Chapter XVII: Appendix: C

BULGARIAN‐ATROCITIES

The Slav Committees that had been for thirteen years “working up”
the recalcitrant materials of rebellion in Bulgaria, were proceeding
leisurely in their work when Count Andrassy stole a march upon
them in the Herzegovina; but in spite of every effort on the part
of Austria to precipitate a diplomatic crisis before the Bulgarian
plot was ripe, the Slav Committees, whose venue was Bulgaria, caught
him up before his work was completed. The head Slav Committee was
at Moscow, and there were two central Committees at Kichenew and
Bucharest. They had been established for about thirteen years, but
although their activity had been intermittent, it was through their
influence that the Bulgarian Church had been separated from the
Greek Patriarchal, and that a Bulgarian School under Government
patronage had been established at Odessa to form young Bulgarians
into missionary propagandists of the Slav idea. When, however, the
Herzegovina insurrection broke out, and matters were fast ripening
on that side, a revival of energy at once manifested itself in the
action of these Committees with reference to Bulgaria. As General
Tchernagoff wrote in his paper, the _Russki Mir_ (on 11th May 1876):
“I chose the route by way of Kischenew and the Danube, _along the
whole course of which_, commencing from the Russian frontier to the
Servian boundary, _Committees were formed towards the end of last
year_ for organising the plans of the Bulgarians in their approaching
struggle for independence. Commencing from Bolgrad (a Bulgarian
colony that fell away from Russia and became incorporated with
Roumania by virtue of the Treaty of Paris), I everywhere heard the
same thing, which was to the effect that all had been done that was
possible by the people for the impending struggle.... The movements
of the insurgents are regulated by a fixed programme.”

We have seen (p. 43) during Midhat Pasha’s Governorship of Bulgaria,
how a raid over the frontier, following the usual tactics of
exasperation, had endeavoured to excite a rising, which was promptly
suppressed by the energy of the Vali. In the beginning of 1874
unrest began to show itself again in the districts of Trianova,
Kezanlic, and Zagra, but, warned by the effects of neglect in
a recent instance, the authorities had all the leaders of the
movement arrested. Thereupon General Ignatieff made such energetic
representations to the Porte, that orders arrived, not only for the
release of the imprisoned, malcontents, but for the dismissal of all
functionaries concerned in their arrest. The effect of this novel
and original mode of dealing with an insurrection was soon apparent
in the effervescence and excitement it caused among the Mussulman
population throughout the Province. They saw rebel bands organising
without disguise, and approaching their own hearths, the leaders of
which were patronised by foreign consuls and supported by foreign
embassies, whereas defensive measures on the part of their own
natural leaders were discountenanced and punished.

It was in this frame of mind of the Mussulman population of the
Empire, that the troubles both at Salonica and in Bulgaria occurred.
In October 1875, a local rising took place in the village of Eski
Zagra. Mr Vice‐Consul Brophy writes to Sir H. Elliot:—“In October
1875 everything was settled for a rising in Bulgaria, in eight or ten
places simultaneously. Something occurred which made it advisable
that the rising should be put off, and messengers were sent to all
the centres, but the “put off” for Eski Zagra arrived twenty‐four
hours late, and that town rose in the full conviction that it was
being seconded by all the force of the insurgents. In fact, the
_émeute_, revolt, rebellion, revolution, or whatever it was, of May
last (1876) was to have come off in October 1875, but did not.”[87]

The Committees were not ready. But the unrest continued, and when
the Provincial Governors begged the Porte to send regular troops
into the district, General Ignatieff dissuaded Mahmoud Nedim, the
Grand Vizier, from doing so, on the ground that “the presence of
regular troops would have the effect of still further increasing the
excitement.”

We will now allow Vice‐Consul Dupuis, writing on 7th August 1876, to
give an account to Lord Derby of the origin of the outbreak: “This
was the condition of things when, on the 2nd of May, the insurrection
organised and planned by the Revolutionary Committees, established
during the last thirteen years in Bucharest and Moscow, suddenly
exploded at Avrat Alan. The plan of operation of the revolutionists,
assisted by the village priests and schoolmasters, was to destroy
the railways and bridges throughout the vilayet, to set on fire
Adrianople and Philippopolis, and to attack Tatar Bazardjik with 5000
men, and seize upon the Government stores there.” An accident caused
the premature explosion of the revolt. “A sergeant of Zaptiés, who
had gone to Avrat Alan, either to collect taxes or to effect some
arrests, was suddenly attacked by armed Bulgarians (who thought their
plans had been betrayed), and had to fly for his life. Shortly after,
troubles broke out at Otloukeuyi and Bellowa; at the same time, the
inhabitants of several Bulgarian villages, it would appear, under the
impression that the impending massacre was at hand, left their homes
and fled to Otloukeuyi and Avrat Alan.

The alarm then appears to have become general. The Christians were
afraid that they would be massacred by the Mussulmans, while the
latter were afraid that they were going to be exterminated by the
Christians. The numerical strength of the insurgents was stated to be
15,000. The Mutassarifat of Philippopolis was at that time a Tatar
Bazardjik. Troops were telegraphed for to the Governor‐General of
Adrianople, who, it is said, replied that _as he had no military
force at his disposal_, he thought the best plan would be to
raise irregulars. On the 4th May, a meeting of some notables at
Philippopolis was held, under the presidency of the Mollah, when
the recommendation of the Governor‐General, for raising Nefer Ami
(public soldiers) was approved of, and a decision to that effect was
signed and forwarded to Adrianople. Orders were then immediately
sent to different parts of the vilayet for enlisting irregulars or
Bashi‐bazouks.”[88] These Bashi‐bazouks attacked Peroushtitza Batak
and Klissoura and Otloukeuyi, and there is no doubt that very great
excesses were committed by them. But Mr Dupuis goes on to say:
“It is said, without any attempt at concealment, that the Russian
Vice‐Consul in Philippopolis is solely responsible for the sad
disasters which have befallen Peroushtitza. In many instances, too,
the villages were set on fire by the Bulgarians themselves in order
to compel their inhabitants to take up arms. The village of Singerli,
now a complete mass of ruins, was in the first instance set on fire
by a priest. This man, in order to force the people to rise against
the Government, rushed about the place, knife in hand, telling
them that their hour of deliverance had arrived, and that Russian
soldiers were at hand to aid them against the Turks. I am assured, on
reliable and independent authority, that the Bulgarian insurrection
was carefully and skilfully planned by men possessing knowledge and
experience in military tactics from foreign parts. Had their plans
succeeded, and if the Bulgarians had got the upper hand of the Turks,
there is little doubt the existence of Turkey in Europe would have
been endangered, and the Bulgarians would have committed far greater
excesses than are laid to the charge of the Mussulmans, from the
fact that the former had, from the commencement of the disturbance,
_killed every Turk they came across, regardless as to age or sex, and
by the practising upon them, in several instances, of unspeakable
atrocities_. Atrocities have, undoubtedly, been committed by the
Bulgarians as well as by the Turks. Thus at Carlowo, it was related
to me, on good authority, that a Turkish boy had both his arms flayed
to the elbows by the Bulgarians; while at Otloukeuyi, the Bulgarians
massacred eighty Mussulmans, and cut up a child into pieces, and
publicly offered the flesh for sale, and committed other unspeakable
atrocities on females.”[89]

As for the Russian Vice‐Consul at Philippopolis, Mr Gueroff,
Vice‐Consul Dupuis says of him: “The news of the Russian Vice‐Consul
at Philippopolis having been insulted, though repeated, is not
generally confirmed. Some say, if he was not insulted, he is trying
his best to provoke it by his conduct.”[90]

Sir H. Elliot, on 11th August, writes to Lord Derby: “A letter from
Mr Baring, received yesterday, contains these words: ‘There is not
the slightest doubt that the Russian Consul at Philippopolis had a
leading part in creating the late insurrection.’”[91]

As to the menacing character of the insurrection, there is cumulative
evidence to that effect. On 13th May, Vice‐Consul Brophy, writing
to Sir H. Elliot, says: “I have the honour to express to your
Excellency my belief that the Bulgarian insurrectionary movement,
commenced in the Caza of Philippopolis, will not be confined to that
district. I have some reason for thinking that the plans of the
insurgents embrace six centres of revolt, most of them in the high
Balkan (Kodga Balkan, Stari Planina), in each of which localities
depôts of arms—rifles, revolvers, etc.—ammunition, and provisions are
hidden.”[92]

The cruelties practised by the insurgents on the Turks were also
beyond all doubt. They were, moreover, in strict conformity with the
practice and instructions of the insurgents in all similar risings.
On 12th May, Mr Dupuis informs Sir H. Elliot: “The burning of Bellowa
seems to have been attended with horrible cruelties to the small
Turkish guard in charge of the place, which, being overpowered,
was hacked to pieces by the Bulgarians. My informant adds that,
shortly after this occurrence, a party of about a hundred and fifty
well‐mounted and equipped insurgents, led by the priests, presented
itself in the village, declaring, with crucifixes in hand, that that
was the way to exterminate Islamism.”[93] Mr Sandison, the first
dragoman of the English Embassy, writing to Sir H. Elliot on 11th
July 1876, says, _à propos_ of these cruelties: “I may here quote the
testimony of the artist employed by the _Illustrated London News_,
who in his travels through Bulgaria came across the body of a Turk
who had been impaled and roasted by Bulgarians. Such acts could not
but lead to reprisals, and to the consequent destruction of many
thousand lives, as well as of a large number of villages, amongst
which must also be included a good many Mussulman ones.”[94] Consul
Reade reports from Rustchuk on 19th July (1876) that “Some Bulgarian
insurgents one day seized two Mussulman women, whose breasts they cut
off _and then put_ them to death.”[95]

Vice‐Consul Calvert, writing from Philippopolis on 29th August
1876, says; “The Christian Commissioners, one of whom, Yovantcho
Effendi, is himself a Bulgarian, state themselves to be satisfied
that deeds of great atrocity on the part of the insurgents marked
the commencement of the rising in May last, and that _cruelties
were designedly committed by the insurgents as being the means
best calculated to bring on a general revolution in Bulgaria_,
by rendering the situation of the Christians, however peaceably
inclined, so intolerable under the indiscriminate retaliation
which the governing race was sure to attempt, as to force them in
self‐defence to rise. Among other instances of this Blacque Bey
mentioned to me that the Christian inhabitants of a village near
Tirnovo related to him, how, at the beginning of the revolt, the
insurgents had seized a wealthy Turk of the locality, beloved by
Christians and Moslems alike, for his justice and benevolence, had
buried him up to the waist in the earth, and then stoned him to
death.”[96]

With reference to the invariable mode of procedure of the leaders of
the insurrection for the very purpose of exciting reprisals, Sir H.
Elliot, in a communication to Lord Derby, says: “The inhabitants of
another village stated that at the beginning of the insurrection,
they were told by _the priests and the schoolmasters_ that the Turks
were advancing, that they must leave this village or they would be
killed by the Turks, and that those who objected were driven out
by force. The Mussulmans who happened to be there were murdered;
their number was differently estimated at twelve and thirty‐two; the
village was then set on fire. The Mussulmans in the neighbourhood
seeing part of the village in flames, went there and pillaged and
burnt the remaining houses.”[97] The revolutionary agents from the
Slav Committees had, since the recrudescence of their activity in the
winter, been working zealously among the Bulgarians. On 4th May Sir
H. Elliot, in acquainting Lord Derby with the movement at Otloukeuyi,
says: “It was known that revolutionary agents were working actively
among the Bulgarians, and that arms and ammunition have latterly been
introduced in considerable quantities.”[98] They knew, too, pretty
well what they were about and when to strike, so that reprisals could
be most surely counted on. Consul Reade, from Rustchuk, informs (9th
May) Sir H. Elliot: “I have also just heard of an event said to
have occurred near Avrat Alan, which, if true, may bring on serious
complications. It is said that a Circassian village in that vicinity
has been burnt; if so, the Circassians, generally a lawless set, are
sure to take their revenge, and this may severely tax the Government
to put down, when once commenced.”[99] Prophetic words indeed! The
revolutionary agents of the Committees found this work difficult
in the face of the repressive measures taken. On the 16th May 1876
Consul Reade reports from Rustchuk: “Many of the revolutionary
Bulgarians in Wallachia are said to be entering this vilayet, and
some have already been discovered and arrested.”[100] Here, then, we
have revolutionary agents coming from abroad and exciting the people
already long worked upon by priests and schoolmasters brought up in
Russia, to rise in rebellion and to commit every species of atrocity
on the Mussulman population with the direct object of provoking them
to reprisals, which could be exploited against them all over Europe.
We have further the Consul of a friendly Power, one of the chief
leaders of the insurrection, and the “Ambassador of the same friendly
Power” at Constantinople, strongly counselling against the despatch
of regular troops to districts where the Governor‐General urges the
necessity of their presence, and when the Mussulman inhabitants, in
their defence and under the impulse of panic and exaggerated fear
of what was going to happen, without any regular force to protect
them, arm irregular bands from any quarter they can procure them
with, likely enough, not sufficient discrimination and examination
as to their character, scenes are, no doubt, enacted, and atrocities
committed, which every human being, be he Christian or Mahometan,
would in cold blood deprecate and deplore.

As Sir H. Elliot says: “An insurrection or civil war is everywhere
accompanied by cruelties and abominable excesses, and this being
tenfold the case in Oriental countries where people are divided into
antagonistic creeds and races, the responsibility and sin of those
who incite a peaceful province to rise becomes doubly heavy, and
they now endeavour to throw them upon others.”[101] Nobody outside
Timbuctoo approves or condones cruelties, but the charge against the
Ottoman authorities really amounts to their arming and employing
irregular troops, Pomaks, Circassians, Gipsies, etc., over whom they
could exercise very imperfect control. But as Mehemet Rushdi Pasha
told the English Ambassador, “the emergency was so great as to render
it indispensable at once to stamp the movement out by any means
that were immediately available.”[102] Mehemet Rushdi himself, it
will be remembered, only came into office after those acts had been
committed. He was consequently in no way responsible, neither he nor
Midhat, either for their commission or for the events that led up to
them.

With reference to the _Daily News_ article on Turkish atrocities,
which started the agitation against Turkey in England, Sir H.
Elliot, writing on the 25th July 1876, says: “I have reason to
believe that the credulity of the correspondent of the _Daily
News_, whose letters on the subject of the Bulgarian atrocities
attracted so much attention in England, has been imposed upon by
two Bulgarian relatives of one of the presumed ringleaders of the
revolt, inhabiting Philippopolis. One of these was for a time editor
of a Bulgarian journal in Constantinople, and it is evident that
information derived from such a source can only be regarded as
untrustworthy.”[103]

As the very aim and purpose of the insurrection was to create
excitement and provoke hatred of the Turk in Europe, it is no wonder
if the most monstrous exaggerations passed current as peremptory
truths.

Sir H. Elliot, writing on 6th July, says: “The excesses committed
in the suppression of the insurrection have unquestionably been
very great, as was inevitable from the nature of the force which
the Porte was, in the first emergency, obliged to employ, but it
is equally certain that the details which have been given, coming
almost exclusively from Russian and Bulgarian sources, are so
_monstrously exaggerated_ as to deprive them of much claim to much
attention. Cases of revolting cruelty have been mentioned to me in
such a circumstantial manner as to make it almost impossible to
doubt this truth, but which proved, on investigation, to be entirely
fictitious.... Turkish ministers deny that the cruelties have been on
a scale at all approaching to what they are represented; they point
out that the horrors committed on Turkish women and children are
passed over in silence, and they plead that they had no alternative
_but_ to use the irregular force at their disposal to put down an
unprovoked insurrection fomented from abroad, the authors of which
are responsible for the sufferings which have been entailed upon both
Christians and Mahometans.”[104]

Some of the fictions invented were quite picturesque and dramatic.
These fictions and legends were not confined to Bulgaria, and Canon
Liddon and a Rev. Mr MacColl carried off the palm for ingenious
credulity. On the 2nd October 1876, Sir H. Elliot telegraphs to
Her Majesty’s Consul at Bosnia Serai: “Canon Liddon and a friend,
who went to Servia by the Bosnian frontier, state that they saw
examples of revolting cruelties practised by Turkish officers of the
regular army, who have _impaled_, at all military stations along the
frontier, men and women. Report as to truth of these statements.”
On the 5th inst. the startled Consul sends the following reply:
“Everything known here would make statement in your telegram of 2nd
inst. perfectly incredible, _but_ for the name of your Excellency’s
informant. I will write of this by next post.”[105] The statement of
the distinguished ecclesiastic created a great sensation. It turned
out, however, that he had obtained his information from passengers
in a steam vessel on the Save, and that they had not travelled along
the frontier at all, as Sir A. Buchanan, who first reported to Sir
H. Elliot, had been led to believe. “The whole story, therefore,”
adds Sir A. Buchanan, “probably resolves itself, as suggested by Mr
Holmes, to heads or even bodies having been exposed on poles, as I
have myself seen hanging in chains during the British Protectorate
of Corfu.”[106] Mr Holmes, in his report, after demonstrating the
absurdity of the story, politely adds: “Now, if Canon Liddon states
that he saw what he describes, of course I can say nothing to the
contrary; but if he has only been assured of these atrocities, it
is most certain that he has been grossly deceived, with a view to
make use of his voice and influence as a means of increasing and
confirming public opinion in England, in the belief of the barbarous
conduct attributed to the Turks, and in hostility to them.”[107]
These reverend gentlemen had evidently been the victims of, as Mr
Holmes further says, “a monstrous joke,” and he proceeds to explain
the matter. “After much reflection, however, the matter is, I think,
as clear as possible. Near most Bosnian farm‐houses there are stakes,
such as Mr MacColl describes, around which the haricot beans ... are
fixed up to dry with something above them to keep off the birds....
At the time of Mr MacColl’s voyage down the Save, it is probable that
most of the beans had been garnered, but a portion might have been
left on one of the stakes which attracted his attention. This, on
being pointed out to some practical joker amongst the officers of the
steamboat, with its accidental likeness to a body, together, perhaps,
with the previous conversation of the travellers, suggested the hoax,
which, on seeing that it was seriously accepted, was kept up till the
end of the journey.”[108]

Another and most probable explanation of this astounding story was
that what Canon Liddon and his friend really saw, “was a watchman who
had mounted on his stake, probably to look at the steamer descending
the Save.”[109] Anybody may be mistaken, even distinguished
ecclesiastics; but what, in such quasi‐sacred persons was scarcely to
be expected, was the tenacity with which they stuck to the impalement
theory, after it was exploded in the minds of all impartial persons.
Even high dignitaries of the Church don’t like being laughed at.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “History of the Ottoman Empire,” vol. ii. p. 356.

[2] “La Motraye,” La Haye, 1727, vol. i. pp. 383, 462.

[3] See the “Relation du Baile Garzoni,” of 1586.

[4] See Gervinus’ “Insurrection et Régéneration de la Grèce,” vol. i. p. 16.

[5] Pozzo di Borgo to Count Nesselrode, November 1828.

[6] _“The First Dragoman of the Russian Embassy to Mahmoud Nedim._[A]

“MY DEAR HIGHNESS,—I have communicated the observations of your Highness to His Excellency the Ambassador, who has assured us in his reply that he will use his influence to arrest the Herzegovinian insurrection. No one desires more earnestly than ourselves the success of Your Highness’ projects.

“Your Highness may give the necessary assurances to whom they may concern.” (1873).

[Taken from a pamphlet called “Ussi Inkillab,” which was published at the beginning of the reign of Abdul Hamid—an interesting document in proving this fact.]

[A] _Nineteenth Century_, January 1903.

[7] See Appendix.—“Bulgarian Atrocities.”

[8] See Appendix—“Bulgarian Atrocities.”

[9] See Appendix.

[10] _Nineteenth Century_, February 1888.

[11] Boat.

[12] _Nineteenth Century_, January 1903.

[13] “Blue Book,” _Turkey_, 2, No. 105.

[14] _Nineteenth Century_, February 1888, p. 279.

[15] Although a man of this description, unfit for Parliament, was quite fitted to represent his Sovereign at one of the most important Courts of Europe.—AUTHOR.

[16] The Director‐General of official and private correspondence between the Palace and the Sublime Porte.

[17] Blue Book, _Turkey_, 2, 1877, No. 152.

[18] _Nineteenth Century_, January 1903.

[19] Blue Book, _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 985.

[20] _Times_, 10th February 1877.

[21] Mr Blunt, H.B.M. Consul at Salonica, addressed the following despatch to Lord Derby:—

“SALONICA, _10th February 1877_.

“MY LORD,

* * * * *

“The leading men with whom I have conversed, and the people in general here, manifest much surprise and some irritation at the sudden dismissal of Midhat Pasha from the Grand Vizierate, in whom they had full confidence that he would carry out reforms.

“The prevailing impression here is, especially among the Turks, that the fall of this popular statesman has been prepared and effected by the Sultan’s immediate _entourage_.

“In case there is any demonstration at Constantinople, in favour of Midhat Pasha, the popular feeling at Salonica would, I think, coincide with it.[B]—I have, etc.,

J. E. BLUNT.”

[B] Blue Book, _Turkey_, 15, 1877, No. 171.

[22] At the accession of Abdul Hamid, he was his favourite First Secretary, and was thereupon appointed Grand Vizier.

[23] He had been Grand Vizier in the time of Abdul Aziz, and ruined the Empire by his wretched and Russophil policy.

[24] “_Turkey. Constantinople, 11th May._—The doubts I expressed in a recent despatch, concerning the veracity of the chief witnesses in the enquiry about the death of Abdul Aziz, are being confirmed, and the Sultan now hesitates about bringing the affair before a public tribunal. Several important personages, who cannot be suspected of complicity, declare openly that the raising of the question was the result of an intrigue, and at the Palace the opinion is gaining ground that the matter will terminate with the degradation and exile of the Sultan’s two brothers‐in‐law, and the temporary imprisonment of their supposed accomplices, without any formal trial. When the enquiry was first instituted, an old and devoted friend of the dynasty reminded the Sultan of an unsavoury Turkish saying, equivalent to our proverb about the wisdom of letting sleeping dogs lie, and His Majesty has now reason to regret that he did not follow his advice.”—_Times_, 12th May (p. 5, col. 3).

[25] “Midhat Pasha, on taking refuge at the French Consulate, sent letters to all the other Consuls, requesting the protection of the Powers. The Consuls accordingly held a meeting, and decided to ask instructions from their respective Governments. The reason alleged by Midhat is that he is a victim of personal animosity, and that he is in danger of personal violence, but this ground of defence has been anticipated by the Imperial decision that the whole affair shall be submitted to the regular tribunal, the sittings of which will be public. His Majesty is evidently anxious that the whole matter should be thoroughly sifted, and for this purpose has appointed a sub‐commission to interrogate the native and foreign doctors who held the post‐mortem examination on the body of the late Sultan, as it has been rumoured that the medical report made at the time, is not quite in accordance with the testimony of certain witnesses recently examined. This procedure seems to remove effectually the danger of personal violence, which Midhat alleges as the reason for having put himself under foreign protection.”—_Times_, 19th May (p. 5, col. 4).

_By Indo‐European Telegraph._

“_Constantinople, 18th May._—On receiving instructions from his Ambassador, the French Consul at Smyrna requested Midhat Pasha to quit the Consulate, whereupon the latter proceeded to surrender himself to the Turkish Military Governor. A judicial enquiry will be commenced at Smyrna.”

“_Turkey. Constantinople, 21st May._—Letters from Smyrna give some details concerning the arrest of Midhat Pasha. Between one and two o’clock on Tuesday morning he was awoke by a bugle‐call. He discovered that troops were advancing under the command of Hilmi Pasha, accompanied by one of the Sultan’s aides‐de‐camp, who had recently arrived from Constantinople. He at once suspected the motive of the nocturnal visit, and as a small body of soldiers were entering the courtyard, he made his escape by a door in the wall of the harem garden, and reached safely the French Consulate. At an early hour the Consul assembled his colleagues, and Midhat Pasha declared to them that he placed himself under the protection of the Powers. Then followed the interchange of despatches with Constantinople and Paris, which I have described in a previous telegram. Midhat Pasha declared that he had no wish to leave the country, and was ready to proceed to Constantinople if he could obtain the necessary guarantees that he would be fairly tried, but Hilmi Pasha thought it prudent to take precautionary measures against a second flight by preventing small boats from approaching that part of the quay. Meanwhile, the French Consul had received stringent orders to withdraw the temporary protection which he had afforded, and accordingly, after having again called his colleagues together, he formally surrendered the fugitive to the Military. Next morning the Minister of Justice arrived in a special steamer to make a judicial enquiry. Midhat Pasha is being carefully guarded in a room in the barracks.”—_Times_, 23rd May 1881 (p. 7, col. 2).

[26] The Sheik‐ul‐Islam Haïroullah Effendi, and the two brothers‐in‐law of Abdul Hamid—Damad Mahmoud Djelaleddin and Damad Nouri Pashas.

[27] Who had killed the Ministers in Midhat Pasha’s house in 1876.

[28] _Times_, 5th June 1882, page 8, col. 2.—“Constantinople, 3rd June. According to a despatch from Djeddah, the Dragoman of the British Consulate at that place has gone to Mecca, the bearer of a letter from the British Government to the Grand Shereef, expressing the friendly sentiments of England towards him, and asking for news of Midhat Pasha.

“The Grand Shereef, in reply, is stated to have assured the Dragoman that Midhat Pasha was in no danger of any kind. This step on the part of England has produced considerable sensation among the Arabs, who continue to attribute to the British Government designs of gaining ground and influence in Arabia.”

[29] Afterwards General of Division with title of Pasha, and transferred from Adrianople to Yemen.

[30] About midnight European time.

[31] The following is a list of the officers and men who assassinated Midhat, 29th Redjeb, 1301 of the Hegira, or 12th May 1883.

Captain Ibrahim Circassian.
Non‐Commissioned Officer Lieutenant Nouri Native of Coumla.

Soldiers
1st Company of Foot The Sergeant Ahmed Native of Adremid.
1st ” Coundirédji Ismail ” Yozgad.
2nd ” Ahmed ” Kutahia.
2nd ” Mehemet ” Kutahia.
2nd ” Redjeb ” Kumuljina.
4th ” Osman ” Kara Hissar.
2nd ” Berber Ismail[C] ” Adrianople.

The following persons were commissioned to deal with Mahmoud Pasha.

Non‐Commissioned Officer Lieutenant Memiche Native of Sparta.
Non‐Commissioned Officer Lieutenant Mehemet ” Eudemiche.

Soldiers
2nd Company of Foot The Sergeant Hassan Native of Kutahia.
2nd ” The Sergeant Suleiman ” Kara Hissar.
4th ” Corporal Mehemet ” Antalia.
1st ” Osman Baltadji ” Kara Hissar.
1st ” Ahmed ” Tchoroum.
1st ” Ali (Roumelian) ” Samanli‐Kieuï.
4th ” Berber Mustapha ” Dimétoka.
4th ” Ali ” Zile.

[C] These soldiers belong to the conscription of 1296 S.T. except the one who belongs to 1300 S.T.

[32] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 422.

[33] _Ibid._, 3, 1877.

[34] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, Nos. 529 and 530.

[35] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 1.

[36] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, Incl. No. 554.

[37] _Ibid._, No. 559.

[38] _Ibid._, No. 452.

[39] _Ibid._, Incl. No. 479.

[40] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 452.

[41] _Ibid._, No. 197.

[42] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, No. 325.

[43] _Ibid._, No. 324

[44] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, No. 564.

[45] _Ibid._, Nos. 470 and 498.

[46] _Ibid._, No. 508.

[47] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 516.

[48] _Ibid._, No. 540.

[49] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, No. 584.

[50] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, No. 612.

[51] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 952.

[52] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 986.

[53] _Ibid._, No. 952.

[54] _Ibid._, No. 950.

[55] _Ibid._, No. 950.

[56] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, Nos. 166 and 239.

[57] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 23.

[58] _Ibid._, 1, No. 544.

[59] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, Nos. 459 and 517; and _Turkey_, 1, 1877, Nos. 551 and 898; and _Turkey_, 2, 1877, No. 27.

[60] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, Nos. 528, 541, 551, and 552.

[61] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, No. 52.

[62] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 718.

[63] Blue Book, _Turkey_ 2, 1876, No. 1.

[64] Blue Book, No. 2.

[65] _Ibid._, No. 32.

[66] _Turkey_, 2, 1876, No. 16.

[67] _Ibid._, No. 47.

[68] _Turkey_, 2, 1876, No. 70.

[69] _Ibid._, No. 71.

[70] _Ibid._, No. 63.

[71] _Turkey_, 3, No. 6.

[72] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 11.

[73] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 44.

[74] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 121.

[75] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 128.

[76] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 130.

[77] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 195.

[78] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 221.

[79] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 248.

[80] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, Incl. No. 313. (Lord Odo Russell pronounces this document authentic. 3rd July 1876, No. 363.)

[81] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 185.

[82] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 259.

[83] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 51, Incl.

[84] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 479.

[85] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 491.

[86] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 491.

[87] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 674 Incl.

[88] _Turkey_, 3, 1877, No. 57 Incl.

[89] _Ibid._

[90] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 343, Incl.

[91] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, No. 24.

[92] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, Incl. 4 in 289.

[93] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 289, Incl.

[94] _Ibid._, 5, 1876, Incl. 1 in No. 18.

[95] _Ibid._, 5, 1876, Incl. 2 in No. 21.

[96] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, Incl. in No. 222.

[97] _Ibid._, 5, 1876, No. 22.

[98] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 252.

[99] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 273, Incl.

[100] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No. 315, Incl.

[101] _Turkey_, 1, 1877, No. 221.

[102] _Ibid._, 3, 1876, No 513.

[103] _Ibid._, 5, 1876, No. 24.

[104] _Turkey_, 3, 1876, No. 538.

[105] _Ibid._, 1, 1877, No. 539.

[106] _Ibid._, 686.

[107] _Turkey_, Incl. in No. 687.

[108] _Ibid._, Incl. in No. 961.

[109] _Ibid._, 2, 1877, Incl. in No. 179.

PRINTED AT THE EDINBURGH PRESS, 9 AND 11 YOUNG STREET.