ON THE TRAIL OF RELIGIOUS ARTIFACTS AND A GRAND OLD MAN
Katia M. Peltekian
ment/20060424_EngSupl.htm
Apr 24 2006
With this special supplement, Aztag presents part of the Armenian
history to which not much importance is given as that given to the
Genocide. The massacres committed by Ottoman Turkey towards the end
of the 19th century in Eastern Anatolia and Constantinople were as
atrocious as those that were perpetrated against innocent Armenians
during World War One. Especially between 1894 and 1896, Armenians
suffered massacre and plunder as Ottoman Turkey’s allies in Europe
watched.
During this period, Armenians presented religious artifacts in
gratitude to those European statesmen who tried to help alleviate the
suffering of the Armenians. In fact, Armenians living in the British
Empire and elsewhere honored a British Prime Minister for defending
the Armenian cause whether in the Parliament or at gatherings in
different cities around Great Britain. William E.
Gladstone was well-known for his speeches demanding that the British
government, a staunch ally of the Ottoman Empire, do something to
help the Armenians and asking the British people to donate what they
could to help the survivors.
The chalice and stained-glass window in an old church in Wales are
not a new discovery. A few Armenians have surely seen these artifacts
that are well-preserved to this day. However, these objects and the
reasons they were presented specifically to the church of St. Dieniol
have not been given much attention.
With this supplement, we hope that similar items, surely existing
elsewhere around the world, would be brought to the attention of the
Armenians to enrich their knowledge of the tragic history.
Buried in the basement of an archives library, I sit at a small cubicle
and read on microfilm late 19th century British newspapers. In the
darkness, there is only the light of the microfilm-reading machine
flashing in my face.
Like a slide show, the pages move one after the other as I skim through
the page, and try to locate yet another report or a letter describing
the suffering of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Persecution and
pillage, plunder and outright mass-murder are frequently described
by correspondents, travelers and sometimes consuls. Titles read
“Massacre in Sassoun”, or those of Urfa, Zeitoun, Van, Egin, Tokat,
Constantinople, etc. Headlines as “The Armenian Question”, and “The
Armenian Massacres” are repeated over and over again. And then there
is news of a young Armenian girl arrested as spy, or the story of
Armenian girls in Turkish harems. The list never stops.
The silver-gilt chalice presented by a deputation of Armenians from
London and Paris to Hawarden Church in 1894. It is used during mass
to this day.
Then there are the transcripts of the British House of Lords and House
of Commons as lords and members of the parliament raise the question
of what Her Majesty’s government is doing to alleviate the sufferings
of the Armenians. In most cases, there are no concrete answers from
the foreign office. The British government, an ally of the Turkish
Empire, was unable to provide answers.
In most cases, the Foreign Office would report that a commission
was formed or that it was waiting for a report from their consul and
which never seemed to arrive.
And as I read column after column of nothing but doom and hopelessness,
suffering and horrible massacre in different towns and villages in the
Armenian provinces, an interesting article in December 1894 catches
my attention. It describes a ceremony which takes place at a church
in a town called Hawarden. A deputation of Armenian gentlemen from
London and Paris arrive at Hawarden to present a silver-gilt chalice
to the parish as a memorial to Mr. William Gladstone’s “sympathy with
and assistance to the Armenian people.”
According to the newspapers, the delegation from Paris desired to
place in Hawarden Church a silver chalice as a perpetual memorial in
recognition of the great life, work, and sympathy of Gladstone, one of
the parishioners of Hawarden, whose voice and pen were used in sympathy
with the Armenian people in the interests of humanity and justice.
Mr. Gladstone humbly received the chalice thanking the delegation
for the beautiful object and gave a speech about the reasons he had
shown interest in the Armenian people and their suffering. He went
on describing what he called ” a state of horrible and indescribable
outrage in Armenia.”
This piece of news becomes even more interesting when a similar
item appears in January 1897. This time members of the Council of the
Anglo-Armenian Association presented to the same church a stained-glass
window commemorating the Armenian martyrs. The presentation was made
in “recognition of the very active interest which Mr. Gladstone had
taken in the cause of the Armenians.”
According to the newspaper, the idea of this memorial originated with
a wealthy Armenian living in Russia.
That same day was also the 85th birthday of Mrs. Gladstone, and the
delegation presented her with an oil painting depicting His Holiness
Meguerditch I, the supreme patriarch of the Armenians. It was painted
by M. Theodor Axentolviez, a professor at the Imperial Academy of
Art in Krakow. The portrait was a gift to Mrs. Gladstone from the
Armenians of India and the Straits Settlements.
For those who read Armenian history, the name Gladstone is
well-known. But for many Armenians, it is an unfamiliar name. Simply
put, he was the Prime Minister of Great Britain four times during
Queen Victoria’s reign.
This is when so many questions came to mind: Why would Armenians from
Russia, India, France and England honor this man? What had he done
for the Armenians? Why did the Armenians choose Hawarden Church? And
more importantly, do the silver chalice and window still exist? Have
they survived the 110 years since their presentation to the church?
Then, I started entertaining the idea of visiting Hawarden. But where
is Hawarden? Through a quick search on the internet, I located Hawarden
as a small town in the north of Wales on the border with England;
it is quite a long way from London. But I needed to make sure the
window still exists before making the long trip.
An email to Welsh MP Eilian Williams of the Wales-Armenia Solidarity
group confirmed that the window exists. Mr. Williams further wrote:
William E. Gladstone
“The 94-96 massacres were much more publicised in the Welsh press
than the genocide, and a Wales-Armenia Society existed then. The
congregation of my chapel (in a small village in Snowdonia) raised
£6 in 1896 to help the Armenians.
It is also interesting that a saying persisted in the Welsh language
until recent times: I remember when I was small that if people wanted
to describe an evil look on someone they said ” Roedd o yn edrach
arnai fel Twrc” (” He looked at me just like a Turk”). It’s only in the
last 20 years that people have stopped using it. This saying must have
its origins in 1896 and the outrage felt across Wales at that time.”
My mind was made up: I was going to Hawarden! Last February while
visiting London, I went to the train station to buy my ticket, but
the ticket-seller had never heard of Hawarden before. I spelled it for
him. And on his computer, he found the fastest route to the village:
a four-hour trip that also included two train changes.
The first and longest leg of the trip to Liverpool was quite
comfortable in a brand new train ran by Virgin Company. The more
interesting were the shorter rides to Wales. The second ride took me
to a village called Bidstone where I had to wait around 25 minutes
for my next train to Hawarden. Bidstone train station was just a few
meters long platform in the middle of a field. It looked abandoned as
there was no one, not even a station manager. All I could see were the
train tracks cutting through the plains all the way to the horizon. On
the other side were a few remote houses in the open fields. Those 25
minutes seemed like 25 hours. And then my ride to Hawarden arrived –
a one-wagon old train that looked as if it was not cleaned or washed in
the past 10 years. This was turning into a very interesting adventure
for me.
I arrived in Hawarden with no map and no address. All I knew was
that I needed to go to St. Deiniol’s Church, but I could find no one
to help me with directions. I walked up the hill from the station,
and met two elderly ladies going into one house. I asked them how I
could get a taxi, and they looked strangely at me. One of them simply
said, “Love, this is such a small village, I don’t think you’d need a
Taxi.” Then they directed me to a few pubs which could be of help to
me. And just before I could ask them where St. Dieniol’s Church was,
they had disappeared and gone inside.
St. Deiniol’s Church at Hawarden, Wales The church was founded in the
6th century by a monk called Deiniol. He came to Hawarden in 547AD
after establishing churches along the Dee Valley in Wales. According
to tradition, Deiniol planted his preaching cross and prayed in the
shade of the tree, and at sunrise, on the line cast by the shadow of
the cross, he built his small church.
There is an unsubstantiated claim that a new church, of which a
small part only seems to survive was built in 1272. It is recorded as
“Ecclia de Haworthin” in 1291. During the following centuries, fire
and war had burned and destroyed parts of the Church which underwent
several alterations, restorations and repairs.
The stained-glass window at Hawarden Church depicting St. Bartholomew
on the left and St. Gregory the Illuminator on the right. It was
designed by Edward Frampton and presented by the Council of the
Anglo-Armenian Association to the Church in 1897.
Ok! How wise is it to go to a pub and ask about a church? I don’t know,
but no harm in trying. I continued walking and just across what could
have been the main road of this small town, I saw a Church steeple,
and thought if this is such a small town, they wouldn’t have more than
one church, would they? It isn’t strange in Britain that they have
about six or seven pubs in this town, but only one church. I walked
towards the church, and in the middle of the Welsh greenery, I walked
through the gates and was met with old graves that surrounded the
church. Some of the graves dated as far back as the 1700s and 1800s.
I turned the knob on the old wooden door and walked into the church. It
was quiet. There was no one inside. The stone walls of the church
had turned dark with age. The dim lights and the total silence in
the church made me shiver for a moment as I sensed a holy presence
inside these walls. I made the sign of the cross at the altar, and
whispered a short prayer. I looked around and there were several
stained-glass windows all around the church walls. So where is the
one the Armenians had donated? I walked around, stopping at each
stained-glass window reading the dedications. Most of them were made
of the bright colors of red, blue, green and yellow. They were very
similar to other stained-glass windows in other English and European
churches. Various members of the congregation had dedicated one window
or another in memory of beloved ones.
And then I stood in front of about two-meter long window that depicted
two figures adorned in ornate attires. The colors were different from
the rest.
The window was not as bright as the others. The intricate craftsmanship
was different from the other windows. Rather than large pieces of
colored glass, this had more detailed and minute pieces in shades
of olive green, burgundy, brown, earth colors welded together. The
details of the faces and the jewels of their crown and robes were
unique. I was elated to have found the church window, but at the same
time I wished it had not existed: it was a further reminder of the
atrocities that befell the Armenians in the late 19th century.
On the left stood the figure of St. Bartholomew and on the right that
of St.
Gregory the Illuminator. Above the two figures, the following
words were printed on the stained glass: “The noble army of martyrs
praise Thee”. At the foot of the window in the stone window sill were
carved the following words: “To the glory of God and in memory of the
Armenians in Turkey who have suffered for the faith, and in undying
gratitude for the inspiring example of William Ewart Gladstone this
window is dedicated by Arakel Zadouroff of Baku, Russia. A.D. 1897”
For about 15 minutes or so, I stood there and stared at the window. It
was on the east side of the church, and the sun had already moved
to the west. So the window looked dimmer. Still, the light from the
outside was enough to illuminate the colors and reveal the details. I
took photographs hoping they would also reflect the true beauty of
this stained glass.
And what about the silver chalice? It’s there also in the Church at
Hawarden. It is a beautifully crafted piece of artifact with intricate
engravings on the cup and the stem. Around the cup is an inscription
in Armenian written by the Supreme Patriarch. The chalice is a true
reflection of Armenian craftsmanship which has produced hundreds, if
not thousands, of religious artifacts throughout centuries. According
to the current churchwarden Fred Snowden, the chalice is used regularly
during mass communion to this day.
In 1897, Mr. Gladstone, upon receiving the chalice, gave a speech
describing it as “a beautiful article, a beautiful object” which he was
holding in his hand. He expressed his gratification that the Armenians
had taken notice in such a way as that which he was holding in his
hands. He added, “Anything more appropriate, anything more touching,
I could hardly conceive.”
Next to the church was the William Gladstone Library which included a
small museum dedicated to the great statesman. And in many instances,
with the drawings of one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers, one
would read the captions which included such phrases as “champion of
the Armenian Question” and ” his last great speech on Armenia”.
After taking numerous pictures at the church and its grounds,
I walked around Hawarden, went into a couple of the pubs and spoke
with some of the residents. It was amazing to find out that some of
the residents of this small village knew a little bit of Armenia’s
dark history. Perhaps the existence of the chalice and the window had
contributed to this knowledge, or the elderly had heard from their
parents about Gladstone’s efforts to help the Armenians. And perhaps
they were aware of the Armenian tragedy because of the recent debates
about the Armenian Genocide in the Welsh National Assembly. Whatever
the reason, it was somehow comforting to know that this crime against
humanity is not forgotten.
Who was Gladstone and what did he do for the Armenians William Ewart
Gladstone was born in Liverpool in 1809. By 1832, he became a member of
parliament in the British House of Commons, and held different posts
in the government. In 1839, he married Catherine Glynne of Hawarden
in Wales, and took up residence there for the rest of his life.
He became Prime Minister as leader of the Liberal Party for the
first time in 1868 and lost the election in 1874. Back as an MP,
Gladstone worked diligently for the Bulgarian cause to save Bulgaria
from Ottoman rule. In 1880, he became Prime Minister again and served
until 1885, but the next year, he was back in the Premiership only
to resign a few months later after his Home Rule Bill for Ireland
was defeated in the Parliament. In 1892, the Liberals won a majority
in the General Election and Gladstone became Prime Minister for the
fourth time. Two years later, he resigned but continued to sit as an
MP until he finally retired from Parliament in 1894.
Although he resigned from public office, he came out of retirement
several times to speak up for humanity and call for action. He mostly
advocated the independence of Greece and the rescue of the Armenians
from the Ottoman Turks.
According to biographers, he gave himself wholly to the cause of the
oppressed Armenians.
In 1894 Sultan Abdul Hamid, following his edict against religious
freedom, began the execution of his preconceived plan to force all
Christian Armenians to become Moslems or to die. The means used by
the soldiers were robbery, outrage and murder.
On December 17, 1894 a meeting was held in London during
which Gladstone strongly denounced the outrages committed by
the Turks. Several days later, on his 85th birthday, an Armenian
delegation from London and Paris took the occasion to present a
silver-gilt chalice to Hawarden Church as “a memorial of Mr.
Gladstone’s sympathy with and assistance to the Armenian
people.” Speaking to the deputation, he said that the Turks should
go out of Armenia “bag and baggage.” He called the government of
Sultan Abdul Hamid a disgrace to Prophet Mohammad, a disgrace to
civilization and “a curse to mankind.” He called all the civilized
nations to act on behalf of humanity and justice to save the Armenians
from the Turkish outrages.
As Turkey continued massacring the Armenians, a meeting was held
in Chester on August 6, 1895 to raise public sentiment against
the slaughter of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire by Turkish
soldiers. According to The Times, the Town Hall was crowded to excess
and many hundreds of persons had to be refused admission. Among those
present were the Duke and Duchess of Westminster, Mr. & Mrs. Gladstone
together with other British notables and clergymen. Also present
were delegates from the Anglo-Armenian Association (headed by its
president Mr. F.C. Stevenson, MP), the Armenian Relief Committee
and the Armenian Association of France (represented by the Chevalier
Mihranoff). The Armenians present at this meeting included Arch-Priest
Baronian of Manchester, Professor Garo Krakidian, Dr. Kurkjian and
several Armenian merchants. The aim of the meeting was to devise some
means to put an end to the crimes and to punish the Turkish oppressor.
The Duke of Westminster, presiding over the meeting, read a letter
from Mr.
James Bryce, MP, founder of the London Armenian Society. In the letter,
Bryce had stated that
Lord James Bryce
“The Armenian question was at this present moment in a most critical
phase.
Not only the existence of the Armenians in Armenia proper, whom it
was to be feared the Turks had resolved to exterminate if they were
permitted to do so, but the safety of the Christian population over
all the Turkish East, was at stake.”
Then the Duke of Westminster continued saying that there could be
no more serious and painful question than that of the Armenians,
those hundreds of thousands of absolutely helpless and defenseless
people. He added: “It was believed on good authority that a mass of
inoffensive and defenseless Christians of the appalling number of
10,000 – men, women, and children – were massacred, in many cases
after untold barbarities had been inflicted on them, and by whom? By
the so-called police and by the soldiers of the Sultan!”
Afterwards, Gladstone took the podium and delivered one of his most
forceful speeches denouncing the Turkish Sultan and the Ottoman
Government. His language was not exaggerated as he described the
horrible massacres and other crimes inflicted upon the innocent people,
quoting from an American eyewitness Dr. Dillon, who had traveled
in the devastated lands in disguise and written reports. Gladstone
also quoted from accounts witnessed by representatives of England,
France and Russia.
Gladstone held the Turkish Government responsible for all the
misdeeds inflicted upon the Christian Armenians by employing
the Kurds, the Turkish soldiers and the Turkish police. He added:
“And there seems to be a deadly competition among all these classes
which shall most prove itself as adept in the horrible and infernal
work that is before them. But above them, and more guilty than they,
are the higher officers of the Turkish Government.”
Although Mr. Gladstone did not recite the horrible accounts of the
eyewitnesses, he did illustrate a few cases in which those plunderers
would boast about their crimes asserting that they “shall not be
punished for plundering Armenians.”
Gladstone quoted one such example as recorded by Dr. Dillon. A Kurd by
the name of Montigo, who was under death sentence, boasted that the
Kurdish tribes attacked villages, killed people, burnt houses, took
money, carpets, sheep and women. Montigo confirmed that the Turkish
government had disarmed the Armenian population, but had sent out the
Sultan’s cavalry, the barbarians and savages from the hills. He said
that the Armenians could not fight back because they were unarmed
and knew more would come to kill them. According to this Kurdish
malefactor, “The Turks hate the Armenians and we do not. We only
want money and spoils, and some Kurds also want their lands, but the
Turks want their lives.” This same Kurd affirms that he was sentenced
to death not because of what he did to the Armenians. He added that
“If I be hanged it will be for attacking and robbing the Turkish post
and violating the wife of a Turkish colonel who is here in Erzeroum,
but not for Armenians. Who are they that I should suffer for them?”
During his speech, Mr. Gladstone offered a resolution that he believed
the whole of the nation and the British Government would support in
order to secure for the Armenians such reforms as would guarantee
the safety of life, honor, religion and property. Mr. Gladstone held
the Sultan responsible for the massacres and barbarities committed in
Sassoun. He summed up the situation in four words: “plunder, murder,
rape and torture.”
Then Mr. Gladstone cautioned the British Government and those of
the other powers against trusting the promises of the government at
Constantinople as he deemed them “absolutely and entirely worthless.”
He ended his speech by ascertaining that what the Turkish Government
was doing in Armenia, but not in Armenia exclusively, were founded
on “a deliberate determination to exterminate the Christians of
that Empire.”
In subsequent letters to similar audiences around Great Britain and
Europe, Mr. Gladstone denounced the Sultan for the Armenian massacres
and called him the “Great Assassin.” In one such letter to the French
Figaro in September 1896, he wrote: “For more than a year [the Sultan]
has triumphed over the diplomacy of the six Powers, they have been
laid prostrate at his feet. There is no parallel in history to the
humiliation they have patiently borne. He has therefore had every
encouragement to continue a course that has been crowned with such
success. The impending question seems to be, not whether, but when and
where he will proceed to his next murderous exploits. The question
for Europe and each Power is whether he shall be permitted to swell
by more myriads the tremendous total of his victims.”
In every piece of writing about Mr. Gladstone, there is the mention
of his last great speech which was on Armenia. This took place on
September 24, 1896 at the Hengler’s Circus Building in Liverpool. The
meeting was called after news reached England of the massacre of
more than 2,000 Armenians in Constantinople in addition to many more
massacres throughout the Turkish Empire.
According to The Times, the doors of the building were thrown open
at 9 o’ clock – three and a half hours before the arranged time –
and very speedily the spacious circus was thronged in every part by
an audience of 6,000 people, while thousands remained outside.
The aim of this meeting was to propose and pass the following
resolution: “That this meeting desires to express its indignation and
abhorrence at the cruel treatment to which the Armenian Christians
are being subjected by their Turkish rulers and at the massacres which
have recently taken place in Constantinople, which are a disgrace to
the civilization of the 19th century.”
After the resolution was seconded, it was passed
unanimously. Mr. Gladstone stepped on the platform amid general
applause and cheering. He began his speech clarifying that the
resolution and the actions demanded by the British government was not
a “crusade against Mahomedanism” since Britain believed the horrible
outrages had been perpetrated not by Moslem fanaticism but “by the
deliberate policy of a Government.” He continued: “It is not from the
genuine sense of the Turkish people – nay, I would even say it is
not from the genuine sense even of the wretched tools and servants
of the Government, but it is from the highest summit and from the
inmost centre those mischiefs have proceeded. It is there mainly –
I doubt if it would be any exaggeration to say it is there only –
that the inspiration has been supplied, the policy devised, and the
whole series of these proceedings carried on from time to time.”
Mr. Gladstone then recollected the “gigantic” massacres of the
past 18 months that were thought to be so extraordinary that it
was without a precedent in the past. Unfortunately, he added, those
massacres were followed up one after the other and developed into
a series. Mr. Gladstone believed that Sultan Abdul Hamid felt so
confident about his triumph over the diplomacy of the European Powers
that he was bold enough to carry the work of the massacres into the
capital under the eyes of foreign Ambassadors.
Mr. Gladstone continued describing the horrible situation in Armenia
saying that the atrocities were not confined to murder only. To the
atrocities were added the work of “lust, torture, pillage, starvation
and every wickedness that men could devise.” He said that what was
different between the massacres perpetrated in the Armenian provinces
and those in Constantinople was that the latter was displayed in
the face of the world under the eyes of the representatives of every
Court in Europe, adding insolence to the great crime.
Gladstone added: “Translate the acts of the Sultan into words and
they become these, ‘I have tried your patience in distant places;
I will try it under your own eyes. I have desolated my provinces;
I will now desolate my capital. I have found that your sensitiveness
has not been effectually provoked by all that I have heretofore done;
I will come nearer to you and see whether … I shall or shall not wake
the wrath which has slept so long.'” Mr. Gladstone blamed the European
Powers for failing to punish the Sultan and the Ottoman Government. In
fact, he asserted that the Powers had collectively undergone miserable
disgrace for not being able to obtain from the Sultan fulfillment of
his treaty obligations. In that Europe had been a total failure.
What concerned Gladstone more was that Turkey was still considered
an ally who was entitled to claim every diplomatic courtesy by the
European Powers.
Britain and the rest of Europe maintained diplomatic relations with
Turkey although they were unable to prevent the massacre of thousands
of Armenians in the streets of Constantinople. In fact, he blamed the
British Government even more because of the treaties it had signed
with Turkey, yet was not able to stop the massacres. He described
the position of Great Britain with regard to Turkey as such:
Sassoun Massacres by Turkish soldiers and Kurdish mob. “Turkey and
Armenian Atrocities” Rev. E.M. Bliss, 1896.
“In 1856, by the Treaty of Paris, Turkey gave a solemn promise
to introduce into Armenia … effective reforms. She broke
that promise. She renewed the promise in 1878 in the Treaty of
Berlin. As far as Armenia is concerned, she again absolutely broke
that promise. In 1878 another treaty was formed, known by the name of
the Anglo-Turkish Convention: and there England endeavored to obtain
securities for the fulfillment of the promise by offering compensation.
England undertook to defend Turkey in Armenia against unjust aggression
from Russia, Turkey undertaking in return to introduce into Armenia
reforms … The first two of these treaties constituted obligations
by which the other Powers of Europe were bound, in conjunction with
us…; but the third was entirely our own… The Sultan of Turkey
has interpreted reforms to mean wholesale and immeasurable massacre;
and that is the condition in which … we have placed ourselves in
the face of Turkey.”
Therefore, Gladstone proposed it was only just to threaten Turkey
with coercion, not war, by first recalling the British Ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire and then following it with the dismissal of the
Turkish Ambassador from London. He believed that once diplomatic ties
were severed, there would arise a free opportunity to consider what
could be done next. His speech detailed the steps that the British
Government should take in order to make Turkey comply with the treaties
it had signed regarding the reforms in Armenia. Gladstone demanded
that the people of Great Britain would support their government in
every effort which it would make by word or deed in order to stop the
“most monstrous series of proceedings that has ever been recorded in
the dismal and the deplorable history of human crime.”
At the end of his 20-minute speech, Gladstone hoped and believed that
“the present deplorable situation [was] not due to the act or default
of the Government of this great country.”
The Times in an editorial said: “The spectacle of the veteran statesman
quitting his retirement to plead the cause of the oppressed is
well-calculated to move the sympathy and admiration of the nation. The
ardor of Mr. Gladstone’s feelings on this subject is notorious. All
the more striking and significant is the comparative restraint and
moderation of the speech.”
Although the speech was well-received by the British public, the
rest of Europe were skeptic. On September 27, the Austrian newspaper
Fremdenblatt said that Europe did not share Gladstone’s suggestion to
withdraw the Ambassadors of the European Powers from Constantinople. It
went even further that Gladstone should have “held his peace, as only
in the minds of his own blind partisans can there now be any doubt
left as to the impossibility of separate intervention in the Armenian
Question.” The Austrians believe a more united Europe would be more
effective. Another Austrian newspaper Neue Freie Presse doubted that
the English would go to war with Turkey. They believed that if the
British government adopted Gladstone’s suggestion, England would shut
itself out of the concert of Europe.
The Germans showed more animosity towards Gladstone. On September
27 the Cologne Gazette printed the following: “The English movement
in favor of the Armenians has found a mouthpiece in the busy old man
Gladstone – a clever reckoner and financial artist, but a confirmed
inefficient person in foreign politics… By unchaining the feelings
of western humanity against the Turks, England loses nothing, whereas
Germany will lose and has nothing to win.” The Hamburger Nachrichten
went further in accusing the English of meddling in the internal
affairs of other countries. It added that the English agitation in
favor of the Armenians and against the Sultan is mere pretexts based
upon hypocrisy. It went further explaining that without the British
political interests, the suffering of the Armenians in Turkey would
be less noticeable in ” hypocritical England.” The Germans had no
interest in the Armenians; in fact Hamburger Nachrichten went on
saying: “For us [Germans] the sound bones of a single Pomeranian
[German] grenadier are worth more than the lives of 10,000 Armenians.”
And as European Powers went on squabbling with each other regarding
their policy regarding the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan and much later
the Young Turks continued wiping out Armenians in one village or town
after another.
The Liverpool meeting in September 1896 was the last public appearance
of this great statesman who defended the weak and the oppressed. Cancer
was diagnosed in March 1898, and at the age of 89, he died in Hawarden
on May 19th of that same year. He was given a state funeral and buried
at Westminster Abbey in London.
–Boundary_(ID_xJHkoZzpge5tVSFD4nraUQ)–