Bulgaria and the Macedonian Problem. 



By HIS EXCELLENCY MONSIEUR IVAN GUECHOFE, 



Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bulearia. 



N 



O account of the development of the present 

 situation in Macedonia would be intelligible 

 without a brief retrospect of the glaring 

 contradictions of European diplomacy in 1877 and 

 1878, of the fatal blunder perpetrated by the Congress 

 of Berlin. I do not intend to put an unfair construction 

 upon the Peace-with-Honour policy of the British 

 plenipotentiaries at that Congress, the chief authors 

 of that blunder, or to place them in an unenviable atti- 

 tude iiefore the English public. The facts, however, 

 are that tlrat iiolicy was neither consistent nor humane ; 

 that it was wanting in logic and foresight ; and that it 

 sowed the seeds of the present appalling harvest of 

 frightful bloodshed and harassing unrest. 



But let the facts speak for themselves. 



At the Constantinople Conference of 1876-77 the 

 late Lord Salisbury, with Lord Beaconsfield's approval, 

 not only acquiesced in the opinion that an autonomous 

 government ought to be given to Bulgaria, but agreed 

 to this, Bulgaria being almost as big as that of 

 San Stefano. It comprised, as it will be remembered, 

 two provinces or vilayets: — (i) the Eastern, with 

 Tirnovo as capital, composed of the sandjaks of 

 Ruslchuk. Tirnovo, Toultcha, Varna, Slivno, Philippo- 

 polis (with the exception oi the cazas of Sultan-yeri and 

 Achir-Tchelebi), and the cazas of Kirk-KliSsi, Moustafa- 

 pasha and Kizil-agatch ; and (2) the Western, having 

 Sofia as capital, and comprising the sandjaks of Sofia, 

 Vidin, Nisch, Uskub, Bitolia (with the exception of 

 the two Southern caz%s), a portion of the sandjak of 

 Seres (three Northern cazas), and the cazas of .Stron- 

 mitsa, Tikvech, Velessa, and Kastoria.' 



Writing on January 4th, 1877-, '-o ^'i*-' '-^^''^ Foreign 

 .Minister. Lord Derby, in favour ol this great Bulgaria, 

 Lord Salisbury said :- • 



" The proposed limitation and di\ision of the terri- 

 tory known inaccurately as Bulgaria is the only other 

 matter which requires some notice before I conclude. 



" The idea of confining guarantees against mal- 

 administration to the country north of the Balkans is 

 negati\ed by the fact that by far the worst excesses 

 were committed in the sandjaks of Philippopolis and 

 Slivno, which were to the south of that range. A 

 imilar reason made it necessarv to incluch- the sandjaks 



of Uskub, to the west, as well as some cazas fron. 

 other adjoining sandjaks. 



" The extent to which this was done could not be 

 made a matter of serious controversy, as the happiness 

 of the inhabitants would be materially advanced, and 

 the authority of the Sultan would not be injuriously 

 diminished by the inclusion of a larger territory. 



" A far more serious question arose as to the division 

 of the territory which was to be so dealt with. It was 

 in the first instance proposed that one province of 

 Bulgaria should be constituted, extending from the 

 Danube almost to .Salonica. To this proposal there 

 appeared to me to be insuperable objections. Under a 

 system of self-government the province would have 

 been in the hands of a Slav majority ; they would ha\e 

 held the most important strategic positions of the 

 country, and the extent of their population and terri- 

 tory and the magnitude of their resources would have 

 made their position, in regard to the Sultan, one of 

 practical independence. I pressed, therefore, for a 

 subdivision of the district into two, and the dividing 

 line which I proposed was so drawn as to leave the 

 eastern district in the hands of a non-Slav population. 

 The Mohammedans alone would have been very power- 

 ful, and, combined with the Greeks, who, in any 

 question of political aggregation, could have been 

 trusted to act with them, they would have commanded 

 a clear majority. The traditional supremacy of the 

 Mussulmans and the superior intellectual resources of . 

 the Greeks would have given to the predominance of 

 the non-Slav population a decisive character. Th'; 

 Eastern Province so formed would have included th|e 

 sea-coast, of course, the passes of the Balkans, th.c 

 approaches to C"onstantinople, and a large portion o\f 

 the Lower Danube, which an invade.' could not afford 

 to leave in hostile hands. I therefore thought tliat in' 

 the interests of Turkey the arrangement was of some 

 importance." — (Turkey, No. 2, 1877.) 



And so, according to Lord Salisbury, it was the 

 western half of this liulgaria which would have bcerf 

 Slav, while the Eastern province would have containeJ 

 more Turks and Greeks than Bulgarians. And yet, bjl 

 a strange transition, it was the Western province, wit j 

 nearlv the whole of Macedonia, which, at the CongresI 



h 



