provinces, sends to the Turone a report as follows:—About the middle of June, 1895, the Grand Council transmitted by telegraph an edict of his Majesty stating that on that morning a certain Censor hail memorialised that the origin of the Mahommedan Rebellion in Kansu was really due to a religious struggle for supremacy in he city of Hei shua, amo: gsf a sect' called the Suyeds. The contestants applied to the local department magistrate for redress and justice, Instead of giving the justice pray-d for the local magistrate demanded money from the litig nts before he would decide! Natural'y, this gave grave cause for discontent amongst pith parties, with the result that when the mandarins tried to enforce the law t" maintain order, the lame of insurrection began to been fi reely atone, spreading through-ut the provines. Owing to the preliminary successes of inst the trouble resulted in a wid spread and very serious rebellion, "The man who was the cause of all this," remarked the said Censor, " was Ch'én Chiiog-lin, judicial commissary of Hsiinhua who was then also acting sub-prefect of that city." His Mujesty therefore commanded the th Viceroy of Shen-Kan (Zang Ch'ang-chun) to have the official denounced arrested at once, and brought to trial in order that a proper investiation might be made of the metter, and future causes of disco stent amongst the Mah medans of Kansu guarded against, etc, In view of the said edict, the suid Viceroy Yang ut once cashiered Ch'en Ch'ing-lin and ordered him to be brought with all haste te the provincial capital, Lanchou, for trial. When the accused official was brought to the provineial capital, he was at once placed under the charge of the senior prefect (prefect of Lanchou) who had orders to muke a strictly impartial investigation of the case. At this juncture owing to the seri ess of the rebellion and the need of every official to concert measures of defence and supply regarding the city of Lanchou which was threatened by the rebels, there was no \eisure to attend to the accused oficial's case, Hsiinhua was also closely besieged by the rebels by this time, and the sub-prefect murdered by them. With the relief of Hsiinhua by the Imperial armies, however, the crisis was passed, and shortly afterwards the acting sub-prefect, Aoyang Lo-tsing, reported the capture by him of some of the principal Mahommedans concerned in the above case, namely, the hereditary Mahommedan commissaries of justice, Han Ch'i-chung and Han Ying-lu, and certain other witnesses, vi Han " Liu-(or Han, the sixth child.) and Han '*Ch'i-shih-erh" (or Hun 72 catties," apparently alluding to a time when he weighed 72 cat ies). These men were sent under strong escort to Lanchou by the said acting sub-prefect and handed over to the provincial an-j ed thorities. After several trials befure a joint court consisting of Tseng Ho, Provincial Treasurer, and Chou Sui, acting Provincial Fudge, the following evidence was taken, Which' las been confirmed by a -ubs-qu-nt trial before the memorialist The accused official, namely, Ch'én lin, isa native of 8. 'T'ungehou, pro Kiangsu. Six years ago, he was promoted from the gaol-wardenship of Suitinghsien to the post "f judicial commissary of Hosiinhua. During March, 1894, there centred a schism in the Mahommedan mosques f Hsiinhua wherein Han Nourli, h ad Mollah of what is called the old sect, and Han Lao-szu(Han Number 4) head Mollah of the new sect, while holding a lent debate one day, came to blows with each "ther, supported by their respective folloxe's, resulting eventually in a mutual plunde-ing and burning of each others' villages, ete. A'though Han Ch'i-chung, the hereditary Mahommedan commis ry st justice, tried his best to heal the breach between the two parties, the fanatics on each side were too strong in numbers to li-ten to reason, and recourse: was had to the sub-prefect, namely, the late Ch'ang Kénz (who was murdered by the fanatics in the beginning of the rebellion—Translator). Ch'ang Keng, on being informed of how matters stood by the said Mahommedan commissary of justice, at once sum sed th" recal MI shahs before his court. No one, he attended the summons. But in September of that year (1894) Han Nourli, Mollat of the old sect, sent seve al perwns in succession to the sub-prefect praying for merey. Cn'aug Keng, however, refused to entertain the plea with-ut wu enquiry of some sort. One "f the present witnesses, namely Han '72 catties," and another man wore then sent t+ Hsining to beg the prefect there t" use his influence in making his subordinate, the Hsiinhua sub-prefect, t.ke no more notice of the case Tne said prefect, however, sent there two men under escort 'o the Hsiiniua subprefect, to be dealt with by the latter, who thereupon imprisoned the men. The following month (October) Ch'ang Keng supported by a military force went several times in person to the Mahommedan villages outside the city and eventually arrested both of the Mollahs and seven [names given] of their immediate clansmen. (They all belonged ayparen ly to one clan, the Han.—Translator.) While the case was being tried before the late sub-prefect, Mahommedan chief named Ma Kuyliang, of Hochou, suddenly appeared with strong force of mounted Malommedans and getting hold of the two hereditary Mahommedin commissaries of justice of Hsiinhua, compelled them to go with him to the sub-prefect's yamen to demand bail for the prisoners in order to enable them to settle their differences out of Court. The late sub-prefect, over-awed by the armed rebels, gave his consent xnd released the prisoners. Shortly afterwards Ch'ang Keng di Note:—The real story, however, was that the Mahommedan chief from Hochiou broke in hua gaol and released his igionists ani murdered the subprefect Ch'ang Keéng, a Manchu, who had refused to allow bail without a substantial bribe, which the Mahommedans were too poor to give; otherwise the'case would have been finished long n! possibly a rebellion averted. This is substantially what was given in an official despatch from Kansu and translated in the North-China Daily News some time in November or December, 1894, and afterwards corroborate ed by the Censor who denounced the Hsiinhua officials as the primary cause of the Mahommedan rebellion of 1894, 1895, and 1896 in Kansu.—Translator.
Upon the sleath of Ch'ang Keng, the accused "fiicisl under review, the indicia! commissary (Ch*en Eu ing-lin) was app"inting sub-prefect. But in the meantime the two see's began fighting amongst themselves again, and created such disturbances in snd around the city thst the sad Chen Ciing-lin was on the point of petitioning for more troops from Lanchou when the whole province begun to fill with rebels who pillaged and burned wherever they went. Hsiinhua was besieged by the rebels and all communication with the outside world cut off. After the relief of Bsiinhus was accomplished in the following year the accused officer was at once ordered to appear at Lanchou for trial. From the evidence obtained, memorialist, is of opinion shir it was the late subprefect Ch'sng Kong's permitting the head Mollahs and: their followers to be bailed out that caused the insurrection in Hsiinbua, with which the accused official at that time hal nothing to do. Tae Mahommedan_ hereditary commissaries of justice, Han Ch'i-chung and Han YingJu, prov d th-mnse'ves loyal to the State dud-g the rebellion. Hence the able three officials cannot be said to have cused the rebellion which ensued. The Molla's, on the other hand, who began the trouble have all been slain or execntel, in th-me nwhife, fr their participation in the rebellion, and those who were really the cause of all the trouble are now dead, hence there is no necessity of going further into the matter.—Kescriyt: Approved.
13th May.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.