The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murderAli Haydar Mithat
History
The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murder
Ali Haydar Mithat
Midhat Paşa, 1822-1884; Statesmen -- Turkey -- Biography; Turkey -- History -- 19th century
The latter was to the effect that, in the event of the object for
which the Protocol had been signed, viz., reciprocal disarmament and
peace, not being attained, the Protocol in question should be regarded
as null and void.
The declaration by the Russian Ambassador was in the following terms:—
“If peace with Montenegro is concluded, and the Porte accepts the
advice of Europe and shows itself ready to replace its forces on a
peace footing, and seriously to undertake the reforms mentioned in
the Protocol, let it send to St Petersburg a special envoy to treat
of disarmament, to which his Majesty the Emperor would also, on his
part, consent. If massacres similar to those which have occurred
in Bulgaria take place, this would necessarily put a stop to the
measures of demobilization.”
The Porte thought fit, perhaps unnecessarily, inasmuch as its adhesion
to the Protocol was not required, to make on the 9th April 1877 a
most elaborate and spirited answer to the position taken up by the
signatories of that document.
It pointed out that the efforts of the Powers were exclusively directed
to what they considered the well‐being of one portion only of the
Sultan’s subjects, whereas the reforms which the new Constitution
aimed at introducing did not bear a special or exclusive character in
regard to province, race, creed or language. That the small account
which the Powers seemed to have taken both of the great principles of
equality and justice which the Turkish Government sought to introduce
into the internal administration, and of its rights of independence and
sovereignty, was deeply to be regretted. That Turkey as an independent
State could not submit “to be placed under any surveillance, whether
collective or not.” That the Treaty of Paris explicitly declared the
principle of non‐intervention. That Treaty which binds the other high
contracting parties as well as Turkey, cannot be abolished by a
Protocol in which Turkey has taken no part. And as for the last clause,
the Government of the Sultan saw in it “a proceeding of intimidation
calculated to deprive their action of all merit of spontaneity, and a
source of grave complication for the present as well as for the future.”
With reference to the declaration of the Russian Ambassador annexed to
the Protocol, the Porte very pointedly remarked that “as regards the
disorders which might break out in Turkey and arrest the demobilization
of the Russian army, the Sultan’s Government, while resenting the
offensive terms in which this idea has been expressed, believes that
Europe is convinced that the disorders which have disturbed the
tranquillity of the provinces were due to external agitation; that
the Imperial Government cannot be held responsible for them, and that
consequently the Russian Government will not be justified _in making
the demobilization of its armies depend on such contingencies_.”
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