deliberately committed by the goverument. The ambassadors of the six powers have declared this to be an unquestionable fact in the Joint Note addressed to the Porte. Since the massacre this same govern. ment has been carrying on a warfare against the Armenians which is hardly less inhuman than beating out their brains with clubs. There were from one hundred and fifty thousand to two hundred thousand Armenians in Constantinople. They were merchants, shopkeepers, confidential clerks, employés in banks and offices of every kind-the chief business men of the city. They were the bakers of the city, they had charge of the khans and bazaars and the wealth of the city; they were the porters, house-servants aud navvies. Many thousands of them were from the interior- from the provinces which have been devastated during the past two years-earning money in Constantinople to pay their taxes and support their families. It is this money which has kept alive tens of thousands of families since the massacres. Now the government has undertaken to ruin this whole population. They are hunted about the city and over the hills, like wild beasts. Every day we see gangs of them brought in, hungry, ragged, with utter despair in their faces. The banks, the Debt Commission, the Régie, and all public companies have been required to dismiss their Armenian employés; they have taken them from the Custom House, the coal wharves, the khans, shops, and offices, and even from private houses. Thousands have been sent off at once to the Black Sea ports, to find their way as best they can without money or food to their desolated villages in the interior. Other thousands, on paying blackmail to the officers, have been allowed a few days to close up their business. Thousands have fled to foreign countries, leaving everything behind them, taking advantage of the intervention of the foreign consuls, who have put them on the steamers in the harbor without passports. The wealthy families are getting away by paying enormous bribes for pass ports. The terror, the distress, the hopeless anguish of these people, which we see constantly, cannot be described, but, as we can do nothing for them, it makes Constantinople seem like a hell. It is not only the ruin of the Armenians, but the ruin of the city. Many kinds of business have become impossible. The wild Kurds who have taken the place of the Armenians at the Custom House cannot do the work. It takes about five times as long to coal a steamer as formerly. There is no one in the city to fill the place of the Armenians in the offices and houses, or to run the bakeries. But these statements convey no true impression of the real state of things. It is not simply that men are wanting, or that shops are closed. The foundations of society have been overthrown and all confidence has disappeared. There is no longer any trusted power in the city to represent the principles of law and order. Any government, however se vere, which represents these is tolerable. Every man knows what to expect. But when a so-called government uses its power for the destruction rather than the preservation of the lives and property of its subjects; when it organizes mobs to massacre quiet and unoffending men in the streets, and to plunder the town; when it destroys the means of doing business, and exiles by the thousand its most industrious subjects without a pretence of law, then we have a condition of society which is worse than anarchy. It is a reign of terror. It is the Armenians to-day. It may be the Greeks or foreigners to-morrow; and there is no power in Constantinople to resist the forces at the disposal of the palace. There is no ground of security anywhere; and no hope of relief from the present terror. Every one feels that we are on the eve of events even more terrible than what we have seen. It is this which has brought about the financial ruin of the city, which is in itself a source of danger. We have the remnant of the Armenians starving and without the means of earning a living, and the Armenian revolutionists driven to desperation by the action of the govern ment, and we have the whole Turkish population and the army-dependent directly or indirectly upon the government, which has no money and is rapidly destroying all its own resources. The Turkish population is not only in distress for money, but it has been demoralized by the action of the government. Its natural respect for law has been shaken, and we see evidence every day of disorder and disorganization, among the common people. Lawlessness in all the relations of life is an inevitable result of such events, and it is surprising to see how rapidly this spirit is developed in Constantinople. How far it has extended to the army will appear at the next massacre. The action of the embassies during the massacre is worthy of special attention. The Austrian, Russian, Italian, and German ambassadors were here, England and France were well represented by very able chargés d'affaires. So far as I can learn, all were left for ten days without any instructions from their governments and acted on their own responsibility. They acted together in perfect harmony, and so far as words could go they acted with energy, but the experience of the past two years has not been such as to give much weight to ambassadorial threats. It was no doubt known at the palace that they were not acting under instructions, and it was not until they had sent an open telegram to the sultan such as he had never seen before that, after two days of slaughter, orders were given to stop the massacre. Such use as was possible was made of the small gunboats, and men were landed to protect the embassies and other official buildings. The ambassadors or their secretaries and dragomans went about the city and saw for themselves what was going on. They remonstrated at the palace again and again, and finally, as we have said, threatened the overthrow of the sultan. They sent a formal note to the Porte, declaring that the massacre was the deliberate work of the government, and that it would be held responsible for it by the Great Powers. They still hold to this pos!. tion. With the small force at their dis posal I do not see what more they could have done; but the result was a very humiliating one, one which would have been deemed impossible a few years ago. The sultan laughed at their threats and the massacre went on unchecked for two days. He was startled by their telegram into giving orders to stop it, but he has gone on with the work of destroying the Armenians in another way as unconcernedly as though the ambassadors did not exist. So far as we can see, he feels as sure of his absolute security from all interference as he did last January-after he had come to an understanding with Russia. And he seems to have no idea that he is himself ruining his empire. On the contrary, he believes, as he told his ministers two years ago, that he is the wisest and most powerful sovereign in the world. There is no possibility of any change here for the better so long as the Great Powers maintain their present attitude, and abstain from armed intervention. The work of destruction will go on. Lawlessness will increase and extend to the army. New massacres will take place, involving other nationalities, until the ruin of the city is complete. I believe that there is not an ambassador in Constantinople who is not of this opinion. No one familiar with the principles of political science can doubt it. Constantinople is a doomed city. It will not be the first time that Europe has looked on with indifference at its destruction. In 1453 it was the last bulwark in the way of the progress of Mohammedan conquest, Europe turned a deaf ear to its cry for help, and suffered the penalty in centuries of conflict with the Turks. We look back with contempt upon the petty jealousies of that day which led to such a lamentable result. We belong to a higher civilization, the fruit of all these centuries of development, and have broader views of the mutual interdependence of nations. It would have been a hard struggle for the Europe of that day to save Constantinople, but we have armies and fleets enough to work cur will almost without an effort. Yet once more the cry has gone up from this devoted city to enlightened Christian Europe to save it from destruction, and again a deaf ear has been turned to this cry. The city is once more left to its fate a far more base and ignoble fate than that which befell it when it became the proud capital of the great conqueror. To me the indifference of Europe is inexplicable. It is not true that there could be no interference here without endangering the peace of Europe. It is, not true that nothing could be done without a full settlement of the Eastern question. The sultan might be deposed within a week and a responsible government established here, to the great joy of Turks and Christians, and this without disturbing the limits of the empire, if England, France, and Russia could agree between themselves to do it -or better, if all the six powers would consent. In my opinion, the anxiety not to disturb the peace of Europe at the present time is so great that war would not result if a single power, either Russia, France, or England, should intervene by force to put an end to this régime and save Constantinople. This is a matter of opinion-but it is certain that the simple reason why there has been no intervention thus far in the name of civilization and humanity, is that no one of the powers has been sufficiently moved by events here to be willing to make sacrifices and incur risks, or endanger prospective advantages to rescue this empire from its present ruler. That they have not been so moved is what is to me inexplicable. Is there no God in Europe but mammon? Is our boasted civilization a degeneration rather than a development? Has Russia forgotten all her sympathy for the Christians of the East, to care only for dominion in Europe? Has England no longer any care for the oppressed? Has France abandoned her place among the nations, and her time-honored policy in Turkey? Whatever the explanation of this incredible indifference may be, the consequences of it will not be confined to Constantinople any more than they were in 1453. The retribution will not come again in the form of Moslem conquest, but probably in that very Euro pean war which has been made the excuse for leaving the Christians of Turkey to their fate. From The Leisure Hour. A "FIDGETY” QUESTION IN SPELLING. "Don't be fidgety," she wrote; then she paused and considered; then on the edge of her blotting-pad she scribbled down fidgetty; then compared the two forms with a critical balance of exami nation; and finally adopted the two-t-ed variant. And she was wrong! And maybe you ask "Why?" Because, good madam, or good sir, a word of two syllables ending in a single consonant preceded by a single vowel, before the addition of such suffixes as -ed, -er, -ing, V, doubles the final consonant-"Just so!" you exclaim, "and so tt was right." Nay, but hear me out-doubles the final consonant only when the accent is on the last syllable of the word, not other wise. The accent! ay, there's the rub; many whose ear has not been delicately trained by poetic culture, whilst speaking correctly enough and pronouncing words with perfectly proper accentuation, do so unconsciously, having imbibed it with their mother's milk, or assimilated it somewhat later with childhood's more solid fare, and have no active discriminating perception of Ask them at unwhat they thus do. awares "Where was the accent on that word?" and the chances are quite even, or possibly a little adverse, that they'll make a mistake. Ask, for instance, whether "prefer," "proffer," "wainscot," "sonnet," "abet" are accented on the first or second syllable, and two or three of the five will probably go wrong: experto crede. It is accent, however, and accent alone, that determines the right spelling of the inflected forms of such words; and a hint or two on the subject may prove useful. The plan for a novice is this: Exaggerate the stress of the accent on each syllable in turn; make it fall plump and full, like the thud of a piston-rod; and this will reveal the truth. The exaggerated stress is unnoticeable and harmless on the syllable to which it properly belongs; but on the other it gives a grotesque and abnormal effect that is almost startling. Try fidgety with a swinging fidg- to begin it, and it goes quite naturally; but let the force of the voice dwell on the -et, as if you paired it off with Lydd jetty, and the mispronuncianon is glaringly manifest. Had our hypothetical lady correspondent adopted this plan, she would neither have disfigured her blotting-pad with a scribble, nor her letter with a blunder. Or, again, let the question be raised whether the operation of covering a tin box with a glossy coat of paint and varnish is "japaning" or "japanning." If we then strike the first syllable with a strong stress, as if we were pronouncing "happening," or even asserting that the ja'paning is now ha'ppening, we get what is clearly wrong; but if the force of our utterance falls strenuously upon the pan, we may smite it as vigorously as we please, with no sense of jar (pardon the paradox; we mean jarring sound), and we determine thereby that the accent is on the second syllable, and the true spelling with nn. This seems simple and easy enough; but that the difficulty is a real and practical one is evidenced by the facts concerning such a word as "faceted." In Dr. Murray's "New English Dictionary" this word is quoted in its alphabetical place, under "Facet" and "Faceted," eleven times; only twice correctly, and no less than nine times with a superfluous and erroneous t. Browning in his "Red Cotton Nightcap Country" has the word in rhythm, and is guided to the proper spelling, as he writes ts and ns; but we must confess that when we come to the letter p, we find ourselves face to face with the delight of peddling grammarians and the despair of impatient learners, the exceptions "that prove the rule." For, although we experience no difficulty in "galloping" after the hounds or "gossiping" with a neighbor, yet, in spite of accent and all, everybody says that in "worshipping" the "worshipper worshipped," and that in “kidnapping” the "kidnapper kidnapped," and doubles the p without a single twinge of his orthographical conscience. This is but a lean and paltry exception indeed, which may perhaps some day be boldly set right by a purist innovator whom all may be content to imitate; we believe that our American cousins, with their practical utilitarian contempt for mere tradition, have made a start already. They have for some time, moreover, led the way with regard to another whole class of these words, those ending in 7, in which on this side the Atlantic waters spelling law is set calmly at defiance. "Rival," and "shrivel" and "apparel," and "flannel," and "pencil," and "devil," and "gambol,” and many more, are all accented on the penult, the last syllable but one; and yet, reversing the proverbial phrase, and taking an inch of license while we give a superfluous 1, we are accustomed in cold weather to "apparelling" our "shrivelled" limbs in "flannellette" (if we may say so without fear of prosecution), we admire the "unrivalled pencillings" of a Tenniel or Du Maurier, and it is "gambolling" sheep that provide us ultimately with "devilled" kidneys. Brother Jonathan is more consistent: in all these and similar words he adheres to the strict rule; and hence in America there are "unequaled" facilities for the "traveler" to pass through "tuneled" mountains and over "leveled" valleys without "imperiling" But Carlyle is made to say that "Fried- his life; nay, even "caroling" with gladrich loves the sharp facetted cut of the ness as he goes. Strange to say, howman;" and others, high and low, follow ever, there is one word which, even in suit. British use, keeps the single 1, and that So far we have dealt only with final unique individual is very appropriately The liquid name "Miranda"-faceted as lovelily As his own gift, the gem. "unparalleled;" whether the prospect of four is in such close array was the deterrent influence we cannot say, but the fact remains that, as far as we Britons are concerned, this word stands out as the exception of an exception. Logical analogy, were we to follow her guidance fully, would soon make it the type instead of the exception. Words in s present a certain amount of difficulty. It is a good many years ago that we noticed in a popular scientific book for the young the forms "focussing," "focused," "focussed," "focusing" scattered on various pages, as if on the generous principle of the accommodating who, when asked about the identity of one of his figures-"Was it Wellington Napoleon?"-replied benignly, or wax-work showman, practice in this point; and we can assure them, and congratulate ourselves, that if their judgment is biased in this direction by these representations of ours, there will, at any rate, be no suggested thought of donkey-power in the influence at work. Words of this class are not numerous, though fairly frequent; for instance, many people take delight at the proper season in "Christmasing" (as Southey tells us, and spells it wrong), and some have been engaged in "caucusing" (as Carlyle tells us, and spells it right), and others have gone "chorusing," and some have been "hocused;" where "Christmassing" (as Southey puts it), "caucussing," "chorussing," and "hocussed" would be manifestly incorrect. The "New English Dictionary" has four instances of the adjective "Christmasy," and every one is wrongly spelled! In the past participle of such words, semiphonetic writers cut the Gordian knot by writing "focust," "unbiast," just as they also write "worshipt," "kidnapt;" but this pretty little expedient. is still unavailing for the derivatives in -ing. There remains one further group of words to be considered, of which “unparalleled" above is really an instance "Whichever you pleases, my little dears; you pays your money and you takes your choice." But this is no isolated case; reference again here to Murray's Dictionary attests the prevalent haziness, or want of "focusing," in the treatment of this word. In the quotations there recorded, the inflected forms of "focus" appear thirty-seven times, and although the proportion of error is not so overwhelming as in the case of "facet," there are, neverthe--namely, those of three syllables with less, twenty-seven instances of double ss to ten of single s. Two sample quotations from two art critics will serve to illustrate the rival spellings. Ruskin, in "Modern Painters," (bk. iii., ch. i., sec. 18), speaks of "the right gradation or focusing of light and color;" but Thornbury, in his biography of Turner (vol. ii., p. 209), says that "the painter's genius was focussed, and his genius gained by focussing." Why, 'tis as if he said that the painter's genius was subject to the malediction of his enemies ("foe-cussed"), and that by such malediction endured or retorted ("foecussing") his genius gained! Similarly, many people misrender their "unbiased" opinion into their "unbiassed" opinion, as if they would proudly claim that it is not under the influence of donkeys ("un-by-ass'd”)! We hope they will be induced to change their the first accented, of which the commonest example is "benefit." The present writer in his salad days used to assert that the past participle and tense of this word were "benefitted;" and he maintained his thesis, armed in full logical panoply, by showing that while ben- bore the main accent, there nevertheless fell a subsidiary stress on -fit, that -fit, therefore, was an accented syllable, and that its t should be doubled before -ed. He found, however, that the weight of usage was dead against him, and gave up the unequal struggle, preferring, like other prudent heroes, to "live to fight another day," and to fight, as the whirligig of time brings it about, on the other side of the fray. And yet he had many who, analogically, if not actually, were his strenuous allies. Did not the Edinburgh Review in 1815, in the hey-day of |