THE ABYSSINIAN CAPTIVES.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3191, 8 October 1867, Page 4

THE ABYSSINIAN CAPTIVES.

To the Editor of the Daily Southekn Cross. Sib,— l notice in the newspapers a paragraph stating that a company of British .Regulars has been ordered to Abyssinia, to compel the King of that country to release the British subjects who have been held prisoners there for a long time, simply because her Majesty Queen Victoria does not feel inclined to accept the proposition of his Abyssinian Majesty, to become his wife. Having been a resident in that country for some time, and being personally acquainted with King Theodorus, I would wish to point out the fallaoy of the reason given above ; and in giving my own version — which I know to be the true one— of the present state of affairs, will also show the futility of the step proposed to be adopted. The only foundation for the above-mentioned statement, and which has been so widely circulated, is the fact of King Theodorus having, in 1863, written an autograph letter to her Majesty, complaining of the misconduct of the Turks, and making proposals to her— of an alliance, offensive and defensive, against Turkey. I will endeavour, as aucointly as I can, to explain the Abyssinian embroglio. The great object and ambition of Abyssinia, in modern times, has been to be treated as an independent nation by the Christian powers of : Europe, and by England in particular. Now England did recognise her independence, by the important act of concluding a treaty with the titular Emperor, and his Vizier Eas AH, in 1849. This was laid before Parliament in 1852. So that England cannot possibly regard Abyssinia as a mere Turkish province. As soon as this treaty was ratified, Bishop Gobat induced her Majesty's Government to send instructions to the British Consuls at Jerusalem, A lexandria, Cairo, and Jidda, to use their good offices on behalf of the Abyssinian pilgrims, by standing between them and their Mahomedan oppressors. This was done ; and from 1852 to 1862 no difficulty occurred. In the latter part of 1862 the Copts and Armenians, in Jerusalem (who had long coveted the Abyssinian convent), had enlisted on their side the Turkish Pasha, who marched a body of soldiers into the building and drove out the monks. The latter claimed the protection of the English Consul, who, however, only protested against this arbitrary attack. Sooreya Pasha, however, asserted the sovereignty of Turkey over the Abyssinians, denied the right of English officials to notice what might befall her subjects, and finally declared that Turkey would never abandon her claim on Abyssinia. Immediately after this, Abyssinian Christians ' were most cruelly treated, numbers were killed, and some sold into slavery. Deserted by the British Consul, the AbysBiniaDs addressed a letter to the " Most Noble the Church in London." The Archbishop of Canterbury, on receipt of it, submitted it to Earl Russell, who said " instructions would be forwarded," and he hoped that the " affair would be settled." (Times, July 23, 1864.) Such is a short statement of the facts of the case, and it is only natural that a powerful and high-spirited monarch like Eing or rather Emperor Theodorus, after having so long enjoyed the friendship of England, should not now be content to submit to be treated as a Turkish vassal or slave to the Moslem, Letter after letter was despatched by Theodorus to her Majesty, and all to the same purport. But no reply was vouchsafed — either affairs were too pressing at home, or Abyssinia was held in such little consideration, that the matter was disregarded, and apparently forgotten, j Now Theodorus, being one of the greatest monarchs of his continent, did not like to be treated so contemptuously, and , having no fleet at his disposal to make demonstration, he did what was in his power, and acted as he thought for the best. He placed the British subjects who happened to be in his territories under surveillance, declared them hostages, and forbade them to leave the country until some suitable answer was made to his repeated remonstrances. This was in 1864. It seems, however, that England only persisted in viewing his conduct as that of a savage, and even sent presents to him, which, however, he indignantly refused to accept. Ihe latest news shows that the captives have been in chains. It does not, however, follow that they have been tortured. My opinion is that the captives have endeavoured to escape, and thus brought upon themselves harsher treatment. To prove how erroneous is the public opinion at home, I will quote a letter written "by Sir H. L. Bulwer, in which, after boasting how an Englishman can travel all over the world unharmed, simply because he is under the protecting eye and sogis of Great Britain, he says, " Should we go on, year after year, attempting to hold converse with this paltry barbarian ? I may be told that there is difficulty in reaching him, difficulty in punishing him. But why is a nation great P Because it performs difficult things. Let England but plainly say, these men shall be liberated, this miscreantwhom we have condescended to call King shall be trod into the dusb. Nor do I speak idly ; with a moderate British force, and such assistance as the Viceroy of Egypt told me he would be ready to gire, it would be no rash engagement to undertake to hang Theodorus in the chains that now torture the limbs of his captives." So far Sir H. L. Bulwer : I do not feel inclined to laugh at the intemperate language, but would merely wish, to point out that the course he recommended would be followed by the same results as previous remonstrances. Nor need I point out the absurdity of a handful of troops, although they be Europeans, attempting to penetrate into the heart of an unknown country, in order to dictate to an absolute monarch. In conclusion, I must express my regret that the daya of chivalry would seem to be past, for England, instead of assisting the Christian | against the Moslem, is on the contrary banded with the Moslem against the Christian.— I am, &c, Basha. Fbllaka. Te Awamutu, September 16, 1867.

As an illustration of what the prisoners feel and are subjected to, we quote the following letter received by Mrs. Stern, from her husband, one of the captives in Abyssinia : — "Magdala, May 1, 1867.— My de*r Charlotte,— Another month has p»s«ed since I last wrote to you, a month like all the rest in this miserable prisonlife, full of anxious care and wearisome inactivity. Sometimes I squat down and try tobeguile the tedioua hours by writing sketches of sermons, and when my thoughts become confused I divert my mind—and a sad diversion it is — by diffusing on closely-written pages the varied incidents of our painful captivity. I would occasionally furnish you with my pen's melancholy effusions were it not imprudent to keep anything of so compromising a character around me. It is astonishing to think that in the wilds of Africa the greatest caution should be requisite in the expression of one's ideas. The very notion of such a shing makes one smile, and yet it is no less strange than true that a single sentence, and that, too, eonched in a foreign language, may, by the evil-dis-poied, be perverted into the most wilful, selfish, and mischievous purposes. I once thought that human nature, notwithstanding its fall, still retained some* thing of its original noble stamp j but bitter