The Imperial government in fact is not aware how it can have deserved so ill of justice and civilization, as to see itself placed in a humiliating position without example in the world. (This after all the horrors of Bulgaria--which were known to the world long before this.) The treaty of Paris gave an explicit sanction to the principle of non-intervention. * * * And if Turkey appeals to the stipulations of the treaty * * it is for the purpose of calling attention to the grave reasons which, in the interest of the general peace of Europe, induced the powers, twenty years ago, to place the recognition of the inviolability of this Empire's right to sovereignty, under the guaranty of its collective promise. When the Turkish ambassador in London called upon Earl Derby, on the 12th of April, to deliver the above circular, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his deep regrets at the view the Porte had taken, and said he could not see what further steps England could take to avert the war which appeared to be inevitable. On the 24th of April, the Czar, who was at Kischeneff, with his army, issued his manifesto in which he said:-- "For two years we have made incessant efforts to induce the Porte to effect such reforms as would protect the Christians in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria from the arbitrary measures of the local authorities. The accomplishment of these reforms was absolutely stipulated by anterior engagements contracted by the Porte to the whole of Europe. "Our efforts supported by diplomatic representations made in common by the other governments have not, however, attained their object. The Porte has remained unshaken in its formal refusal of any effective guaranty for the security of its Christian subjects, and has rejected the conclusions of the Constantinople Conference. Wishing to essay every possible means of conciliation in order to persuade the Porte, we proposed to the other Cabinets to draw up a special protocol, comprising the most essential conditions of the Constantinople Conference, and to invite the Turkish government to adhere to this international act, which states the extreme limits of our peaceful demands. But our expectation was not fulfilled. The Porte did not defer to this unanimous wish of Christian Europe and did not adhere to the conclusions of the protocol. Having exhausted pacific efforts we are compelled by the haughty obstinacy of the Porte to proceed to more decisive acts, feeling that equity and our own dignity enjoin it. By her refusal, Turkey places us under the necessity of having recourse to arms.