act for his religion," adds Consul Abbott, "it entitles him as a reward to be free from military service."

To this counter-evidence I will add the corroborative testimony of two of the most violent philo-Turks of the day. In his book on "Nineveh," Mr. Layard says :

The scarlet cap and the well-known garb of a Turkish irregular are the signals for a general panic. The women hide in the innermost recesses to save themselves from insult; the men slink into their houses and offer a vain protest against the seizure of their property.

In his Nestorians and their Ritual, Dr. Badger tells, as a fact within his own personal knowledge, of Christian women "throwing themselves into the Tigris to escape dishonour," while "the Turkish Government was averse to any coercion or strong measures being adopted against" the miscreants who thus embitter the lives of a virtuous population.

We have seen that the Christians of Turkey are forbidden by law to build new churches on new sites. They may rebuild the old ones on the old sites, and of the same material and dimensions. Bells are also forbidden, and the Mussulman is bidden to do what he can "to degrade and disgrace" the Christian. Such is the law. What is the practice? Consul Malling shall tell us :—

The use of church-bells, to which the Christians particularly cling, is never allowed when mixed creeds congregate. The liberty to build churches, sometimes without any shadow of reasonable pretext altogether refused, always encounters immense difficulties when the mixed races dwell in proximity. The never-wanting opposition of the Mussulman section causes the negotiation to be prolonged over years; and notwithstanding that Government expressly disclaims all fees on the grant, the costs of obtaining it form a preliminary outlay out of all proportion to the undertaking. . . . The practice of those external observances and ceremonies to which Eastern Christians attach such weight is, owing to the fiercely sectarian prejudices and brutality of the Mussulman section of the population, the reverse of free. Ceremonial and even funeral processions are often molested, and but for the forbearing spirit of the Christians, dictated by their sense of helplessness before the law, very grave excesses would ensue. . . . . Between the members of the two creeds the amenities of daily intercourse are not softened or altered in the least. The grossest and most galling terms of abuse are habitually addressed to the Christian with absolute impunity, the very authorities being in this respect the worst offenders. In the councils and seats of justice there is no form of abuse of which the Turkish language, so pre-eminently rich therein, is capable, however gross, disgusting, and insulting to his faith, which is not openly and hourly applied to the hated and despised "Ghiaour" by the judges and authorities of the land. Christian subjects of the Porte, except in a case which scarcely establishes a principle, have not been admitted at any time to offices of emolument in the local administration. From the Caimakam or LieutenantGovernor to policemen, customs watchers, and telegram porters, none but Mussulmans are holders of office. A single exception is the appointment of a Christian as a telegraph clerk. In this instance, it seems, the efficiency of the service is made paramount to sectarian considerations. The public schools and charitable foundations are without exception closed to the Christians.

Vice-Consul Sandwith writes from Cyprus:

The clause engaging that the free exercise of his religion shall be permitted to everyone is also far from being carried out. There exist here, scattered throughout the island, some 1,500 persons who are Mussulmans in name only, some of whom apostatised from Christianity in order to save their lives during the Greek revolution, when a reign of terror prevailed here; while others are the offspring of the illicit amours of Greeks and Mussulmans, who are always forced to adopt the religion of the dominant race. Some of the latter are bond fide Mussulmans ; but a great many are Christians at heart, but are obliged publicly to acknowledge the Prophet, and can only secretly testify their adherence to Christianity.

There can be no doubt that if there was a perfect toleration in religion these persons would gladly emancipate themselves from the thraldom of their position.

Consul-General Sir Arnold Kemball, writing from Bagdad, says :Christians are, of course, exposed to the aversion and contempt which are incuicated by the Koran.

In a Blue Book on "Religious Persecutions in Turkey," published in 1875, I find (pp. 27, 40, 49, 54) the following facts, stated on the authority of Her Majesty's Ambassador and Consuls in Turkey that the Porte "definitely refused" to permit the establishment of Christian schools; that it prohibited the publication of the Bible in the Turkish language; and that, in direct violation of the Hatti-humayoun, the children not only of Mussulmans, but even of heathen parents, can never be recognised as Christians, even if they have been baptized in infancy. The case in question was that of two youths, the sons of heathen parents, who had been baptized in childhood and were following the vocation of teachers in a Christian school, when they were suddenly pounced upon by the Turkish authorities, drafted into the army, and under the stress of torture and menace of death were forced to attend the services of the mosque. Complaint was made to the British Embassy at Constantinople; and when our Chargé d'Affaires called the attention of the Porte to the matter, the Grand Vizier replied that "the law did not recognise such men as Christians at all, but as Mahomedans." The Grand Vizier was quite right. By a fundamental law of Islam, which no Sultan or Government can abrogate, the offspring not merely of Mussulmans but of heathens also can never become Christians. As heathens, they lie under the unrepealable sentence of death. Policy or lack of power may suspend the execution of the sentence, but only on the assumption that the culprits and their offspring shall be technically regarded as Mussulmans; and the Mussulman who apostatises must recant or die. These two Christian teachers, thanks to the diplomacy of Sir Henry Elliot and Lord Derby, disappear at last out of sight, and, if they persisted in refusing to renounce their Christianity, I have no doubt that they were made away with. It was in vain that the British Chargé d'Affaires and the

American Minister reminded the Grand Vizier of the following provision of the Hatti-humayoun guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris :

As all forms of religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions, no subject of my Empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the religion that he professes, nor shall be in any way annoyed on this account. In the matter of changing one's religion no force shall be employed.

The Grand Vizier "distinctly and emphatically" answered that "the Hatti-humayoun was never intended to apply to Mahomedans," and consequently "that it would be useless to urge the matter, as it was impossible for the Porte to act contrary to the regulations." Does not this prove the utter folly of putting any faith in Turkish promises, however urgent and solemn the diplomatic instrument which contains them? These promises, as Grand Vizier Raschid Pasha frankly admitted, are "never intended to apply to Mahomedans;" they are only intended to bamboozle foreign Ministers and Ambassadors, who, sooth to say, have too often displayed a marvellous capacity for being gulled by Turkish Pashas-adepts in the art of equivocation, to which the most accomplished Jesuit casuist of fact or fiction could not hold a candle.1

So much for Midhat Pasha's bold assertions that the Christians of Turkey "enjoy perfect equality," that "the Mussulmans never have oppressed the Christians," and that the Consular reports of 1860 "disclose no act of this nature." I have confronted him with British Consuls 2 and with English and American Protestant missionaries-men not generally credited with Russian proclivities; and I trust that I shall not be deemed presumptuous if I say that I believe them in preference to a Turkish Pasha whom ConsulGeneral Schuyler has publicly denounced as the chief organiser of the Bulgarian massacres, and who was described to me, two years ago, by one of the ablest and best-informed men in our diplomatic service (Consul-General White), as "one of the most cruel and unscrupulous men in the Turkish Empire. 3

1 It is as well to add that the persecutions recorded in the Blue Book from which I have quoted were inflicted on Protestants, and that every one of the complainants is either an English or American Protestant missionary or a British Consul.

2 Consular reports are now lying before me embracing the period between 1867 and last year, and they record no improvement in the condition of the Christians of Turkey. On the contrary, the picture of oppression becomes gradually more sombre and more harrowing.

"Those who have any curiosity to know some of the antecedents of Midhat Pasha may consult a pamphlet (La Vérité sur Midhat Pasha) by M. BenoitBrunswik, a gentleman who has lived for years in Constantinople, who is master of the Turkish language, and whose knowledge of Turkish affairs and Turkish politicians is quite exceptional.

The space at my disposal will not allow nor is it necessary for me to expose seriatim Midhat Pasha's perversions of ancient and modern history-much of it due, doubtless, to ignorance. Very few Turks, even among the Pashas, possess more than the merest smattering of general history, and it is therefore quite possible that Midhat Pasha may sincerely believe that on the capture of Constantinople by the Turks there was a rush thither of " emigrants" from the "barbarism” and" oppression" of benighted Christendom, in order to enjoy the "justice" and enlightenment which have been so characteristic of Ottoman rule. It is true, indeed, that we obscurantists of the West have been taught to believe that a remarkable revival of learning was caused in Europe by the influx of scholars who fled from Constantinople to escape the barbarity of the fanatical and ignorant Turks. It is true also that the records of the human species attest not one obligation to the Ottoman Turks in the sphere of science, of literature, of jurisprudence, or of art. Ever since their first apparition on the page of history they have been known as scourges of the human race and destroyers of all that conduces to its elevation and progress. History, as written in Turkey, may of course tell a different story; but the specimen of it which Midhat Pasha has given us is not calculated to inspire implicit confidence in its trustworthiness.

There is, however, one other point in Midhat Pasha's article on which I should like to remark before I conclude. It is the following:

Of all systems of government which could be established, of all plans of administration which could be devised, the Ottoman Constitution, loyally carried out, is assuredly what is best for the East, since it bears in itself the germ of true regeneration in the days to come by the intellectual and material development of all the nationalities, &c. &c.

Such, and more in the same strain, is Midhat Pasha's description of his own boasted Constitution. I am convinced, on the other hand, that any fair-minded person who examines that Constitution with care will agree with me that among all the impositions ever palmed off upon a credulous public that Constitution deserves a place in the front rank. It would be easy to prove this by a detailed examination of all its clauses; but a few cardinal examples may suffice.

By Article 7 of the Constitution, the Sultan is to " carry out the provisions of the law, human and divine "—that is, the law of the Multeka already described. This alone is sufficient to demonstrate the imposture of the Constitution in so far as the non-Mussulman subjects of the Porte are concerned. For the Multeka,

which is an "authority without appeal," sacred and divine, decrees the eternal helpless subjection of the Christian to his Mussulman oppressor.

But it is not the Christian alone, nor even the non-Mussulman alone, who is victimised by the Constitution of Midhat. The nonTurkish Mussulman is disfranchised by it.

By Article 19, "All Ottomans are admitted to public offices according to their bent, merit, and ability." This looks liberal. But Article 18 declares that "eligibility to public offices is conditional on a knowledge of Turkish." Article 19 therefore means, "All Ottomans who have a knowledge of Turkish ;" in other words, it is a gross imposture, for it disqualifies not merely the mass of the Christians throughout the Turkish Empire, but also the majority of Mussulmans both in Europe and Asia. Turkish is spoken by very few of the Mussulmans of the Greek islands and provinces, or of Bulgaria, Bosnia, or Albania. It is not spoken by the Arabs or by some others of the Mussulmans of Asiatic Turkey. And not only is a knowledge of Turkish necessary as a condition of office in the public service, but it is also necessary for election to the Chamber of Deputies. It is probable that five-sixths at least of the subjects of the Porte are disfranchised by this provision.

Still there was a bare possibility that here and there a man who might prove inconvenient might qualify for a seat in the Turkish Parliament by learning Turkish, and so be elected under Article 65, which says: "The number of Deputies is fixed at one Deputy for 50,000 males belonging to the Ottoman nationality." And "the election," says Article 66, " is held by secret ballot." All well if the article had stopped there; but it goes on: "The mode of election will be determined by a special law." This promise has not been fulfilled. The Deputies are in fact elected by the Medjlis, or Administrative Council of each district.

The members of these Medjlises are always appointed by the Turkish potentate who happens to rule there for the time being, and they are simply his pliant tools. There have been two so-called general "elections" to the Turkish Parliament since the proclamation of Midhat's Constitution. As a matter of fact, however, there has been no election at all. The Deputies have been nominated by the Turkish authorities in each electoral district, and the 50,000 male electors and vote "by secret ballot" are all a sham. They form an ornamental frame to Midhat's Constitution; but they have just as much to do with the election of the Turkish M.P.s as the frame has to do with the painting of the picture which it encloses.

An examination of the rest of the Constitution yields a like