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
It is scarcely worth while to waste many words over the proposal
from Livadia. Austria feared nothing so much as a joint occupation
with Russia. It would have been a guarantee exacted from her for
her own eventual simultaneous retirement, which would have upset
all her plans. Nor was England yet brought up to concert pitch. But
the notice had served its purpose. England, a little timorously,
and with the best intentions towards Turkey, and with the general
approval and even applause of Europe,[40] had undertaken the lead
in proposing terms to Turkey as a basis of pacification. As early
as the 11th September Count Schouvaloff in an interview described
“(1) The _status quo_, speaking roughly, both as regards Servia
and Montenegro. (2) Administrative reforms in the nature of local
autonomy for Bosnia and the Herzegovina. (3) Guarantees of some
similar kinds (the exact details of which might be reserved for later
discussion) against the future maladministration of Bulgaria.”[41]
Ten days later, on the 21st September, Lord Derby, having in the
meantime secured the agreement of the Austrian Government[42] to
these proposals, these terms were forwarded to Sir H. Elliot for
communication to the Porte. The second condition relating to Bosnia
and Herzegovina was amplified by the important stipulation “that the
Porte should undertake, _in a Protocol to be signed at Constantinople
with the Representatives of the mediatory Powers_, to grant, etc.”[43]
Sir H. Elliot, in obedience to positive instructions, went to the
utmost limit of friendly pressure[44] to induce the Porte to accept
these conditions. The Porte, on its side, showed the greatest
possible desire to meet the wishes of the English Ambassador.[45]
The term “local autonomy,” and still more the form of a Protocol
demanded, were the two most serious obstacles to an understanding.
So great was Sir H. Elliot’s influence on the Turkish Minister,
and so great was their confidence in England’s loyalty, that an
understanding was almost arrived at when the news of General
Soumarakoff’s Mission reached the Porte. On the 4th October, the new
Turkish Government telegraphed to the Ottoman Ambassador in London
an indignant protest against the proposals of which that envoy was
the bearer, and concluded by saying: “If the Sublime Porte has,
though challenged (by Servia), not made use of her victory, she will
never forget that she is still an independent State, and that she
owes it to herself to choose an honourable death rather than the
dismemberment and partition of her States.”[46]
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