curse, first in German and then in Arabic, upon the profaners of their sacred soil. The convent being under the protection of the French government, a formal complaint was lodged against the action of the Germans in the matter, and a deputation, consisting of the German and French vice-consuls, were sent down from Beyrout to inquire into it. Meantime the Turkish government interfered, as it had a right to do, seeing that many Ottoman subjects had participated in the act complained of, and decided that the right of the convent to erect the wall was a matter for the local tribunals to decide upon, as well as the question of the validity of their title to the part of the mountain claimed by them. In the meantime instructions were given that, pending the decision of the court, the wall should be replaced in exactly the same position, and of the same dimensions, as before its removal. Advantage was taken of this order to rebuild the wall much more solidly, and to increase its height far beyond the limits prescribed in the order, and the result was the removal of the local governor for negligence in not seeing that the instructions were properly carried out. Meantime the town instituted a lawsuit against the convent, calling upon them to substantiate their legal title to the land. Now, one third of the population of Haifa is Moslem and Jews, and about two thirds are Christian. The Christians are all under the direct influence of the convent, and the spirit of religious fanaticism runs high on both sides. On measurement being made of the land claimed by the convent it was found to amount to an area of about twelve square miles. According to Turkish law the whole of this would originally belong to the inhabitants of the town for their common use, unless the town council had at some time or other legally parted with it for an adequate consideration. This it was denied on the part of the municipality that they had ever done, and search was consequently made in the records for the act of sale, which would have been registered. On the other hand, the monks had a duly-signed document under which they claimed, but which, on further investigation, was found to be practically a fraud, as none of the formalities had been complied with, and the seal had been affixed illegally by an officer who had been induced for a certain consideration to perform the act. It is not contended that the monks were a party to this irregularity. They seem, indeed, rather to have been the victims of their agent at the time, who perpetrated it, leaving them under the delusion that they possessed a valid title, but the discovery left the court no alternative but to pronounce judgment against them. Against this judgment they have appealed to Constantinople, and it would be difficult to see how it could be reversed, were it not that the interests involved are of such a peculiar character that the purely legal side of the question may be overlooked.