The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murder

by Ali Haydar Mithat

(3) The concentration of the Turkish troops on some points to be agreed upon.

(4) Christians and Mussulmans to retain their arms.

(5) The Consuls or Delegates of the Powers to keep a watch over the application of the reforms in general, and on the steps relative to the repatriation in particular.

And then the Note concludes: “If, however, the armistice were to expire without the efforts of the Powers being successful in attaining the end they have in view, the three Imperial Courts are of opinion that it would become necessary to supplement their diplomatic action by the sanction of an agreement with a view to such efficacious measures as might appear to be demanded in the interest of general peace, to check the evil and prevent its development.”

It is not intended here to criticise at length these five heads, but one interesting and significant point must be noted. The Note says, in a passage underlined above, that these five heads were framed “on the basis of the wishes formulated by the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Delegates.” Who were these Delegates? On the 27th May, the Times quoted an article from the Nord of April 1876, in which another Note was addressed by one Golub Babitch, in the name of the Bosnian insurgent chiefs, confirming full powers on one Gabriel Vasilitchki (a Russian subject who had made himself very busy in these matters) to treat on their behalf for peace on the basis of four points which were absolutely identical with four points of the Berlin Note.[80] Now, who was this Golub Babitch, who describes himself in this Note as “voivode,” and who signs in the name and on the behalf of the “chief Bosnian chiefs”? Mr Consul Freeman, who was by no means prejudiced against the insurgents or in favour of the Turks, and knew his monde well, describes him. He was a “former brigand,” now the chief of one of the principal bands, consisting of 3000 men, all well armed, that had invaded Bosnia.[81]

This, then, was the source of the inspiration of the five heads of the famous Berlin Note. It might certainly be more justly described in history as the “Golub Babitch Note.” The five heads, however, seem to have been admirably adapted to secure the object perhaps intended, viz., to perpetrate and aggravate the bloodshed between the armed Mussulmans and the armed returning refugees, and so by “bleeding Turkey to death” to justify the action of the last and most important notice thrown in carelessly, and almost as an afterthought, and at the end of the Berlin Note, but which was, of course, the whole point of it, viz., that if the measures proposed did not produce their effect (or, let us add, produced the exactly opposite effect), “the three Imperial Courts would consider it necessary to supplement their diplomatic action by the sanction of an agreement,” etc., etc. If ever there was a case of the sting being in the tail, it was in this “Berlin Note.”

Lord Derby was not deceived either as to the intrinsic value, or worthlessness, of the four points which he politely but mercilessly dissected in an interview with Count Munster, the German Ambassador in London, on the 15th of May 1876,[82] nor was he intimidated by the “still closer intimacy of the three Imperial Courts,” which the Note ostentatiously declared. France and Italy thought fit to adhere to it. The rejection of it by England made its rejection by Turkey doubly certain. It was certain in any event. The courteous but unshakeable resolution of the English Cabinet to have nothing to do with the Berlin Note, in spite of the “still closer intimacy of the three Imperial Courts,” and the adherence of the other two Cabinets, brought the whole proposal down like a house of cards. But the allied quiver was not empty.

A stage, however, was reached in the Berlin Note which it is necessary to note carefully, as a new departure, involving a readjustment of compasses all round, became henceforth necessary.

We have seen the apparently unaccountable hurry that Austria was in to get matters in Bosnia and Herzegovina diplomatically settled to her satisfaction. The Consular intervention in August 1875, the Andrassy Note in December 1875, General Rodich’s parley with the insurgents in April 1876, and the Berlin Memorandum on 15th May 1876, were the different stages of this pragmatical interference. The reason was clear. Austria was quite well aware, through her Intelligence Departments, that Russia was making superhuman, albeit unofficial, efforts to catch up the advance that Austria had secured for her operations in the Turkish provinces, and that every day made it less probable that the lead in the negotiations would be left in her hands.

We shall see that from this moment, i.e., on the rejection of the Berlin Memorandum, Austria’s precipitation no longer exists, and that she takes ample time to readjust her compass to the altered condition of things. The principal object of this Appendix being to describe the conduct and follow the policy of Austria in these matters, it is necessary to examine a little more closely the relations of Austria with Montenegro, end the part played by this principality in this so‐called rebellion.