kept, some for days and some for weeks, before they were allowed to return to their families. There was great diversity in the treatment to which those taken away were subjected.

Hundreds professed Mahometanism, during the massacre, in the hope of saving their lives; but hardly any of them were spared by the mob. Many, however, of those who found a precarious refuge in the houses of Moslems, and became Mahometans to avoid being killed or delivered up to the mob, were spared. Most of these involuntary apostates were only inspired with a greater dread and abhorrence of the persecutors and their religion, and took the first opportunity of leaving Damascus to seek a place where they might venture to abjure their forced conversion.

Only a very few remain in the city and seem disposed to adhere to their new profession. In the villages of the surrounding country, also, a very considerable number have been forced to abjure Christianity and embrace Mahometanism.

It is manifest that the design of the rioters was to exterminate the adult male population, take possession of the women and compel them to apostatize, bring up the children as Mahometans, and destroy the Christian quarter utterly and for ever.

The mob believed that all this was sanctioned by the views of the officers of Government, the chief men of the city, and the heads of religion, and that it was permitted, if not required, by their religion. As long as Jews and Christians submit to the Moslem authorities, and pay their taxes, they are entitled to protection for their lives, their women and children, and their property, even if they resist or rebel against their sovereign. Recent authorities teach that a Frank, even if not submitting to the authority of the Moslem sovereign, nor paying the taxes imposed on infidels, yet, if allowed to live peaceably among Moslems for a time, becomes thereby virtually entitled to protection; and it is unlawful and contrary to the Mahometan religion to kill him, or seize his property, or take away his wife or children. Yet, in opposition to these principles, the Mahometans of Damascus had come to believe that the Christians, by taking advantage of the privileges and liberties conceded to them during the last thirty years, had placed them in a state of disobedience and rebellion, and forfeited their right to security and protection; and that it was, therefore, lawful to kill and rob them, and carry off their women and children.

This belief that what they did was according to their law and religion, and agreeable to the wishes of their superiors, palliates, so far, the monstrous crimes of the mob, but casts a weightier responsibility and guilt on the influential teachers and guides who disseminated such ideas among the common people, and on the Government, which did nothing to correct the erroneous impressions as to its views and designs, which were so widely circulated and believed.

The Emir Abd-el-Kader did his utmost, from the commencement of the excitement, to inculcate right views; and it is said that one sheik earnestly adopted a similar course. But it is not known that the mufti, or Sheik Abdullah-el-Haleby, the most venerated of the ulema, or any others of that body, or of the influential people, assisted them. Rumour ascribes to them a very different course of conduct.

On the day of the outbreak, Colonel Ali Bey was in command of the troops in the Christian quarter, and actually refused to act against the mob. Another officer, Colonel Salih Ziky, without orders, made some of the

troops fire on the rioters, and he also fired a gun, once or oftener. One or two persons were killed, and some wounded. When the troops fired, the mob fell back, and not the slightest symptom of resistance to the troops was shown.

This partial and feeble effort soon ceased. After sunset, the troops were collected in one place, and remained till one or two o'clock on Tuesday morning, when they marched to the barracks. Not a sentinel was left in the Christian quarter. On subsequent days, a few of the troops were employed to conduct some Christians from khans and other hiding-places

to the citadel.

On the 16th October, 1860, Sir M. Montefiore sent to Lord J. Russell copy of a letter from the heads of the Jewish community at Damascus. There could be no doubt whatever that the Jewish body of that city was guiltless of any participation in the recent outbreak; and Sir Moses entreated Lord John Russell to exercise the powerful influence of her Majesty's Government to protect and save the Jews of Damascus from the perils to which they were so imminently exposed.

The Heads of the Jewish Community at Damascus to Sir M. Montefiore.

Damascus, 7th Tishri, 5621 (September 23, 1860). To Sir Moses Montefiore, Bart., our benefactor and deliverer, whom may God long preserve, &c., &c.

We commence by praying to God to grant you length of days and many years of prosperity, in which you may find grace in the sight of mighty kings, rulers, and princes, in whose days may Israel be saved, and Judah dwell in safety!

We had the honour to address you a letter in the course of last month, in which we spoke of the enmity of the Christians towards the Jews in Damascus, which has risen up in addition to all former hatred. Now a great, bitter, and intense jealousy fills their hearts, by reason that they have been murdered, plundered, and maltreated, whereas the children of Israel were left uninjured.

Our hearts were then moved by the apprehension lest, by reason of this bitter hatred and jealousy, false accusations should be brought against us. We, therefore, besought you to aid us by obtaining instructions from the English Government to the consuls, generals, and commanders who come to Syria, also from the Turkish Government to his highness Fuad Pasha, that he shall stand by us, and not be ready to receive malicious reports against the Jews, for his Excellency is a just and upright man.

Now, we have to inform you that, since the commencement of the month of Ellul (August), the Christians have been plotting against us and setting up false accusations against us; many have been thrown into prison, and wrongly accused of having participated in the massacre. The Christians are believed in their statements: when they say "so and so killed some one," that person is immediately brought before the tribunal. Testimony of honourable men among the Turks is not received, when they declare that the accused was in their house during the tumult. Even the evidence of Christians is not received when they bear witness to the Jews having been hidden with themselves, and not parted from each other during the whole time of the outbreak. Even should the accuser himself testify anything in favour of an accused Israelite, it is not attended to. A woman

accused a certain Jew, who she thought had killed her husband; she was asked to swear according to her own faith that the accused was the man. She refused to swear, and she asked the Jew to swear by the law of Moses that he had not done it, so that he might go free. But the tribunal would not listen thereto. Even the testimony of our Chief Rabbi has been rejected. The Jews still are in prison, and one has since died in his dungeon from the effects of terror.

Oh, sir! consider, only for a moment, how innocent and pious Jews, without sin, are being thrown into prison with murderers; and how all testimony and proof that they may bring forward will not aid them in their deliverance. We know not, therefore, what is to become of the people of Israel when the Christians see there is no hope for them, but their false accusations are listened to from the judgment-seat; but to the voice of Israel there is none to give ear, or to reply-none to pity or to compassionate.

Those who rose against the Christians and killed them are not judged according to the ordinary laws of the land, nor is evidence taken in the usual manner; but there is established what is termed an "extraordinary tribunal."

Now it appears that it is intended to judge the Jews also by this tribunal, and to condemn them to death upon the mere word of the Christians. This is, indeed, a great and bitter sorrow. How is it possible to compare the condition of the Jews with that of those who rose up against the Christians? Were the Jews themselves during that terrible time not in the greatest fear and danger? Surely there was "but a step betwixt us and death." Most of the Jews hid themselves in the houses of respectable Turks, in cellars, and in caves, and in company with Christians. Is it possible to suppose that one who was in momentary fear for his own life should rise up to kill another? Reason and common sense testify against it. God forbid that such a thought could enter into the mind of her most gracious Majesty the Queen of England, or her Government, for whose prosperity, honour, and glory, we, the congregation of Damascus, have prayed these twenty years. In this trouble do we lay our supplications before her, beseeching her to have pity and compassion upon poor afflicted Israel in Damascus, who only desire her aid, support, and all-powerful influence, so that the captive Jews may have a fair trial before the ordinary tribunals, in accordance with the well-known custom of the country. For Israel, both young and old, are wholly guiltless in this matter, and free from the crime of shedding blood.

Truly, this is a time of great trouble and distress; for every Israelite dwelling in Damascus is in great dread lest he should be falsely accused; for there is none to say unto the Christians, Why do ye thus? It has been openly declared by some of them that they will grant Israel neither peace nor rest. Even already have they begun to conspire against the best, the most honourable, and esteemed of our community-the wellknown Jacob Aboulaffia, and Solomon Farchi, son of Isaac Hyam Farchi (of whose hospitality you partook on your visit to Damascus), a youth fourteen years of age, an only son of his father's house. A certain Christian declared that his father was killed between the two houses of the above-named parties. Were not the Lord on our side, what would become of us? The accused being under French protection, the French and Greek consuls prevented this case being brought before the tribunal,

but had it heard before the two consuls. The Lord brought innocence to light.

And on what was the whole accusation based? If a man was found slain in the highway at the time of the rising of the mob, when all the streets of the Christians, as well as the streets of the Jews and Turks, which are near each other, were filled with the slain, was it in the power of man to prevent a murder being committed before his own house? Would the ruffians have had any regard? Who should tell them not to murder all who stood in their way? Were the Jews, then, secure of their own lives?

Wherefore we beseech you to have compassion upon us, to hear our prayer, and to exert yourself to obtain the influence of the English Government, as well as that of the French and Turkish, with his Highness Fuad Pasha, who is an upright judge; and that instructions may be sent to the English consul in Damascus, so that the Jews may not be confounded with those who rose up in rebellion, and not be judged in the same tribunal.

You are our father! Hasten to help us! As you have been our former deliverer, so save us now, and be the instrument of terminating our endless troubles. Attached are the signatures of the rabbins, the elders, and most worthy of the congregation of Damascus, who anxiously await your answer. (Signed) Hyam Romano, David Harpi, Menahem Farchi, Jacob Halevi, Jacob Peretz, Raphael Halevi, Isaac Maimon, Aaron Jacob.

Meanwhile, the International Commission had their sittings. They resolved that the occupation of Syria should be prolonged. Her Majesty's Government having made it known that if the Ottoman Government thought the stay of European troops necessary to prevent massacre, it was the duty of the Sultan's Minister for Foreign Affairs to address the five Powers to express the opinion of Turkey as to the safety of the Christians in Syria, and to specify the guarantees she would offer to secure them against a renewal of massacre. On the 24th January, 1861, Lord John Russell wrote to Earl Cowley on the subject as follows:

The resolution to send troops to Syria was taken upon a sudden emergency, when all Europe was in a state of horror and indignation at the intelligence of the massacres perpetrated in the Lebanon and at Damascus. The object of the five Powers was to prevent a renewal of those massacres, and to show the fanatical tribes of Syria that such outrages upon humanity could not be committed without punishment and reparation. At the same time a commission was appointed, over which an officer of the Sultan was to preside, or has been chosen to preside, to consider and advise upon the means of pacifying Syria. This commission was, in the first instance, to urge the Sultan's officers to punish the guilty and to afford indemnity to their victims. Its further duty, and, as M. Thouvenel says, the most important part of its task was, "to collect and propose to the Powers the elements of the new arrangement which it is proposed to make, with the concurrence of the Ottoman Government, for the administration of the Mountain."

The institution of this commission, however, was a measure entirely separate from the convention for sending foreign troops to Syria, and it had objects of which some were entirely separate and distinct from the despatch of troops.

It appears to her Majesty's Government that it would be a grave error in point of right and in point of policy, if the five Powers were to confound the question of foreign occupation and that of the future administration of the Mountain. It must be recollected that Syria is a province of the Turkish Empire. The Sultan is the Sovereign of that country, and not the five Powers. The first question to ask, therefore, is whether the Sultan has need of foreign troops to maintain tranquillity in Syria. The next question is, how the Sultan proposes to provide for that tranquillity, and prevent a renewal of the massacres of last June.

If the Sultan engages to do this, and if he shows that he has means to do it, the question of the continuance of foreign occupation at once falls to the ground. If the Sultan will not undertake to secure tranquillity, or if he shall not be able to provide means to do it, further questions may arise. But those questions would be of the gravest nature; and until we know the answer of the Sultan, it is not necessary to anticipate them. Suffice it to say that, unless the five Powers and the Sultan agree to renew the convention of last September, that convention will expire, and the lawful occupation of Syria by foreign troops will terminate with it.

The consideration of the measures necessary for the permanent peace of the Mountain is a more difficult question, and, as M. Thouvenel says, it would be difficult to determine the moment when the commissioners may be able to communicate to the Powers the result of their labours.

You will now see the conclusion to which my arguments tend. Her Majesty's Government are quite prepared, either in conference or otherwise, to inquire of the Sultan's Ministers whether the Porte is ready to become responsible for the present tranquillity of Syria, and has provided sufficient means for that purpose. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to maintain European troops in Syria until means are found of totally preventing for the future those bloody encounters of hostile tribes which have been for ages the scourge of that country. They care not whether those European troops should belong to France or to any other country. Her Majesty's Government will not agree to become responsible for the future administration of a province of the Sultan by the agency of foreign troops.

In February, 1861, the Porte agreed to a conference on the subject of Syrian affairs. Meanwhile, her Majesty's Government declared that a British squadron would be stationed on the coast of Syria from the 1st of May, 1861, to the end of the summer, and that the French occupation must not be extended beyond the 1st of May, which was, however, extended to the 5th June.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.

Accession of the Grand Duke of Hesse to the Convention concluded May 13, 1846, and June 14, 1855, between Great Britain and Prussia, for the establishment of International Copyright.

HER Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his Majesty the King of Prussia, having concluded at Berlin, on the 13th of May, 1846, a convention for the reciprocal protection of copyright against piracy; and it having been stipulated in article 8 of that