and in which it was said that the Mussulmans had showed great humanity in repressing it. It is now certain that the authors of the contrary story are two Americans, who were already known for having exposed other atrocities, but they were Russian and not Turkish ones. Mr. McGAHAN accompanied the Russian troops to Khiva, and has described the horrors they there committed against the people of Turkestan in a book of travels. Consul SCHUYLER made a formal report to his Government on the same subject, and was in consequence recalled from St. Petersburg on the complaint of the Russian Government. He was then sent to Constantinople. He did not, however, find out the "atrocities" that were being committed within a few hours of where he was residing until the arrival of his fellow-countryman, Mr. MCGAHAN, who appeared at Constantinople in the month of July, and commenced writing the letters to the Daily News, which have set all England in a flame. Then the Consul followed with his report. It is not the first time that men, who have said or written denunciations of Russia, have been presently found amongst her most zealous servants; and nothing has perhaps ever served Russia so well as this Bulgarian incident, represented by those two men, has done, as we will presently show,

But for ourselves, we are concerned in the matter on higher grounds than even the ruin of England and the destruction of Turkey. Its paramount importance consists in the exhibition that it has led to of the human mind in the age in which we live, and of which each of us forms a part, except in so far as we have succeeded in keeping ourselves "unspotted from the world." It has been well said that, amongst us, the people are sheep and the rulers wolves. Never did a people, perhaps, betray a more sheep-like faculty of following in the same track, while, at the same time, they roared with all the ferocity of wolves. Not that we attribute to them, in reality, passion in the matter-it has only been the semblance of such. What has been real and genuine in it, is the entire absence of the spirit of judgment and justice, or even a single spark of it, from one end of the land to the other. No one has said, "There is no case before us; there is no "evidence to go upon which could be received in a court of justice in "the smallest matter. If a private man could not be even accused on "the credit of newspaper articles, how can we pretend to judge and "condemn a whole people on no other grounds?" No one has said, "If there be a case of crime, we are not the proper judges of it, for "it has been committed within the jurisdiction of another nation." No one has been shocked to see foreign officials making reports to their Governments on these internal affairs of another land.

Now, to come more particularly to the evidence in the case. We put aside at once, as out of court, the American newspaper correspondent and the Anierican consul, who ends his so-called report by denying that any atrocities were committed by the Bulgarians-by virtually denying that there was any insurrection at all, and at the same time characterising the report of the Turkish Commissioner as a "tissue of "falsehood."

It is those who accuse others of crime that have to prove it. The

death under suspicious circumstances of a single individual, the other day, led to a trial which was prolonged for several days, which filled the columns of newspapers during that time, and ended by the matter remaining just as much a mystery as before. To those who were on the spot at the time in Bulgaria, of course, there can be no mystery as to who burnt certain villages, and by what means certain persons met with their death. But the question is, how we in England are to know the truth? and also, what means were adopted by Consul SCHUYLER or Mr. BARING, when going about the country several weeks after the thing had occurred, to ascertain the real facts of the case?

Not that in mentioning these two together, we intend to put them on the same footing. Mr. BARING'S report shows that he is a person animated with good intentions, and with much natural fairness of mind. He acknowledges and establishes that there was an insurrection, got up, too, by foreign intrigue for wicked purposes. He disposes of a whole class of atrocious accusations against the Turks, and he accompanies his report by some of the statements of those who are the victims of the outcry. His report is, therefore, worthy of consideration. Still, it does not, in the slightest degree, come under the head of judicial evidence. He saw villages burnt, and in one place at least he beheld corpses unburied, including those of women and children. But such sights did not tell him who burnt the villages, and by what means these people had been killed. The whole matter was one for judicial investigation, and no attempt has been made to institute any such proceeding, except by the Turks themselves. But the reports of their tribunals and special commissioners, which all come to the same conclusion, are exactly the evidence that is at once thrown aside. With reference to the burning of villages, it is a matter of date. If, on investigation, it should appear that they were burnt some days before the arrival of the Bashi-Bazouks, then it is clear that these latter did not burn them. If, to us in England, it might appear incredible that people should burn their own villages, that incredulity must fall to the ground before the perusal of the documents laying it down as the plan of proceedings that villages should be burnt, as well as Mussulmans exterminated.

The plan is a very intelligible one, and, whichever way it turned out, was for the advantage of the Poreign Power who planned it. If it had been by any chance successful, the road to Constaninople would have been for the first time open to a foreign invasion. If it were put down, as it has been, then the outrages committed by the Bulgarians could be attributed to the Turks, just as has been done. The letter of KAPLICHO, who had evidently had "explanations from some of the "great men of Russia," says beforehand that the Turks would commit atrocities, that the Consuls would make their reports upon them, and that all Europe would be against the Turks. The poor ignorant peasants were told that cases of treasure were coming from Russia to pay all that they destroyed; and, on the other hand, they were made to believe that the Turks were going to exterminate them, and therefore they were to fly to the Balkans for refuge, and leave nothing but burning houses behind.

for

We have spoken of Mr. BARING's report with respect; but it is only in comparison to the outrageous one of Consul SCHUYLER. We have credited him with good intentions, but having done so, we must add that he gave himself no chance of knowing the truth, since he was accompanied in his tour by the Russian Consul of Adrianople, Prince TCHERTLEFF, and by Mr. SCHUYLER himself. On arriving at Philippopoli he paid a visit of ceremony to the Governor, and to some of the members of the Extraordinary Tribunal. At Bazardjik he did not even do so much, and his so-called investigations consisted in listening to the reports of the villagers, who by this time must have found out that they had become the objects of "sympathy" of all Europe, for it is asserted that he never interrogated any Mussulmans. He himself speaks, indeed, of having gathered his information "from all sources," Bulgarian, Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Servian, &c. He takes credit to himself for not having rejected every tittle of evidence that came to him from a Turkish source. The next sentence in his report is this:

"Putting aside official statements, which in cases like the present "must always be looked upon with some distrust, the word of a Turk "is in all probability worth that of a Bulgarian, particularly among "the lower classes."

He thus entered on an important inquiry amongst an excited population, in ignorance of the first thing that had to be known, the difference between the Turk and the Bulgarian.

With one remark more we will dismiss Mr. BARING, but it is a very important one. The point of his report is the massacre at Battak, which Sir H. ELLIOT refers to in his covering despatch as "exceed"ing in horror any that had been alleged," and as "having been "scarcely heard of until discovered by him," Mr. BARING.

The Turks declare that the scene that passed in the church was most horrible, but that the horrors were committed by the wretched people themselves, who, under the influence of the wild panic which had by that time seized them, put their wives and daughters to death themselves to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Turks. Two Turks, made prisoners by the insurgents, were shut up in the church with them, a certain SELIM EFFENDI, and a Zabtieh (policeman); their evidence was offered to Mr. BARING, but he did not question them. There also took place the remarkable incident of the people heaping up the corpses in and about the church, and leaving them unburied, contrary to the orders given, and which were elsewhere carried out, that each side should bury the dead according to their respective rites. The picture of horrors thus prepared they exhibited to every stranger that arrived, and thus KAPLICHO's words were carried into effect, that the Turks would commit atrocities, the Consuls make reports on them, and all Europe be in consequence turned against Turkey.

The desire of the foreign conspirators who coldly planned all these things at a distance, doubtless was to excite the Mussulmans to acts of violence and cruelty. Failing that, the next best thing was to get Europe to believe that such acts had been committed. Of this further

proof may be found in what cannot be considered as a fortuitous coincidence. On the same day which saw the first movement in Bulgaria-and it was the feast of ST. GEORGE, which is celebrated both by Mussulmans and Christians-the affair of Salonica was brought on by the act of LAZEROS, the American consul, a Bulgarian and a Russian subject. The same day a band of Bulgarians was sent across the Danube by the Revolutionary Committee of Bucharest. They crossed it between Ivraja and Rakova, attacked a Circassian settlement, the members of which being scattered about at their labours in the field, forty of them were killed. The same day an incident of the same nature took place at Tunis. A Jew, a native of the place, had been killed by an Arab, on whom justice was executed, for he was hanged. Notwithstanding, the European population of the place, on ST. GEORGE's Day, took the corpse of the murdered man and carried it through the town crying out, "Arise, O Christians, and save your"selves; the Mussulmans are going to massacre you in revenge for "their losses in the Herzegovina." The Government sent a protest to each Consul against this conduct, threatening that if it were repeated, it must have recourse to force. Again on the same day, General IGNATIEFF, riding through the Greek quarter of Kavakeni at Constantinople, struck with his whip a Mussulman soldier who was passing. He only looked up and laughed. Had he been of a fiery disposition and had retaliated, the consequences may be imagined; as the passers by being Greeks, there would have been none to testify to what had really occurred, and any number ready to swear that it was the soldier who had committed the assault.

It remains for us to indicate the use that has been made of the popular frenzy in England at Constantinople. We can have no doubt that to it must be attributed the sudden submission of the Porte, a submission which it never could have contemplated when it appealed to the loyalty of its subjects, and announced its determination not to make peace with Servia, except on such conditions as would render a repetition of similar conduct on its part impossible.

Under the circumstances of the whole English people being excited to call for the expulsion of the Turk from Europe, and this, combined with an attack on the Government led by the chief of the Opposition, it is very easy to imagine what Sir H. ELLIOT has been instructed to say at Constantinople. He had only to point to the speeches of Mr. GLADSTONE and his former colleagues to show the Ottoman Government that the safety of Turkey must depend on the present Government remaining in power in England. He will then have informed it that there is but one condition on which it is practicable for Lord BEACONSFIELD to hold back and stand against the frenzy of the people; that is by the Porte doing something which he can show to the English people as a proof of the influence of their Government, and its concern for the Christians. Thus Turkey is to be once again cheated out of its victory, and the loyalty and devotion, the blood and sacrifices of its people, are to be of no avail.

The Bulgarian Insurrection.

THE NEW REPORT OF THE NOTABLES OF PHILIPPOPOLI. (COMMUNICATED BY ALI SUAVI EFFENDI.)

WE have before us a copy of this Report which is dated September 10, 1876, and is addressed to the Grand Vizier by the Committee of the Notables of Filibé.

From the commencement to the end of the insurrection, each movement and each fact, with the precise names and exact dates, is detailed with minute research.

The document is too long for insertion in our pages; but we will give some extracts from it as regards certain facts which appear to require explanation.

I.

It will suffice only to know the date of each act of incendiarism in order to understand that these crimes were committed before the arrival of the Bashi-Bazouks and the army at the places where they occurred.

Only Battak, Prochtintcha, Birasdim, and in Otlok-Keui 250 houses out of 1606, and not 500 out of 2000, as Mr. BARING says, were burned down or set fire to during the battle.

The other villages and hamlets in number 48, and not 58, as Mr. BARING states, were more or less set fire to by the insurgents before the arrival of the army. For example, in the neighbourhood of Bratchkowa, a Mussulman hamlet and three Christian hamlets Ztrabitchika, Boïkowa, and Dedowa, were burned down on the 8th of May; that is to say, ten days before the arrival of the army and the Bashi-Bazouks in that locality.

Lechnek, Eurgula, Ouzoundja-Keren, Krastowa, Saridja, Zindjirly, and Echumlek-yeni-keui were burned on the 5th of May, seven days before the arrival of the army and the Bashi-Bazouks in those parts.

Karaghylar, Pointcha, Klaïra, Tcherwa, Dinek-Mahalleh Desitchwa, Ichterkowa, Chalar, and five Mussulman hamlets, Djumaly, Palanka, Djaferly, Orandjly, and Bigha were burned on the 2nd of May, seven days before the arrival of the army and the Bashi-Bazouks at those places.

II.

The report establishes that the Turks were not incensed from the first moment of the movement of the Bulgarians; on the contrary, indeed, in spite of so many blazing conflagrations, and of so many murders committed, the local council of the Government of Phillippopoli sent several leading men among the inhabitants, who traversed the agitated districts as conciliators, and also for the purpose of restoring order. Their mission was crowned with snecess in every district which had either not yet been evacuated, or which was not completely so.

According to the report, the following is the way in which the insurrection broke out before the time which had been fixed for it by its leaders.