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.
“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 | xxx”xxxxYozgad. |
| 2nd | ″ | Ahmed | xxx”xxxxKutahia. |
| 2nd | ″ | Mehemet | xxx”xxxxKutahia. |
| 2nd | ″ | Rédjeb | xxx”xxxxKumuljina. |
| 4th | ″ | Osman | xxx”xxxxKara Hissar. |
| 2nd | ″ | Berber IsmailC | xxx”xxxxAdrianople. |
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 | xxx”xxxxKara Hissar. |
| 4th | ″ | Corporal Mehemet | xxx”xxxxAntalia. |
| 1st | ″ | Osman Baltadji | xxx”xxxxKara Hissar. |
| 1st | ″ | Ahmed | xxx”xxxxTchoroum. |
| 1st | ″ | Ali (Roumelian) | xxx”xxxxSamanli‐Kieuï. |
| 4th | ″ | Berber Mustapha | xxx”xxxxDimétoka. |
| 4th | ″ | Ali | xxx”xxxxZile. |
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.