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:—
| Moslems. | Non-Moslems, Christians and Jews, Gypsies and Yezidis (Devil Worshippers). | Total 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.