THE ARMENIANS

                                  _By_
                           C. F. DIXON-JOHNSON

                  “_Whosoever does wrong to a Christian
                   or Jew shall find me his accuser on
                    the day of judgment_” (EL KORAN).

                        Printed and Published by
                       GEO. TOULMIN & SONS, LTD.,
                          NORTHGATE, BLACKBURN.

                                  1916.




Preface


_The following pages were first read as a paper before the “Société
d’Etudes Ethnographiques.” They have since been amplified and are now
being published at the request of a number of friends, who believe that
the public should have an opportunity of judging whether or not “the
Armenian Question” has another side than that which has been recently so
assiduously promulgated throughout the Western World._

_Though the championship of Greek, Bulgarian and other similar
“Christian, civilized methods of fighting,” as contrasted with “Moslem
atrocities” in the Balkans and Asia Minor, has been so strenuously
undertaken by Lord Bryce and others, the more recent developments in
the Near East may perhaps already have opened the eyes of a great many
thinking people to the realization that, in sacrificing the traditional
friendship of the Turk to all this more or less sectarian clamour,
British diplomacy has really done nothing better than to exchange the
solid and advantageous reality for a most elusive and unreliable, if not
positively dangerous, set of shadows._

_It seems illogical that the same party which recalled the officials
(and among them our present War Minister) appointed by Lord Beaconsfield
to assist the Turkish Government in reforming their administration and
collecting the revenue in Asia Minor, and which on the advent of the
Young Turks refused to lend British Administrators to whom ample and
plenary powers were assured, should now, in its eagerness to vilify the
Turk, lose sight of their own mistakes which have led in the main to the
conditions of which it complains, and should so utterly condemn its own
former policy. Whatever hardships the Armenians may within recent years
have suffered, the responsibility for them must surely to a great extent
rest with the well-meaning idealists who, instead of trying to improve
existing conditions, inspired their helpless dupes with impracticable
aspirations which were bound to lead to disaster._

_The writer desires to thank those authors and travellers whose works
he has so freely quoted, and upon whose information he has relied for
the historical and geographical notes, as well as Professor Henry Léon,
Mr. Robert Fraser, and other friends, who have afforded him their most
valuable assistance._

_The reasons for dealing with the subject at this particular juncture are
given in the text and will, he hopes, prove satisfactory to the reader._

                                                   _C. F. DIXON-JOHNSON._

_Croft-on-Tees, Yorkshire. February, 1916._




CONTENTS


                                                                      PAGE.

                                   I.

    HISTORICAL: Earliest History—Ethnological Characteristics—Supposed
                Relation to lost Tribes of Israel—Tiridates and
                St. Gregory—Introduction of Christianity among
                the Plain-dwellers—Animal Sacrifices—Monophysite
                Doctrine—Mass—Ignorance and Bigotry of
                Clergy—Mountaineers remaining Pagans—Decline of the
                Kingdom—Seljuk Invasion—Mountaineers converted to
                Islam—Lesser Armenia—Incorporation in Ottoman Empire     9

                                   II.

    GEOGRAPHICAL: Physical Features—Divisions of Population—Sedentary
                Plain-dwellers: chiefly Armenians—Semi-Nomads:
                Kurds—Nomads: Kurds and Half-Arab—Four Agricultural
                Mountain Strongholds                                    15

                                  III.

    ARMENIAN QUESTION: Kurds and Armenians: Equal Historical
                Rights to Consideration—Mohamed II. grants
                Religious Freedom—Millets—Root-Evil of all
                Subsequent Troubles—Sir Charles Wilson’s
                Explanation—‘Odysseus’ on Excellent Relations
                between Turks and Armenians—Mr. Geary’s
                Corroboration of Turkish Tolerance—Armenian
                Population scattered—Disturbing Factors: Foreign
                Missionaries, Treaty of Berlin, Revolutionary
                Societies—Blackmail and Murder—Growing Popular
                Distrust of Armenians                                   19

                                   IV.

    ARMENIAN CHARACTER: Lord Bryce’s Idyllical Representation—Competent
                Opinions by Others:—Sir Charles Wilson—Lord
                Salisbury—Mr. Grattan Geary—‘Odysseus’—Captain
                Burnaby—Sir Mark Sykes                                  25

                                   V.

    PAST RISINGS: Family-Likeness between so-called Armenian
                Atrocities and Past Bulgarian ditto—Gross
                Exaggerations—Sir Henry Layard’s Despatch—The
                Zeitun Rising in 1895—A Graphic Account—The
                Malatia Massacres Exception to General
                Rule—Constantinople Riots in 1896—Mr. Henry
                Whitman’s Observations—Partisan Correspondents—The
                Predicament of Mr. Melton Prior                         31

                                   VI.

    RECENT TROUBLES: Unfair Exploitation of One-sided Reports—Standards
                of Proof declining in Times of Trouble—Captain
                Fortescue on the Looting of Pera Palace—Sir
                William Osler on Emotional Instability—“A
                Well-known Hand”—Sources of Lord Crewe’s
                Information—Improbability of Unprovoked Turkish
                Action:—Military and Political Situation—Habitual
                Calm and Tolerance of the Turk—Conditions
                Favourable to Armenian Rising—What Actually
                Happened—Armenians Capture Van Butcher the
                Inhabitants—Further Risings—Necessity of Repressive
                Measures—Moslems alarmed for own Safety—Panic and
                Retaliation                                             41

                                  VII.

    FIGURES AND FANCIES: Exaggerated Estimates—Over One Million
                Victims out of 900,000 Inhabitants!—The
                Mystery of Mersina—The Drownings at Trebizond
                vouched for by Italian Consul—Different Story
                by the same Authority—The Curious Case of
                Canon McColl—Unfounded Armenian Claims to
                Independence—The Armenians Minority of Population       49

                                  VIII.

    BRITISH POLICIES AND RUSSIAN AIMS: Object of Agitation to
                Influence British Policy—Kurdistan the
                Key of Mesopotamia—Sir Henry Layard’s and
                Mr. Grattan Geary’s Opinion—The Danger to
                Egypt—Cyprus Convention—Russian Opposition
                to Reforms—Anglo-Russian Entente followed by
                Reversion of British Policy—Turkish Request
                for British Administrators Refused—Russian
                Proposals—Turkey Appeals to Germany—An Impossible
                Compromise—Band-Warfare and Propaganda                  54

                                   IX.

    CONCLUSIONS                                                         59




Principal Authors consulted and quoted in the following pages:


BURNABY, Captain Fred: On Horseback through Asia Minor (Sampson, Low,
Marston, Searle & Rivington, London 1877).

GEARY, Grattan: Through Asiatic Turkey (Sampson, M. S. & R., London,
1878).

‘ODYSSEUS’: Turkey in Europe (Edw. Arnold, London 1900).

PEARS, Sir Edwin: Forty Years in Constantinople (Herbert Jenkins, 1915).

SYKES, Sir Mark: Dar-ul-Islam (Bickers & Son, London 1904).

” ”: The Caliph’s Last Heritage (Macmillan & Co., London 1915).

WHITMAN, Sidney: Turkish Memories (Wm. Heinemann, London 1914).

WILSON, Sir Charles: Article on “ARMENIA” in the Encyclopædia
Britannica.




THE ARMENIANS




I.


The earliest history of Armenia, as Kurdistan was called previous to its
conquest by the Osmanli Turks, is lost in the mists of mythology. But
even in the pre-Persian era we find Armenia existing as a separate state,
populated by a number of fierce and diverse tribes who were continually
contending amongst themselves, the victor for the time being imposing
its own chieftain as suzerain over the remainder. These tribes differed
greatly in their racial characteristics, the main divisions being the
Kurds, who were then called Karduchians, the Chaldeans, from whom the
Nestorians are probably descended, and the Haikians. The latter race,
who are known to us to-day as Armenians, although they still retain the
name Haik amongst themselves, do not appear to have had a common origin.
They may be divided, at the present time, into two distinct groups:
the round-headed and the long-headed. Both, as a rule, are of short
stature, with thick necks, and rather solidly built. Many of them possess
peculiarly semitic features, amongst these the prominent nose which is
generally considered a characteristic of the Jew. This fact has led some
ethnologists to advance the theory that one of the lost tribes of Israel
wandered to the shores of Lake Van and settled there, intermarrying
with the Haikian inhabitants, while others assign these physiological
characteristics to the incursion of certain Afghan tribes. It is worthy
of note in connection with this latter theory, that the Afghans are
likewise, by some writers, believed to be descendants of one of the lost
tribes.

If the theory that the Armenian race is descended from one of the
missing tribes be correct, it is not improbable, judging from their
aptitude in financial affairs and the manner in which they have made
usury and money-changing a fine art, that these people may be the lineal
descendants of the money-changers whom Christ scourged and drove from
the Temple at Jerusalem. Even at the present day most of the _sarafs_,
or money-lenders and changers, in the Ottoman Empire are Armenians, and
their sharp practice and unscrupulousness in commercial pursuits is so
notorious that it has given rise to the saying: “It takes ten Turks to
cheat one Jew, ten Jews to cheat one Greek, but twenty Greeks assisted by
seven Jews and five Turks to cheat one Armenian.”

It would be a tedious endeavour to follow the changes in the rulers whom
the alternate ascendancies of Persia, Parthia, Greece, Rome and Byzantium
subsequently imposed upon the territory of Armenia. The court, which at
one time was modelled on that of Persia, became a centre of intrigue.
The rulers of the contending Empires controlled the destinies of the
kingdom by political rather than by forcible means, finding it easier,
as a rule, to remove an unamenable king by assassination, bribery, or by
fomenting revolution, than by sending armed forces into an inaccessible
country populated by fierce tribes. For this reason the Kings of Armenia
practically became puppets in the hands of their more powerful neighbours.

The most important event in the early history of Armenia came with the
accession in 284 A.D. of Diocletian as Emperor of Rome. Diocletian,
desirous of establishing his influence there, sent from Rome a young
Armenian by name Tiridates, the last living representative of the
Armenian branch of the Arsacid dynasty, which was originally of Persian
origin. Tiridates rallied the nobles, and supported by them and a few
Roman troops who had accompanied him, drove out the Persian governors.
A decade or so after being proclaimed king, Tiridates became a convert
to Christianity, and with the help of his cousin, St. Gregory the
Illuminator, established the Christian faith in Armenia.

The priestly families, when they heard that the new religion required
no sacrifices, were much perturbed and threatened violent opposition.
But astute St. Gregory was equal to the occasion. He not only promised
that the sacrifices should continue, but that the priestly share of
the slaughtered animals should be greater than ever before, and he
furthermore assured to them the hereditary succession of the priesthood.
Thus thoroughly satisfied, the priests unanimously adopted the new
doctrines and became servants of the new religion.

The change was nominal rather than real; the new religion was grafted on
to the old, and ancient rites were maintained under fresh names. In order
to ensure to the priesthood their full share of the slaughtered animals,
it was ordered that no animal except those slain in the chase should
be killed by anyone but the priests themselves. Animal sacrifice still
forms an important part of the ritual of the Gregorian, or, as it is
called, the Armenian Church. Even to-day the priests are able to terrify
recalcitrant members of the church by threatening to withhold the _matal_
or sacrifice made for the ablution of sins after death.

In the cities and plains, where the population was engaged in commerce,
agriculture and other peaceful pursuits, St. Gregory, with the aid of
his newly converted priests, had little difficulty in imposing the new
religion. The people, freed by the apostacy of the priesthood, were
glad to rid themselves of the Zoroastrian religion, which they disliked
because it had been imposed upon them under the domination of the
Persians. It should be noted that what is termed the Orthodox Armenian
Church stands apart and distinct, both in its doctrines and ritual, from
either the Greek or Protestant Churches. It was not represented at the
Council of Chalcedon and never signified its acceptance of, or adherence
to the doctrines there promulgated. It holds to a certain extent what
is known as the Monophysite doctrine: that the mortal body of Jesus was
incorruptible. Many of the Orthodox Armenian clergy still cling to the
tradition that after the entombment of Jesus His body was conveyed by
angels to Mount Ararat and deposited beside the remains of Noah’s Ark,
which, according to them, are still to be found there. During the period
when He made Himself visible to His disciples, as related in the New
Testament, Christ again assumed this earthly body, which after His ascent
to Heaven was re-conveyed by the angels to Mount Ararat, where it still
lies in a secret tomb, uncorrupted and ready to be reassumed once more at
His second coming upon earth.

Mass is celebrated in the Armenian Church with a very elaborate ritual
entirely distinct from and much more ornate and oriental than that of
either the Latin or Greek Churches. During the celebration the assistants
at the ceremonial rattle a curious instrument, not unlike the ancient
Egyptian sistrum, composed of a huge cross set with jangling brass rings.

The head of the Church is styled in Armenian Katoghikos (Catholicos). The
Armenian clergy is none too well educated, and is extremely superstitious
and bigoted. All other forms of Christianity are denounced by them as
heretical, and they have not scrupled to persecute those of their flock
who have listened to the persuasive appeals of Protestant missionaries.

Mr. Grattan Geary, when at Mosul, found that each of the churches
belonging to the warring sects had a guard of Turkish soldiers to keep
the peace. Camp bedsteads were placed outside the church doors, on which
these soldiers slept at night, and the sentries pacing up and down
presented arms as he entered. When he endeavoured to get some definite
knowledge respecting the various antagonistic sects of native Christians,
the one distinctive idea which he derived from their answers was that,
in the opinion of each sect, all the others were hopelessly perverse,
besotted, ignorant and dishonest, and that, in a word, they were somewhat
worse than Mussulmans. He tells us (in his book “Through Asiatic Turkey”)
that

    The hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, characterizing
    the different native sects in their inter-relations could
    not be easily exaggerated; and I am sorry to say that in the
    opinion of men who have had ample opportunity of judging from
    personal observation, there is only too much foundation for the
    bad opinion which each of those sects entertains of the other.
    “When a Mohammedan gives me his word,” said a gentleman who
    had a long experience of the country, “whether he be a Turk or
    a Kurd, I can always rely upon it. I have never been what is
    called ‘done’ by a Mussulman, although I have had transactions
    of all kinds with Moslems for years; but when a native
    Christian tells me anything, I have cause instinctively to ask
    myself where the deception lies—in what direction I am going to
    be tricked. There are exceptions, of course; but if anyone has
    many dealings with Mussulmans and native Christians in these
    parts, he will soon learn that the one may be depended on, and
    the other will almost to a certainty deceive and cheat you if
    you give him a chance.”

In the meantime, while the Armenian of the plains had accepted St.
Gregory’s teaching, the mountaineers, who had never adopted the religion
of their alien rulers, continued to remain pagans. This circumstance
was an important factor in accentuating the natural cleavage between
the cultivators of the plains and the pastoral mountaineers, a cleavage
due, in a great measure, to the physical conditions of the country, the
plains being wide and extensive and the mountains distant and not very
accessible, with the result that the population of Armenia at that time
was more acutely divided than the Highlanders and the Lowlanders of
Scotland a few centuries ago.

So far as archæological remains are concerned, practically no trace is to
be found of this early Armenian kingdom. Whatever towns there may have
been were probably constructed chiefly of wood or mud, and the cultural
level of the inhabitants seems to have been far below that of their
neighbours. This is not to be wondered at when we take into account the
climatic conditions of the country, the lack of communications and the
state of anarchy into which it was so frequently plunged. Although for
a brief period under Tigranes II. Armenia in alliance with Mithridates,
king of Pontus, became a kingdom of considerable importance, it reverted
to its former dimensions after his defeat by Lucullus in the year 69 B.C.
To speak of “the glories” historical or material, of ancient Armenia is
simply a misuse of words.

After the abdication in the year 430 A.D. of King Bahram, who was the
last really independent ruler, although the kingdom was nominally divided
between the Eastern and Western Empires, the condition of Armenia became
worse than ever before. Anarchy and disunion reigned supreme. The nobles,
jealous, intriguing, covetous and mercenary, continually transferred
their allegiance from one side to another, or, when not busy fighting as
partisans for Rome or Persia occupied their time congenially in warring
amongst themselves and ravaging each others’ territories.

In the year 1079 the Seljuks swept through the land, and with the fall
of King Hagig II. the last remaining semblance of an independent Armenia
disappeared. The Seljuks respected the Christian religion of the plain
dwellers but converted the mountaineers to the Islamic faith, thus still
further accentuating the line of demarcation between what may fairly be
described as the Highlanders and Lowlanders of the district.

The rule of the Seljuks, who showed their tolerance by allowing the
Lowlanders to remain Christians, was mild and liberal. They greatly
improved the condition of the country, restored law and order and erected
many public buildings and mosques, traces of which are still visible.
On the other hand the country suffered grievously during the subsequent
invasions of the Mongol hordes.

The year following the invasion of the Seljuks the Pagatrid Rhupen
founded a small principality in Cilicia, which by gradually extending its
boundaries became known later as the kingdom of Lesser Armenia. Internal
disputes between the Catholics and Gregorians weakened this little State
and facilitated its conquest by Egypt in 1375.

In 1414 Selim I., Osmanli Sultan of Constantinople, drove out the
Mongols, and with their disappearance Armenia was incorporated in the
Ottoman Empire under the name of Kurdistan.




II.


The physical features of Kurdistan have an important bearing on the
political history of the country. It is a high tableland 6,000 feet or so
above the sea level. On the north it descends somewhat abruptly to the
Black Sea, on the south it exhibits a series of rugged terraces ending in
the lowlands of Mesopotamia, while on the east and west it slopes more
gradually, until it reaches the low plateaux of Persia and Asia Minor.

The general appearance of this tableland is uninteresting and monotonous.
Most of the hills are grass-covered and treeless except for patches of
scrubby looking bushes, while the plains are wide and cultivated. The
winters are long and severe; the summers, which last about five months,
are very hot and almost without rain.

The population falls into three distinct groups: sedentary, semi-nomadic
and nomadic.

THE FIRST GROUP, consisting of Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Jews, and some
few Kurds, lives in the plains, chiefly as agriculturists, merchants and
traders, but their staple means of livelihood is undoubtedly agriculture.
During the short summer months they till the fields, and in the winter
retire to their towns and villages. They are a hard-working, thrifty and
prosperous race.

THE SECOND GROUP, the semi-nomads, are Kurds. They migrate with their
flocks along the valleys in the spring, the slopes in summer, and the
mountain tops in autumn. They sell wool, butter, goats’ hair, skins,
and animals for slaughter to the traders in the plains, and in return
purchase domestic necessaries such as barley, petroleum and sugar for
their own use, and hay for their herds. Thus provided they move, as
winter approaches, to the mountain villages, there to await the coming of
the following spring.

These Kurds are a truculent, warlike, yet simple, generous and
industrious race. They live in separate tribes or communities under their
own chieftains. The character of the tribes varies considerably, some
being fiercer than others. Some regard all strangers with suspicion and
repel them, while others welcome and confide in them. In this respect,
and in fact in many other characteristics, they very much resemble the
Scotch Highland clans of some two hundred years ago. Like these they at
times war with one another, the usual cause for dispute being either
the ownership of the ground on which the flocks are grazed, or the
proprietorship of a well.

Mr. Grattan Geary, who travelled through Asiatic Turkey in 1878,
describes the Kurds as “fine, strong fellows, with well marked features,
which are, however, often marred by a sinister expression and a furtive
glance, for which it is not easy to account in the descendants of a
race of martial mountaineers who have never bowed the neck to any yoke.
They have a reputation for treachery and cruelty, which I am afraid is
not undeserved.” Mr. Geary during his journey found that the outlying
Christian and Moslem villages were again being plundered by the Kurdish
mountaineers although

    the raids and disturbances which distracted the country before
    the Sultan’s authority was made real in the more hilly parts of
    Kurdistan, had been reduced to very small dimensions before the
    war with Servia, and afterwards with Russia, caused the Turkish
    troops to be withdrawn.

but in the opinion of those with whom he spoke on the subject

    the whole state of things in Kurdistan might be changed in
    the course of a twelvemonth by a little firmness and energy
    on the part of the officials representing the Government. The
    power of the Kurds for organized resistance has been completely
    broken, and the military strength of the Government can be
    no longer contested by them. The change has, even as it is,
    greatly ameliorated the lot of the Christian and the Jewish
    population; but to complete the work a sufficient force of
    mounted native police should be organized and properly paid,
    and the administration of justice improved.[1]

The success of General Hawker, an officer of the Guards placed by the
Turkish Government in command of a well equipped and regularly paid
gendarmerie (an appointment which he held until the outbreak of the
present European war) has amply verified the correctness of these views.

It is worthy of observation that as a means of “civilizing” the Kurds,
and accustoming them to discipline, and at the same time suitably
utilizing their warlike propensities as a frontier guard against Cossack
raids, Sultan Abdul Hamid formed nearly 10,000 of these Kurds into
cavalry regiments, styling them the “Hamidieh Cavalry.” The bravery,
hardihood and energy of these men rendered them particularly fit for
such an operation, and the experiment proved a complete success. It
was largely from time-expired men of these regiments that many of the
gendarmes, who proved themselves so efficient under General Hawker’s
command, were enlisted.

THE THIRD GROUP, the nomadic Kurds, have largely intermarried with the
Arabs of the South, where they winter their flocks and herds, and are
therefore really semi-Arab rather than pure Kurd. They are neither so
industrious nor so reliable as the Kurds proper, but are quicker witted
and more intelligent. During the summer months they graze their flocks
on the mountain slopes, and as winter approaches migrate to the warmer
regions bordering on Mesopotamia, to return again in the early summer.

It is important to note that the four great mountain strongholds of the
Hakkiari, the Dersim, the Zeitun and the Sassun form an exception to the
general rule that the plains are populated by a tenacious but unwarlike
race of farmers and merchants, largely composed of Armenians, while the
mountains are occupied by warlike nomadic and semi-nomadic Kurds. The
sturdy warlike agriculturists of these four rough inaccessible regions
have never, from the earliest until comparatively recent times, really
acknowledged the control of a central government. Originally refugees
from persecution, they in their turn offered shelter to lawbreakers and
bandits. A large proportion of the Hakkiari are Nestorians, while the
Dersimli are Kurds and the Zeitunli and Sassunli Gregorian Armenians. Mr.
Geary, who believes the Nestorians to be the descendants of the ancient
Chaldeans, says:—“They are unquestionably as fine a people, physically,
as are to be found anywhere and their well-shaped heads and expressive
features denote great natural intelligence.”




III.


Having thus sketched as briefly as possible the early history, ethnology
and physical features of the country, we shall be better able to
understand what is commonly known as the “Armenian Question.”

When the Ottoman rule was established, the plain-dwellers and the
pastoral tribes of the mountain slopes still preserved their national
customs, language and vices, and they have retained these to this day.
The waves of conquest had swept over the cold, inhospitable plateau
into the richer and warmer plains beyond; but while the conquerors had
established governors and garrisons, they had never planted colonists;
this is the principal reason why there has been so little change in this
strange country. When we hear of the aspirations of the Armenians for
independence or absorption by Russia, we must always remember that from
all accounts the mountaineers, or Kurds, have been as long established in
Kurdistan as the plain-dwellers, usually called by the name of Armenians,
and have consequently an equal right to a voice in the matter.

How then is it that the Armenians have developed a national sentiment,
whereas the Kurds, who equally retain their former customs and language,
are bitterly opposed to any alteration in their present condition?

We all know that Constantinople was captured by the Osmanli Turks in the
year 1453. Their sultan, Mahomed II., a liberal and wise ruler, granted
religious freedom to the conquered races in his dominions and, in order
not to be troubled with their continual disputes, organized all the
non-Moslems into communities or “millets” under their own ecclesiastical
chiefs, with absolute authority in civil and religious matters. There
was already at this time a large number of Armenians in Stambul, who
in due course were formed into a community of this kind under their own
Ecclesiastikos or Patriach. When Selim I. conquered Armenia the Gregorian
Christians of that country were by an imperial iradé incorporated under
the Armenian Patriarch at Constantinople, while the Kurds, who had
embraced Islam under the Seljuk rule, received no special treatment since
they were of the same religion as their rulers.

The formation of the conquered races into separate communities under
their own ecclesiastical chiefs, though inspired by the most benevolent
principles, has, by fostering centrifrugal aspirations, been the root
evil of all the subsequent internal troubles in the Ottoman Empire.
Sir Charles Wilson in his article on Armenia, in the “Encyclopædia
Britannica” explains how this happened in the case of the Armenians:

    This _imperium in imperio_ secured the Armenians a recognised
    position before the law, the free enjoyment of their religion,
    the possession of their churches and monasteries, and the
    right to educate their children and manage their own municipal
    affairs. It also encouraged the growth of a community life,
    which eventually gave birth to an intense longing for national
    life. On the other hand it degraded the priesthood. The
    priests became political leaders rather than spiritual guides,
    and sought promotion by bribery and intrigue. Education was
    neglected and discouraged, servility and treachery were
    developed, and in less than a century the people had become
    depraved and degraded to an almost incredible extent. After
    the issue, in 1839, of the hatt-i-sheriff of gül-Khaneh, the
    tradesmen and artisans of the capital freed themselves from
    clerical control. Under regulations, approved by the Sultan in
    1862, the patriarch remained the official representative of the
    community, but all real power passed into the hands of clerical
    and lay councils elected by a representative assembly of one
    hundred and forty members. The “Community,” which excluded
    Roman Catholics and Protestants, was soon called the “Nation,”
    “domestic” became “national” affairs, and the “representative”
    the “national assembly.”

But there the process of evolution stopped, for although the national
idea became familiar to the Armenian population, there was no real
aspiration for a national or separate existence. A well-informed and
acute writer, ‘Odysseus,’ in his book “Turkey in Europe” tells us that
until the years succeeding the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878:

    the Turks and Armenians got on excellently together. The
    Armenians looked upon Russia as their enemy, and a large
    Armenian population from that country migrated into Kurdistan.
    The Russians restricted the Armenian Church, schools and
    language; the Turks on the contrary were perfectly tolerant and
    liberal as to all such matters.

    They did not care how the Armenians prayed, taught and talked,
    and in many ways found them the most useful and loyal of their
    Christian subjects. The Greeks were always inclined towards
    Hellas. But there was no Armenia.

    The Armenians were thorough Orientals and appreciated Turkish
    ideas and habits. While the wealthier members of the community
    lived in accordance with Turkish custom, the poorer found
    employment as domestics in Moslem houses. With the exception of
    those who settled abroad for commercial purposes, the Armenians
    were quite content to live among the Turks and spend their
    money in Turkey.

    The Armenians even went so far as to speak Turkish among
    themselves, and their present language contains numerous
    Turkish words (to the extent of almost forty per cent.), and
    though Kurds and Zaptiehs perhaps rendered life at times
    a little too eventful, on the whole the “Sarafs” or money
    changers gained more than brigands and tax-collectors combined.
    The balance of wealth certainly remained with the Christians.
    The Turks Seated them with good humoured confidence and the
    phrase “millet-i-sadika,” the loyal community, was regularly
    applied to them.

The toleration of the Government and the friendly relations which
existed at that time between the Turks and the Armenians, as described
by ‘Odysseus,’ is fully corroborated by the following passages from Mr.
Geary’s book “Through Asiatic Turkey”:

    The Chief of the Dominican Mission, a very enlightened man
    who has been for some years resident in Mosul, did not share
    these misgivings. He did not consider that he ran any risk
    of losing his life through Mahommedan fanaticism. As for the
    Government, he said that the religious toleration enjoyed under
    it was complete. It never in any way interfered with what the
    Christians did or taught in the schools or the churches. It
    was impossible to desire more absolute liberty of worship or
    teaching. But in civil administration there was great scope for
    improvement, and, indeed, an absolute necessity for it. The
    laws were good, but they were not steadily applied. The laxity
    and want of thoroughness which characterised every department
    were inexplicable and allowed even the best conceived measures
    _to result in mischief_.... We found the village of Krelani
    to be one of considerable size: the inhabitants being half
    Christian and half Mohammedan. Religious differences seemed
    to be completely disregarded, Christian and Moslem being on
    the most friendly terms. The chief men of both sections were
    sitting in a little circle in front of the Kahia’s house when
    we arrived, and they rose and saluted me very civilly.... I can
    only say, that if there be any bigotry amongst these people,
    I saw no manifestation of it throughout my long journey: I
    could not have been received with greater courtesy if I had
    been myself a True Believer.... He is a very strict Mussulman,
    though, like most Turks, whether strict or not, he is very
    tolerant.

It should be observed that the Armenians as a race are considerably
scattered. The original territory known as Armenia having been annexed
by Russia, Persia, and Turkey, the bulk of the Armenian population is
divided between these three Powers. They are estimated to number in
Russia about 1,000,000, in Persia 150,000, and in Turkey, including
Salonika and the lost European Provinces, 1,500,000. In addition to these
there are about 250,000 Armenians scattered through Europe, America, the
East Indies and Egypt. As we shall subsequently see, all the troubles
originated from outside and not in Kurdistan itself. The first disturbing
element, in the opinion of ‘Odysseus,’ was the arrival of a number of
Protestant and other foreign missionaries. This judgment, disappointing
as it must be to many who are deeply interested in the religious side of
missionary work, is amply corroborated by Sir Edwin Pears, who admits in
his book, “Forty Years in Constantinople,” that “In a very real sense
it may be said that the fomenters of political agitation in Armenia,
as in Bulgaria, were the schoolmasters and the missions, Catholic or
Protestant.” These good men, as we are told by Sir Mark Sykes, in his
interesting and most important work entitled “Dar-ul-Islam,” soon found
that

    It was as impossible to turn an Oriental Moslem into a
    Christian, as it would be to transform an English Christian
    into a Jew; hence their missionary effort was confined to
    turning one kind of Christian into some other kind.[2] Large
    sums of money were spent in transforming a Jacobite into a
    little Bethel Peculiar Anabaptist, in converting the little
    Bethel Anabaptist né Jacobite to Roman Catholicism, and in
    reforming the Roman Catholic late little Bethel Peculiar
    Anabaptist né Jacobite into an American Keswickian Presbyterian.

But the process of turning a Jacobite into an American Keswickian
Presbyterian spoilt a good Oriental and made him a discontented and
semi-europeanised Asiatic.

The first Armenian converts to Protestantism were subjected to fierce
persecutions by their fellow Armenians who clung to their old form of
faith, and for their protection from this persistent annoyance and
cruelty the Sultan about 1857 issued an iradé recognizing the Protestants
as a separate religious community independent from the Orthodox Armenian
Church and free from any interference by its officials.

The second disturbing factor were the clauses inserted, at the request
of Russia, in the Berlin Treaty of July 13th, 1878, whereby the six
signatory Powers acquired the right of superintendence and interference
in the internal affairs of Kurdistan. The clauses of this treaty imbued
the Armenians with the idea that they were entitled to the grant of
special privileges from the Porte, and this was easily fomented into
the notion of founding an Armenian kingdom, or at least an Armenian
autonomous state. These ideas were further encouraged by the formation of
the Bulgarian Principality and by the foundation in London in the year
1890 of the Anglo-Armenian Society “whose laudable object was hampered by
their invincible ignorance of the spirit and methods of the East.”[3]

The third disturbing element was the development, after the Russo-Turkish
war, of the Nihilist movement in Russia. The persecuted Armenians of the
Caucasus readily entered into the conspiracy, the Armenian branch of
which had its headquarters at Tiflis.

The Czar’s Government increased its severity towards the Armenians,
and when the Russian police made the existence of the secret societies
at Tiflis too precarious, the Armenian revolutionaries moved their
headquarters and branches to New York, Paris, London, and Geneva, where,
between the years 1889 and 1892, they founded their secret societies the
Hintchak, the Aptak and subsequently the most diabolical of them all,
the Dashnahsutium. They also founded a regular revolutionary propaganda
publishing their own papers and reviews.

These societies, by blackmailing and preying upon the rich Armenian
financiers and traders of Europe and America, soon became wealthy
corporations. Hunted out of Russia, they sent their emissaries into
Kurdistan, where they renewed their nefarious campaign. Although
denounced and hated by the respectable resident Armenians and the
priests, whom they blackmailed and murdered as occasion offered, they
even tried to embroil the central government with the European Powers by
committing crimes, the responsibility for which they attempted by false
evidence to fix on the Missionary Colleges. They committed murders in
the streets of London. In New York the police unearthed a conspiracy of
blackmail, bomb outrages and murder, which completely terrorized the
rich Armenian bankers and merchants. A little over two years ago the
London Press reported the discovery by the New York police of a further
conspiracy of terrorism and assassination.

The advent of these revolutionary agents into Kurdistan had the
inevitable result of embittering the former good relations of the Turkish
Government and the resident Moslem population with the Christian, and
especially the Orthodox Armenian section of the inhabitants.

This was natural for the reason that in Turkey the people have a horror
of secret societies and plots, founded on the experience of their
own suffering at the hands of the Greek Hetairia and the Bulgarian
Komitadjis. The fears of the Turks and the Kurds were genuine. They
believed that the members of the once loyal “millet-i-sadika” no longer
merited that title, and that they were arming and preparing to massacre
the Moslems. The whole country became like a powder magazine, and Europe
had not long to wait for the inevitable spark which started what are
known as the Armenian massacres of 1894 and 1896.




IV.


We shall better understand the question of these massacres, if we first
study the Armenian character, at the same time noticing the aptitude and
fitness of the race for self-government.

The Pro-Armenian societies in this country would have us believe that the
native Armenians are as a race poor, gentle, honest, agricultural folk,
persecuted by wicked officials, robbed of their hard-earned savings by
the wild Kurds and cruel Circassians, and periodically martyred for their
Christian faith; and to give vividness to this pleasant picture one or
two europeanized, highly-veneered Armenians are usually produced on our
public platforms as living specimens of this “harmless, inoffensive”
people. In this manner Lord Bryce, speaking recently at Manchester,
pictured the life of mingled simplicity and refinement lived by this
Christian race in Moslem Turkey, and went on to say that the Armenians
were amongst the most orderly subjects of the Turks, well educated and
accustomed to the refinements of civilization as much as ourselves. If
this were true it would imply that civilization, as we understand the
word, must have made tremendous progress in Kurdistan within recent years
under Turkish rule, but this Lord Bryce will probably not admit.

Lord Bryce proceeded to add that for the past sixteen centuries the
Armenians had been a Christian people, clinging to their religion in
spite of constant persecution, while all the time they might have secured
complete immunity from such by renouncing their Christian faith.

It is fair to presume that Lord Bryce struck this anti-Moslem note in
order to command sympathy by appealing to the religious prejudices of
his audience, for the observation was not only inopportune but entirely
unnecessary, in as much as later in the same speech he stated that “there
was no fanaticism about the massacres and no outbreak of Moslem fury on
the part of the people.”

How utterly false is his estimate of the character of the native Armenian
will be shown by the testimony of competent and observant travellers and
orientalists, who have studied this people in their own homes. Let us
see first what Sir Charles Wilson, the great traveller and Orientalist,
author of the article on Armenia in the Encyclopædia Britannica, says:

    The Armenians are essentially an Oriental people, preserving
    like the Jews whom they resemble in their exclusiveness and
    widespread dispersion, a remarkable tenacity of race and
    faculty of adaptation to circumstances. They are frugal, sober,
    industrious and intelligent, and their sturdiness of character
    has enabled them to preserve their nationality and religion
    under the sorest trials. They are strongly attached to old
    manners and customs, but have also a real desire for progress
    which is full of promise. On the other hand they are greedy of
    gain, quarrelsome in small matters, self-seeking and wanting in
    stability, and they are gifted with a tendency to exaggeration
    and a love of intrigue, which has had an unfortunate influence
    on their history.

    They are deeply separated by religious differences, and their
    mutual jealousies, their inordinate vanity, their versatility
    and their cosmopolitan character must always be an obstacle to
    the realization of the dreams of the nationalists.

LORD SALISBURY, in a letter to Sir Henry Layard, British Ambassador at
Constantinople, dated May 30th, 1878, gives expression to the following
opinion:

    Asiatic Turkey contains a population of many different races
    and creeds, possessing no capacity for self-government and no
    aspiration for independence, but owing their tranquillity and
    whatever prospect of political well-being they possess entirely
    to the rule of the Sultan.

This letter confirms the contention that at that time there was no real
demand for independence.

MR. GRATTAN GEARY, in “Through Asiatic Turkey,” says:

    A few of the more educated Armenians hope to secure in some
    way the autonomy of the country in which they by no means
    form the majority of the population. Whether they could keep
    the Mussulman majority of the population in order we need
    not inquire; granting that a flock of doves could, if well
    organized and assured of diplomatic support from distant
    eagles, keep a much larger number of hawks in subjection, the
    fact remains that even _the Armenians_, by far the most capable
    and the most numerous of the Christian races in Asiatic Turkey,
    _have no aspiration for anything further than a provisional
    autonomy_. They do not regard themselves as the heirs of the
    Empire, and never in their wildest flights think of superseding
    the Osmanlis, and themselves welding the Empire together for
    the common good. _The only race among them all which has any
    real desire to govern, is the Turkish._ The others either
    desire, like the Kurds and the Arabs, to be simply freed
    from the shackles of government altogether, so that they may
    pillage in peace; or, like the Christians, to be protected from
    without, or at most to acquire a local predominance. If we
    want to find an Oriental equivalent for patriotism or love of
    country, in Asiatic Turkey, we need look for it in the Turkish
    section of the population alone ...

    The autonomy of the Asiatic provinces is out of the question.
    How could Mesopotamia or Kurdistan become autonomous? The Arabs
    and the Kurds are too “autonomous” already, and the first
    thing to be done with them is to place them under a regime of
    well-armed police. _Asia Minor is Turkish and does not ask
    for Autonomy._ The elements of self-government do not exist
    in Armenia. The Armenian Christians are the minority of the
    population and are deficient in the military virtues; they
    could not hold their own against the warlike Kurds.

These words of Mr. Geary are the more interesting as they so closely
resemble the opinion expressed by Lord Salisbury in his letter quoted
above.

‘ODYSSEUS,’ in his “Turkey in Europe,” says:

    The characteristics of the Armenians would seem to be somewhat
    as follows: They are a race with little political aptitude or
    genius for kingdom building. This want of capacity was not due
    to the Turkish conquest—even before that event they had proved
    their inability to hold their own. The Armenians are a people
    of great commercial and financial talents, supple and flexible
    as those must be who wish to make others part with their money:
    stubborn to heroism in preserving certain characteristics, but
    wanting withal in the more attractive qualities, in an artistic
    sense, kindliness, and some (though not all) forms of courage.

To this testimony may be added the observations of COL. FRED BURNABY (“On
horseback through Asia Minor”):

    One thing which seemed to be the unanimous opinion of all
    classes in Erzeroum was, that should the Armenians ever get the
    upper hand in Anatolia, their government would be much more
    corrupt than the actual administration. It was corroborated by
    the Armenians themselves. The stories which they told me of
    several of their fellow-countrymen thoroughly bore out the idea.

SIR MARK SYKES, who has travelled far and often into Kurdistan, certainly
formed a very unsatisfactory opinion of the Armenians as a whole,
especially of the town Armenians, who are quite a distinct race from the
villagers, with whom they seldom intermarry. He has noticed, however, the
same regrettable characteristics in the villagers as in the townsmen,
though with the former he believes they are not innate, but rather
imposed by the upper clergy and bishops, who are nearly all recruited
from the town-folk. His remarks are deserving of careful attention. The
following passage, which we venture to quote in extenso from his recently
published book, “The Caliph’s Last Heritage,” throws into relief the
principal characteristics of the Armenian people:

    The expression of the generality of town Armenian young men
    is one which undoubtedly inspires a feeling of distrust, and
    their bearing is compounded of a peculiar covert insolence and
    a strange suggestion of suspicion and craft. They have a way
    of answering an ordinary question as if the person to whom
    they are speaking were endeavouring to treat them dishonestly,
    and as if they felt themselves more than a match for him.
    Their manners are not by any means fawning or cringing, as
    many people suggest; on the contrary, they are generally
    somewhat brusque, but at the same time uneasy—indeed one might
    well say their manners were decidedly unhappy. It is very
    difficult to account for this ill-bred behaviour and tone, and
    I myself can only attribute it to the fact that the keynote of
    the town Armenian’s character is a profound distrust of his
    co-religionists and neighbours. Whether this fear arises from
    long and sad experience, or from a perverted business instinct,
    it is hard to tell; but to say that it is not without cause may
    sound a harsh, but perhaps not unjust judgment.

    In common with many others of the Christians of Turkey, the
    town Armenians have an extraordinarily high opinion of their
    own capacities; but in their case this is combined with a
    strangely unbalanced judgment, which permits them to proceed
    to lengths that invariably bring trouble on their heads. They
    will undertake the most desperate political crimes without the
    least forethought or preparation; they will bring ruin and
    disaster on themselves and others without any hesitation; they
    will sacrifice their own brothers and most valuable citizens to
    a wayward caprice; they will enter largely into conspiracies
    with men in whom they repose not the slightest confidence; they
    will overthrow their own national cause to vent some petty
    spite on a private individual; they will at the very moment
    of danger grossly insult and provoke one who might be their
    protector but may at any moment become their destroyer; by some
    stinging aggravation or injury they will alienate the sympathy
    of a stranger whose assistance they expect; they will suddenly
    abandon all hope when their plans are nearing fruition; they
    will betray the very person who might serve their cause; and,
    finally, they will bully and prey on one another at the very
    moment that the enemy is at their gates. And this strange and
    unfortunate method of procedure is not confined only to their
    political methods, their dealings are equally preposterous and
    fatal.

    To add to this curious fatuousness of conduct, the town
    Armenians are at once yielding and aggressive. They will
    willingly harbour revolutionaries, arrange for their
    entertainment and the furthering of their ends; yet at the
    same time they can be massacred without raising a finger in
    their own defence. He is as fanatical as any Moslem.... That
    the Armenians are doomed to be for ever unhappy as a nation
    seems to me unavoidable.... In a time of famine at Van the
    merchants tried to corner the available grain!... The Armenian
    revolutionaries prefer to plunder their co-religionists
    to giving battle to their enemies; the anarchists of
    Constantinople threw bombs with the intention of provoking a
    massacre of their fellow-countrymen. The Armenian villages are
    divided against themselves; the revolutionary societies are
    leagued against one another; the priests connive at the murder
    of a bishop; the church is divided at its very foundations....

    If the object of English philanthropists and the roving
    brigands (who are the active agents of revolution) is to
    subject the bulk of the Eastern provinces to the tender mercies
    of an Armenian oligarchy, then I cannot entirely condemn the
    fanatical outbreaks of the Moslems or the repressive measures
    of the Turkish government. On the other hand, if the object
    of Armenians is to secure equality before the law, and the
    establishment of security and peace in the countries partly
    inhabited by Armenians, then I can only say that their methods
    are not those to achieve success.

His description of the Armenians of the Mush Plain is instructive and
interesting:

    The Armenians of the Mush Plain are at present an extremely
    difficult people to manage. They are very avaricious and
    would object to pay the most moderate taxes; they are also
    exceedingly treacherous to one another, and often join the
    revolutionaries to wipe off scores on their fellow villagers.
    As for the tactics of the revolutionaries, anything more
    fiendish one could not imagine—the assassination of Moslems
    in order to bring about the punishment of innocent men, the
    midnight extortion of money from villages which have just paid
    taxes by day, the murder of persons who refuse to contribute
    to their collection-boxes, are only some of the crimes of
    which Moslems, Catholics, and Gregorians accuse them with no
    uncertain voice.

The following pen picture of the young Armenian who wept over the
punishment of his great nation is a study in itself:

    We were saluted by a brisk young Armenian, who said (it
    afterwards proved false) that he was employed as a tutor to
    the Shaykh’s sons. He accused Prof. Rendel Harris of having
    promised him assistance, and then breaking his word. He longed
    to embrace Mr. Bryce (I should have experienced some pleasure
    in seeing him accomplish this wish); he had a great admiration
    for Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman; he said he was studying to be
    an ethnologist, psychologist, hypnotist and poet; he admired
    Renan, Kant, Herbert Spencer, Gladstone, Spurgeon, Nietzsche
    and Shakespeare. It afterwards appeared that his library
    consisted of an advertisement of Eno’s Fruit Salt, from which
    he quoted freely. He wept over what he called the “Punishment
    of our great Nation,” and desired to be informed how in
    existing circumstances he could elevate himself to greatness
    and power.

It would be unfair to suggest that these very unfavourable descriptions
are intended otherwise than as generally characteristic of the Armenian
race. The experience of every traveller is that there are both good and
bad people to be found in all races, but unfortunately in some races the
good are few and the bad are many.

Armenians, as we know, have risen to the highest positions as soldiers,
statesmen and financiers both in Turkey and Russia, and have proved
themselves good and devoted subjects of their respective governments.
Armenian soldiers fought bravely and loyally on the Turkish side in the
Balkan war at the very time when their compatriots were pillaging the
shops of their Moslem fellow-citizens in Adrianople. The near East is
full of these strange contradictions. In Kurdistan Armenians have risked
their own lives in protecting Moslems from assassination.




V.


It is important to notice that the so-called Armenian Atrocities have
a remarkable family likeness to the “Bulgarian Atrocities,” over which
a large number of sentimental people in England developed a frenzy of
indignation.

A comparison of Sir Henry Layard’s despatch to Lord Derby on the
“Bulgarian Atrocities,” dated 1877, with Sir Mark Sykes’ account of the
happenings which commenced with the disturbances at Zeitun in 1895, show
exactly how both these events originated and were grossly exaggerated.
The history of every alleged massacre in Turkey is almost the same,
whether we consider the Bulgarian “atrocities” in 1876, the disturbances
in Sassun in 1896, those in Constantinople in the same year, or those
at Van in 1915. In every case we find the same charges of connivance by
local officials acting under orders from Constantinople, the same gross
exaggerations and the same stories of bestiality, in which the traducers
of the Turks seem to take a special delight. And it is these same people,
as the _Near East_ said in a leading article, who compel the Turks “to
listen to sermons about disorders which were deliberately fomented by the
preachers themselves or by men preaching in their name.”

Referring, to these “hellish” and “unutterable” forms of torture of which
the Turks are so freely accused, ‘Odysseus’ says:

    These are often spoken of as being so terrible that the details
    cannot be given in print, but I believe them to be largely
    the invention of morbid and somewhat prurient brains. Medical
    testimony makes it certain that no human being could survive
    the tortures which some Armenians are said to have suffered
    without dying.

Sir Henry Layard wrote as follows to Lord Derby:

    The English people cannot, perhaps, yet bear to hear the truth
    of the events of last year; but it is my duty to state it to
    your lordship. The marvellous ability shown by RUSSIA and HER
    AGENTS in MISLEADING PUBLIC OPINION in England and elsewhere
    has been amply rewarded. It will probably be long before that
    which is true can be separated from that which is false; when
    history does so it will be too late. The Porte has taken no
    effective means to place its case before Europe. It neither
    employs the Press nor competent agents for such purposes. Its
    appeals to the Powers, and the State papers that it issues to
    refute the charges against it, are so prepared that they are
    more calculated to injure its cause. A great portion of the
    English public are, probably, still under the impression that
    the statements upon which the denunciations against Turkey were
    originally founded are true—the 60,000 Christians outraged and
    massacred; the cartloads of human heads; the crowd of women
    burnt in a barn; and other similar horrors. There are persons
    and amongst them, I grieve to say, Englishmen, who boast
    that they invented these stories with the object of “writing
    down” Turkey, to which they were impelled by a well-known
    hand. People in England will scarcely believe that the most
    accurate and complete inquiries into the events of last year in
    Bulgaria now reduce the number of deaths to about 3,500 souls,
    including the Turks who were, in the first instance, slain by
    the Christians. No impartial man can now deny that a RISING of
    the CHRISTIANS, which was intended by its authors to lead to a
    GENERAL MASSACRE of the MOHAMMEDANS, was in contemplation, and
    that it was directed by RUSSIAN _and_ PANSLAVIST AGENTS.[4]

Sir Mark Sykes writes (and his account is so graphic that the author
makes no apology for quoting him in full):

    Some Revolutionary Society, not being satisfied with the
    general state of affairs in Turkey and scenting collections
    and relief funds in the future, judged it expedient in the
    year of grace 1895, to despatch certain emissaries to Armenia.
    On the warlike population of Zeitun they pinned their hopes
    of raising a semi-successful revolution, and six of their
    boldest agents were accorded to that district. What the end of
    the revolution would be these desperadoes recked little, so
    long as the attention of Europe was drawn to their cause and
    their collection-boxes. These individuals however found their
    people by no means ripe for insurrection and their influence
    was but small. True, there were certain persons ready to talk
    sentimentally and foolishly, possibly treasonably, but in no
    way prepared to rise actually in arms. However, an opportunity
    of embroiling their countrymen unexpectedly presented itself,
    by taking advantage of which they succeeded in forcing the hand
    of the Government.

    It happened that a number of Furnus and Zeitunli Armenians were
    in the habit of going to Adana for the purpose of earning money
    as farmers and handicraftsmen; for some reason, the Government
    at that time issued an order that all strangers should return
    to their own towns and districts. The Furnus and Zeitunli
    Armenians were enraged at this action, saying that they were
    not permitted by the Padishah to earn sufficient to pay their
    taxes, which they considered exorbitant; consequently they were
    foolish enough to pillage some Turkomans on their way home.

    The Turkomans addressed themselves in complaint to the
    Mutesarif of Marash, who decided to investigate the affair
    by a commission consisting of a Turkish Bimbashi (field
    officer) and an Armenian resident, escorted by five Zaptiehs.
    The agents saw in this move a chance of bringing matters to
    a crisis and either attacked, or persuaded the villagers to
    attack, the commission, killing the Bimbashi and three of the
    guard, and carrying off the Christian commissioner with them.
    The surrounding Armenians, knowing themselves to have been
    originally in the wrong, and seeing themselves compromised,
    accepted the inevitable and joined the revolutionaries.

    The Governor of Marash, having been informed of this affair,
    despatched a company of infantry to reinforce the garrison
    at Bertiz. The rebel leaders and their followers intercepted
    this party, and an undecided action resulted, owing to the
    assistance given by the Moslems of Bertiz. The next day the
    revolutionists decided to attack the garrison at Zeitun in
    order to force that town (whose inhabitants had but little
    inclination) to join a jehad against the Osmanli. After a brief
    resistance the castle surrendered, through the incapacity of
    its besotted commander.

    Having gained a victory of some importance, the Armenian force
    proceeded to the Kertul district, where they plundered and
    sacked several Turkish villages, eventually seizing Anderim,
    where they burnt the Konak. On their way back to Zeitun they
    committed some most disgraceful murders at Chukarhissar in
    commemoration of the decease of the late Armenian kingdom which
    was finally ended at that place.[5]

    After this anarchy supervened. The Moslems and Kurds,
    infuriated by exaggerated reports, lusting for treasure of the
    wealthy but feeble bazaar Armenians, massacred and overwhelmed
    them at Marash and elsewhere. The Turkish Government, now
    thoroughly alarmed, had concentrated two divisions, one
    at Marash, under Ferik Pasha, who showed an extraordinary
    incapacity during the massacre; the other under a reliable
    soldier, Ali Pasha, at Adana. The latter with considerable
    promptitude swept forward towards Zeitun, driving before him
    the Armenian population, and although certain “outrages”[6]
    were committed during the march, I do not think that he is in
    any way to blame for the conduct of the campaign. It would have
    been a grave military fault to have left a hostile population
    in his rear; and the Armenians he called upon to surrender,
    were already too overcome with panic to accept terms, and
    either awaited destruction in their villages, resisting to the
    last, or fled to the town of Zeitun, where the revolutionary
    agents, in order to maintain their prestige, were cramming the
    population with absurd falsehoods of a British relief column
    landed at Alexandretta.

    One of them even sent out messengers, who returned with hopeful
    letters which he himself had written. But this impostor and his
    colleagues were not satisfied with the general disloyalty of
    the inhabitants, and felt that some deed should be committed
    which would absolutely debar the people from any hope of mercy
    from the Government. Accordingly they assembled the refugees
    driven in by Ali Pasha, and repaired with them to the Konak,
    where the imprisoned garrison was quartered, _and proceeded
    to murder them with bestial cruelty_. It must be remembered
    that this piece of villainy can in no way be imputed to the
    population of Zeitun, but to the disgraceful ruffianism of the
    revolutionaries and the crazy fanaticism of the exasperated and
    hopeless villagers. It must also be recorded to the credit of
    the Zeitunlis themselves, that after this abominable butchery
    several crept into the yard and rescued some seventy soldiers,
    who survived beneath the corpses of their comrades: fifty-seven
    of these were handed over at the end of the war. It is a relief
    to find in all these bloody tales of Armenia such noble deeds
    of kindness on the part of Christians to Moslems, and Moslems
    to Christians, and that every massacre can bring similar cases
    to light.

    After that foolish slaughter the revolutionary agents may have
    plumed themselves on a striking piece of policy. Zeitun was
    compromised beyond recall, and the town prepared to withstand
    the siege to the last; but here the chapter of Zeitun closes,
    for within three weeks Edham Pasha, a noble example of what
    a cultivated Turk can be, arrived on the scene, and with the
    assistance of the European Consuls concluded an honourable
    peace with the town; containing, alas! a clause by which the
    miserable causes of all this unhappiness and bloodshed were
    allowed to return unmolested to Europe, where they probably eke
    out an existence as distinguished as their military adventures.

    It would appear a grave fault on the part of the Powers to have
    allowed the revolutionary agents to escape.

    As to how far the Turks were in the wrong, who can judge? They
    have a side which should be considered, as it is impossible
    for them to allow a revolution to be impending in the heart
    of their country, when threatening enemies appear on every
    frontier. They have their own homes to consider, and if they
    allowed the revolutionaries to continue their intrigues, there
    is little doubt that a formidable insurrection would have
    broken out whenever the moment was favourable. Also it must
    be borne in mind, that in the event of an Armenian rebellion
    it was the intention of the conspirators to have perpetrated
    similar massacres.

    The necessary killing in India after the Mutiny, although
    carried out more formally, was just as merciless; and from all
    one can gather, the gentle Skobeleff pacified Central Asia much
    as the Turks aborted the Armenian revolution.

    It is also a fact that the Armenians have an extraordinary
    habit of running into danger without having the courage to face
    it, and the revolutionists from abroad were always prepared
    to provoke a massacre in order to induce the Powers to assist
    them. I have good reason to know that these wretches actually
    schemed to murder American missionaries, hoping that America
    would declare war on the supposition that the Turks were the
    criminals.

The same writer points out that the massacres of Malatia, in the year
1896, were an exception to the general rule, because in this instance the
Moslems struck first, fearing a general rising and slaughter of their
wives and families.

‘Odysseus’ says:

    Perhaps this frame of mind will be more intelligible if we try
    to imagine what would be the feelings of Anglo-Indians, if
    they supposed that the natives, under the influence of Russian
    intrigues, were preparing to repeat the horrors of the Mutiny.
    Probably the orders issued to the local Ottoman authorities
    warned them to be on their guard against any revolutionary
    movement of the Armenians, and should there he any reason to
    apprehend one, to at once take the offensive.

Sir Mark Sykes’s remarks also deserve quotation:

    When one first hears the tale of the Malatia massacre, one
    says, now indeed there was no excuse for the Turks; this
    was a brutal attempt to destroy a harmless population; but
    on inquiry it is the same foolish, hopeless tale, the usual
    boastful Armenian threats, the inevitable noisy talk of freedom
    and liberty; the cry that the Turks were on the verge of
    collapse! the arms collected! the usual pointless intrigue and
    the inevitable betrayals by each other; the final provocation
    given, and the natural outbreak of the Moslems, resulting in
    massacre. The Armenians had intended to fight; had prepared
    for a revolution; had collected weapons from all parts; but
    as usual, on the very first onslaught they were hopeless and
    panic-stricken, and what they intended to have been a battle
    ended in a pitiless slaughter.

    The only few who maintained anything like a bold front were
    those who took possession of the Armenian Church and held it
    against the mob; but my admiration for them was lost when I
    learned that these miserable hounds, when they saw Franciscan
    monks escaping from their convent, fired on them at 200 yards
    in hopes of killing a European and so forcing the hand of the
    Powers. This ruse I have alluded to before, and it seems to be
    a favourite stratagem, exhibiting the Armenian nature in its
    most unpleasant light.

    How massacres could well have been avoided is hard to imagine.
    The Armenians insisted on threatening revolutions; openly
    boasted that the Powers would help them; silently intrigued
    against the Government; silently betrayed one another’s
    intrigues; collected arms and gave offence to the Moslems, and
    yet possessed no more cohesive fighting or military capacity
    than rabbits.

The falsity of the suggestion of the Pro-Armenians that these were
unprovoked massacres inspired by the Turkish Government working upon
Moslem fanaticism and Kurdish greed, is also shown by the following
passage from Sir Edwin Pears’ book:[7]

    As a friend to the Armenians, revolt seemed to me purely
    mischievous. Some of the extremists declared that while they
    recognized that hundreds of innocent persons suffered from each
    of these attempts, they could provoke a big massacre which
    would bring in foreign intervention.

The only apparent reason why Sir Edwin Pears regarded as “mischievous”
these revolts, resulting in the sacrifice of hundreds of innocent
persons, is indicated by his adding that “such intervention was useless
so long as Russia was hostile,” and it is interesting also to note
the callousness with which the extremists at the cost of hundreds of
innocent victims endeavoured to provoke a massacre of thousands of their
compatriots.

In August 1896 the revolutionaries, having failed to stir up a general
rising in Asia determined to adopt desperate measures in Constantinople
in the hope of forcing the hands of the Ambassadors. About 1 p.m. on an
August afternoon they suddenly attacked with bombs and revolvers the
guard of the Ottoman Bank, twelve of whom they killed. They then broke in
and seized the European staff as hostages. Besieged in the top story of
the bank they threatened to blow up the building with all who were in it,
rather than surrender. The Ambassadors hastily appealed to the Porte, who
yielded to their importunities on behalf of their nationals and allowed
them to guarantee a safe conduct to the conspirators. That night they
were quietly smuggled away on Sir Edgar Vincent’s yacht.

Bombs were also thrown in the Grand Rue de Pera, near the Galata Serai,
and some of the conspirators who had taken a position upon the roofs of
the houses in that, the principal thoroughfare of Constantinople, fired
upon the populace in the street below.

There seems little doubt that the revolutionists had contemplated a
series of attacks at different important points, to be followed by a more
or less general rising of the Armenian population, which numbered from
200,000 to 400,000.

A cry went through the city that the Armenians had risen in revolt and
were massacreing the other citizens. Many persons armed themselves with
cudgels and, joined by a cosmopolitan mob from Pera and Galata, many of
whom were Greeks anxious to pay off old scores on their hated commercial
rivals, wreaked vengeance on the Armenian population. The soldiers and
police took no part in the killing. It is estimated that about 1,000
persons perished, including those killed by the bombs and revolvers of
the conspirators. What happened in London and Liverpool after the sinking
of the “Lusitania” affords an idea of how the East End people of London,
who claim to be far more highly educated than the Constantinople rabble,
would have behaved if German desperados, after murdering twelve of the
sentinels on guard at the Bank of England, had been allowed to escape
free in deference to the representations of the American and Spanish
Ambassadors, especially after the fears and passions of the mob had
been aroused by German aliens shooting and bombing from the roofs of
the houses. In considering the question of massacre we must always bear
in mind that mob law is inevitably cruel and senseless, as witness the
excesses committed during the French Revolution and the Commune, the
lynchings in America of to-day, and the pogroms of Russia.

MR. SIDNEY WHITMAN was in Constantinople at the time as special
correspondent for the _New York World_ in connection with the “so-called
Armenian atrocities,” as he terms them. The instructions sent him by Mr.
Gordon Bennett were very precise:

    The correspondent is to take no sides and express no opinions
    of his own. In many cases it would appear that the matter sent
    to the papers by their correspondents in Turkey is biassed
    against the Turks. This implies an injustice, against which
    even a criminal on trial is protected.

Mr. Sidney Whitman’s book of “Turkish Memories” throws many interesting
side-lights on these events. He says:

    There was little or no reason for assuming that the
    disturbances had their source in religious fanaticism directed
    against the Christian as such; whilst evidence was accumulating
    that a vast Armenian conspiracy, nurtured in England, obscured
    the real issue, to which there were two sides.

Writing of the Press, he observes:

    The agitation on the part of the Armenian Committees in the
    different capitals of Europe had been carried on to such
    purpose, that there was hardly an American or an English
    newspaper which had a good word left to say of the Turks. A
    horde of adventurers of various nationalities, déclassés of
    every sphere of life, cashiered officers among the rest, who
    had left their native country for its good, were eking out a
    precarious livelihood by providing newspaper correspondents, if
    not Embassies, with backstairs information.

He mentions that:

    The agitation carried on in England by Canon McColl and the
    Duke of Westminster, backed by sundry fervent Nonconformists,
    had had the effect of exhibiting the fanatical Turk as
    thirsting for the blood of the Christian.

And yet not a single Christian other than the Orthodox Armenians was
molested. With regard to the Jews he tells us how a Jewish money-changer,
mistaken for an Armenian, had been set on by the mob: when it was
ascertained that he was a Jew, he was released, but the crowd ran after
him, and brought him back to collect his money, which was scattered
on the ground. Would any other mob in the world have acted thus under
similar conditions?

It is a noteworthy fact that from the time when the Jews first found
shelter in Turkey from their Christian persecutors and the terrors of
the Inquisition in Spain, until the present date, no one has ever even
suggested that they have been ill-treated in the Ottoman Dominions; on
the contrary, thousands of fugitive Jews, escaping from pogroms in Russia
have within the last quarter of a century found security and peace in
Turkey. Many Poles fleeing from persecution have found a safe asylum in
Turkey, as well as the Hungarian leaders Kossuth, Gorgey and many others
after their abortive revolution against Austrian domination. Although
threatened with war by both Austria and Russia unless he surrendered
the fugitives, the Sultan of Turkey refused to break the sacred laws of
hospitality enjoined by Mohammed. On an earlier occasion a Sultan of
Turkey had similarly refused to surrender to Russia the King of Ukraine
(Lesser Russia), who was a refugee at his court, although he was offered
a great reward should he comply, with war as the alternative in case of
refusal.

If the Turk were a fanatical persecutor of all persons professing another
faith than his own, how is it that for centuries Jews, Roman Catholic
and Greek Christians have been allowed free exercise of their religion
in all parts of the Turkish Empire, and that Protestant missionaries of
many sects have not been interfered with in that country? Does not all
this tend to prove that the Armenian trouble is a political and not a
religious one?

Mr. Sidney Whitman further says, that in one hospital he visited he found
that about forty Turkish soldiers, who were lying there, were wounded by
Armenian bombs or revolver shots during the street fighting, and that the
correspondents of the different European papers, when asked to inspect a
large quantity of bombs found in a house at Pera, refused to do so.

    Such was the general disinclination to admit any fact which
    could tell in favour of the great provocation the Turks had
    received from the Armenian revolutionists.

The sad case of the late Mr. Melton Prior shows a pleasing exception to
the general attitude adopted by the foreign journalists:

    The renowned war correspondent confided to me that he was
    in an awkward predicament. The public at home had heard of
    nameless atrocities, and was anxious to receive pictorial
    representations of these. The difficulty was how to supply them
    with what they wanted, as the dead Armenians had been buried
    and _no women or children suffered hurt, and no Armenian church
    had been desecrated_. As an old admirer of the Turks, and as an
    honest man, he declined to invent what he had not witnessed.
    But others were not equally scrupulous. I subsequently saw an
    Italian illustrated paper containing harrowing pictures of
    women and children being massacred in a church.




VI.


And now within the last two months we find once more the same influences
at work, and many of the same men who promulgated the Bulgarian
atrocities exploiting fresh massacres of Armenians. There is absolutely
no reason why we should implicitly believe the reports which have been so
assiduously circulated in the Press and on the platform, simply because,
owing to the unfortunate war with Turkey, we are unable to ascertain what
has really happened. The exploiters of these stories are under the same
disability, having only heard one side, and that an extremely biassed
one. The value of certain newspaper information is curiously illustrated
by Sir Edwin Pears who, writing about the Bulgarian “atrocities,”
says, “I collected a number of rumours (sic!) and made much use of the
information which Dr. Long furnished me ... [my account] appeared in
the _Daily News_, on the 23rd (June 1876).” Dr. Long, according to Sir
Edwin, was a former missionary and correspondent to “an obscure newspaper
in America,” and relied for his information entirely upon Bulgarian
letters and not on personal investigation. No Englishman worthy of the
name would condemn a prisoner on the evidence of the prosecution alone,
without first hearing the evidence for the defence. Yet that is exactly
what we are now asked to do. The Editor of the _Economist_ is right when
he says “Certainly we must not allow our standards of proof to decline
in judging reports of atrocities,” and this is especially necessary at a
time when truth seems rarer than fiction, and when sensational stories
are passed as authentic reports for the acceptance of a public prone to
believe anything (witness the stories, all since proved to be entirely
fictitious, of the fatal accident, the suicide, and finally the burial of
the German Crown Prince).

Captain Granville Fortescue, the well-known American war correspondent,
in his recently published book, “What of the Dardanelles,” gives an
example of how stories—not to call them by another name—are manufactured
and disseminated by means of the Press all over the world:

    The rumours of a revolution in Turkey have been so many and
    frequent, that I must state they have not the least foundation
    in fact. Why should the British public be fed on these silly
    canards? Time and again I have read long dispatches from
    Athens and Mytilene, which purport to describe the troubled
    conditions in Turkey. I remember an item that told of a riot
    in Constantinople. Reference was made to the looting of
    the Pera Palace Hotel by a “stop-the-war” mob. On the date
    mentioned in the dispatch I was in this hotel. The whole story
    was pure invention. Personal observation convinced me, that
    Constantinople was the most normal of all the capitals of the
    nations at war.

Sir William Osler, the eminent physician, in a speech recently delivered
at the Leeds Luncheon Club, said that:

    In a great crisis like the present we are all a bit surcharged
    emotionally. Judgment becomes difficult, and we become
    weak-minded and believe anything any Ananias says. Who could
    have dreamt that so early in the war there were so many liars
    in the country as the men and women who saw the Russian troops?
    An instability of this sort leaves us an easy prey for the
    Yellow Press. Think of all the legless, armless, eyeless
    Belgians that crowded their columns. All had been seen by these
    perverters; few, if any, by the camera. What a triumph of
    unstrung nerves was that matter of the war babies.

Russians, mutilated Belgians and “war-babies,” were said to be in our
midst, and yet it took us weeks to learn the truth. We shall indeed be
hysterical if we allow ourselves to be hoaxed about alleged events in the
recesses of Asia Minor.

It is well to recall that Sir Henry Layard in the report of the Bulgarian
atrocities, from which we have quoted, stated that: “there are persons,
and amongst them I grieve to say Englishmen, who boast that they invented
those stories with the object of writing down Turkey, to which they were
impelled by a well-known hand.”

No one believes that gentlemen in the position of Lord Bryce, Mr. Noel
Buxton, Mr. Aneurin Williams and Sir Edwin Pears would for a minute
willingly deceive the British public; but it is indeed more than possible
that some “well-known hand” has been deceiving them. May not this hand
have been that of the wealthy Armenian Committees which are spread
over Europe and America, and who have never hesitated as to the means
chosen for the attainment of their objects, because with them the end
justifies the means? Even the Earl of Crewe, when on October the 5th,
1915, he replied in the House of Lords to the Earl of Cromer’s question
as to “whether His Majesty’s Government had received any information
confirmatory of the statements made in the Press to the effect that
renewed massacres of Armenians had taken place on a large scale,” based
his information on a report he had received from His Majesty’s Consul
at Batum, and which he acknowledged was founded upon the statements
published in a newspaper at Tiflis. It is certainly most significant
that the British Consul at Batum,—a town actually on the frontier—should
have had to rely for his information on a newspaper published at Tiflis,
nearly 200 miles further back. This newspaper was probably “The Horizon,”
an Armenian propagandist organ, and therefore quite unreliable. Likewise,
unless he had been wilfully misinformed, it would be difficult to account
for Lord Bryce’s statement at the Mansion House, that there was not the
slightest basis for the report that the Armenians had themselves provoked
the massacre by rising in conspiracy. The facts and probabilities, so far
as we know them, are otherwise.

The Turks had just sustained in the Caucasus a severe defeat. They
needed every available man and every round of ammunition to check the
advancing Russians. It is therefore incredible that without receiving any
provocation they should have chosen that particularly inopportune moment
to employ a large force of soldiers and gendarmes with artillery to stir
up a hornet’s nest in their rear. Military considerations alone make the
suggestion absurd.

The Germans had failed in their projected attack on Calais and Dunkirk
after suffering enormous losses. The Franco-British forces were massing
for the counter-stroke. Russia was almost at the gates of Cracow,
Przemysl had fallen, and her armies were descending into the plains
of Hungary. The Servians had retaken Belgrade after inflicting a
disastrous defeat on the Austrians. The Allied fleets were hammering
at the Dardanelles. Greece, Roumania and possibly Bulgaria might at
any moment join the Entente Powers. The position of Turkey and the
Central Powers appeared worse than it has ever been before or since.
It is therefore most unlikely that the Turkish Government without
receiving any provocation, and even if, as suggested by Lord Bryce,
they entertained the idea of exterminating the Armenians, should have
chosen so inopportune a moment to damn themselves and forfeit all hope
of magnanimous treatment for their country if defeated, besides running
the risk of prejudicing the Christian Balkan States against them. Lord
Bryce’s accusation, from the point of view of political expediency,
carries its own refutation.

In peace the Turks are a good-natured, easy-going race, hospitable,
generous to the poor, and particularly fond of animals and children—a
sure sign of a kindly and humane disposition, long-suffering, but when
provoked, like all the near Eastern races both Moslem and Christian,
exhibiting a fury out of all proportion to the insult according to
our Western ideas. In war time the Turks are neither fanatical nor
intolerant. They are indeed less so than any of the Western nations with
all their supposed superiority.

When Greece was fighting Turkey, the Greeks of Constantinople, although
Ottoman subjects, actually dared to fly the Greek flag over their
houses, and after the death of their archbishop, which occurred at that
same time, paraded his dead body, seated upon the episcopal throne,
through the streets of Pera, escorted by their prelates and clergy,
without being subjected to any molestation. Annually, too, the Host
is borne in procession through the streets of the City of the Khalif.
Contrast this extraordinary tolerance with present conditions in London,
where German subjects are forbidden to pray in their own churches in the
German tongue and where, only a few years ago, the British Government on
the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress refused to allow the Host to be
borne through the streets of Westminster.

During the Balkan war, when even the mosques were crowded with sick and
starving refugees and only the most heroic efforts of the Turkish army,
decimated with cholera, were able to keep the victorious Bulgars outside
the gates of the city whose very foundations were shaking under the
vibration of the enemy’s guns, Greeks, Bulgars and foreign adventurers of
every description feasting and making merry in the cafés of Pera openly
rejoiced at the misfortune of the Turkish Empire. The principal of Robert
College, a Christian school on the shores of the Bosphorus, allowed full
play to his sectarian bias, boasting that many of the enemy’s successful
generals had been educated at the College, which was founded under the
protection and goodwill of the Sultan. Yet during those bitter days, in
spite of all this provocation, not a single alien enemy was interfered
with by those “fanatical Moslems,” whose hierarchial chief, the
Sheik-ul-Islam, set an example by continuing to employ the Greek gardener
who had been in his service for many years. The Turks were either too
tolerant or too contemptuous to even notice the unseemly and licentious
behaviour of the enemies within their gates. Such is the character of
a people who would rather go without their dinner than see a poor man
hungry, and who, even at a period when Jews were being burnt alive in
Christian Spain, Huguenots hunted out of France and priests guilty of
saying Mass executed in England, allowed perfect freedom to every race
and sect within her dominions.

In the present war we have the overwhelming and convincing testimony of
all ranks, from Lord Kitchener downwards, that the Turks have fought
gallantly and cleanly, and have treated our wounded and prisoners with
kindness and humanity. It is inconceivable, therefore, that these same
Turks without any provocation (and Lord Bryce himself has said that
there was no religious fanaticism), should have committed the devilries
of which they are accused, and in this connection we have the curiously
illuminating observation by a celebrated correspondent, on his return
from the seat of the last Balkan war, that “paradoxical as it might seem,
the Turks were the only Christians in the Balkans”!

This brief examination of the Turkish military and political situation,
and of Turkish character, ought sufficiently to refute the suggestion
that the Turks were the aggressors and acted without provocation.

On the other hand these same military and political factors, when applied
to the Armenian point of view and seen in conjunction with the character
of these people, afford good and sufficient reasons for believing that
the Armenians themselves commenced the troubles by rising in rebellion.
It would indeed have been more than extraordinary had the rebellious
section, armed and ready for any mischief, remained quiet under
circumstances which were so entirely in their favour.

The defeat of the Turkish army in the Caucasus and the absence of the
greater part of the local garrisons and gendarmery, as well as of the
able-bodied Moslems, at the front, were entirely favourable to the
long matured but hitherto abortive schemes of the revolutionists and
russophile Armenians for raising an armed rebellion. Bands of armed
Armenian volunteers called “Fedais,” estimated by Lord Bryce at over
8,000, with a probable increase “in the near future” to between 20,000
and 25,000, were already operating in the country as early as last
March, and Lord Bryce and the “Friends of Armenia” were appealing for
funds to clothe and equip the Armenian Volunteers on April 2nd, almost
one month before these alleged unprovoked “massacres.” Furthermore
Russia was undoubtedly arming the population and assisting in fomenting
a revolution; nor can Russia be blamed for this, seeing that she was
then at war with Turkey. Finally the character of the Armenians, so
graphically described by Sir Mark Sykes in his account of the people of
the Mush plain, and by other travellers whom we have quoted, leaves no
doubt that the majority of the Armenian population were quite ready and
willing to take advantage of the situation.

What really seems to have occurred in this: about the end of April
the Armenians of the Van district believing, after the defeat of Sary
Kamish in the Caucasus, that the complete victory of Russia was assured,
thought that their opportunity had at last arrived. Urged on by the
revolutionaries and Russian agents, and hoping to co-operate with the
“Fedais” who had already seized the town of Baskale, 50 miles to the East
on the main road from Van to the Persian frontier, they rose in revolt
and, as a correspondent of the _Times_, perhaps in an unguarded moment,
admits, “finally captured the town of Van and took a bloody vengeance
on their enemies.” It was the old story of the massacre of the Zeitun
garrison over again. Early in June the revolutionists betrayed the town
to the Russian troops.

What happened afterwards is more or less conjecture, but reading the
accounts, even those evidently inspired from Armenian sources, it would
appear that there were organized risings in other parts of Asia Minor
also. For Mr. Henry Wood, the special correspondent at Constantinople of
the United Press Agency of America, reported that the Armenians not only
were in open revolt but were actually in possession of Van and several
other important towns. At Zeitun he said that on the participation
of Turkey in the war, when the authorities tried to enforce military
service upon the young Armenians (as they were entitled to do by the
Constitution), the soldiers were attacked and 300 killed. The town was
subsequently retaken, and the population was dispersed and deported. It
appears obvious that the Turkish authorities, anxious for the safety of
their lines of communication, had no other alternative than to order
the removal of their rebellious subjects to some place distant from the
seat of hostilities, and their internment there. The enforcement of this
absolutely necessary precaution led to further risings on the part of
the Armenians. The remaining Moslems were almost defenceless, because
the regular garrisons were at the front as well as the greater part of
the police and able-bodied men. Already infuriated at the reports of
the atrocities committed at Van by the insurgents, in fear for their
own lives and those of their relatives, they were at last driven by the
cumulative effect of these events into panic and retaliation and, as
invariably happens in such cases, the innocent suffered with the guilty.

The Turkish Government has repeatedly been accused of trying to “end the
Armenian question by ending the Armenians,” but the evidence of many
persons who travelled through the country shortly after the previous
disturbances is, that with very rare exceptions only able-bodied men were
slain, and not the women, children, or aged. This in itself would confirm
the opinion that the measures were purely repressive and, however severe,
were taken in the interest of public safety.




VII.


Unfortunately the Turk never deigns to explain his own case, and thus
the pro-Armenians always manage to hold the field, appalling the public
by incessant reiteration and exaggeration as to the number of victims,
and apparently valuing to its full extent the wisdom of the old Eastern
proverb: Give a lie twenty-four hours’ start, and it will take a hundred
years to overtake it. Later on, when the true figures become available,
only a very few inquisitive people realize the falsity of the earlier
stories. Thus Lord Bryce, speaking in the House of Lords on October
6th, 1915, said that the information he had received went to show that
800,000[8] was a possible number of the Armenians destroyed since May
last. By adding to this figure the 250,000 refugees in Russia for whom
funds are requested, and 13,000 refugees in Egypt, we arrive at a grand
total of 1,063,000 Armenians, while, according to Sir Charles Wilson, the
total Armenian population of the nine Provinces most thickly populated
by them is only 925,000, which he describes as an outside estimate. The
total number of Arabs killed by the Italian newspapers in the Tripolitan
war exceeded three times the population of the country. It would seem
that the advocates of the Armenians are imitating the Italian Press.

An example of the most extraordinary reports anent the so-called
massacres, furnished to and circulated through the English newspapers by
Lord Bryce, is that of Mersina:

    The number of Armenians sent _from_ this city now totals about
    25,000, and this _in addition_ to the many thousands coming
    from the north that pass through.

Yet the total population of Mersina as given in the official returns for
1908 was 20,966 persons, of whom 11,246 were Moslems, 2,441 Jews, and the
remaining 7,279 Christians of various sects, Greek, Armenian, Latin and
Nestorian. How 25,000 Armenians could have been sent from Mersina out
of a total Christian population of 7,279 (at least one half of whom were
Greeks), is difficult to understand.

The _Times_ report of Lord Bryce’s statement in the House of Lords quotes
him as saying, that at Trebizond

    the facts as to the slaughter were vouched for by the Italian
    Consul, who was there at the time. The Turkish authorities
    hunted out all the Christians, gathered them together and
    drove them down the streets to the sea. They were all put on
    sailing boats and carried out some distance into the Black Sea,
    and there thrown overboard and drowned; the whole Armenian
    population of from 8,000 to 10,000 was destroyed in that way in
    one afternoon.[9] After that any other story becomes credible.

Indeed any other story would be more credible. Consider (apart from the
time that would be required for the collection and embarkation of the
victims) the number of sailing boats necessary to carry 8,000 or 10,000
people “some distance” out to sea, even if the boats were able to make
more than one journey! And still this was the preposterous story vouched
for, according to Lord Bryce, by the Italian Consul, Signor Corrini, who
was there at the time. Yet the account of the same event, as given in the
Rome _Messagero_, is entirely different, the Consul being made to say
that the banishment of Armenians under escort, and wholesale shootings in
the streets, continued for a whole month, while there is nothing about
the Armenians having been shipped out to sea and drowned _en masse_ in
one afternoon.

It is interesting to compare the original accounts relating to the number
of Bulgarians killed in the popular risings of 1876 and of Armenians
killed in the Sassun disturbances of 1896, with the subsequent official
estimates.

ORIGINAL ESTIMATES.

    Bulgarians                          60,000
    Armenians                            8,000
                                        ------
                                        68,000

SUBSEQUENT OFFICIAL ESTIMATES.

    Bulgarians and Turkish soldiers      3,500
    Armenians                              900
                                        ------
                                         4,400

We thus see that the total number of victims amounted to only about
6.4 per cent. of the figures originally circulated. Such exaggeration,
deliberately made with the object of appealing to the imagination of
sentimental people, is astounding in its mendacity. When we can apply
the test of investigation to Lord Bryce’s estimate of 800,000 killed in
the present alleged “massacres” we shall in all probability find these
figures similarly excessive.

All the stories of Turkish misdeeds have proved on investigation to be
gross exaggerations beyond the belief of any thoughtful person. Anyone
gifted with imagination and a sufficiently prurient mind could write
up the stories now being so assiduously circulated to the Press by
Armenian agencies acting, undoubtedly, under instructions from a central
Bureau.[10]

“The Bulgarian atrocities,” to which reference has already been made,
afford a very good example of how easily a prejudiced sentimentalist
can be deceived. The late Canon McColl, at Mr. Gladstone’s request,
went out to the Balkans to collect evidence. On one occasion his guide
(presumably a Levantine, over-anxious to please his employer and to earn
some extra backsheesh) pointed out on the horizon a large number of
erections, which he asserted were “hundreds of impaled Christians.” The
report of this was sent home to England, where it made a great sensation
as apparently irrefutable first-hand evidence, on good authority. But in
the sequel conclusive proof came forth that no Christians had been either
massacred or crucified anywhere near that district, and furthermore that
the supposed figures were nothing but the common haycocks of the country,
which are built up around a pole, and which—after the hay has been eaten
by the cattle until only a few bunches are left—might bear rather the
appearance suggested by the guide. Canon McColl acknowledged his mistake,
but of course the mischief had been done.

Leaving aside these stories of “massacres” and extermination of the
Armenians, which we believe to be, in the main, a tissue of exaggerations
and invention, let us now turn to the question of “Armenian Independence”
and examine whether their claim to any such independence is founded on
the inherent right which all united races however small, possess to
choose their own form of government.

The answer must be an emphatic negation, for the reason that the
Armenians are neither the most numerous nor the most homogeneous section
of the population of the country in which they live.

Sir Charles Wilson, an unbiassed authority, estimates the total Armenian
population of the nine provinces of Kurdistan as being 925,000 at the
most, or only 15 per cent. of the total population of 6,130,000, which is
made up of 4,460,000 Moslems, 645,000 Greeks and other Christians, plus
100,000 Jews and Gypsies. And General Zelenyi, in a census made for the
Caucasus Geographical Society in 1896, estimates that even in the five
provinces which they most largely inhabit, the Armenians form only 26 per
cent. of the entire population.

In order to make this minority less apparent, the pro-Armenians take
the figures of only 6 provinces—choosing of course those most thickly
populated with their friends—and add to them the Greeks, other Christians
and Jews; but even then the Moslems are in large majority.

The following are the figures for 1908 of the population of the nine
vilayets specified below, as ascertained by an official census taken by
the Ottoman Government:—

                                              Non-Moslems,
                                          Christians and Jews,
                                              Gypsies and
                                             Yezidis (Devil      Total
                                Moslems.      Worshippers).   Population.

    1. Adana                    185,000         215,000         400,000
    2. Aleppo                   644,597         261,977         906,574
    3. Bitlis                   295,000          75,000         370,000
    4. Diarbekir                301,509         112,016         413,525
    5. Erzerum                  501,101         146,009         647,110
    6. Marmmet el Aziz          378,723         101,263         479,986
    7. Sivas                    848,474         273,450       1,121,924
    8. Trebizond              1,001,260          70,211       1,071,471
    9. Van                      325,000         105,000         430,000
                              ---------       ---------       ---------
                              4,480,664       1,359,926       5,840,590
                              ---------       ---------       ---------

Even if for the sake of argument we were to grant (although such is far
from being the case), that the Christian and Jewish population does form
a majority over the Moslem one, it proves no case for the pro-Armenians,
because all the Moslems are solidly united in opposition to any
alteration of the status quo, while the Christians have no common idea or
policy.

Thus a large majority of the Roman Catholics and Protestants, including
even the Armenian Roman Catholics and Protestants, as well as the
orthodox Greeks, favour the status quo, as do also the Jews and Gypsies.

The Gregorians are hopelessly divided: some want a national existence
when even their friends, like Mr. Buxton, agree that “the population is
too divided to permit success,” while others desire annexation by Russia,
and on the other hand Boghos Nubar Pasha, the leader of the largest
section, declares that they desire to remain with their fellow Moslems an
integral part of the Ottoman Empire.




VIII.


The stories that have been so assiduously circulated about wholesale
“massacres” of Armenians have a distinct object in view, viz: to
influence the future policy of the British Government and to prepare the
public mind for the desired settlement—the incorporation of Armenia in
the Russian Empire.

The advocates of this arrangement naturally uphold the correlative
policy of Great Britain annexing Mesopotamia. Superficially considered
the idea looks attractive, however opposed it may be to the proclaimed
objects with which we embarked on this war. It would appear, however,
that the supporters of the scheme have not properly considered the
profound underlying dangers of their project. The very fact of the great
importance attached to the Anglo-Russian Alliance should inspire one
with the gravest doubts as to the wisdom of the suggestion. Two great
Powers with frontiers meeting along such a tract of country may at any
moment not see eye to eye on every question. There is no continuity in
international politics; they change from day to day according to the
needs of a situation which can never be permanently fixed. It is the duty
of statesmen to look further than the immediate present, and England will
never forgive it, if in the settlement at the conclusion of the war they
permit mistakes, which would almost inevitably lead to friction between
two prospective neighbours and present friends.

In this connection it may be useful to recall the prophetic words of Sir
Henry Layard, one of our ablest and most far-sighted diplomatists:

    It would probably signify little to the rest of Europe whether
    Russia retained Armenia or not. But England has to consider
    the effect of the annexation to Russia of this important
    Province upon the British Possessions in India. Russia would
    then command the whole of Asia Minor and the great valley of
    the Euphrates and Tigris which would inevitably fall into her
    hands in course of time.... The moral effect of the conquest of
    Armenia and the annexation of Ghilan and Mazanderan by Russia
    upon our Mohammedan subjects, and upon the populations of
    Central Asia cannot be overlooked by a statesman who attaches
    any value to the retention of India as part of the British
    Empire.

Mr. Grattan Geary, than whom no writer has studied more closely the
question at issue, speaks thus of the enormous advantage which the Power
in possession of highland Kurdistan would have over the one that ruled
lowland Mesopotamia:

    Diarbekir is the key to the valleys of both the Tigris and
    the Euphrates—once there, they can decide whether they will
    move down the former to Bagdad, or down the latter to a point
    where they can command both rivers and reach the gulf ...
    the forests at the head of both rivers supply the means of
    constructing with small cost light boats or rafts, for floating
    reinforcements and military stores to any point where a General
    might choose to establish an entrenched camp, so that it would
    be almost impossible to shake his hold of the country, once he
    had entered and taken possession.... For it must be borne in
    mind that the swift currents of those rivers will enable an
    army to move without fatigue or difficulty from North to South,
    while a force moving northwards must toil along a roadless
    country where rapid marching is out of the question....
    Once an army gets into the Mesopotamia plains, there is no
    fortified place there that could withstand it for an hour,
    and the current of the rivers would save even the trouble of
    locomotion. There would be nothing absolutely novel in this
    line of invasion. The Emperor Trajan and a couple of centuries
    later the Emperor Julian, descended the Euphrates with large
    fleets put together in the Armenian mountains.

It is interesting to note that in Mr. Grattan Geary’s opinion a powerful
nation holding Kurdistan could equally from Diarbekir overrun Syria and
seriously menace Egypt.

It may therefore not be out of place to consider how the Armenian
question stood immediately before the outbreak of the European war.

The policy of the British Government, bound by the Cyprus Convention to
maintain the integrity of the Sultan’s dominions in Asia, had been to
strengthen the position of Turkey by loyally endeavouring to ameliorate
the unrest which the revolutionary societies had stirred up amongst the
Armenians. It is well known that all schemes of reform proposed by Great
Britain or by Turkey herself, had been without exception cold-shouldered
or openly opposed by Russia, firstly because they would, if successful,
destroy any excuse for intervention and subsequent annexation; secondly
because they contained some form or other of self-government, which
Russia feared would not only encourage the national feeling of the
Ottoman Armenians (who would look to England as their protector rather
than to Russia), but would also encourage a similar national sentiment
amongst the Armenians in the Caucasus.

With the advent of the Anglo-Russian Entente, our policy was revised.
There are many Englishmen who believed, and still firmly believe, that
wise and prescient statesmanship should have succeeded in reconciling,
or at least allaying, the hereditary animosity which existed between our
new friend and our old, traditional ally, and that in any case it would
have been more worthy and more dignified, besides being to the advantage
of this country, had we openly declared that under no circumstances
would we sacrifice sacred obligations and old friendships to a policy of
expediency. Public opinion, awakened by recent occurrences in the Near
East, at last realizes how mistaken was the attitude of our Government
towards Turkey. Official Russia, we believe, would have appreciated and
accepted our point of view. Progressive Russia most certainly would have
done so.

Unfortunately the British Government apparently thought otherwise. In
1912, the Porte without any outside pressure and being genuinely anxious
to improve the condition of her Asiatic provinces, demanded (under the
terms of the Cyprus Convention) that they should be supplied with British
administrators, but these were refused.

The Russian Government then took up the question of reforms, and Turkey
appealed to Germany to protect her from the very unpalatable scheme put
forward by Russia. Germany gained a nominal victory, but success really
rested with Russia. As a compromise a thoroughly unpracticable scheme was
adopted, by which two Inspector Generals were appointed, one of whom was
a Dutchman and the other a Norwegian. Neither had any knowledge of the
Near East: one spoke no language other than his own, and the other in
addition spoke only a few words of French. Then came the European War,
and neither of these gentlemen ever reached Kurdistan. The scheme was
foredoomed to failure, as was, indeed, expected. In this connection the
Russian “Orange Book” is full of interest. We find there that during the
negotiations, on July 8th, 1913, M. Sazanoff sent the Porte a vigorous
despatch, in which he laid stress on the fact that the integrity of the
Ottoman Empire largely depended upon the degree of pacification of the
Armenian provinces. He further declared that:

    The Imperial Government cannot admit a chronic state of
    anarchy, which by reason of the proximity of the Turkish
    frontier, cannot fail to have a most pernicious effect on the
    neighbouring provinces of the Caucasus.

Further light is thrown on the situation as it was then, by an article
published at that time in the “Nineteenth Century” by Mr. Noel Buxton,
who had been travelling in Kurdistan. Mr. Buxton is all the more
convincing because the object of the article apparently was to prove,
that the only salvation of the district was annexation by Russia. Mr.
Noel Buxton wrote:

    The present aim of Russia’s policy is also, perhaps, to prevent
    the Kurdish chiefs in the Turkish territory _from making terms
    with the Turks or on the other hand with the Christians_, and
    so to keep up the _excuse for possible intervention_.

Mr. Buxton then proceeds to justify this policy of creating disorder. It
was the policy his friends the Bulgars had pursued with such success in
Macedonia with the Komitadjis[11] (as was to be expected, we now find
Mr. Buxton taking a prominent role in damning the Turks for the recent
alleged massacres). Mr. Walter Guinness, M.P., in his description of a
tour made in Kurdistan about the same time as Mr. Buxton, corroborates
the evidence of that gentleman. He mentions numerous indications of an
active Russian propaganda not only amongst the Armenians, but among the
Kurds as well. He adds:

    _Many of these (the Kurds) are armed with Russian rifles, and
    in the mountains I found, in an out of the way village, a
    Russian dressed as a Kurd, and living the life of the Kurds._

Russia was arming both the Kurds and the Orthodox Armenians. The object
was two-fold: the Kurds would resist the measures taken by the local
officials to enforce the decree against the carrying of rifles, which
had been promulgated by the Turkish Government in order to enforce
law and order, and the Armenians, excited by agents-provocateur and
revolutionaries, would be encouraged to revolt. In either event there
would be disturbances, which would enable Russia to point to the failure
of European control as justification for her armed intervention followed
by annexation, on the ground that this was the only possible solution.
The observant student of current history will no doubt perceive in this
desired end an interesting and instructive parallel to the handing over
to Austria of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and her final cynical annexation of
those provinces; whether the parallel would stop here, if the object is
gained, may be told by some future historian.




IX.


Some people, perhaps, will say that whether these stories of massacres
be true or false, it is inopportune to defend the reputation of a nation
with whom we are at war. If this argument were true, it would apply with
equal force as a criticism of the officers and men who have written home
from Gallipoli, giving spontaneously such wholehearted and generous
testimony to the bravery and chivalry of the Turks. Truth can never be
inopportune so long as our conscience is clear, which it would not be
if we allowed false stories to remain uncontradicted simply because the
untrue assertions might be detrimental to an enemy. But at this advanced
stage of the war such stories are scarcely likely to have any effect on
the neutral nations, who are, indeed, more likely to be influenced in
our favour if we show ourselves fair-minded and willing to investigate
the truth. Their object is simply to bias public opinion in this country
still further against an already misjudged and badly maligned enemy.

Some good-natured people have indeed gone so far as to say, that “the
fact of the Armenians rising in rebellion and butchering the Moslems
of Van and only waiting an opportunity to do so in other places, was
no justification for the severity of the Turkish Government, or for
the reprisals of the local Turks and the cruelties of the Kurds.” But
even admitting, all exaggeration apart, the severity of the Turkish
Government’s action in ordering the removal of the Armenian population
and the methods adopted by local officials to stamp out disaffection, it
must not be forgotten how critical the situation was for Turkey: that
for her it was a matter of life and death. There is not the slightest
doubt that, unless the incipient revolution had been immediately crushed
and further danger removed, the Turkish army on the Caucasus would have
been hopelessly cut off and the Moslem population exterminated at the
hands of the revolutionaries. The British Government has never hesitated
under much less critical conditions to suppress rebellion within its
borders with an iron hand and by measures which, surveyed after the time
of stress and danger was past, have appeared both harsh and cruel in the
extreme.

It is possible that a certain number of innocent Armenians may have been
killed by the mob who, infuriated and panic-stricken by the reports they
had received of the butchery of their co-religionists at Van, and the
slaughter of the soldiers at Zeitun, believed that should the Armenians
get the upper hand they would suffer in the same manner; but for the
fate of these poor victims, or for the excesses committed by the Kurds,
it would hardly be just to hold either the Turkish Government or the
local Turkish officials responsible. These had done everything possible
to disarm the tribes so as to make them amenable to law and order, but
despite their endeavours the Kurds were being continually armed by
outside agencies. One of the principal causes of the Albanian revolution
was the attempt to disarm the mountaineers, and after that experience
it is greatly to the credit of the Turkish Government that they still
persisted in trying to deprive the Kurds of their rifles.

We have no hesitation in repeating that these stories of wholesale
massacre have been circulated with the distinct object of influencing,
detrimentally to Turkey, the future policy of the British Government when
the time of settlement shall arrive. No apology, therefore, is needed
for honestly endeavouring to show how a nation with whom we were closely
allied for many years and which possesses the same faith as millions
of our fellow-subjects, has been condemned for perpetrating horrible
excesses against humanity on “evidence” which, when not absolutely false,
is grossly and shamefully exaggerated.

During the Boer war the most horrible charges were made on the Continent
against the conduct of our troops. One picture, for example, in the then
famous and widely circulated French _Assiette de Beurre_, showed a number
of British soldiers lining a trench and firing on the advancing Boers,
who were unable to reply because a number of their own women-folk were
tied to stakes along the front of the British trenches. By pictures such
as these the fury of the European nations was roused against us, and
there was hardly a single one we could call a friend. Turkey, however,
stood true: thousands of her Moslem subjects volunteered to fight for us,
and prayers were offered up in her mosques for the success of the British
arms. And over a score of influential Moslems, headed by Obeid-Ullah
Effendi, formerly Minister of Education for Syria and to-day a member
of the Ottoman Legislative Assembly, attended at the British Embassy at
Pera, and there openly made prayers for the success of the British Arms
in South Africa.

The Turks are one of the few races who have always found themselves
in full sympathy with the British character, and to whom we appeared
neither “cold” nor “perfidious.” This is not surprising, because the
characteristics of the two peoples are very similar, with the exception
that the Turk is not a sportsman for the reason that he objects to taking
life unnecessarily; which fact does not however prevent the British
soldier from referring to him as a “good sport.”

Although the Turks may at times have expressed regret and disappointment
at some action of the British Government, they always ended by saying:
“ah, if only Beaconsfield or Palmerston were alive; they were men!” This
liking is reciprocated by most Englishmen, and especially by those who
have lived for any length of time in close contact and community with
the Turks (such as the Whittalls, one of the great families of English
merchants who have made Constantinople their home). On the occasion of
King Edward’s telegram of congratulation to Sultan Abdul Hamid after the
grant of the Turkish Constitution, Sir William Whittall wrote in the
_Near East_ October 1908:

    It is to be hoped that, as now practically the whole of Turkey
    is enthusiastic for England, we shall know how to meet the
    circumstances and preserve their affection, for they are
    worth loving, and some future day their love for us will be an
    important factor in our history.

Unfortunately these high expectations remain unfulfilled.

British officers and soldiers fighting in Gallipoli have under strange
conditions developed this sentimental liking for their opponents. The
Rev. Dr. Ewing, a Scottish chaplain serving with the forces in Gallipoli,
relates the appreciation shown by a captured Turkish officer when, being
led behind our lines, he saw the care with which the clergyman had
fenced round the little Moslem cemetery to protect “God’s acre” from
destruction, and writes:—“Such little amenities may do something to
soften the asperities of war, and make easier the resumption of friendly
relations when the war is over.” “On the whole, however,” he adds, “I
can hardly imagine a war waged with less animosity on both sides, than
this between ourselves and the Turks.” If such are the impressions and
experience gathered on the battlefield itself, it would behove us here
at home in England to treat with the greatest circumspection, at least,
the accusations against an honourable foe and—mindful of the many “God’s
acres” that have been consecrated on the fire-swept slopes of Gallipoli
by the blood of Christian and Moslem heroes alike—to be careful lest any
wanton or unqualified word of ours make more difficult “the resumption of
friendly relations when the war is over.”





FOOTNOTES


[1] “Through Asiatic Turkey”.

[2] “Three American missionaries called: they had been settled for
several years in Anatolia, and had succeeded in making some converts
amidst the Armenians, but they had not in any one instance induced a
Mohammedan to change his faith. One of them observed that the Turks were
by no means a cruel race.” (Col. F. Burnaby: “On Horseback through Asia
Minor.”)

[3] “Odysseus”: “Turkey in Europe.”

[4] Extract from Sir Henry Layard’s (H.M. Ambassador at Constantinople)
despatches.

[5] I was told some ghastly details, but I doubt the veracity of them, as
they were related to me by a town Armenian.

[6] These would not be so called if committed by any other troops than
those of the Turkish Army.

[7] “Forty years in Constantinople.”

[8] He has since increased this figure to 1,000,000.

[9] The _Times_, in a leading article, adds the further information that
“The Italian Consul, who reports this enormity, saw it done with his own
eyes.”

[10] “Everything had been carefully prepared in Asia and in the Press
of Europe and America before the Armenian outbreak (1895-96) to boom a
second Bulgaria.” (Sidney Whitman: “Turkish Memories.”)

[11] On December 31st, 1913, the Special Correspondent of _The Times_
at Constantinople warned his readers that there was great danger of the
introduction into Asia Minor of Macedonian methods with band-warfare and
all its attendant horrors, and in February, 1914, the Press reported
that a large quantity of contraband ammunition had been seized by the
gendarmerie in the vilayet of Bitlis.