Bleeding Armenia: Its history and horrors under the curse of IslamWilliams, Augustus Warner
History
Bleeding Armenia: Its history and horrors under the curse of Islam
Williams, Augustus Warner
Armenian question
"I think there are certain matters, such as those which have been
discussed to-day and discussed in many other forms, on which it is
perfectly possible to make up our minds. And what I should say is,
that the whole position may be summed up in three brief propositions. I
do not know to which of these propositions to assign the less or the
greater importance. It appears to me that they are probably each and
every one of them absolutely indispensable. The first proposition is
this, You ought to moderate your demands. You ought to ask for nothing
but that which is strictly necessary, and that possibly according
to all that we know of the proposals before us, the rule has been
rigidly complied with. I do not hesitate to say, ladies and gentlemen,
that the cleanest and clearest method of dealing with this subject,
if we should have done it, would have been to tell the Turk to march
out of Armenia. (Loud cheers.) He has no right to remain there, and
it would have been an excellent settlement of the question. But it is
by no means certain that Europe or even the three Powers would have
been unanimous in seeking after that end. Therefore, let us part with
everything except what is known to be indispensable. Then I come to
the other two rules, and of these the first is that you should accept
no Turkish promises. (Hear, hear.) They are absolutely and entirely
worthless. They are worse than worthless, because they may serve to
delude a few persons who, without information or experience, naturally
would suppose, when promises are given, that there is something like
an intentional fulfilment. Recollect that no scheme is worth having
unless it be supported by efficient guarantees entirely outside the
promises of the Turkish Government. (Applause.) There is another
word which I must speak, and it is this: Don't be too much afraid
if you hear introduced into this discussion a word that I admit, in
ordinary cases, ought to be excluded from all diplomatic proceeding,
namely, the word coercion. Coercion is a word perfectly well
understood in Constantinople, and it is a word highly appreciated in
Constantinople. It is a drastic dose--(laughter)--which never fails of
its aim when it is administered in that quarter. (Laughter.) Gentlemen,
I would not use these words if I had not myself personally had large
and close experience of the proceedings of the Turkish Government. I
say, first make your case good, and when your case is made good,
determine that it shall prevail. (Cheers.) Grammar has something to
do with this case. Recollect that while the word 'ought' sounded in
Constantinople, passes in thin air, and has no force or solidity
whatever attaching to it; on the contrary, the brother or sister
monosyllable, the word 'must' is perfectly understood--(cheers)--and
it is a known fact supported by positive experience, which can be
verified upon the map of Europe, that a timely and judicious use of
the word never fails for its effect.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account