Page images
PDF
EPUB

susceptible and pliant minds of their children, and of instilling into their youthful hearts the principle of piety. It is theirs to plant the seed of the word of God in the virgin soil, and, when a more experienced hand is required to cultivate it, the ministers of God will not be wanting in developing its growth.

We would exhort mothers in the name of the holy religion they profess; in the name of their country, which expects them to rear not scourges of society, but honorable and law-abiding members; in the name of God, who requires them to have their offspring fed with the nourishment of sound doctrine; we beg them, in the name of their own eternal salvation and that of the souls committed to their charge, to provide for their children at home a healthy, moral, and religious education. "If any one have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."1

And, then, what a source of consolation it will be to them in their declining years when they reflect that they will leave after them children who will inherit not only their name, but also their faith and virtues. They will share in the beautiful eulogy pronounced by the Holy Ghost on the mother of the family: "Who shall find a valiant woman? . . . . She hath opened her mouth to wisdom, and the law of clemency is on her tongue. She hath looked well to the paths of her house, and hath not eaten her bread idle. Her children rose up and called her blessed: her husband, and he praised her. Many daughters have gathered together riches; thou hast surpassed them all. Favor is deceitful and beauty is vain: the woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised."2

1 Tim., v. 8.

Prov., xxxi.

THE COMING CONFLICT IN THE EAST.

WHAT has lately taken place in Bulgaria could hardly fail

to attract considerable attention throughout the world, because not only diplomatic circles, but cultured society at large, couple these occurrences-and quite properly so-with a reappearance of the Eastern Question on the political horizon of Europe. The abduction of Prince Alexander of Battenberg from his palace in Sofia during the dark of night, his transportation on a yacht to Reni, the counter revolution while he was on his way to Darmstadt, his triumphant return into Bulgaria, and subsequent abdication as ruler, all these events took place with a rapidity truly characteristic of our age. They read like a romantic tale, and partake of a genuine dramatic character; but they are none the less real. And while they remind us, pleasantly, on the one hand, that even in this thoroughly materialistic century loyalty and patriotism have not completely died out, they open up, on the other hand, a vista into the future which fills observant minds with uneasy forebodings.

Perhaps a " modus vivendi” will be found to patch up once more, for a time at least, a truce; yet the final solution of the Oriental problem can hardly be postponed much longer. And this final solution, whenever it comes, involves, as is admitted by the diplomatic world of Europe, nearly all the great powers, and hence will be a struggle of gigantic proportions. It is by no means an exaggeration to say that nearly all the powers interested have been preparing themselves for this struggle for years, and this leads us to incline to the belief that we are on the eve of the day when matters will be settled in a conclusive way, and the map of southeastern Europe and Asia completely re-arranged. Indications to that effect are not wanting. It is impossible to dissociate the closing of Batoum, as a port of free entry, by Russia, contrary to the provisions of the treaty of Berlin, and the establishment of a coaling station on the island of Thasos, in the Ægean Sea, by England, from the troubles in Bulgaria. Nor is it at all possible not to attach any significance to the fact that both Russia and Austria have this year chosen for the autumn manœuvres on a large scale, which are now being held annually by every great military power, districts which, in the event of hostilities in the future, could not fail to form part of the theatre of war. If this choice of ground for sham battles was, as some contend, purely accidental, it is a very singular coincidence, to say the least; but in the opinion of keen

observers of current events, this choice of territory is not devoid of a deeper meaning. And so it would be easy to multiply the instances which furnish cumulative evidence that the pulse of Europe beats rather feverishly in anticipation of the momentous issues which the near future may disclose.

It is hardly necessary to remark that personally Prince Alexander, howsoever much he be surrounded with a halo of military glory and lofty sentiments, does not enter at all into the consideration of the Great Powers. Nor is even the fate of those long-suffering and downtrodden nationalities of the southeast of Europe, which began to feel the throb of national life only within the last few decades, the cause of serious apprehensions for the future. While it is undeniable that the Bulgarians, Servians, Roumanians, etc., are very deeply interested in the final outcome, they realize themselves that the decision rests not with them, but with the Great Powers, in whose hands they play pretty much the same rôle as the figures on a chessboard in the hands of the players. A discussion of Bulgarian affairs throws, consequently, at best only a feeble side light upon the situation. For a full and comprehensive understanding of the real issue, it seems to us indispensable to ascertain what lies beyond and behind the apparent complications. And since a brief historical review, going back as far as 1853, will go far towards elucidating what is at stake and why it is so, we will briefly summarize, first, what took place in the southeast of Europe within that period, and next, what changes were wrought in the situation in Central Europe.

In 1853, prior to the beginning of the Crimean war, Czar Nicholas I. laid down the political creed of Russia in regard to her foreign policy, in certain overtures made by him to the then Engli: h Ambassador at St. Petersburg, Sir Hamilton Seymour. Inasmuch as Russia has persistently from that time on endeavored to carry out the plans outlined in these overtures, it may not be superfluous to state, in a condensed form, their main propositions: Russia, first of all, desired to establish Servia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, and the so-called Danubian Principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia, now known as Roumania) as states independent of the Porte, but subject to Russian protection, and proposed a temporary occupation of Constantinople, in order to facilitate the obtaining of, or rather to enforce, the consent of the Porte to this arrangement, i. e., loss of territory. In consideration of England's acquiescence in these plans of Russia, Russia's consent to the acquisition of Crete and Egypt by England was promised. At the same time a direct and peremptory demand was made by Nicholas I. through Prince Menchsikow, the Russian Ambassador accredited to Constantinople, that the Porte recognize a Russian protectorate over all the Christian subjects of the Sultan within

the dominions of the Ottoman Empire. The failure of the British Government to favorably entertain Emperor Nicholas' proposal, and the Sultan's firmness in upholding his authority, rendered it desirable for Russia to strengthen her hands otherwise. The interview of September, 1853, at Olmütz, between the Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, the King of Prussia, and Czar Nicholas, was arranged, therefore, by the latter, with a view of securing an alliance of these powers against the probable coalition of the western powers, namely, France and England. Russia failed, however, to obtain more than a very conditional pledge of neutrality.

The Crimean war followed. Emperor Nicholas died during the siege of Sebastopol by the allied forces, and bequeathed to his successor, Alexander II., the carrying out of what may not inaptly be called his political testament. How, after a most stubborn resistance, the taking by assault of the Malakov by the French, under Pellissier, and of the Redan by the English, under Lord Raglan, in September, 1855, decided the fall of Sebastopol, and thereby the campaign against Russia, is well known. Diplomatic negotiations were opened, and led to the conclusion of the Peace of Paris, on March 30th, 1856. By its provisions Russia's ambition suffered a serious check. Moldavia and Wallachia, the so-called Danubian Principalities, were indeed united as Roumania, under Prince Charles of Hohenzollern, but as a suzerainty of the Porte. This defeat of Russian schemes served, however, in no way to induce the Government of St. Petersburg to abandon them. On the contrary, Russian money and Russian intrigues have continued ever since to cause disturbances, in order to create opportunities for carrying out her schemes. The uprising against Turkish misrule in the Herzegovina, in 1875, fomented by Russian money, led, after an unsuccessful conference at Berlin, to a declaration of war on the part of Servia and Montenegro against the Porte. Russia espoused quite openly the cause of Servia; but in spite of Russian aid and Russian officers in the ranks of the Servian army, victory remained with the Turks. Montenegro fought more successfully. In the meantime Sultan Abdul-Aziz had been superseded by Murad V., who, in turn, in August of the same year, was followed by Abdul-Hamid II. A six months' truce was followed in March, 1877, by the conclusion of peace between Servia and the Porte, on the basis of the “status quo ante." Anxious for a palpable cause for direct intervention, Russian agents had, during that time, incited an insurrection in Bulgaria, the quelling of which, in 1876, was entrusted by the Sultan to the Turkish militia. The cruelties perpetrated by the Bashi-Bozhuks, though often but retaliations, were made the most of by Russia, and, skilfully reported all over Europe, created a general and quite just outburst of indignation against Moslem misrule throughout civil

ized Christendom. The plenipotentiaries of the several powers met in December at Constantinople, and shortly afterwards a constitution was proclaimed for the Ottoman Empire. The Czar, however, in his role as protector of Christians, not satisfied with the provision made for the amelioration of the Christian subjects of the Porte in this constitution, declared war, in April, 1877, against Turkey. This memorable campaign, conspicuous by reason of a frightful loss of life and fighting of the fiercest character round Plevna and the Shipka pass, and ending, with the aid of the Roumanian army, in the signal defeat of Turkey, is an event of so recent date as to require but a cursory allusion. A truce of arms, concluded at Adrianople on January 31st, 1878, was followed, on March 3d, by the treaty of San Stefano, the main provisions of which instrument were: Territorial expansion of Servia and Montenegro and their recognition as independent states by the Porte, and a further recognition of Roumania's independence; the creation of Bulgaria as a new suzerain state, embracing Bulgaria proper as well as Eastern Roumelia; finally, cession to Russia of a large territory in Asia (Armenia), and in Europe of Bessarabia and the Dobrudscha, the latter ceded by Russia to Roumania as compensation for the assistance rendered in the campaign. England protested at once against the provisions of this treaty, as a practical dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire; the Sultan, for the sake of obtaining England's guarantee to preserve intact the remaining Asiatic possessions of the Porte, ceded Cyprus to England. War between England and the Porte seemed imminent, when the mediation of Germany brought about the convening of the Congress at Berlin. Not since the days of the famous Congress at Vienna of 1815, after the Napoleonic wars, was there ever in this century assembled a galaxy of more distinguished statesmen and diplomats than on that occasion at Berlin (June 13th, 1878). Under the presidency of Prince Bismarck, the Chancellor of the German Empire, the deliberations were held and participated in by such men as Prince Gortschakoff, the Earl of Beaconsfield, Count Andrassy, and a host of lesser lights. The modifications of the Treaty of San Stefano referred principally to Bulgaria, whose suzerainty to the Porte, under Prince Alexander of Battenberg, was recognized, while its territorial extent was limited to Bulgaria proper, north of the Balkans. Eastern Roumelia remained a Turkish province, but under a Christian governor, while the administration of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and the Sandjack of Novi-Bazar was entrusted to Austria. The independence of Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania was ratified. Since then the union of Roumelia with Bulgaria, under Alexander, acquiesced in, at last, by the Porte, as well as by the Great Powers, and the war between this aggrandized Bul

« PreviousContinue »