Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/690

636 Echmiadzin passed to Russia, in 1828, the Katholikos began to claim spiritual jurisdiction over the whole Armenian Church, and the submission of the patriarch of Constantinople was obtained by Russia when she helped Turkey in her war with Egypt. Recently Russia has secured the submission of the independent Katholikos of Sis, and has thus acquired a power of interference in Armenian affairs in all parts of the world. During 1900 Russia showed renewed interest in Turkish Armenia by securing the right to construct all railways in it, and in the Armenians by pressing the Porte to restore order and introduce reforms.

The Berlin Treaty was a disappointment to the Gregorian Armenians, who had hoped that Armenia and Cilicia would have been formed into an autonomous province administered by Christians. But the formation of such a province was impossible. The Gregorians were scattered over the empire, and, except in a few small districts, were nowhere in a majority. Nor were they bound together by any community of thought or sentiment. The Turkish-speaking Armenians of the south could scarcely converse with the Armenian - speaking people of the north ; and the ignorant mountaineers of the east had nothing in common, except religion, with the highly - educated townsmen of Constantinople Revolu- anci Smyrna. After the change in Russian tionary p0pCy and the failure of the Powers to secure reforms, the advanced party amongst the Armenians, some of whom had been educated in Europe and been deeply affected by the free thought and Nihilistic tendencies of the day, determined to secure their object by the production of disturbances such as those that had given birth to Bulgaria. Societies were formed at Tiflis and in several European capitals for the circulation of pamphlets and newspapers, and secret societies, such as the Huntchagist, were instituted for more revolutionary methods. An active propaganda was carried on in Turkish Armenia by emissaries, who tried to introduce arms and explosives, and represented the ordinary incidents of Turkish misrule to Europe as serious atrocities. The revolutionary movement was joined by some of the younger men, who formed local committees on the Nihilist plan, but it was strongly opposed by the Armenian clergy and the American missionaries, who saw the impossibility of success; and its irreligious tendency and the self-seeking ambition of its leaders made it unacceptable to the mass of the people. Exasperated at their failure, the emissaries organized attacks on individuals, wrote threatening letters, and at last posted revolutionary placards, 5th January 1893, at Yuzgat, and on the walls of the American College at Marsivan. In the last case the object of the Huntchagists was to compromise the missionaries, and in this they succeeded. The Americans were accused of issuing the placards; two Armenian professors were imprisoned; and the girls’ school was burned down. Outbreaks, that were easily suppressed, followed at Kaisarleh and other places. One of the revolutionary dreams was to make the ancient Daron the centre of a new Armenia. But the movement met with no encouragement, either amongst the prosperous peasants on the rich plain of Mush or in the mountain villages of Sasiin. In the summer of 1893, an emissary was captured near Miish, and the governor, hoping to secure others, ordered the Kurdish Irregular Horse to raid the mountain district. The Armenians drove off the Kurds,1 and, when attacked in the spring of 1894,

again held their own. The Yali now called up regular troops from Erzingan; and the Sultan issued a firman calling upon all loyal subjects to aid in suppressing the revolt. A massacre of a most brutal character, in which Turkish soldiers took part, followed; and aroused deep indignation in Europe. In November 1894 a Turkish commission of inquiry was sent to Armenia, and was accompanied by the Consular delegates of Great Britain, France, and Russia, who elicited the fact that there had been no attempt at revolt to justify the action of the authorities. Throughout 1894 the state of the country bordered upon anarchy, and during the winter of 1894-95 the British Government, with lukewarm support from France and Russia, pressed for administrative reforms in the vilayets of Erzenim, Van, Bitlis, Sivas, Memuret-el-Aziz (Kharput), and Diarbekr. The Porte made counterproposals, and officials concerned in the Sasun massacres were decorated and rewarded. On 11th May 1895 the three Powers presented to the Sultan a complicated scheme of reforms which was more calculated to increase than to lessen the difficulties connected with the government of Armenia; but it was the only one to which Russia would agree. The Sultan delayed his answer. Great Britain was in favour of coercion, but Russia when sounded, replied that she “would certainly not join in any coercive measures” and she was supported by France. At this moment, 21st June 1895. Lord Rosebery’s Cabinet resigned, and when Lord Salisbury’s Government resumed the negotiations in August, the Sultan appealed to France and Russia against England. During the negotiations the secret societies had not been inactive. Disturbances occurred at Tarsus; Armenians who did not espouse the “national” cause were murdered; the life of the patriarch was threatened; and a report was circulated that the British ambassador wished some Armenians killed to give him an excuse for bringing the fleet to Constantinople. On the 1st October 1895 a number of Armenians, some armed, went in procession with a petition to the Porte and were ordered by the police to disperse. Shots were fired, and a riot occurred in which many Armenian and some Moslem lives were lost. The British ambassador now pressed the scheme of reforms upon the Sultan, who accepted it on the 17th October. Meanwhile there had been a massacre at Trebizond (8th October), in which armed men from Constantinople took part, and it had become evident that no united action on the part of the Powers was to be feared. The Sultan refused to publish the scheme of reforms, and massacre followed massacre in Armenia in quick succession until 1st January 1896. Nothing was done. Russia refused to agree to any measure of coercion, and declared (19th December) that she would take no action except such as was needed for the protection of foreigners. Great Britain was not prepared to act alone. In the summer of 1896 (14th-22nd June) there were massacres at Van, Egin, and Niksar; and on the 26th August the Imperial Ottoman Bank at Constantinople was seized by revolutionists as a demonstration against the Christian Powers who had left the Armenians to their fate. The project was known to the Porte, and the rabble, previously armed and instructed, were at once turned loose in the streets. Two days’ massacre followed, during which from 6000 to 7000 Gregorian Armenians perished. Soon afterwards the attention of the Turkish Government was fully occupied by the course of events in Crete. The massacres were apparently organized and carried out in accordance with a well-considered plan. They

1 The Armenians and Kurds have lived together from the earliest times. The adoption of Islam by the latter, and by many Armenians, divided the people sharply into Christian and Moslem, and placed the Christian in a position of inferiority. But the relations between the

two sects were not unfriendly previously to the Russian campaigns in Persia and Turkey. After 1829, the relations became less friendly ; and later, when the Armenians attracted the sympathies of the European Powers after the war of 1877-78 they became bitterly hostile.