we are called upon to decide now, that is, whether the House approves or not the policy of the Government in the late negotiations. [One charge against the Government, however, he must notice that the Foreign Office had kept back a Consular report1 respecting the massacre.] Neither my noble friend, the Secretary of State, however, nor myself, considered that report was one which at all justified the statements which were made. . . . I never adopted that coffeehouse babble brought by a Bulgarian to a Vice-consul as authentic information which we ought to receive. . [After vindicating the course of the Government as that which they were called on to pursue for the sake of our interests and our empire, as conducive to peace and as one which they believed would lead to the progressive improvement of the population of the Turkish Empire, he said] If there is to be nothing but confusion, if we are to have nothing but struggles and war, if secret societies and revolutionary committees are to ride rampant over those fair provinces, I shall cordially deplore such a result as much as gentlemen who attack me for my want of sympathy with the sufferers of imaginary atrocities."-Mr. Disraeli, in H. of C. July 31st.

The question of the atrocities perpetrated by Christians and Mussulmans in some districts of Bulgaria has become so weighty a State affair that I find myself compelled, greatly against my inclination, to return to the subject. . . . The first answer of Her

1 In the H. of C. Aug. 11th, Mr. Forster said he was surprised at Mr. Disraeli's answer on July 10th (ante, p. 314, 315), when he had the information conveyed by the despatch in question. Mr. Disraeli said that he had not seen that despatch, from circumstances he could explain. The report alluded to was one from Consul Reade, dated Rustchuk, June 16th, and received by Lord Derby on June 28th. (Turkey, iii. 1876, inclosure in No. 500.) Mr. Reade reported that from information which had reached him it appeared that the Circassians were committing atrocities, chiefly amongst the villages near the Balkans, which kept the whole of that quarter in a state of the greatest terror. It was even said that these Circassians were kidnapping children of Bulgarians killed in the late affairs. Mr. Reade added that he was really inclined to think that the object in the lately disturbed district of Tirnova was to diminish the number of Bulgarians as much as possible, for the Circassians seemed to be acting with the connivance of the authorities.

Not relying on Christian information, Mr. Reade had endeavoured to ascertain from Mussulmans whether the reports were true. Having heard of the arrival at Rustchuk of a Mussulman, a native of Plevna, who was present in the district during the whole rising, the Consul got a trustworthy Bulgarian, who introduced himself into a café where the man was in company with various other Turks, to find out what the man had to say on the subject. A note of the conversation was made by the Consul's informant, a copy of which he appended to his report. The Mussulman boasted that even schoolboys killed their five or six Bulgarians, so what he himself had done might be imagined. "A bimbashy (major) present asked him if they had taken rifles from those who were killed. He replied that 'They had not even a hoe with them, much less rifles!' The bimbashy then said that they must have killed innocent people. He replied, "Yes, very few had arms.' Another present remarked that 5,000 or 6,000 must have perished innocently. He answered If you had said 25,000 or 26,000 you would have been more correct.' He added, 'It is a great loss to the country, as most of them were tax-paying people.' He also said that at Plevna no Christian could go to his field or vineyard for fear of being robbed or maltreated and that the people of Nicopoli and Shumla are preparing letters of thanks to their Kaïmacams for not having armed the Circassians in their districts."

Majesty's Government was, as you know, that they had no information on the subject from their Diplomatic or Consular agents; and more lately, the second, that their information was to the effect that the reports had been greatly exaggerated or were absolutely false. This has set the foreign Press at Constantinople on its mettle so that some conflict between journalists and diplomatists may be looked forward to, conducive, let us hope, to the advancement of the interests of truth.-Special Correspondent at Therapia, T. Aug. 2nd.

Further letters from Mr. Pears, the Constantinople correspondent, criticising and replying to Mr. Disraeli's statements, and bringing fresh evidence in corroboration of the accounts given in the original letters, appeared in the Daily News of July 25th, 29th, Aug. 2nd, 15th, and 25th.

Thus there set in a sort of competition, in which the respective efficiency of the agencies employed by the Government, and of the English Press, not only for finding out but for keeping the public acquainted with what was going on in Turkey (and this the public considered it behoved them to know, that their policy might be shaped accordingly), were pitted against one another. It was almost inevitable as a contest of this sort went on that something like a partisan interest in the competitors should be aroused in the onlookers. People began to regard the profession of diplomacy and any special organisation of the State for the purpose of dealing with foreign affairs as an effete and antiquated method, which tended to harm rather than good, in the case of a self-governed country like England.

I would here ask whether there is any use in putting any more questions to men who have made up their minds not to answer them. I would even ask why the Foreign Office is supposed to know more about these matters than other people. I am not aware that there is any magical power in the Foreign Office. If there is, it is certainly used not so much to get hold of truth as to hide the truth. It seems to me that a correspondent of the Times or the Daily News has just as good means of finding out the truth as any one whom the Foreign Office can employ, and it also seems to me that there is much greater likelihood that the truth which he finds out will be honestly given to the public. In fact, this way of treating the Foreign Office as a kind of oracle possessed of mysterious sources of knowledge, is a survival from a state of things which has passed away. The public now knows what happens just as well as a Foreign Secretary can know it, and is no longer dependent on such scraps of information as it may suit the purposes of the Foreign Secretary to dole out to it.-Mr. E. A. Freeman in D. N. July 13th.

There was a deeply rooted suspicion that it was intended that the English official inquiry should turn out as favourably as possible to the Turks, and the appointment of Mr. Baring to conduct it, or rather of his dragoman, Mr. Guaraccino, was severely criticised.1

Mr. Gladstone [expressed the hope that the inquiry into the Bulgarian outrages would be something better than a sham.] The accounts I receive inspire me with an apprehension that the person who has been chosen to conduct the inquiry is not well suited for the purpose; that neither his disposition nor his history points him out as in the slightest degree likely to go to the root of the matter.-H. of C. July 31st.

While everything official was thus regarded with critical suspicion, the letters of the Daily News commanded the public. confidence.

Happily, the letters of our correspondent, including the important communication which we publish to-day, render the English reader independent of Mr. Guaraccino.-D.N. Aug. 2nd.

By the end of July there was no longer any doubt that terrible atrocities had taken place, and the Government were in this dilemma: either their information was defective, and inferior to that of the Daily News; or they were trying to soften it down in order to render Public Opinion kinder to the "red" policy.

We must come to the conclusion that the truth of the statements made with respect to what are called the atrocities in Bulgaria will be substantially confirmed. The outcry has gone on too long, the testimony has been too various, derived from too many sources, and yet too consistent, not to be true in the main. The official persons talk of exaggeration; let this be allowed.-T. Aug. 2nd.

The mass of evidence for them is greater than the mass of evidence for the massacre of Glencoe. That atrocities have been committed is affirmed by Sir Henry Elliot, by General Ignatieff, by Consul Dupuis, by the correspondents of the Times and Daily News, by the artist correspondent of the Illustrated London News; by the authors of the letters forwarded to be read at a public meeting in Edinburgh, and published with perhaps blamable courage by the Edinburgh Daily Review, letters which, if the writers' names were appended to them would set England on fire— by five correspondents of foreign journals, two of them at least

1 See correspondents of T. and D. N.: D. N. July 25th and 29th, T. Aug. 2nd, and D. N. leader Aug. 2nd.

pro-Turkish; and by the American missionaries in Bulgaria, who are so assured of their case that they have summoned Mr. Schuyler to verify it.-Spec. Aug. 5th.1

The telegrams from Mr. MacGahan, who had been sent out by the Daily News, began to appear in that paper on Aug. 7th.

The investigation into the atrocities is proceeding rapidly. Mr. Baring will probably report that not fewer than sixty villages were burned and twelve thousand people killed. I do not know what view he will take of the insurrection. Many prisoners have been released since we arrived. Mr. Baring is honestly desirous of obtaining the truth, but is always accompanied by a Turkish escort, which frightens the peasantry. Mr. Guaraccino, the interpreter, is unfairly prejudiced. . . . I have just seen the town of Batak, with Mr. Schuyler. Mr. Baring was there yesterday. [He then goes on to describe what he saw, a description elaborated in the letter which appeared in the Daily News of Aug. 16th, and to call attention to the promotion of Achmet Aga, who did all this.] The statement that the Bulgarians committed atrocities is utterly unfounded and shamefully false. Mr. Schuyler thinks that less than two hundred Turks were killed, nearly all in open combat. There is no proof yet that a single Turkish woman or child was killed or violated. The reports of Mr. Schuyler and Mr. Baring will corroborate this telegram. There is urgent need of relief for the starving and helpless families.-MacGahan's telegram in D. N. Aug. 7th.

The appearance of Mr. MacGahan's telegram caused the matter to be again brought forward in the House of Commons.

Mr. Bourke, in answer to Mr. Anderson, read extracts from Mr. Baring's despatch of July 22nd.2

Lord Hartington: I think it is becoming apparent that after all there has been very little exaggeration of these atrocities (hear, hear); and full as was the despatch which the hon. gentleman has just read of horrible accounts of what has occurred in Bulgaria, it was dated as far back as the 22nd of July, whereas the accounts in the Daily News extend to the 31st of July and the 1st of August. We are all of us tolerably well aware of the responsible character of the mission of the gentlemen sent out as Correspondents by leading London journals; but, if necessary, there are in this House those personally acquainted with the representative of the Daily News in Turkey, who would testify to the general trustworthiness of any statement he has made. It is hardly credible that, while personally accompanying Mr. Baring, this newspaper Correspondent should misrepresent the things that he had himself seen.-H. of C. Aug 7th.

1 Punch draws Britannia maintaining "Neutrality under Difficulties," and puts the words into Disraeli's mouth-"Bulgarian Atrocities! I can't find them in the Official Reports!"-(Aug. 5th.)

2 Inclosure in No. 27 of Turkey, v. 1875.

What passed last night in the House of Commons shows the astonishment and horror which these deeds have aroused. Mr. Anderson introduced the subject, and one member after another rose to express his indignation, and to protest against an attitude of indifference on the part of our Government, and still more against the tone of apology which has been detected in official communications. Mr. Bourke undertook to excuse the Government, and said all, perhaps, that it was possible to say. But it amounted to very little. The House was assured that the Prime Minister was not disposed to treat the subject with levity, but, on the contrary, would give it his anxious consideration. Then the old plea of exaggeration was put in once more, and the newspaper correspondents were taken to task, as persons who were satisfied with a very small amount of evidence and took a great deal of their information at second hand. We may venture to suggest to official speakers that with respect to this business the time is past when this style of apology will have any effect.-T. Aug. 8th. The report of the Turkish Commission1 was published early in August. It was at once seen to be worthless.

The real charge was that the Turks had been guilty of a barbarity so widespread, so systematic, so prolonged, and so wanton, as to be excusable by no code of right and wrong above that of mere savagery. Such is the accusation which Edib Effendi had to meet, and he meets it by a denial of astonishing comprehensiveness. It is little more, he gives us to understand, than a collection of shameful falsehoods... Bulgarians, Special Correspondents, and Consuls have been guilty of stupendous fabrications, and the Turkish Government has set an example of mercy to all Christian States. [But the accusations are distinct and specificnames, dates and places are given. The opinion of Europe will not be influenced by anything so vague and evasive as Edib Effendi's report.]-7. Aug. 7th.

A further set of papers 2 was presented to Parliament about Aug. 10th, which had the effect of increasing the dissatisfaction felt with the English Ambassador at Constantinople.

The Times says: These papers deal with the massacres of Bulgaria, and bring the intelligence down to within the last fortyeight hours, but it cannot be said they add much to our knowledge. We find it asserted as positively as ever that there has been gross exaggeration, and that those who have related the story are the most credulous or malignant of mankind. Nothing can convince Sir Henry Elliot that there has been anything beyond a little inevitable severity. [The writer goes on to cite from Sir Henry Elliot's despatch of July 25th his reference to a letter in the Levant Herald, which Sir Henry spoke of as "containing some

Turkey, v. 1876, No. 29.

2 Turkey, v. 1876.