BULGAEIA. 



75 



Great National Assembly to revise its pro- 

 visions. The dismissal of the Assembly, and 

 the irregular method by which the Prince 

 sought to have it abrogated by a kind of ple- 

 biscite, were both infractions of the express 

 provisions of the Constitution, which prescribes 

 that the power to alter and amend shall be ex- 

 ercised only by the Extraordinary National 

 Assembly, convoked in accordance with the 

 action of the Assembly. Prince Alexander's 

 justification of his coup d'etat was that the 

 Constitution had brought discredit upon Bul- 

 garia abroad and bred domestic disorder. The 

 Assembly, it was charged, was filled in great 

 part with illiterate members, who were in- 

 capable of judicious legislation, who wasted 

 their time in fruitless party strife, and im- 

 posed incompetent and corrupt Cabinet ad- 

 visers upon the Prince, and were also en- 

 grossed in intrigues to maintain their positions, 

 and had instituted a foreign policy which en- 

 dangered the existence of Bulgaria. The Lib- 

 eral party, who maintained that the tradi- 

 tions and character of the Bulgarian people 

 demanded a democratic form of government, 

 proposed to remedy the admitted evils by re- 

 ducing the number of members in the As- 

 sembly, and lowering the age of eligibility 

 from thirty to twenty-five, in order to admit 

 young men who had been educated abroad 

 and were returning in considerable numbers. 

 The strife in the Assembly had been in great 

 measure due to the course which the Prince 

 had pursued, at first, of choosing his ministers 

 from the minority. As soon as he allowed 

 the formation of a Liberal Cabinet, the As- 

 sembly applied itself to legislation, and in the 

 period of eight months matured twenty-seven 

 bills, the most important of which were mea- 

 sures to improve national education and to 

 raise the moral qualifications of the clergy, 

 increase their stipends, and free them from the 

 domination of the hierarchy. 



The democratic character of the Constitution 

 which, in accordance with the conclusions of 

 the conference of plenipotentiaries at Berlin, 

 the Bulgarian people had framed for them- 

 selves, rejecting the extremely liberal Consti- 

 tution drafted by the Russian commissioner, 

 had from the first excited repugnance and 

 apprehension in the Russian Government. It 

 mistrusted the influence in Russia of the large 

 measure of popular liberty enjoyed by the 

 Slavs across the Danube. The purpose of the 

 Liberal majority to remove the Russian officers 

 who had command of the army, which they 

 had brought to a high standard of discipline 

 and efficiency, was the occasion for a trial of 

 strength between the popular party and the 

 Russian entourage of the Prince, re-enforced by 

 court and diplomatic influences of the Czar's 

 Government. The Austrian Government had 

 shown antipathy to Bulgarian liberties from 

 the beginning, and was incensed at the Liberal 

 party on account of its hostility to the Austrian 

 claim to exclusive powers over the Danubian 



navigation, a hostility which was shared by the 

 Roumanians. 



The Liberal party during its administration 

 of the government had offended three influen- 

 tial classes by reforms affecting them which 

 were in the popular interest. The Russian ele- 

 ment was incensed by the over- jealous attitude 

 of the Liberals, whose project of dismissing 

 Russian officers from the military and civil es- 

 tablishments, and of reducing all foreigners in 

 Bulgarian service to an equal footing with na- 

 tives, precipitated the coup d'etat which it aimed 

 to avert. The ecclesiastical reforms which sub- 

 ordinated the church to the state, and restrict- 

 ed the authority of the bishops over the paro- 

 chial clergy, aroused resentment in ecclesias- 

 tical circles. The local magistracy also was 

 alienated by a measure of administrative re- 

 form which curtailed the powers of the cho- 

 rabji class, or village magnates. The young 

 German prince and Prussian Guard lieutenant, 

 who had been selected as the constitutional 

 ruler of the new principality, regarded with 

 impatience and contempt the extreme demo- 

 cratic provisions of the organic instrument 

 which he had sworn to observe, and for the 

 first year of his reign refused to take his ad- 

 visers from the majority. In his plan for de- 

 stroying the national Constitution, he was cer- 

 tain of the active co-operation of the Russians, 

 of the well- wishes of Austria, and of the neu- 

 trality of Germany. The support of the civil, 

 military, and clerical oligarchies, which the 

 Liberal party had effectually estranged, was of 

 indispensable assistance. In the country dis- 

 tricts a considerable degree of popular animos- 

 ity against the administration was already in 

 existence, which was skillfully worked by the 

 electioneering agents of the Prince and his 

 Russian allies, in the extraordinary election 

 which was to decide the fate of the national 

 Constitution. Military tribunals were consti- 

 tuted by the Prince's edict to try any officials 

 who should exert their influence on behalf of 

 Liberal candidates. By these courts-martial 

 any Liberal could be arrested, and even con- 

 demned to death. Two of the Liberal leaders, 

 Zankoff and Slaveikoff, were arrested before 

 the election, and, when released after a short 

 confinement, were forbidden to go to Sofia or 

 Tirnova. A Russian officer was placed in ev- 

 ery election district as a commissioner, and a 

 large number of others were detailed as sub- 

 commissioners of elections. The diplomatic 

 agent of the Russian Government, Hitrovo, 

 was the active lieutenant and principal adviser 

 of the Prince. Peasants were brought into 

 the cities to vote, and carefully guarded from 

 the allurements of the Liberals by the military. 

 Bands of peasantry were encouraged to at- 

 tack and maltreat any Liberal who was too 

 outspoken. In the towns the election was con- 

 ducted with scarcely the pretense of legality. 

 Voters were kept from approaching the urns 

 by the soldiery. In some cases crowds of 

 electors collected about the polling-places, and 



