The Treaty of Frankfurt was signed and
ratified in May, 1871: it was not till April, 1877, that the Russo-Turkish war
began. But none the less did the war of 1870 constitute an epoch in European
History. Congresses no longer dictated terms to the combatants, and Holy
Alliances were out of date. The growth of the rivalry of peoples, and of the
feeling of nationality, had been forcibly illustrated by the German seizure of
Alsace and Lorraine, and by the Italian occupation of Rome. It remained to be
still further exemplified by the continued risings of the peoples of Bosnia,
Herzegovina and Servia against the Turks.
For the moment, however, the characteristic of
European History was that of calm, taking advantage of which France set to work
to pay off her debt to Germany, and to carry out necessary reforms. Rarely has
the vitality of France been more conspicuously illustrated than during the
years immediately succeeding the Franco-Prussian war. The instalments of her
debt to Germany were paid with ease, her soil was liberated from the foreigner,
and she recovered from the wounds inflicted by the war no less than by the
Communists in Paris, Lyons, St. Etienne, Limoges and Marseilles. In May, 1871, the Government of Versailles was obliged to capture Paris, and to overthrow the domination of such men as Cluseret, Delescluze, and Paschal Grousset.
Having successfully crushed the revolutionists in Paris and other working centres, the
National Assembly was able to turn its attention to the work of
reorganization. A law passed on September 3, 1871, declared that the Assembly was
possessed of constitutional powers, and that the President of the Republic was responsible
to it. Till May, 1873, Thiers remained at the head of affairs, carrying out rapidly
and effectively the required reforms. Before the end of 1872 the finances
had been reconstituted, order had been restored, and, by a law passed on July
27, 1872, the task of improving the army had been taken in hand. All classes
agreed in the necessity of military reorganization, which was completed by the
law of March, 1875. During these years Thiers and the Assembly had by no means
worked together harmoniously. Though united on the question of the necessity of
paying the German indemnity as soon as possible, and of freeing France from its
occupation by foreign troops, the President and the Assembly differed with
regard to the future Government of France. A large majority of the Assembly
were reactionary and monarchist, and opposed to the final establishment of a
Republic. Though Thiers himself sympathised with constitutional monarchy, he
was convinced that a Royalist restoration would lead to civil war, and that it
would be possible to found a Conservative Republic. In his struggle against the
reactionaries, Thiers was aided by the fact that they were divided into three
parties, (1) Legitimists, (2) Bonapartists, (3) Orleanists, while the greater
number of the bye-elections showed that the country favoured Republican views.
On November 13, 1872, Thiers, having arranged for the early payment of the
indemnity, and having established a national army, sent to the Assembly a
famous message, in which he declared that the Republic existed, as the legal
Government of the country, that every Government should be Conservative, and
that no society could live under a Government of another kind. In spite of his
services Thiers was bitterly attacked by the Monarchists. Napoleon III. died at Chiselhurst on January 9,1873, and the supporters of
his son, Prince Napoleon, were encouraged. A coalition of the three monarchical
groups ably conducted the campaign against the President, who was also attacked
by the extreme Left under Gambetta. The persecution of Ultramontanism in
Germany made it popular in France, and on April 4,1873, Buffet, a Monarchist
and Clericalist, succeeded Grevy as President of the Chamber.
On May 24 Thiers was driven from office, and was succeeded
by Marshal MacMahon, who formed a ministry under the Duc de Broglie. The
Government was essentially Bonapartist and Clerical, public offices were
bestowed on supporters of the late dynasty, the Roman Catholic agitation was encouraged,
and several hostile journals were suppressed.
Before, however, attempting to solve the
constitutional problem, an attempt was made to reorganize the monarchical
party by bringing about a fusion between the elder and younger branch of the
Bourbons. The Comte de Chambord, the heir to Charles X, and the Comte de Paris,
grandson of Louis Philippe, were respectively the legitimist and Orleanist
candidates. As the former had no children, it was settled that the Comte de
Chambord should come first to the throne. Already on June 8,1871, the Assembly
had annulled the Act of 1832 and 1848, excluding the members of the Bourbon and
Orleanist families from the throne. The way was thus cleared, the Government of
MacMahon was practically pledged to a Bourbonist restoration, and a coup d'état would probably have been carried out had
the Comte de Chambord been amenable. But his refusal to adopt the tricolour
flag rendered hopeless the Royalist cause.
Like the English Stuart Kings the Comte de Chambord
believed in the Right Divine, and resented all attempts to extract from him
constitutional guarantees? These negotiations came to an end in October, and
in November the Provisional Government, which on the day after the close of
the war had been proclaimed at Bordeaux, came to an end. The Act of November
19,1873, instituted the Septennat, by which was
assured to the President a period of office extending over seven years. During
1874 the attacks made by the French Catholic press on Germany led to rumours of
a rupture between the two countries. The Kulturkampf laws, directed against the
Prussian Catholics, were the cause of this outburst, and the French ministry in order to avoid
foreign complications was constrained to check the outspoken criticisms of the journals. Most of the year, however, was occupied in discussions on the kind of
government which should succeed the Septennat. The
Broglie ministry fell in May, 1874, before a coalition of Republicans and Legitimists, the latter
of whom had been alienated by the Septennat. General de Cissey
became Premier, and under his leadership the Assembly, though unable to
restore the Monarchy, refused to agree to any proposals for a Constitution. A
change, however, came over the views of the Monarchists, owing to the growth of
a Bonapartist agitation in the interest of the young Prince Imperial. In Paris a
central Committee of Propaganda was formed, a plebiscite was demanded, and some
electoral successes were obtained. The love of liberty and hatred of the Empire
now proved stronger to many Monarchists than the desire for a Bourbon
Restoration. The right centre therefore, alarmed at the revival of the
Napoleonic idea, changed its tactics, and at the end of 1874 was found
zealously demanding a Constitution. On February 25, 1875, was formally
established the Republic. Two Acts passed on February 24 and February 25,
together with one passed on July 16, form the Constitution of 1875, which
though twice revised still exists. A Senate and a Chamber of Deputies, both
elective, were given to France, and these bodies had the power of electing a
new President at the end of his seven years’ period of office, and of carrying
out such changes as both Chambers had agreed upon. The President was appointed
for a term of seven years and was re-eligible. He could appoint and dismiss
ministers, and with the consent of the Senate could dissolve the Chamber. The
Senate was elected for nine years, but one third of its members were to be renewed
every three years, “by the vote of an electoral body in the chief town of each
department, composed of Deputies, of members of the Council-General, and
District Councils (Conseils d’Arrondissement) and
Delegates from the Municipal Councils.” The Deputies at the Assembly were
elected by universal suffrage, and for four years, and both they and the
Senators were paid 9,000 francs a year. The Parliamentary Republic thus set up
has lasted till the present day.
It did not, like the Constitution of 1791, represent
abstract principles, for it sprung reluctantly from a National Assembly which
rarely represented the views of the majority of Frenchmen. It had found itself
compelled to accept a Republic, while it distrusted the democracy. It professed
to be an upholder of republican views, but its liberalism was intermittent and
more apparent than real. Nevertheless in giving France a Constitution suitable
to the exigencies of the moment the Assembly, which desired the restoration of
the Monarchy, had deserved well of the nation. In spite, however, of its
services after the war, and its success in founding a Republic, the National
Assembly became more and more unpopular.
On the resignation of the Cissey Cabinet, Buffet, a
former Orleanist, on March 10, 1875, formed a Ministry composed mainly of those
who had voted against the Acts by which the Constitution of February was
established. The Acts of this ministry only increased the general distrust. In
July, 1875, a higher Education Act was brought forward which gave special
privileges to the Catholic Church, and in December a law on the Press still
preserved a state for siege in Paris, Lyons, and Marseilles. An Assembly which
unduly favoured the Church, and feared the people, was not likely to win the
confidence of the country, and its dissolution on December 31, 1875, was hailed
with joy.
The elections of 1876 gave a victory to the left,
though the division of parties was such that for a long time a stable form of
Government was impossible. The new Chamber consisted of 363 Republicans of all
shades of opinion, ninety Bonapartists, and eighty Royalists. On the meeting of
the Chamber, Buffet was succeeded by Dufaure, whose
ministry included Waddington, Leon Say, and Ricard. The republican sympathies
of the new ministry made it specially obnoxious to the Senate, and out of
harmony with the clerical and monarchical views of MacMahon. The whole of 1876
was spent in party quarrels, which continued after Jules Simon had succeeded Dufaure as Premier in December. At last in May, 1877, the
President carried out a coup d'etat, and replaced the Simon ministry by one
under the Due de Broglie, who undertook to “make France step out,” and to
restore things to their position before the fall of Thiers. The new elections
in October, however, brought to a clear issue the rival claims for a Democratic
Republic and a clerical Monarchy. The results gave no encouragement to the President and his
supporters, and a large Republican majority was returned. On the resignation
of de Broglie in November, an anxious period was followed by the formation of a
Ministry on December 14 by Dufaure. But the President and the Senate had lost all hold upon the country.
The numerous press trials, and the pressure brought to bear upon the electors,
had discredited the Administration, and the Monarchists were regarded with
distrust and resentment. The influence of Gambetta was paramount, and in 1878
he made a triumphal tour denouncing the clericals as dangerous to the Republic.
Till 1879 matters remained in this uneasy condition. The death of Thiers in
September, 1877, removed the obvious republican leader, and MacMahon hoped that
with the approach of the Exhibition of 1878 the circumstances attending the
crisis of 1876 would be forgotten. In this hope he was destined to be
disappointed. Though the great Exhibition in Paris was a brilliant success, the
truce between parties was only temporary. The confidence of the country in the
Republic and in Gambetta was increasing, and when the elections to the Senate
resulted in a Republican majority MacMahon hastened, at the beginning of 1879,
to resign. He was succeeded by Jules Grevy. Waddington became Prime Minister,
and Gambetta was elected Speaker or President of the Chamber. The Waddington
Ministry, which included Freycinet with others
belonging to the Left, addressed itself specially to four questions, amnesty,
the prosecution of the Broglie Ministry of 1877, the removal of the Chambers
from Versailles to Paris, and the secularization of education. In spite of much
opposition a Bill granting amnesty for those who had not been condemned for offences
against the common law was passed. A resolution was carried declaring that the
Broglie ministry had betrayed the Republic; it was decided in June that the
Chambers should meet in Paris, and lastly a war against religion was entered
upon. To reduce the power of the Jesuits over education, Jules Ferry brought in
a Bill which was opposed by Jules Simon, but was carried in the Lower Chamber
in June, 1879. At the close of the year Freycinet,
one of Gambetta’s chief supporters, succeeded Waddington, and the laws against
the Jesuits were carried out. The year 1880 proved an exciting one for France.
The return of such communists as Blanqui and Rochefort to political life
testified.to the strength of Radical feeling in France, while Gambetta was regarded as the Emperor of
the Republic. On August 9, 1880, he declared that France must reclaim her lost
provinces on the first favourable occasion. Though Jules Ferry might succeed Freycinet in September, it was evident that for the moment
Gambetta spoke for France, and was the real dictator of French policy. At
length in October, 1881, he became the head of a new ministry, and himself took
charge of the department of foreign affairs. His attainment of the position of
Premier was to a great extent due to his energy during the Franco-Prussian war,
and to his open determination to regain for France Alsace and Lorraine, and to
his firm Republican views. The death of the Prince Imperial, the young Louis
Napoleon, in the Zulu war in South Africa, on June 1,1881, had strengthened the
Republic, and France under Gambetta seemed likely to regain her position in
Europe.
But the adventurous policy pursued in Tonquin, where
France was attempting to found a vast colonial settlement, and her
entanglements in Tunis, which she occupied in 1881, rendered her unable
single-handed to enter upon a war with Germany. The growth of rebellion in
Russia, the alienation of England, Italy and Turkey over the Tunisian
expedition, and the skilful policy of Bismarck, all contributed to keep France
more or less isolated in Europe till the fall of the German Chancellor and the
formation of the alliance with Russia.
During these years France, though in some danger of a
renewal of war with Germany in 1875, had managed to live at peace with her
neighbours. Her rapid recovery from the wounds inflicted in the late war,
followed by the thorough reorganization of the army, had surprised Bismarck
and alarmed many Prussians who favoured an early resumption of hostilities.
But for such a groundless war Europe was not prepared, and Bismarck wisely
contented himself with strengthening the alliances of Germany, and
consolidating her power. Already the German Emperor had made advances to the
Court of St. Petersburg, while the fall, in 1871, of Count Beust,
the Austrian Minister who advocated a coalition against Prussia, implied the
acceptance by the Emperor Francis Joseph of the friendship of the powerful
German Empire. Beust was succeeded by Count Andrassy,
an Hungarian Minister, who favoured the abandonment by Austria of the policy of
interfering in German affairs.
In the summer of 1872, the three Emperors met at Berlin, The objects and the Dreikaiserbund was formed. Its specified objects League, were to maintain the status quo in Europe, to check the progress of
revolutionary, socialist, and nihilist movements, and to act in unison with regard to the Eastern
question. King Humbert of Italy shortly afterwards paid a visit to Berlin, and
as England held aloof from Continental Politics, the French Government could
find no allies. Bismarck’s policy had
succeeded, and France was isolated in Europe. Like
Metternich, Bismarck stood forth as the Dictator of Europe. His triumphant
position was due to the clearness with which he realized what were the
true interests of Germany, and to the determination which enabled him to secure
the objects of his policy.
For four years the so-called league of the three
Emperors continued in existence, and Germany remained safe from all danger of an
attack on the part of France. This harmony of the Great European Monarchies was,
however, destined to be interrupted by the revival of complications in the East
of Europe, followed by the outbreak of war waged by Russia against Turkey on
behalf of the Christian peoples in the Balkan Peninsula. In July, 1875, Herzegovina
revolted against the Turks, and received support from Servia and Montenegro.
Conflicts also simultaneously broke out in Bosnia between the Christians and
Mohammedans, and thousands of refugees fled for safety to the Austrian
frontier. Against the Turkish army of some 30,000, the Herzegovnian force of from 12,000 to 14,000 could not hold the field, but by means of a guerilla
warfare they harassed the Turks and prolonged their resistance into the winter
of 1875-1876. Such a state of things seriously embarrassed Austria, where Slav
and Magyar were always ready to seize an opportunity of falling upon one
another. Any danger to the maintenance of the status quo in the
countries immediately bordering upon Austria was always a serious matter for
the Government of Vienna. Count Andrassy therefore drew up, on behalf of the
three Empires, a scheme of reforms, to be enforced upon Turkey for the benefit
of the Insurgent (provinces, and the “note” received the approval of England
and France. In it five points were specially insisted upon:—the abolition of
the farming of the taxes,
the establishment of religious liberty, the application of the direct revenue
of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the benefit of those provinces, the establishment
of a Commission composed equally of Moslems and Christians to control the
execution of the reforms, the amelioration of the industrial condition of the
country population. The Porte accepted these propositions, published Imperial irades on February 13th and 23rd, and thus for the
moment escaped from the interference of the Great Powers. The Andrassy note
ultimately failed in its object because it contained no provisions for the
execution of the proposed reforms under the supervision of the three Emperors.
For years the Sultan had made promises, and it was impossible for the
insurgents to believe that the Porte would, except under compulsion, carry out
any of the assurances made in the two irades.
They therefore refused to lay down their arms, and the Andrassy Note was
destined to become mere waste paper. Through the spring of 1876, England and
Austria endeavoured to bring about the pacification of the revolts, so as to
avoid all interference. Fresh insurrections, however, broke out in the
disaffected provinces in March and April, and the situation became more and
more critical. Russia became uneasy at the failure of England and Austria, and Gortchakov, the Russian Chancellor, arranged to meet
Bismarck and Andrassy early in May, to discuss the position of affairs.
Murder of the Consuls at Salonika May 6th, 1876.The
Berlin Memorandum, May 13th, 1876.
In the meantime an event occurred at Salonika which increased
the activity of the reform party and involved Turkey in complications with
Germany and France. On the 6th of May, a Turkish mob murdered the Prussian and
French Consuls, while in Constantinople, and other places, there were
threatening movements against the Europeans. On May 13th, the representatives
of Germany, Austria, and Russia, who were in conference at Berlin, embodied
their views in a Memorandum declaring that the reforms promised by the Porte
were to be carried out, that an armistice of two months would be imposed on the
combatants, and that a mixed Commission should at once begin its sittings.
France and Italy accepted this Memorandum but England, fearful of extensive
territorial changes, refused its adhesion and sent twelve ironclads to Besika Bay. This action, supported as it was by the
presence of ships of war belonging to Germany, Italy, Russia, Austria, and
Greece, compelled the Porte to punish the authors of the murder of the Consuls. It was found more difficult to satisfy the German demand of 300,000 francs for the widow of the murdered
Consul. Turkish finance was in a chaotic
condition, officials had received no pay for
months, and all the time the most wasteful extravagance went on unchecked. In Constantinople the
opposition to the Government rapidly increased, and on May 29th, the Sultan Abdul Aziz was deposed by Midhat Pasha and Hussein Avni, and a few days later was murdered.
Murad V was raised to the throne, but
the real power remained in the hands of Midhat
Pasha, for Hussein Avni was murdered on June 15th. Midhat favoured the introduction of European methods, and
opposed the growth of Russian influence. The Revolution was a practical victory of English
over Russian diplomacy, and Sir Henry Elliot replaced Count Ignatiev as the
confidential adviser of the Porte. But before Abdul Aziz had been deposed an insurrection in
Bulgaria had been suppressed by a number of Bashi-Bazouks,
commanded by Abdul Resim, the commander of the army in Roumelia and Bulgaria. It was said that not less than twelve thousand had been
massacred, and at Batak the atrocities committed were of the most revolting
character. The news of the Bulgarian massacres roused all Europe, and
enormously strengthened the hands of the opponents of Turkey.
To England the news of the massacres awoke people to
the real nature of Turkish rule in the East. The tradition of friendship with
the Sultan inherited from the Crimean War still existed in England. In
November, 1875, England, by the purchase of shares, had obtained control over the
Suez Canal, thus intimating her intention of securing her position in the
Mediterranean. To force Turkey to carry out reforms, and to pacify the revolted
provinces, had been the object of English policy, and on June 9, Disraeli, in
the House of Commons, expressed himself full of confidence with reference to
the new era which Midhat Pasha had inaugurated in Turkey. But on June 26 the
nation learnt the truth about the Bulgarian atrocities, and at once declared
itself strongly opposed to the continuance of Turkish rule over the Slavic and
Christian races. The ministry, however, with Disraeli at its head, showed no
realization of the strength of public opinion, or of the magnitude of the
outrages in Bulgaria; and it was not till September that Elliot was instructed
to demand from the Turkish Government measures of reparation and punishment, together with the
appointment of an efficient Commissioner in Bulgaria.
Meanwhile events having an important
bearing on the future of Europe were taking place. On June 30, Prince Milan of Servia, and on July 2, Prince Nicholas of
Montenegro, declared war upon Turkey, and on July 8 the Tsar Alexander and
the Emperor
Francis Joseph, with their Chancellors, met at Reichstadt in Bohemia.
It seems to have been arranged that no armed intervention should take place for
the present, and it was rumoured that the question of partitioning European
Turkey had been under consideration. By a Treaty which was then signed Russia agreed to the Austrian
occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the event of the liberation of Bulgaria by Muscovite arms. Thus
supported by Germany and Austria, Russia had secured freedom of action in the
East, if the concert of Europe failed to force the Turks to carry out reforms.
In their war against Turkey the Servians,
though led by the Russian General Chernaiev, were
defeated, though the Montenegrins were victorious both in the north and south.
Without, however, any assistance from Roumania,
Greece or Bosnia, which was held in check by Turkish troops, it was evident
that Servia had no chance of holding its own. On September 16, an armistice for
ten days was concluded at the instance of the Great Powers, but on September
28, Chernaiev, who had proclaimed Prince Milan King
of Servia, took the offensive, but was driven back by a strong Turkish force.
On October 31 Alexinatz was taken and destroyed by
the Turks, and the overthrow of the Servians seemed
assured. Help, however, was obtained from Russia. On October 30, Ignatiev, the
Russian Ambassador, presented an ultimatum to the Porte demanding the effective
protection of the Christians in Turkey, and the grant to Servia of an
armistice for two months. The Sultan was no longer Murad V, who had died and had been
succeeded by his brother Abdul Hamed II (August 31), who was content to leave
the Government in the hands of his ministers. They at once accepted the Russian
ultimatum, and on October 31, a two months’ truce with Servia was signed. In
order to dispel the anxiety felt by the British Government at the attitude of Russia, the Tsar Alexander
explained his views on November 2 to Lord A. Loftus, the British Ambassador. He
disclaimed all desire for territorial aggrandisement. He expressed an earnest wish for a complete accord between Great Britain and Russia, but stated clearly that
if the Porte refused to carry out the
required reforms he would act alone. He assured
Lord A. Loftus that he had no intention of occupying Constantinople, but that he was
determined to improve the condition of
the Christian population in Turkey. He ended by requesting that his assurances might be published in England. Lord Derby, the
English Foreign Secretary, at once replied
on November 3, proposing that a Conference
of all the leading European Powers should be held at Constantinople on the basis of the
integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Lord Beaconsfield, however, represented a more bellicose section of the Cabinet, and at the Lord Mayor’s banquet on November 9, he
declared that if England enters into conflict in a righteous cause, her resources are inexhaustible.” On the following day Alexander
replied in a speech at Moscow, in which he repeated
that if he could not obtain the consent of Europe he would act independently.
Warlike preparations were, too, hurried on. Six army corps were formed, a Crimean army was organized, and large reinforcements were ordered for the
Caucasus. Military preparations were also made in Turkey, and on November 18 the English Cabinet declared that if Russia occupied
Bulgaria, England would occupy
Gallipoli and Constantinople. While matters were in this critical condition, the representatives of the Six Great Powers assembled in
Constantinople. In a preliminary conference,
lasting from December 12 to December 21, the Powers formulated their demands, the object of which was to preserve the Sovereignty and
integrity of the Ottoman Empire while securing
the Christian population from Turkish
violence. On December 23 the formal Conference was opened under the presidency of the
Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Savfet Pasha, who announced that the roar of cannon which interrupted the proceedings inaugurated the birth of a new era of prosperity in the
Sultan’s dominions.
Pressed on all sides the Turks had determined
to checkmate the Great Powers by producing a liberal Constitution of their
own. It was drawn up by November 21, and when on December 19 Midhat Pasha became Grand
Vizier, the Sultan’s signature was obtained. On December 23 it was, as we have
seen, promulgated, but though full of beneficent provisions, the document was worthless. The Great Powers
persisted in their demand for a Foreign Commission, and for a European control
over the appointment of Governors, but on these points Savfet Pasha refused to yield. Finally, on January 18, a Great Council of the Turkish
Empire, summoned by Midhat, rejected the demands of the Conference. Lord
Salisbury, the principal English representative, had solemnly warned the Sultan
what would be the results of his obstinacy, but to no purpose. The Conference
came to an end, the envoys left Constantinople, and on February 5, 1877, Midhat
Pasha, the one Turk in whom Europe had any confidence, was banished, and the
direction of affairs fell into the hands of Edhem Pasha and Mahmoud Damad
Pasha, both opponents of Russia and reform. On January 31,1877, Gortchakov, the Russian Chancellor, despatched a circular
to the Great Powers asking what they now intended to do. England suggested a
year’s probation, and on February 28, by her advice, the Sultan signed a Treaty
of peace with Servia. Early in March Ignatiev visited Berlin, Paris, Vienna and
London, where, with Schouvalov, the Russian
Ambassador, he drew up a document known as the London Protocol, which the Six
Powers signed on March 31. It called upon the Porte to carry out reforms, to
place its army on a peace footing, and to make peace with Montenegro. On April
3 the Protocol was presented to Savfet Pasha and was
rejected by the Turkish Government, which appealed to the Treaty of Paris, and
refused to allow any outside interference with Montenegro. All hope of
preserving peace between Russia and Turkey had now practically disappeared,
and on April 13 orders were issued for the mobilization of the whole Russian
army; and the Grand Duke Nicholas, brother of the Tsar, was given the command.
On April 24 Russia formally declared war, and an army entered Roumania, with which State a Convention had been made on
April 16. At the same time a circular note was sent to the Powers by the Tsar,
acquainting them with the fact that war had broken out between Russia and
Turkey. The English Government, without allies, was forced to accept the
inevitable, and to adopt an attitude of neutrality. But Lord Derby, in answer
to the Tsar’s circular, announced that the English Government would observe a
strict neutrality so long as the Suez Canal was not interfered with,
Constantinople not occupied, and the Dardanelles and Bosphorus left untouched.
It was not till June 27 that the Russian army crossed the Danube.
During the previous weeks Turkish gunboats had attempted to prevent the passage of the
river, but though the Turkish fleet in the Black Sea proved of great value, the Danube
flotilla was speedily destroyed by Russian batteries, or reduced to inaction.
The Russian plan of campaign was to move the central part of the army along the
river Jantra to the Balkans, while the right wing
took Nicopolis, and the left wing attacked Rustchuk and engaged the Turkish forces in the east of Bulgaria. At the same time it was
hoped that another Russian army under Loris Melikov would occupy Armenia. The
Russians had, however, underrated the strength of their adversaries, and Muktar
Pasha forced his opponents in Asia to retreat upon their own frontier. In
Bulgaria the Russians were more successful, and while the Grand Duke Nicholas
took in charge the reorganization of the civil administration of Bulgaria with
his headquarters at Timova, General Gourko seized the Shipka Pass, crossed the Balkans, and, on
July 15, was within two days’ march of Adrianople. Simultaneously, the Tsarewitch advanced against Rustchuk and a Turkish army, while General Krudener seized
Nicopolis on July 16.
These unchecked Russian successes caused consternation
in Constantinople, and considerable anxiety in London. A change of Turkish
ministers and generals was carried out, Mustapha Pasha being made Minister of
War, and Mehemet Ali Pasha commander of the army of the Danube. At the same
time, in order to safeguard British interests, Admiral Hornby, with thirteen
ironclads, was sent to Besika Bay, and 3,000 men to
Malta. But already a change had come over the position of affairs owing to the
opportune appearance and skilful depositions of Mehemet Ali, of Osman Pasha,
and of Suleiman Pasha. While Mehemet Ali occupied the Russian left wing, Osman
Pasha, the commander of Widdin, with 40,000 men,
seized Plevna, an unfortified village standing at the junction of the roads
between Sofia and Sistova, and Nicopolis and Lovatz. In a few days he had fortified it strongly, and was
in a position to checkmate the Russian plans. On July 20 The siege of General Krudener attacked Plevna, but was repulsed, and
on July 30 a second attack failed and
cost the Russians 8,000 men. Osman Pasha’s forces now amounted to some 50,000
men, and the intrenchments round Plevna had been made wellnigh impregnable. Fortunately for the Russians
Osman did not adopt the offensive, or the Russian position in Bulgaria would
have been in serious danger, for the advance of Suleiman Pasha against General Gourko had forced the Russians to retreat from the country
south of the Balkans, and to defend the Shipka Pass. Suleiman had been recalled
from Montenegro, and sailing from Antivari on July
16, he landed at Dedeagh, and arrived at the scene of operations on July 31.
After some preliminary successes Suleiman, neglecting to attack the Russian
rear, spent four weeks, from August 19 to September 17, in hurling his troops
in a series of useless attacks against the southern entrance of the pass.
September 23 saw the last desperate attempt on the part of the Turks to
dislodge the Russians, after which Suleiman succeeded Mehemet Ali as commander
of the army of the Danube. His operations, like those of his predecessor,
showed a want of generalship, and lacked energy and
decision, due probably to the fact that he was bought by the Russians. Too much
time was wasted in fortifying positions, when the situation required active
offensive movements. The result was that the Russian left wing was not broken
through, and time was given for Russian reinforcements to arrive.
The fall of Plevna, Dec. 10, 1877.
Meanwhile the Tsar had obtained fresh troops from Roumania, and the army before Plevna was placed under the Roumanian Prince Charles. On September 11 the third battle
of Plevna took place under the eyes of the Tsar. In spite of conspicuous
bravery on the part of the Russians and Roumanians,
and of the heroic efforts of Skobelov, the Turks remained
victorious, the Russian losses amounting to 12,000. Todleben,
the defender of Sebastopol, was then called upon to organize a regular siege of
Plevna. For some three months Osman held out. Gradually the whole country, from
the Balkans to the Danube, fell into the hands of the Russians, and it became
impossible for supplies to enter the beleaguered village. In the second week of
December, his food being exhausted, Osman made a desperate effort to break
out, and having failed, he surrendered on December 10. The results of the
Russian success were at once seen. Three corps advanced across the Balkans,
Shipka was taken, and in the last encounter of the war on January 17,1878, Gourko routed the army of Suleiman Pasha. Three days later
the Russians entered Adrianople, and detachments reached Rodosto on the Sea of
Marmora, and Charlu on the road to Constantinople.
The Russians had been equally successful in Armenia, and had retrieved their
early failures. In October, 1877, the Russian armies, being strongly
reinforced, drove back Mukhtar Pasha, who, in November, was obliged to take refuge
in Erzurum. On November 17 General Melikov took Kars by assault, and the
victory of the Russians was assured. In the west the Montenegrins had taken
advantage of the absence of the Turkish troops to reduce Niksich, Antivari, and Dulcigno, and the
revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina still continued. Crete had risen demanding
union with Greece; Thessaly and Epirus were in rebellion, and the Servians had again taken up arms.
The only hope for the Ottoman Empire lay in peace. As
early as December 12th, 1877, the Sultan had attempted to secure the mediation
of the Great Powers, but had met with no success. At the end of the month he
appealed to the Queen of England, who obtained from the Tsar an assurance that
if the Sultan applied directly to him he was willing to treat of peace. On
January 19th, 1878, Turkish plenipotentiaries arrived at Kasanlik,
the head-quarters of the Grand Duke Nicholas, to ask for an armistice, but it
was not till January 31st that their request was granted at Adrianople, and the
preliminaries of peace signed.
Meanwhile the attitude of England had become a serious
factor in the situation, and it seemed that war with Russia was by no means an
improbable event. At the opening of Parliament, on January 17th, the Queen’s
Speech contained the declaration that “some expected occurrence may render it
incumbent on me to adopt measures of precaution.” It was clearly understood in
St. Petersburg that a Russian occupation of Constantinople would be the signal
for the outbreak of hostilities with England. Admiral Hornby received orders at
the end of January to sail through the Dardanelles to Constantinople, but upon Gortchakov’s vigorous protest the order was
withdrawn, and on February 13th, the Admiral with his ships anchored at the
Prince’s Islands about ten miles below the Turkish capital. The danger of war
for some weeks was great, but gradually passed away, as negotiations continued
The Treaty between the Porte and Russia. On March 3rd, 1878, the gtefcino, Treaty of San Stefano was signed by Ignatiev and Nelidov on behalf of Russia, and by Server Pasha and Sadullali Bey on behalf of Turkey. Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania became independent; the two former States received
considerable cessions of territory, while Roumania gave Bessarabia to Russia and was compensated by obtaining the lower Dobrudsha from Turkey Bulgaria, extending southwards to the
Aegean Sea at the mouth of the Karassu, and with the
Black Drina as its western boundary, was formed into an autonomous, tributary
Principality, with a Prince chosen by the people and accepted by the Porte with
the assent of the Great Powers.
The Reforms laid before the Porte by the
Constantinople Conference in 1876 were to be carried out in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Crete was to receive the organization promised in 1868 by the
organic law, and an analogous law was to be introduced into the remaining
Christian provinces, such as Epirus and Thessaly. In Armenia the Porte promised
to defend the inhabitants from the Kurds and to carry out necessary local
reforms. The war indemnity was fixed at fourteen hundred million roubles, but
owing to Turkey’s financial condition Ardahan, Kars, Batoum, Bayazid, and the territory between the
Russian frontier and the Soghanly mountains was
accepted in place of eleven hundred million roubles. The Bosphorus and the
Dardanelles were to be open to the merchant ships of all nations in times of
peace as well as of war.
To the Treaty of San Stefano both
Austria and England offered a firm opposition, and it was resolved that a
Congress should meet at Berlin. But to the demand of Lord Derby that every
article of the Treaty should be laid before the Congress, Gortchakov offered a strenuous resistance. War again appeared to be imminent. While
Austria prepared to occupy of Bosnia and Andrassy obtained a vote of 60,000,000
gulden, Lord Beaconsfield called out the Reserves, and summoned troops from
India. Lord Derby, who opposed these drastic measures, did indeed resign, but
his successor, Lord Salisbury, was in full accord with the views of the
Premier. In a circular of April 1st, 1878, the new Foreign Secretary had no
difficulty in showing that the Treaty of San Stefano was fatal to the interests
of Europe no less than to those of Austria and England. Count Schouvalov was ordered to find out exactly what the English
Government desired, and at the same time Austria explained her reasons for
opposing the Treaty. Bismarck was as anxious as Gortchakov for the preservation of peace, and on hearing Schouvalov’s report of the wishes of the English Cabinet, the Tsar decided to accept the British and Austrian
demands. On May 30th, a secret agreement was made between Russia and England,
and on June 4th, Lord Beaconsfield signed a Convention with the Sultan,
engaging, if the Porte carried out necessary reforms, to aid in opposing all
future aggression on the part of Russia. Cyprus was handed over to Great
Britain to be administered and occupied by her until Russia should have
restored her Armenian conquests.
On June 13th, 1878, the Congress met at Berlin under
the Presidency of Bismarck, Turkey and the six Great Powers sending their Prime
Ministers or Foreign Ministers, and England being represented by Lord
Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury.
Owing in great measure to the skill of Bismarck all
difficulties were at length removed, and on July 13th, 1878, the famous Treaty
of Berlin was signed. Bulgaria was divided into two provinces, separated by the
Balkans. The southern Province was called Eastern Roumelia,
and though it remained Turkish it was ruled by a Christian Governor nominated
by the Porte with the assent of the Powers. North of the Balkans Bulgaria was
an autonomous Principality bereft of the Dobrudscha and the northern part of Macedonia. Bosnia and Herzegovina were handed over to
Austria, and by occupying the Novi-Bazar district that power placed herself
between Servia and Montenegro. Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania,
were confirmed in their independence, though the cessions of territory arranged
at San Stefano were slightly altered. Montenegro obtained the sea-ports of Antivari and Dulcigno, Servia
secured the district of old Servia in the upper valley of the Morava, and Roumania, while forced to yield to Russia the country
between the Pruth and the northern mouth of the
Danube, received the Dobrudscha and the sea-port of Rustendje.
In Asia the Tsar restored Bayazid, an important town
through which passed European trade from Trebizond to Persia, and while
retaining Kars and Batoum, promised that the latter
should be erected into a free commercial port. Lastly, at the suggestion of
France, the Sultan, who undertook to apply scrupulously in Crete the organic
law of 1868, was recommended to cede the southern part of Thessaly and Epirus
to Greece.
By the Treaty of Berlin Russia had acquired Bessarabia
and a portion of
Armenia, England had secured Cyprus, Austria Bosnia and Herzegovina, and France
a lien on Tunis. An important step had been taken towards the emancipation of
the Christian peoples inhabiting the Balkan Peninsula from Turkish misrule.
Europe now entered upon a period of armed peace, during which the Great Powers
gradually turned their attention to commercial enterprise and colonial
expansion.
|
