The action of the Powers. The action of Russia. CHAPTER VI. THE BALKAN PENINSULA, ETC. 1856-1885. IN the preceding chapters we have traced the gradual emancipation, under the supervision of Europe, of isolated out-lying portions of the Ottoman Empire. We now approach a larger subject. During the last thirty years the Powers have assumed to deal with the central mass of the Empire; pruning it of its appendant tributary provinces, and recognising them under various conditions as independent states; readjusting its frontiers; regulating its waterways; and even supervising the details of its local administration. This interference on the part of the Powers collectively has been largely due to attempts on the part of Russia to interfere single-handed with the destinies of Eastern Europe. In 1853, and again in 1877, Turkish misgovernment and Christian discontent were the opportunity of Russia. At the former date, as the champion of Orthodoxy, at the latter, as the saviour of Nationalities akin to her own, she entered on the path which leads to the Bosphorus. On both occasions she was too strong for the Turks, and the question for decision was whether she was to deal according to her good will and pleasure with the Ottoman Empire, as she had often done before, from the treaty of Kainardji down to the treaty of Adrianople; or whether the fate of that empire was a matter which concerned the European Powers in common. The question was answered in 1878 as it had been answered in 1856, but a second Crimean ties the and Berlin. War was avoided. At the Congress of Paris, Russia had to Similarirenounce the pretensions which she had gone to war to main- between tain. At the Congress of Berlin she had to submit to the Treaties re-settlement of her contract with Turkey from the point of of Paris view of the general interest of Europe. The treaties of Paris and of Berlin thus resemble one another, in that both alike are a negation of the right of any one Power, and an assertion of the right of the Powers collectively, to regulate the solution of the Eastern question. between Treaties. But these two great treaties differ considerably from one Differences another in several important particulars. The Treaty of Paris the two was primarily a treaty of peace, and contains therefore a number of articles which answer the merely temporary purpose of putting an end to a state of war. The Treaty of Berlin is primarily a political settlement, supervening upon a peace, the terms of which had been previously agreed upon, as between the belligerents, by the treaty of San Stefano. Again, in 1856, Turkey and her allies were victorious, and the object of the arrangement was the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire, which was to be left to perform its promises of well-doing without external interference. In 1878 Turkey was crushed, her best friends were ready to consent to her dismemberment on a large scale; there was no more confidence in her reformation from within, and we no more hear of guarantees of her integrity and independence. The Treaty of Berlin was indeed intended to Double be a re-assertion of the guiding principle of the Treaties of the Treaty Paris and of London, i.e. of the claim of the Powers collect- of Berlin. ively, as against Russia individually, to take cognizance of the Eastern question. But it was also intended to be a revision of those Treaties. purpose of of Berlin as a reassertion of the au 1. At the opening of the Berlin Congress, Prince Bismark The Treaty explained that the stipulations of the Treaty of San Stefano were in several points of a nature to modify the state of things as fixed by former European Conventions,' and that thority of the Plenipotentiaries were assembled for the purpose of submitting that Treaty to the free discussion of the Cabinets, the Powers. The Treaty of Berlin as a re vision of those of London. signatories of the Treaties of 1856 and 1871.' At a later stage, Count Schouvaloff admitted that the Treaty of San Stefano was a preliminary convention, having obligatory force only upon the two contracting parties, by which Russia intended to let the Turkish Government know beforehand the demands she would formulate later before Europe1.' The Treaty of Berlin was accordingly so drawn as to supersede those parts of the Treaty of San Stefano which were held to be of European concern, viz. the articles which relate to Montenegro (1, 2), to Servia (3, 4), to Roumania (5), to Bulgaria (6-11), to the Danube (12), to Bosnia and Herzegovina (14), to Crete (15), to Armenia (16), to the Persian boundary (18), and to the Russian protectorate (22)2. 2. But a still more important object of the Congress of Berlin was to revise the Treaties of Paris and London. A leading idea of those Treaties had been the preservation of the Paris and independence and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and of its sovereign rights over the vassal principalities. All this was now to be changed. The Porte was to be virtually reduced to tutelage, and its suzerainty over the Principalities was to be finally extinguished. Such portions, however, of the earlier treaties as are not abrogated or modified by the later Treaty are expressly confirmed by it; and the unrepealed and permanent provisions of the three Treaties, taken together, contain the now binding decision of the great Powers as to the settlement of Eastern Europe. The Treaty of Paris. The portions of the Treaty of Paris which are still in force 1 Parl. Papers, 1878, Turkey, No. 39, pp. 12, 137, 242. 2 The provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano which were not wholly abrogated by the Treaty of Berlin, and thus continued to be in force between the parties to the former Treaty (12 out of a total of 29) relate to :-obstructions at the Sulina mouth of the Danube (Art. 13), amnesty (17, 27), the indemnity (19), law-suits in Turkey (20), the inhabitants of districts ceded to Russia (21), the renewal of treaties (23), the Straits (24), evacuation in Asia (25, 26), prisoners (28), ratification (29). The outstanding questions between Russia and Turkey, chiefly financial, were settled in the final Treaty of Peace, signed 8th February, 1879, and by the Convention of 14th May, 1882. See Appendix, No. II. relate to the admission of the Porte to the European concert (Art. 7), to a resort to mediation before a war between the Porte and any one or more of the other signatories of the Treaty (8), and to the navigation of the Straits (10), of the Black Sea (12), and of the Danube (15-19). Even if the article as to treaties of commerce is still to some extent operative, only ten of the thirty-four articles of the Treaty are now even partially in force1. of London. Of the nine articles of the Treaty of London of 1871, those The Treaty practically operative relate to the navigation of the Straits (Art. 2), of the Black Sea (3), and of the Danube (4–7). of Berlin. It will be observed that the surviving portions of these The Treaty older Treaties relate, almost exclusively, to subsidiary questions of commerce and navigation. The greater questions-of the rise of new nationalities, the redistribution of territory, and the narrowing of the Ottoman jurisdiction, have been newly, and in most cases for the first time, provided for by the Treaty of Berlin. Certain of the provisions of this Treaty are, on the face of Temporary provisions. them, of a merely temporary character. Such are the articles relating to ratification (64), to the evacuation of certain portions of European Turkey (11, 22, 32), to the interim administration of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia (6, 7). The articles of the Treaty which, as contrasted with those Permanent provisions. just mentioned, may be called 'permanent,' although many even of these are provisional, in the sense of relating to successive stages in very complicated changes 2, have reference to— the recognition as independent, with accessions of territory, of the three principalities over which the Porte had hitherto claimed suzerainty, and the subtraction of new inchoate states from the direct government of the Porte (Arts. 1-5, 8-21, 2631, 33-40, 42-44, 46-51); the administration by Austria of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Art. 25); the advance of the Russian 1 Art. 33, with reference to the Aland islands, is in force, but has of course no reference to the Eastern question. 2 Leaving also out of account Art. 63, as being only a confirmation of the treaties of 1856 and 1871. The topics regulated by the three Treaties. Topics The Straits. frontier in Europe and in Asia (Arts. 45, 58–60); the recommendation of concessions to Greece (Art. 24); the navigation of the Danube (Arts. 52-57); specific engagements of the Porte as to Provincial Government in Europe (Art. 23); engagements of the Porte for the benefit of the Armenians (Art. 61); and general engagements of the Porte as to religious toleration (Art. 62). The topics now regulated by the Treaties of Paris, of London, and of Berlin, with its Supplementary Conventions, may therefore be classified under seventeen heads, viz.: I. The admission of the Porte to the concert of Europe (Paris, Art. 7). II. The agreement as to a resort to mediation (Paris, 8). VII. Roumania (Berlin, 43–51). VIII. Servia (Berlin, 34-40, 42). IX. Montenegro (Berlin, 26–31, 33). XI. Eastern Roumelia (Berlin, 13–21). XV. Cessions to Greece (Berlin, 24; Convention of 1881). XVII. The Persian boundary (Berlin, 60). Of these topics, I, II, and III need little more explanation than can conveniently be given in the shape of notes to the relative articles of the Treaties. Of some of the others it may be useful to give in this place a more connected, though still summary, account. IV. THE NAVIGATION OF THE BOSPHORUS AND DARDANELLES. -By the Treaty of the Dardanelles, of 5th January, 1809, |