CHAP. II. BULGARIAN ATROCITIES UNPROVOKED,

153

would reveal the existence of hidden treasure. Thus Petro Triandaphyllos and Pope (i.e. parish priest) Necio were roasted, and Stoyan Stoychoff had his ears, nose, hands and feet cut off.'

'The facts of this tragedy,' says Mr. Baring, with suppressed indignation, are now in the possession of the Turkish Government, and it is their bounden duty, by making a striking example' of the miscreants, to prove to the world that it thoroughly disapproves of their infamous conduct.'

And this infamous conduct,' let it be observed, was not provoked by any atrocities on the part of the Bulgarians. A few Mussulmans were killed in fair fight, and two women accidentally. After the most careful investigation into all the circumstances of the atrocities, Mr. Schuyler says in his Second Report :

'The burning of these villages and the murders and atrocities committed were clearly unnecessary for the suppression of the insurrection, for it was an insignificant rebellion at the best, and the villagers generally surrendered at the first summons. Nor can they be justified by the state of panic, for, as I have shown, that was over before the troops set out on their campaign. An attempt, however, has been made, and not by Turks alone, to defend and palliate these acts on the ground of previous outrages, which it is alleged were committed by Bulgarians. I have carefully investigated this point, and am unable to find that the Bulgarians committed any atrocities or outrages, or any acts which deserve that name. I have not been able to find that (as was stated) the insurgents set fire to Bulgarian villages for the purpose of inciting the inhabitants to revolt. Nor, excepting two cases, have I found that the insurgents set fire to villages inhabited

by the Turks. . . . I was unable to assure myself

that more than two Mussulman women had been killed at Panagurishta, and these were killed in fight. Neither Turkish women nor Turkish children were killed in cold blood. No Mussulman women were violated; no Mussulmans were tortured; no purely Turkish village, with the exception of Urutsi, was attacked or burned; no Mussulman house was pillaged, and no mosque was desecrated.'

I am sorry to have been obliged to raise a corner of the veil which I would gladly have left for ever over the deeds of the Turkish Government in Bulgaria. But the English advocates of that Government have left me no choice. By insisting on our giving time to Midhat Pasha and his colleagues to carry out their promised reforms they compel us to test the sincerity of those personages; and no better test can be supplied than their attitude towards the Bulgarian atrocities. Have they expressed shame for them? Have they expressed regret? Have they promised that they shall not be repeated, and ratified the promise by punishing the malefactors? On the contrary, the Turkish Government has gloried in its shame, or, to speak accurately, its moral sense is so blunted as not to see that the deeds of its agents in Bulgaria reflect any shame either on it or them. Safvet Pasha, the representative of the Porte at the Conference, cheerfully accepted on behalf of his Government the full responsibility of all that had been done in Bulgaria, and actually claimed credit for it. The Bulgarian movement in the country near the Balkans,' he said, ' was repressed with admirable promptitude.' He is penetrated with 'profound sorrow' indeed; but for what? Not for the deeds of darkness which have horrified Christendom, but for the

CHAP. II.] THE PORTE JUSTIFIES THE ATROCITIES.

155

folly of the Christians which provoked them. I cannot,' says this specimen of Turkish humanity, find words which can faithfully express the profound sorrow which the Government has felt at the revolt of its Christian subjects, and at its consequences.' He has even the audacity to parade the doings of the Turkish authorities in Bulgaria as constituting a distinct claim on the sympathy and confidence of Europe. These are his words:-'In giving proofs of incontestable vitality, and rendering a signal service to the cause of order, and consequently also to that of true progress, the Ottoman Government believes that it has acquired new titles to the sympathetic interest of the Great Powers.' And he goes on to add that, in reviewing the period which has elapsed since the Treaty of Paris, his Government sees nothing which does not permit it to reckon upon a feeling of complete confidence on the part of the Great friendly Powers.' And these are the men who are to regenerate the Turkish Empire! Surely the first step in the path of reform is to acknowledge its need. But the Turkish Government declares that it has nothing to unsay or to undo.

No wonder Lord Salisbury found it hard to suppress his indignation at this cynical exhibition of Turkish effrontery. The point, however, is that the Turkish Government, on its trial before the Areopagus of Europe, formally assumed the responsibility of the doings of Chefket Pasha, Achmet Agha and the rest, without dropping a hint of disapproval. Nor does the proof of its guilt end here. We all remember the tardy despatch of Lord Derby denouncing the principal criminals by name and demanding their punishment. Chefket Pasha, the chief of the denounced criminals, replied to Lord Derby's denunciation by a defiant letter

in the official organ of the Turkish Government in Constantinople, in which he alleged that he had done nothing in Bulgaria besides executing, in his military capacity, the orders he had received, and not from the Grand Vizier of Abdul Aziz, but from the present rulers. This he writes, and no one dare gainsay it, for both himself and the other murderers-Achmet Agha Timbrichli and Achmet Agha Bacontuliuli-boast that they have in their pockets the Minister's injunctions to slay, to burn, to terrorise, and will produce them if challenged.'1.

Chefket Pasha and his companions in crime may now summon Mr. Schuyler as a witness in support of their plea. It has been claimed,' he says in his Second Report, that the massacres and outrages in Bulgaria were not ordered by the Porte, and that it even had no knowledge of them. There is, however, very strong reason to believe that Abdul Kerim Pasha, the Serdar Ekrem, who was sent to put down the insurrection, and has since been the Commander-in-Chief of the troops

Times, Nov. 6.-Letter of Special Correspondent from Therapia. The Special Correspondent of the Daily News confirmed the communication of his colleague, but I have lost the reference. I have heard it objected that the Turkish Government would speedily find means of getting rid of agents, who should imprudently seek to screen themselves by pleading that they had acted under orders still in their possession. But the objection assumes that the Turkish Government wished to clear itself from the responsibility of its agents, an assumption of which there is no proof. On the contrary, the Government, through the mouth of Safvet Pasha, has accepted the entire responsibility. The object was to terrorise the population of Bulgaria but the lesson might be lost if the Government were to separate itself from the massacres and punish its agents. See also No. I Blue Book for 1877, p. 729, where Sir H. Elliot says that Chefket Pasha 'professed to have in his pocket orders which would show that, he had done no more than carry out his in

structions.'

CHAP. II.] HUMANITY TO CHRISTIANS A CRIME.

157

operating against Servia; Hussein Avni Pasha, the late Minister of War; and Midhat Pasha had cognisance of these deeds, if they did not actually order them.'

This is a grave charge, and it is made in the face of day by the Consul-General of the United States, whose book on Turkestan is a sufficient guarantee against any suspicion of Russian proclivities. During my own

visit to the East last autumn I received more than one confirmation of Mr. Schuyler's accusation from persons who know Midhat Pasha and his antecedents exceedingly well. One of them, did I feel myself at liberty to mention his name, would be generally admitted-and by none more readily than by Lord Salisbury—to be among the ablest and best-informed of the officials in her Majesty's service in European Turkey. This gentleman assured me that Midhat Pasha was unquestionably the author of the Bulgarian atrocities,' and he added that he was one of the most unscrupulous and cruel men in the Turkish Empire.'

If any additional proof were needed of the complicity of the Turkish Government in the Bulgarian atrocities, we have it in the damning fact that all the miscreants denounced by Lord Derby have been shielded by the late and the present Grand Viziers. 'It is certain,' says Mr. Schuyler in his last Report, 'that nearly all of those who particularly distinguished themselves for their cruelty and barbarity were rewarded, decorated, or promoted by the Porte, or have since held high positions in the army.' And what is still worse, an attempt has been made,' says Mr. Schuylerand he is confirmed by independent evidence-' to punish some of those who did their best to act in a legal manner and to spare innocent men.' One of these brave and noble Turks-apparent rari nantes in gurgite vasto-receives special praise from Mr. Baring