728
3. The claims of the Greeks.
4. The Turkish possessions in Asia.
One exceedingly knotty problem was
to devise some way whereby the Chris-
tian populations could have gradual self-
development and independence. Matters
were further complicated by the fact
which must always be borne in mind in
any review of the Eastern Question that
the object of some of the Powers was
rather to maintain the Ottoman govern-
ment than to care for the welfare of the
Christian races.
The Treaty recognized the complete
independence of Rumania, of Servia, of
Montenegro, subject only to certain
stipulations with regard to religious
“equality in each of these States. It gave
to Montenegro a seaport and a strip of
territory attaching to it. This meant
much to these mountaineers, who could
now get to the sea. It decreed that
Eastern Rumelia was to be ruled by a
Christian Governor, and there was a
statement that the Sultan be not allowed
to employ any irregular troops, such as
the Circassians and the Bashi-Bazouks,
in the garrisons of the frontier. The
Greek frontier was rectified. Such were
some of the provisions of the Treaty of
Berlin.
The two main points with which this
article needs to dwell, however, were the
arrangements relative to Bulgaria and
Bosnia and Herzegovina. North of the
Balkans a State of Bulgaria was created;
but it was a vastly smaller Bulgaria
than that which had been sketched in the
San Stefano Treaty. It was to be a
self-governing State, not entirely free
and independent, however, but under the
suzerain power of the Sultan. Its ter-
ritorial boundaries were so arranged that
the objects which Russia had had in
view in her manner of creating it as out-
lined in the San Stefano treaty were
completely emasculated. South of the
THE WATCHMAN
Balkans the State was not to be Bulgaria
but Eastern Rumelia,— a different kind
of a state altogether, and one which
could in no way be used as a catspaw
by Russia. Eastern Rumelia was to
remain under the direct political and
military authority of the Sultan. In his
despatch which accompanied the publi-
cation of the Treaty of Berlin and which
was sent to the British Ambassadors,
Lord Beaconsfield wrote of Bulgaria as
follows :—
Bulgaria is now confined to the river bar-
rier of the Danube, and consequently has not
only ceased to possess any harbor on the
Archipelago, but is removed by more than a
hundred miles from the neighborhood of that
sea. On the Euxine the important port of
Bourgas has been restored to Turkey, and
Bulgaria retains less than half the seaboard
originally assigned to it, and possesses no other
port except the roadstead of Varna, which can
hardly be used for any but commercial pur-
poses. The replacement under Turkish rule
of Bourgas and the southern half of the sea-
board of the Euxine, and the strictly com-
mercial character assigned to Batoum, have
largely obviated the menace to the liberty of
the Black Sea. The political outposts of Rus-
sia have been pushed back to the regions be-
yond the Balkans; the Sultan’s dominions have
been provided with a defensible frontier.
From this resume of the situation by
the British Prime Minister it will be easy
enough to see what England had been
working for and what she had obtained
in regard to Bulgaria. The “port” and
the “large seaboard” had been eliminated,
and the Russian “political outposts had
been pushed back beyond the Balkans.”
These were the things which England
desired in regard to the settlement of the
Bulgarian question, and these were the
things which she got.
Again I desire to call attention to the
fact that opinion was greatly divided
in Europe over the question of the mo-
tive which actuated or should have ac-
tuated the Powers relative to Turkey.
As usual there were many conflicting