APPENDIX.

A.

Appendix, p. 122.

His name in gilded

LORD MACAULAY, in his brilliant essay on Warren Hastings, says, "At fourteen he was first in the examination for the foundation. letters on the walls of the dormitory still attests his victory over many older competitors." This is scarcely correct, nor is it so stated in Gleig's Life of Warren Hastings, which work Macaulay was then reviewing. Gleig merely says that he distanced "all his competitors," without any mention of the word "older." Warren Hastings was just fourteen and a half when he got his election, and as no boy was allowed to compete after fifteen, he can scarcely be said to have beaten "many older competitors." The author himself entered Westminster School within ten years after Warren Hastings' death; and though upwards of half a century has passed away since that time, he can readily recall to mind the traditionary reverence with which the king's (now

queen's) scholars of Westminster School regarded "the gilded letters" of Warren Hastings' honoured name on the college walls.

B.

Appendix, p. 206.

THE savage character of Tippoo Sahib has been well illustrated by an ingenious piece of mechanism which once belonged to him, and which was found in his palace on the capture of Seringapatam. This "tiger organ," as it is termed, which is still to be seen at the Museum of the East India House in London, represents a tiger standing over a prostrate man, whose figure and dress indicate a British officer. His screams, with the accompanying growls at intervals of the ferocious beast, are imitated by an internal apparatus resembling that of an organ, and acted upon by the turning of a handle on the outside, which is skilfully made to appear as one of the black stripes of the animal's skin. The man's arm is likewise raised by the action of the machinery in a supplicating attitude before he utters his cry. The classical reader will naturally be reminded of the brazen bull, in which Phalaris, the tyrant of Agrigentum, is said to have burnt the victims of his cruelty. One could wish that the well-known epistles which bear his name, and which present his character in so very different a light, were true; but the masterly dissertations of Bentley, proving their spuriousness, appear to forbid such a pleasing hope.

LORD SALISBURY, as Secretary for India, previous to his removal to the Foreign Office, is one of those who are virtually responsible for our invasion of Afghanistan, and so far responsible for the glaring financial blunder, amounting to over £10,000,000, connected with the cost of the Afghan war. Yet this was the same man who, when in the House of Commons, had the temerity to criticise the splendid budget of 1861, introduced by Mr. Gladstone, one of the greatest financial ministers England has ever known, in the following insulting terms. Lord Robert Cecil said, "He had described the policy of the Government on a former occasion as only worthy of a country attorney; but he was now bound to say that he had done injustice to the attorneys, as, though they were very humble men, he believed they would have scorned such a course as that of her Majesty's ministers." Mr. Gladstone did not deign to notice his specimen of aristocratic temper, but treated the utterance with silent contempt.

D.

Appendix, p. 278.

THE following extract from a letter received by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from the Metropolitan of Servia, and signed by representatives of the Christian

people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, will afford a faint idea of the unmentionable atrocities" perpetrated by the Turks, and sanctioned by the Government of the Porte, as was recently proved by their rewarding the vile miscreant who was responsible for the massacre at Batak in 1876, instead of putting him to an ignominious death; but, as the Times of January 4th, 1877, speaking of the wretched government which has so long been permitted to rule over one of the fairest portions of the earth, says, “It is difficult for any tribunal to condemn a man who seems able to prove that he has only obeyed orders; but that a Mussulman of any rank should ever be hanged for simply murdering, no matter how many, Christians, is more than any man acquainted with the country and government could expect." Thus speak from their graves the long trodden-down Christians in their pitiable appeal professedly addressed to the English people: "It would only disgust you to be made acquainted with all the outrages which the Turks commit upon our persons. You would refuse to believe all the crimes of these savage hordes; but the Serb has had to bear the brunt of them for nearly five hundred years. What would you do, you English, if you had to keep guard night and day over wife and daughters, lest the Turk should seize upon them for the satiation of his vile passions? What if for a whim he forced you to eat the roasted flesh of your own child—the sole consolation which God had seen fit to leave you in this life of suffering and bitterness? Horror! Yet it is with this barbarous game that the Turks from time to time amuse themselves. You are

fathers; you can at least understand the full atrocity of these ferocious deeds, to bear which the Serb has been condemned for centuries past, and which civilized Europe tolerates.

"But this is not all. After having ravished your daughter or your wife, after having forced you to taste the flesh of your child, the Turk will amuse himself with slashing your arms and your legs, flaying you alive, and will finish by impaling you, so that you may breathe your last sigh in agony such as only the Serb knows, and from which you in Europe are happily secure. . . . You cannot, for sheer disgust, believe these savageries, can you? For all that, they go on daily throughout the breadth of the Ottoman Empire. Ask your Consuls; they would not hide the truth from you. Such is the life to which Christians of Turkey are condemned."

Can we wonder, with the knowledge of these "unmentionable atrocities," that the noble-minded Lord Shaftesbury, the first philanthropist of the age, should publicly avow his conviction that "the Turkish Government is beyond remedy, and utterly incorrigible, and not in accord with the views of humanity? Looking to the interest of the commonwealth of mankind, I, for one, would rather see the Russians on the Bosphorus than the Turks in Europe." Or that the greatest statesman of the age should have urged, when in opposition, the duty of removing the Government which could overlook or perpetrate such atrocities "bag and baggage" from the scene of their disgrace? And now that he is in power, and doing his utmost to carry out the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin, which Lord