Prince Alexander of Battenberg has received the usual welcome which hospitable England accords to monarchs who have failed in business. The Prince has, by merely visiting your country, come again to the surface—not of politics, for he is politically extinct, but of that popular interest which is equally excited by the arrival of a prince, the departure of an elephant, the death of a jockey, or some monstrous case in a divorce court. As a subject of an after-dinner discussion, the Prince will be useful for a few days. But unfortunately one of his greatest exploits is quite unknown, even to his most ardent admirers in England. Does any one know, I wonder, that the present Regents who are so devoted to him on paper and at a distance were among his bitterest enemies while he was in the principality? Distance probably lends enchantment to the view, and the fervour of their loyalty seems to be dependent on the absence of their idol. By his retirement Prince Alexander has won the admiration of Mr. Stambouloff and Mr. Voltcheff—an achievement which even the hero of Slivnitza may regard as the crowning honour of his reign. I was not aware myself until the other day of the transformation which he has brought about by his simple disappearance, when I came upon an open letter of Mr. N. V. Susmen, one of the heroic volunteers who fought nobly for the Slavonic cause in that war of Serbia and Turkey which in 1876 opened the way for the liberation of the Slavs. Mr. N. V. Susmen was an old friend and associate of the pseudo-Regents, and their sudden conversion to Battenbergophilism led him in disgust to address them a printed letter, from which I venture to make some extracts, that may enlighten as well as amuse a public which seems to be singularly ill-informed concerning the real state of things in the East.

And here, if I may, I would say a few words in reply to the Rev. Malcolm MacColl, who was kind enough to confront me with some passages I wrote nine years ago. My opponent writes in a courteous way which is not the invariable mode of controversy in some civilized countries nowadays. There is no inconsistency in my writings, whatever other numerous shortcomings they may have; but certain facts take new shapes, that is all. The difference between Moscow and St. Petersburg is gradually disappearing. At this moment no Russian Minister would dream of saying with a winning smile to a Slavonic deputation who came to describe their misfortunes, “Messieurs, adressez-vous à l’Autriche,” as has been done, I am sorry to say, some ten years ago. The Russian people in 1876 wanted to render Bulgaria free, prosperous, and happy, and did not wish to annex her. This is exactly the same wish the Russian Government now has. All the absurd lamentations, all the sobbing about Russian tyranny and Russian aggression, is obvious nonsense, disbelieved even by those who talk of those imaginary horrors. Brought to new life by enormous sacrifices on the part of Russia—because Europe never helps, but always endeavours to stop our helping—Bulgaria was in a state of complete infancy. She had no money, no army, no officers. Russia never took the money due to every army which occupied a foreign country, and lent her capable men, who trained her soldiers. The pupils did not discredit their teachers, as has been shown by later events. But Russia did not interfere in other internal questions, such as commerce, trade, schools, &c.

The Rev. Malcolm MacColl says that our news from Bulgaria is at variance with that of Austria and the whole of Europe. This is not the case. The best Slavonic organ in Austria is the Norodny Listy. This paper is not less vehement in its accusations of the Prince Battenberg and his appointed Regents than any Moscow paper. And this is not the only honest organ which clings to truth and fair play. In spite of the want of freedom, of the Austrian press, there are many papers which venture to give deplorable accounts of what is going on in poor Bulgaria. At Philippopolis there is already a strong reaction in favour of the real Slavonic interests. Those who love the Slavs naturally cannot love their enemies, traitors to the Slavonic cause. As for the perpetual “Kaulbars incident,” what on earth do people really mean by it? When they say, “Sir Beauchamp Seymour incident” one knows that it means the bombardment of a great commercial town in Egypt in the name of freedom and civilization. But what, or whom, has General Kaulbars bombarded? He only attacked lies and calumnies, deceit and terrorism!

But let us return to Mr. Susmen and his former friends, the pseudo-Regents. He begins his letter by recalling to the memory of Mr Stambouloff and Mr. Voltcheff the fact that formerly they were, if not brothers in arms, yet fellow conspirators against the Prince. His style is not lacking in vigour. He writes:—

We used to fight together, with great energy, against the common enemy whom you always called “The perjurer, the tyrant, the national executioner, the thief of common property,” &c. &c. Not long ago, I willingly admit this to your credit, you even proposed a separate plan of attack, recognizing that the Prince Battenberg was backed by the Austro-Hungarians, and that he was entirely their tool. Many people, and you among them, used to dread the Battenberg despot less than the Battenberg German. The Prince said of himself, “I am not only German, but a thorough German,” and called the Bulgarian people “Ce peuple de canaille.”

That is not a weak beginning, although it is somewhat rude. Mr, Stambouloff and Mr. Voltchefif were not, however, content with vituperation.

In August, 1881, thanks to the initiative of the honest and kind Bulgarian, the farmer-minister, Sarafoff, there was formed a small circle of which you, Mr. Voltcheff, were a member. It was at your house that a solemn oath was taken, binding all the members of the circle to get rid of the German perjurer somehow or other. You, Mr. Stambouloff, joined that circle, and not only that, but volunteered to enlist new members—a fact of which I possess a written pledge. You also chose a deputy, whose duty it was to visit Russia, and here is the letter of which he was the carrier: “Russian Brethren! Nobody could bear a better witness than we can to your self-sacrifice for the cause of Bulgarian liberation. But, alas! having got our freedom we lost it within our own country. Our position now is almost less tolerable than ever. We again appeal to you for help and compassion. The bearer of this document has deserved the greatest respect and confidence from his countrymen. He will tell you our needs, our misfortunes.”

Mr. Susmen then proceeds to express his entire approval of the charges which the pseudo-Regents brought against their Prince. On going to Constantinople the Prince took 200,000 f. Mr. Susmen says that he possesses the letter written by Mr. Stoiloff to Mr. Karaveloff, urging him to give the Prince that sum. When the latter objected to do so without the consent of the National Assembly, the Prince dismissed him in the course of three days. Mr. Susmen alludes also to the expenditure on the Sophia and Varna palaces, and makes some curious assertions as to the way in which the semblance of popular enthusiasm was manufactured for money down. He says, You talk of meetings, but have you forgotten the way they are organized? “Have you, Mr. Voltcheff, forgotten the money spent upon the meeting which assembled in Sophia before General Kaulbars, and also the 16,000 f. taken from the Public Treasury and given on the day following the Prince’s return to Sophia to the representatives of the Havas Agency and other papers, who punctually telegraphed descriptions of the delights and jubilations with which he was supposed to have been received, but which, in reality, had never taken place?”

Mr. Susmen then passes in review the excuses which the pseudo-Regents might allege for their apostasy. In doing so he makes some remarkable statements which shed new light upon Prince Alexander’s constitutional zeal. He maintains that the Prince never had a thought for the Constitution until his dictatorship was terminated by General Soboleff, who told him bluntly that unless he consented to limit his absolute powers, which he employed solely for the purpose of heaping up wealth, he would lose his throne altogether. Against his avarice and his anxiety to feather his nest, both Mr. Stambouloff and Mr. Voltcheff had repeatedly protested. The Prince had a million francs a year and a palace, but he found it inadequate. He even stipulated for 500,000 francs in advance to furnish his house in case he got married. Oh, but, say the Regents Prince Alexander delivered Bulgaria from Russian influence, and to this Mr. Susmen replied in a passage which I can hardly hope will commend itself to my English friends, but it may interest them as showing what a Bulgarian of the difference between England and Russia:—

England extracts all possible benefits from her colonies. Having seized Egypt, her army of occupation is supported entirely by the occupied country. Russia, on the contrary, incessantly spends her own money upon her annexed colonies. The time—if ever—when Russia will reap any benefit from all her invested treasures is not even perceptible. Look at the splendid Caucasus, for instance—a real Edom, full of riches. But the moment the new stream of petroleum is discovered you see it in the hands of a German or Swedish Mr. Nobel or Bobel and Co. In countries which do not belong to her, but where she only exercises her influence, she profits still less. Russia promoted the unification of Germany; Russia saved Austria from complete ruin in 1849. Roumania, Greece, and Serbia owe their independence chiefly to Russia. Did she profit by all this? This is the kind of influence from which Prince Battenberg endeavoured “to save Bulgaria.” Do you know what that means—”to replace Russian influence”? Look at Serbia! As long as Russian influence predominated there, Serbian Budgets represented some twenty millions, and not a semblance of debt, except a very trifling one to Russia, which up till now remains unpaid. The country was throughout Serbian, national. In some six years—thanks to King Milan’s blindness—Austrian influence replaced the Russian with what result? The poor little kingdom has now a debt of 250 millions, and at this very moment efforts are made at Belgrade to raise that debt still more. Everything in Serbia is in reality mortgaged to Austria-Hungary. Yes. Such is the difference between those two influences , and you, Mr. Stambouloff and Mr. Voltcheff, are trying to make believe that Prince Battenberg’s efforts were beneficial! Traitors are those who think so!

Prince Alexander unified the two Bulgarias, says Mr. Susmen, but to do so he incurred the obligations of subserviency to Austria-Hungary. It was the greatest possible treason to the Slavonic cause. Eastern Roumelia was allowed to become Bulgarian only in order that the United Principality might become a second Serbia. Mr. Susmen concludes as follows:—

Love for Bulgaria did not exist for Prince Alexander: the guiding principle was love for Bulgarian millions. The Prince liked the Bulgarian throne, not the Bulgarian people. He insisted upon getting his dictatorship in order to get the money. He united the two Bulgarias again to get fresh millions. A German does not think it a crime to betray a Slav.

So far Mr. Susmen. And now before leaving England let me add just one word or two of my own. One is loth to refer again to the “kidnapping question.” In the first place, it was done by the Bulgarians themselves, and it did not prevent the Prince from returning to Sophia. Why has he left it? Whose fault or merit was that? That was a comfortable departure, foreseen by the Bulgarian Constitution. The fact is that as a word of the late Russian Emperor saved Serbia from the Turks at Dunis, so a word from the present Russian Emperor saved Bulgaria from the Prince Battenberg. That was possible because Russia made sacrifices which no other country would ever make for the Slavs. What England and Austria-Hungary now want in Bulgaria is a ruler hostile to Russia—hostile to the real development of the Slavs. Our fault is that we see the real cause of that sudden passion for the Balkan peninsula, and realize some hidden dangers which have nothing to do with Philo-Slavism or Slavo-philism.

О. K.

48, Dover-street, Piccadilly, Dec. 13.