BOOKS.

THREE YEARS OF THE EASTERN QUESTION.* Tat value of Mr. MacColPs contributions to the literature of the Eastern Question consists primarily in this,—that he really follows

• Three Tears of the Eastern Question. By Malcolm MacColl. London: Chatto sad Windua.

it with the sort of interest which other men display in a literary or Parliamentary controversy. He reads every Blue-book, marks every despatch, attends to every incident, and then makes of the whole a consistent and intelligible narrative, often wonder- fully different from the narrative which men with only vague.

recollections of the facts would have pieced together. In the book before us, which is throughout as calm and judicial as it is- possible for a book to be, he has traced the history of the recent struggle between the British Government and Russia, and in

doing it has shown conclusively that the former has through- out done its best to impede and thwart Russia in perform- ing a work which nevertheless all Englishmen believe ought to be performed, and which, at first at all events, was under- taken in good-faith. Those of our readers who distrust our- statement should read through Mr. MacColl's pages carefully —they are neither many nor large—and we will then be content to abide by their own conclusions. Many of them, we suspect, will wonder how a plain unvarnished narrative has altered their opinions, and many more will be shocked to find how much which they knew once they have forgotten. Incidentally Mr. MacColl disposes quietly of a great many popular fallacies, and as nearly enough has been said in our columns upon his general narrative, we shall confine our notice to these points.

There is a general notion that Mr. Layard, being now such a devotee of the Turks, must always have been friendly to them.

Mr. MacColl, however, shows that when Mr. Layard was a traveller instead of an Ambassador, he was one of the strongest witnesses against Ottoman misrule. He himself described massacres nearly as bad as that of Batuk, and this description of a scene in Armenia is not from Mr. MacGahan or Mr. Schuyler, but Mr. Layard :—

" We soon saw evidence of the slaughter. At first, a solitary skull rolling down with the rubbish ; then heaps of blanched bones; further up, fragments of rotten garments. As we advanced, these remains be- came more frequent ; skeletons, almost entire, still hung in the dwarf shrubs. I was soon compelled to renounce an attempt to count them. As we approached the wall of rock, the declivity became covered with bones, mingled with the long plaited tresses of the women, shreds of discoloured linen, and well worn shoes. There were skulls of all ages,. from the child unborn to the toothless old woman. We could not avoid treading on the bones as we advanced, and rolling them with the loose- stones into the valley below. 'This is nothing,' exclaimed my guide, who observed me gazing with wonder on these miserable heaps. They- are but the remains of those who were thrown from above, or tried to- escape the sword by jumping from the rock. Follow me.' The guide- led him to a spot where ho could look down upon 'an open recess or platform,' in the face of a rock overhanging the river Zab. This plat- form was 'covered with human remains.' They were the ghastly relics of a band of Christian fugitives, who had escaped from an atrocious massacre of Christians 'through the valley of Lizan,'—a massacre of which the ordinary English public never heard."

The popular idea, recently repeated by Mr. Hardy, is that the Treaty of Paris forbade any " interference " with the Porte, and that Lord Palmerston would never have consented to any. Lord Palmerston did, however, consent to an Anglo-French occupa- tion of Syria in 1860-61, which forced on the Porte a constitution for the Lebanon and the punishment of the authors of massacre there. Lord Dufferin was the British Commissioner, and he- hung his Chefket Pasha :— " The English Commissioner was Lord Dufferin, and the first thing ho and his French colleague did was to denounce the ringleaders of the massacres, the worst of them being then, as always, a Pasha of high rank. Fuad Pasha, the Turkish Commissioner, was thus obliged to put his brother Pasha on his trial. The criminal was, like Chefket Pasha, honourably acquitted. This tampering with justice was met by the Government of that day not by feeble remonstrances and futile- requests, but by a peremptory order to punish the murderer. It was- in vain that Fuad Pasha pleaded the danger of exciting the fanatical population of Damascus by hanging a Pasha in one of their streets. He was told that French soldiers and English marines would know how to deal with the fanatical Mussulmans of Damascus. The guilty Pasha was accordingly tried again, convicted, and banged, and not a. Mussulman lifted his hand to avenge the deed. The swaggering Mussulman, like bullies all the world over, is easily cowed by an ex- hibition of determination and force. Lord Dufferin drew up a Con- stitution for the Lebanon which, after some modifications which certainly did not improve it, was submitted to the Turkish Govern- ment for its sanction. The Porte of course objected, and pleaded the. recognition of its 'independence' by the Treaty of Paris. France and. England, declining argument, quietly intimated that the foreign occupation should last till the Porte accepted the Constitution. The Porte yielded, of course."

The Tory idea, quite sincerely held, we imagine, as does Mr.. MacColl, is that the insurrection in Bulgaria which led to the atrocities, though, of course, it did not provoke them, was fomented by foreigners—that is, Russians—and that Mr. Baring admitted this. That gentleman, however, explicitly denied this. He says in his subsequent report (" Turkey," No. I., 1877, page 526), which everybody forgets:—

"There is an expression in my report which I want to correct, as I think otherwise it would mislead those who read it. I have applied the word 'foreign 'to the emissaries and agitators who stirred up the revolt. The principal men, such as Benkowsky, Vankoff, Raritan, and others, were all Bulgarians by birth, but had lived for many years in Roumania or Servia. It is true they came from abroad, but as regards Bulgaria, they should not be called foreigners. Among the leaders was a man who was knoan as Odessali ; but it is doubtful whether he was a Russian or only a Bulgarian settled at Odessa. I never intended in my report to convey the impression that bond fide foreigners took an active part in the revolt, but I quite understand that the expression I used might lead people to suppose that such was my opinion, and I therefore hasten to correct it."

The Tories repeat persistently that Mr. Gladstone got up the agitation of the autumn of 1876. The truth is, the agitation got up of itself, and compelled the Government to issue the despatch of August 29th, declaring it impossible for them to aid Turkey. "Mr. Gladstone obstinately refused to speak or write upon the subject, till the reports of the massacres in the Daily News were confirmed by official documents. It was not till the publication of Mr. Schuyler's report, confirming the worst that had been feared, that Mr. Gladstone made up his mind to break silence. And his speech (which was not made till September 9th) and pam- phlet, so far from exciting the population, had a contrary effect."

It is the determined opinion of all Tories that Russia designed this war. What is the fact ?—

" On September 26th, 1876, the Russian Government made a proposal, which is recorded as follows in a despatch from Lord Derby to Sir Henry Elliot :—' The Russian Ambassador called upon me this after- noon, and communicated to me in strict confidence a despatch from Prince Gortchakoff, stating that the Russian Government wished to propose to those of England and Austria that in the event of the Porte refusing the conditions of peace which had now been offered them [administrative autonomy of a very restricted kind for the disturbed provinces], the following measures should be taken,—(1), the occupa- tion of Bosnia by an Austrian force ; (2), the occupation of Bulgaria by a Russian force ; (3), the entrance of the united fleets of all nations into the Bosphorus. Prince Gortchakoff says that be believes the threat of taking these measures would be sufficient to accomplish those objects. It would force the Porte to accept the terms proposed to it ; it would avert war ; and it would ensure the better treatment of the Eastern Christians. In a second despatch, the Russian Chancellor states that when Count Schouvaloff makes this confidential communica- tion to me, he is authorised to add that if, in my opinion, the entry of the United fleets into the Bosphorus would be preferable alone, and suffi- cient for the object in view, the Russian Government are ready to consent to this course, and will abstain lion: making the two other propositions mentioned above."

Down to March 31st, 1877, the Russian Government agreed to a Protocol, drawn up by Lord Derby, which allowed to the Porte another period of grace to make reforms in, and which was allowed by Midhat Pasha to be just and honourable.

It is a fixed opinion of all Tories that Russia has always looked to the conquest of Constantinople. Here is the opinion of Czar Nicholas in 1853 upon the subject :—

" If an Emperor of Russia should one day chance to conquer Con- stantinople, or should find himself forced to occupy it permanently, and fortify it with a view to making it impregnable, from that day would date the decline of Russia. If I did not transfer my residence to the Bosphorus, my son or at least my grandson, would. The change would certainly be made sooner or later ; for the Bosphorus is warmer, more agreeable, more beautiful than Petersburg or Moscow ; and if once the Czar wore to take up his abode at Constantinople, Russia would cease to be Russia. No Russian would like that. There is not a Russian who would not like to see a Christian crusade for the delivery of the Mosque of St. Sophia ; I should like it, as much as any one. But nobody would like to see the Kremlin transported to the Seven Towers."

That is the view entertained, we believe, by every Russian of eminence. And finally, for we can find no more space for the endless exposures in Mr. MacColl's little volume, it is the rooted belief of almost all Englishmen that the Emperor of Russia pledged himself not to annex Khiva, and did annex it. The facts are :—

" The Russians conquered Khiva, and imposed a war indemnity of £250,000, to be paid by instalments in eighteen years. The Khan of Khiva pressed the Russians to leave a garrison permanently in his capital, to keep the lawless Turcomans in order. But the Russians declined. In the treaty of peace, however, the right bank of the Oxus, a sterile strip of arid land, was ceded to Russia, and by a treaty with the Ameer of Bokhara in the following September the greater part of this acquired territory was annexed to Bokhara. Moreover, the Russian occupation of Khiva was not ,prolonged unnecessarily, and Captain Burnaby, who never loses an opportunity of scoring a point against Russia, states that there was not a single Russian within the Khanate of Ellyn when he was there three years ago."