THE TRIAL OF MIDHAT PASHA
As we have already stated, Midhat Pasha arrived at Constantinople in
one of the Imperial yachts, accompanied by the Minister and the high
judicial dignitaries. He was kept in the pavilion of the “Malta Kiosk,”
which is situated within the park of Yildiz. In accordance with his
desire that he might be given a public trial, and that the conditions
on which he had surrendered to the Ottoman authorities from the French
Consulate should be observed, a High Court was formed by the Sultan
Abdul Hamid. But the tickets of admission to the meetings were issued
in such a manner that the Turks who wished to be present at the trial
had to renounce their intention, for fear of attracting the ill‐will of
the Sultan, or else, those who were followers of Midhat, had to pose as
his adversaries in order to be able to hear and understand the manner
in which he was to be condemned. The Diplomatic Corps was present, but
many foreigners found difficulty in obtaining admittance. Only a few
correspondents of the foreign newspapers were admitted, and amongst
the representatives of the Turkish Press only those who were faithful
adherents of the Sultan.
We possess no special information on the subject of the trial, and
that which we have been able to collect from those persons who were
present at the debates gives us no further details than those which the
_Times_ correspondent (present at the Trial) sent to his newspaper. We
publish, therefore, by permission of the proprietors of the _Times_ the
most interesting portions of their reports, together with some extracts
from the debates in the Houses of Parliament on this subject, in order
to give the reader some idea of this most memorable mock trial.
“_Constantinople, 28th June._—The great State trial which began
yesterday, and of which I have already forwarded you a summary
of the proceedings, presented an interesting and picturesque
spectacle. Around the Malta guard‐house, situated in a large open
space immediately outside the Imperial park of Yildiz Kiosk, a
goodly number of soldiers were posted at short distances from each
other, and all persons not provided with a ticket of admission
were prevented from approaching the building. The few who had
been fortunate enough to obtain tickets, found on approaching the
Guard‐House a large green oval tent, and adjoining it a considerable
space enclosed by a canvas screen and covered by an awning. One side
of this tent was occupied by a bench, on which sat the judges, three
Mussulmans and two Christians, in black frock‐coats _à la Turque_
and red fezes, presided over by a grey‐bearded Ulema called Sourouri
Effendi, in a black robe and white turban. To the right and left
of the judges sat the Public Prosecutor, the secretaries, and the
subordinate judicial functionaries, and behind them stood several
Imperial aides‐de‐camp and Palace servants. Below the bench, in a
trench cut for the purpose, sat on cane chairs the ten prisoners,
Mahmoud and Nouri Pashas (both brothers‐in‐law of the Sultan), two
ex‐functionaries of the Palace, three officers of the Guard, two
professional wrestlers, and a Palace watchman. Behind each of the
prisoners stood a common soldier. The side of the tent facing the
bench was left open, so that the spectators, seated on rows of chairs
under an awning, immediately behind the prisoners, could witness
the proceedings. Among the audience, comprising about one hundred
and twenty people, were the Persian Ambassador and other members of
the Diplomatic Body, several high officials in and out of office,
a score of Imperial aides‐de‐camp, a few officers of the Palace,
several Ulema in flowing robes and white or green turbans, and the
representatives of the Press to a limited number. The spectators
might have been considerably increased, for behind them were more
than a hundred chairs unoccupied.
“The first formality was the proving of the prisoners’ identity,
and immediately thereafter the indictment was read by three of the
prosecutors, which may be briefly stated as follows:—A few days
after the dethronement of Abdul Aziz, Mahmoud Damad, and Nouri
Damad, engaged two professional wrestlers and a Palace watchman
to assassinate their ex‐Sovereign, promising them £100 each and a
monthly pension of three pounds, as appears from the accounts of
the Civil Lists. The crime was committed with the assistance of the
Chamberlain, Fahri Bey, while Ali and Nedjib Beys, who had introduced
the assassins into the Palace, mounted guard with drawn swords at the
door of the room. As there was at that time a Supreme Commission,
composed of Mehmed Ruchdi, Midhat, Hussein Avni, the Sheik‐ul‐Islam,
and Mahmoud Damad, and as no important orders could be given without
the concurrence of this Commission, it may be assumed that all its
members must have been _cognizant_ of Mahmoud and Nouri’s criminal
proceedings, and it is for this reason that Midhat is among the
accused.
“When the indictment setting forth this theory had been read, the
President, in a quiet and dignified manner, began to question the
prisoners. The first called upon to state what he knew, was Mustapha,
the wrestler, a man of ordinary size and not presenting any signs
of abnormal muscular development. His face was of a common type and
betrayed no symptoms of emotion as he related, in plain, unvarnished
terms, how he had cut open the ex‐Sultan’s veins with a knife
given to him for the purpose by Mahmoud Damad. His description,
accompanied by slight and significant gestures, was brutally
graphic, and made a strong impression on the spectators, more than
one of the older men in the audience giving vent to their feelings
of horror by audible exclamations. Mustapha’s account was fully
confirmed by Hadji Mehmed Pasha, who declared that together with
the Chamberlain Fahri Bey and Djezairli, he had hold of Abdul Aziz
whilst the crime was being perpetrated. Djezairli, who had made a
full confession in his preliminary examination, was then questioned,
and retracted what he had previously said. Fahri Bey, a young man,
with long fair moustache, delicately‐cut effeminate features,
and of tall and slender build, was next examined, and denied the
statements of the wrestler and his companion. In a tremulous tone,
which gathered firmness as he proceeded, he described, from his
personal observation, the mental condition of Abdul Aziz after his
dethronement, and obstinately insisted that the dethroned monarch
had committed suicide. The other prisoners, without endeavouring to
explain how the Sultan’s death occurred, successively maintained
their own innocence, and found more or less plausible answers for all
the questions put to them by the judges. Mahmoud Damad Pasha, a tall
stout man, with regular and handsome features and large dark eyes,
found most difficulty in replying, and his deep gruff voice showed
more than once signs of great emotion; but he denied emphatically and
indignantly the accusations brought against him by the wrestlers and
others. About two o’clock Midhat was introduced and took his seat
by Mahmoud Damad’s side. His hair and beard had become much whiter
since I last saw him, four years ago, and his complexion was still as
morbidly florid as before, but he seemed well, and sought to conceal
his emotion by stroking his beard, and arranging his notes, from
which he was preparing to speak. Starting up suddenly and leaning on
the back of his chair, he made a short speech, in which he declared
himself happy to have been cited before the public tribunal, and he
rendered justice to His Majesty’s sentiments of equity in causing
the affair to be carefully examined. To all the questions about the
Supreme Commission, of which he was a member, and which must have had
cognizance of the intended assassination, he replied emphatically
that such a Commission existed nowhere except in the imagination of
his accusers, and that all matters of State were considered by the
regular Council of Ministers. When reproached by the presiding judge
for not having immediately ordered a searching inquiry, he admitted
that he had been guilty of this sin of omission; but at the same
time he maintained that all the other Ministers were in this respect
equally guilty. On the subject of his having sought refuge in the
French Consulate his answers, though extremely ingenious, were not
so satisfactory. Unlike the other prisoners, Midhat withdrew from
the Court as soon as he finished what he had to say, and after his
departure a number of witnesses were called for the Prosecution.
The chief of these were three young men who had seen the crime
perpetrated in the way the wrestlers described, and the wife of a
certain Ali Bey, who, being at that time one of the ladies of Abdul
Aziz’ harem, had witnessed some of the incidents connected with the
assassination. One of the most interesting witnesses was a frail,
white‐bearded Mussulman, in an old‐fashioned costume, who related in
a faltering voice, that he had washed the body of Abdul Aziz, and
noticed a small wound in the region of the heart. The Court rose
about half‐past seven o’clock without the witnesses having been
cross‐examined. The proceedings will be continued, and possibly
terminated, to‐day.”
“_Constantinople, 28th June._—The trial of the persons charged with
the assassination of Abdul Aziz was resumed to‐day. After the counsel
for the prisoners had concluded their addresses, the judges decided
that the two prisoners Mustapha (the one a gardener and the other an
athlete), Fahri Bey and Hadji Mehmed, were guilty of the murder, and
that Ali Bey, Nedjib Bey, Midhat Pasha, Nouri Pasha and Mahoud Damad
Pasha were accomplices, being privy to the crime. Sentence will be
passed to‐morrow.”
“_Times_,” _30th June 1881_.—“_Constantinople, 28th June._—The
second day’s hearing of the case against the persons accused of
the murder of Abdul Aziz, the ex‐Sultan, lasted for eight hours.
Several additional witnesses appeared for the prosecution. Among them
was Ibrahim Edhem Effendi, who acted as intermediary between the
Ministers and the ex‐Sultan, and who described the harsh treatment to
which the latter was subjected.
“The case for the defence was then opened. Four advocates appointed
by the judicial authorities spoke very feebly on behalf of the
prisoners. Mahmoud Damad was justly dissatisfied with his counsel,
and defended himself, and, notwithstanding evident signs of illness,
refuted some of the accusations brought against him. Midhat Pasha
was then called, and the President Sourouri Effendi, after remarking
that Midhat had accused him of personal enmity, retired from the
bench, leaving his colleague, Christoforides Effendi, to direct the
proceedings. The ex‐Grand Vizier, who had taken such a prominent
part in the dethronement, defended himself for more than an hour
against the charge of complicity in the assassination. Thoroughly
conversant with the new laws of judicial procedure, he pointed out
several mistakes which had been committed, and demanded permission to
cross‐question the witnesses as well as the prisoners who had made
confessions; but all his demands were refused by the Court. Finding
himself thus fettered, he took his stand on the solemnity of the law,
and declined to defend himself any further.
“The President, after three times vainly inviting him to proceed,
declared the hearing closed, and retired with the other judges
to deliberate. Their verdict was, as had been foreseen from the
beginning, that all the prisoners were guilty, but in different
degrees. Four were declared guilty of premeditated assassination;
five, including Midhat and the Sultan’s two brothers‐in‐law, were
condemned as accomplices; and the two remaining prisoners were placed
in the category of aiders and abettors.
“The Court will re‐assemble to‐morrow morning to pass sentence.
According to the Ottoman code, premeditated assassination entails
capital punishment, while the lesser degrees of crime are punished by
various terms of penal servitude.”
_29th June._—“The remarks and the bearing of Midhat Pasha at
the trial yesterday produced, on the whole, a very favourable
impression on the public, and it was not difficult to perceive that
he still enjoys a certain popularity even among good Mussulmans. As
numerous Palace spies were present, the Ottoman officials carefully
endeavoured to hide any latent sympathy with the accused, but some
of them did not altogether succeed. More than once Midhat replied
very appositely in a half‐ironical tone, which was much appreciated
by the audience. All the details were at once transmitted to the
Sultan, and Sourouri Effendi doubtless congratulated himself on
having removed the Imperial displeasure from his own shoulders to
those of his colleagues. As yet no evidence has been produced proving
Midhat’s complicity, but it is not likely that he will be acquitted.
Considering that the trial has been prepared, and is being conducted
under the immediate influence of the Palace, which is filled with
Midhat’s enemies, it would be absurd to expect impartiality and
independence in the judges. I happen to know many curious facts
tending to show how absurd such an expectation would be, and I may
mention one by way of illustration. Yesterday morning, immediately
before the trial began, Sourouri Effendi had a long private audience
with the Sultan, and received from His Majesty certain instructions
as to how the proceedings should be conducted. The most interesting
part of the proceedings at the State trial yesterday was the incident
which terminated in Midhat Pasha’s refusal to continue his defence.
The facts are briefly as follows:—The President invited the accused
not to continue his defence and to intrust that duty to his counsel.
Midhat replied that he would defend himself, because he had not been
allowed to confer freely with the counsel officially appointed. He
justified his flight to the French Consulate at Smyrna, pointed
out numerous errors in the procedure, expressed astonishment at
such grave accusations being founded on such insufficient evidence,
reproached the Public Prosecutor with having accepted the testimony
of the eunuchs, who, professing to have seen the crime committed
without denouncing it, should be themselves in the dock, and
ridiculed the testimony of Marco Pasha, the chief physician of the
Palace at that time, who professed to have seen from the Asiatic
side of the Bosphorus what took place at the Palace on the European
shore, and yet could not see a wound said to have been inflicted on
the body of Abdul Aziz in the region of the heart. He then demanded
that the Court should examine the prisoners and witnesses in his
presence, as he was not present at the previous examination, and
requested that the Embassy doctors who examined the body should
be summoned, offering to defray the necessary expenses at his own
cost, in order to compare their report with that of Marco Pasha. On
the demand of the Public Prosecutor, the Court retired to consider
Midhat’s request, and decided to grant it on condition that the
prisoners should not be interrogated separately. To this reply Midhat
opposed the text of the Code of Criminal procedure, and demanded its
application, declaring that he must question those who had given
evidence, in order to prove that they had committed perjury. The
President answered that the article in question in the Code referred
to witnesses, and not to the accused, and declared that if any person
had committed perjury it would be for the Court to punish them
hereafter.
“Midhat maintained that the prisoners who accused him should be
regarded as witnesses against him, and considering, therefore, the
decision of the tribunal as a miscarriage of justice, he declined to
defend himself further, adding in a bitter tone, that he would derive
little practical advantage from the punishment of a false witness
after he was in his grave. The Court again retired for deliberation,
and on returning after a few minutes, the President declared that
Midhat’s request could not be granted. The prisoner, having three
times declined to continue his defence, the President declared the
proceedings at an end, and the Court retired to deliberate, returning
after about an hour with a verdict of ‘Guilty’ against all the
accused. The Court will meet again this morning at eleven o’clock
to pronounce judgment, when this extraordinary, sensational trial,
conducted as I reported, will come to a close.”
_Later._—“Judgment was delivered this morning in the cases of the
persons convicted of the murder of ex‐Sultan Abdul Aziz. Nine of the
accused, including the Sultan’s two brothers‐in‐law and Midhat Pasha,
were condemned to death. The remaining two accused were condemned to
penal servitude.
“All the prisoners gave notice of appeal.”
_Reuter’s Telegram._—“_Constantinople, 29th June._—The Court
pronounced judgment and delivered sentence of death upon Midhat
Pasha, Mahmoud Damad Pasha, Nouri Pasha, Ali Bey, Nedjib Bey, Fahri
Bey, Hadji Mehmed, Mustapha the Wrestler, and Mustapha the Gardener.
“Izzet and Sayd are each sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude. The
prisoners have eight days allowed them to give notice of Appeal, and
the indictment and document connected with the trial will be sent to
the Court which will try the Appeal.”
“_Times,” 4th July 1881._—“_Constantinople, 1st July._”—In
telegraphing about the recent State Trial, I have been
hitherto working under serious restrictions, which I was not
allowed to mention in my telegrams. All telegraphic despatches
on the subject had to be submitted to the authorities, who
naturally prevented the transmission of anything that might
be disagreeable to the Palace. In the circumstances, it
was, of course, impossible to criticise the proceedings,
or even to give a full account of what took place. I have
now, fortunately, an opportunity of communicating with you
freely, and I hasten to declare that the trial was little
better than a parody of European judicial procedure, which
has justly roused the indignation, not only of foreign
observers, but also of many Turks, who have an elementary
conception of justice and fair play. In a trial in which the
political element was so prominent, the first condition to
be observed was complete neutrality of the Palace, and this
condition was most grossly violated. It was at the Palace that
the preliminary investigation was made, under the immediate
personal direction of the Sultan, who is an interested party.
It was at the Palace that the prisoners were confined, judges
chosen, and even the counsel for the defence appointed,
without the prisoners themselves being consulted. It was
at the Palace that the accused were examined and various
unjustifiable means were employed to extort confessions from
them—as, for example, when the Grand Eunuch, one of the three
highest official personages of the Empire, struck with his
fists and otherwise maltreated the Chamberlain, Fahri Bey,
when under examination, in the presence of His Majesty. It
was in the Palace, and under the immediate influence of the
Sultan, that the amount of the punishment for the accused was
considered and decided. It was in the Palace that Sourouri
Effendi, the President of the Tribunal, had a private
audience with the Sultan, immediately before the opening of
the proceedings, while a Palace dignitary appealed to the
counsel for the defence in a cajoling, half‐plaintive tone,
to refrain, in the fulfilment of their duty, from adding
to the Sultan’s already numerous embarrassments! Lastly,
it was in the immediate vicinity of the Palace that the
trial was held. Soldiers of the Palace garrison surrounded
the Court, aides‐de‐camp and other Palace officials were
present, while eunuchs and other confidential messengers
were constantly passing to and fro between the Palace and
the tribunal. A certain amount of publicity was allowed with
regard to the trial, for a few tickets were distributed among
the Diplomatic Corps and leading representatives of the
Press, but there were at the same time serious restrictions
and difficulties. The date of the trial was kept strictly
secret until a few hours before the proceedings began, and
newspaper correspondents, nearly all of whom are imperfectly
acquainted with, or entirely ignorant of, the Turkish language
and judicial procedure, were not allowed to take a dragoman
with them, though three‐fourths of the space reserved for
the public remained all the time unoccupied. I made personal
representations on this subject to some influential officials,
but they all declared positively that no more tickets could
be given. To the few who were admitted, I must say the
greatest courtesy and consideration were shown by the Imperial
aides‐de‐camp and the masters of the ceremonies, but the
powers of these gentlemen were very limited. With regard to
the restrictions placed on telegraphing I have already spoken
above.
“It is hardly necessary to say, that with the all‐pervading influence
of the Palace, there could be no independence or impartiality on the
part of the judicial functionaries, and no zeal in the counsel for
the defence; but there was something worse than this. The ardent
desire of nearly all concerned to gain the Imperial favour by
securing the condemnation of the prisoners in general, and of Midhat
in particular, caused certain gross violations of the guarantees
provided by the Criminal Code. I may mention a few facts by way of
illustration. Sourouri Effendi, who had in the secret preliminary
inquiry directed the case for the Prosecution, and who is well
known to be one of Midhat’s bitter personal enemies, appeared at
the trial as President of the Tribunal. He says, privately, by way
of exculpating himself, that in the preliminary inquiry he never
signed any official documents, and that during the trial of Midhat he
ceded his presidency to one of the other judges; but these specious
arguments increase rather than diminish his moral guilt. He refrained
from signing official documents simply in order to avoid giving
occasion for an appeal _en cassation_, and his making a distinction
between Midhat and the other prisoners entailed new violations of
judicial procedure, for it prevented Midhat from being present during
a great part of the trial. Besides this, the distinction was more
specious than real, for by procuring the condemnation of the other
prisoners, he impliedly secured Midhat’s condemnation likewise;
and though he did not sit on the bench when Midhat was present,
he joined his colleagues in the consulting‐room when the ex‐Grand
Vizier’s demand for permission to cross‐question the witnesses
was considered and rejected. Not content with having a devoted
adherent like Sourouri in the President’s chair, the Palace further
controlled the proceedings by Raghib Bey, one of the Sultan’s private
secretaries, and Djevdet Pasha, the obsequious Minister of Justice,
who is one of Midhat’s personal enemies. These two personages sat
behind the judges on a bench, and secretly gave directions in moments
of hesitation and difficulty. I can state this without fear of
contradiction, for during one of the sittings I was myself on the
bench, and carefully observed what was invisible to the audience. The
conduct of the Public Prosecutor was naturally in keeping with that
of the chief judge. I am assured by eye‐witnesses that he entered
the consultation‐room when the judges had retired to consider their
verdict, but as I did not see this with my own eyes, I refrain from
drawing any conclusion. Another act of his, however, may be commented
on, because it took place in public. Midhat’s attitude during the
preliminary investigation seemed to indicate that he would seek to
obtain the Imperial clemency by raising no difficulties, and by
making no serious attempt to defend himself at the trial; and as none
of the other prisoners were sufficiently conversant with the law to
embarrass the Prosecution, it was hoped that the proceedings might
be hurried through in a single sitting. These plans were prevented
by Midhat’s energetic action on the first day of the trial, and it
was then considered necessary to find some means of effectually
crushing him. A convenient instrument was at hand in the person of
a certain Rifat Effendi, who professed to have heard Midhat say one
day in Damascus that it was necessary to put Aziz out of the way,
because otherwise he might have returned to power and have strangled
the Minister who had deposed him. As Rifat was not in the list of
witnesses, he could not be called without due notice having been
given to the Court; but the Public Prosecutor overlooked this little
formality and called him next day. When Midhat heard this new and
unexpected piece of evidence, he very soon disposed of it, and was at
no pains to conceal what he thought of Rifat’s character, conduct and
motive.
“A few words now to show how the prisoners were treated. According
to the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused has a right to choose
his own advocate, and to have free communication with him. In the
present trial the advocate was chosen by some anonymous personage
in the Palace, without the accused having been consulted as to the
choice, and free communication was not allowed. On this subject
Midhat asserts that he saw his counsel only twice. On the first
occasion they had only time to read about an eighth part of the
indictment, and on the second they were favoured with the presence of
Raghib Bey, one of the Sultan’s private secretaries, who listened to
all that was said. Worse than this, with prodigious ingenuity each
advocate was entrusted with the duty of defending prisoners belonging
to different categories and employing mutually contradictory modes of
defence. Refik Effendi, for example, was ordered to defend on the one
hand Mustapha the Wrestler—who confessed his own guilt, and accused
Fahri of having taken an active part in the assassination—and on the
other hand the said Fahri, who maintained that Abdul Aziz committed
suicide. In like manner Shukri Effendi had to defend on the one
hand Midhat, and on the other hand Nouri Pasha, who endeavoured to
exculpate himself at Midhat’s expense. The idea of crippling the
defence in this ingenious way is exquisitely Oriental, and rendered
almost superfluous the half‐pathetic, half‐menacing exhortation
made to the advocates at the Palace that they should refrain from
adding to the Sultan’s numerous embarrassments and trust to His
Majesty’s clemency. Equally Oriental and characteristic is the fact
that the learned gentlemen who undertook the so‐called defence on
such conditions, showed no signs of being ashamed of themselves.
It is hardly necessary to say that they carefully abstained from
cross‐questioning the witnesses and sifting the evidence, and did not
object when the President and the Public Prosecutor assumed important
facts without proving them.
“With regard to the way in which Midhat was threatened, it is
difficult to speak without using strong terms of indignation. Not a
particle of carefully sifted evidence against him was produced, and
he was refused means of defending himself against the unsubstantiated
assertions of his accusers, though he proved from the Code that he
was asking no more than he had a right to demand. If his sentence
is carried out, his execution will be simply a judicial murder,
perpetrated from motives of political vengeance and personal enmity.
As for the other prisoners, I cannot pretend to say whether they
really committed the crime with which they are charged, but I can
unhesitatingly assert that their guilt was not legally proved.
“The judicial inquiry, which has thus been brought to a close,
was instituted, as I informed you at the time, for the purpose
of removing and frightening possible conspirators, and thereby
preventing a revolution for the future; but it may be doubted whether
in the long run it will have the desired effect, for I noticed
that even among Ottoman subjects, surrounded by Palace spies, the
feelings of indignation were sometimes stronger than those of fear.”
_“Times,” 7th July 1881._—“_Constantinople, 5th July_—The appeal
of the prisoners condemned for the assassination of Abdul Aziz will
shortly be considered by the Court of Review, and it is almost
certain that in spite of the gross irregularities and flagrant
illegality of the proceedings the sentence will be confirmed.
Immediately after the close of the trial on Wednesday, the judges
of this Higher Court were summoned to the Palace and received their
instructions, which will, of course, be followed, irrespective of all
considerations of justice and equity. The possibility, therefore,
that the judgment may be annulled and a new trial ordered, may be
left out of account, and the only practical question that remains
is whether the Sultan will have the sentence carried out. For some
days the general opinion at the Palace was that the nine who had
been condemned to death would be all executed, but I have now very
good reason to believe, as I informed you on Sunday, that those who
did not actually take part in the assassination will have their
sentence commuted to imprisonment for life at Taïf, near Mecca. This
unexpected clemency is to be attributed, at least in part, to the
excitement and indignation which the mode of conducting the trial
has produced both in Pera and Stamboul. The Sultan learned that
the Embassy Dragomans had unanimously condemned the proceedings as
irregular; that the Ambassadors had telegraphed in this sense to
their respective Governments; that the newspaper correspondents had
unsparingly described and criticised the way in which the proceedings
had been conducted, and that even in Stamboul, among good Mussulmans,
the trial had produced an impression very different from what was
intended. In these circumstances His Majesty perceived that it would
be dangerous to have the sentence carried out, and he determined to
commute it. At the same time, in order to counteract the conviction
that the whole story of the assassination was an invention, rumours
were propagated, through the local Press and other channels, that
nearly all the accused had made partial confessions. The _Vakyt_, for
example, published yesterday mutual recriminations between Mahmoud
and Nouri, and to‐day those of Midhat and Mehemed Rushdi. All such
stories must be accepted with great reserve, for they are certainly
told, and possibly invented, for the purpose of prejudicing
public opinion against the prisoners. In spite of these efforts to
supplement defective legal evidence, many people, and among them the
mother of Abdul Aziz, and some of the doctors who examined his body,
still hold to the conviction that there was no assassination and
that Abdul Aziz committed suicide. Without endorsing this opinion, I
can confidently assert that the trial has by no means cleared up the
mystery. The semi‐official announcements that the _Valide Sultana has
thanked the Sultan for having brought the assassins to justice are
untrue, for she has all through the inquiry obstinately maintained
that her son perished by his own hand, and that she was partly to
blame for having given him the famous scissors_.”
“I am now in a position to explain why the prosecution showed such
anxiety to get Midhat condemned, and employed such unjustifiable
means for this purpose. It may be remembered that some months ago the
Sultan was greatly alarmed by a revolutionary propaganda, of which
the chief instigator was believed to be the ex‐Khedive. A judicial
functionary, who has since taken a prominent part in the trial,
was ordered to make an inquiry, and came to the conclusion that
Midhat was implicated in the propaganda. The conclusion was probably
erroneous, but it made a strong impression on the Sultan’s mind, and
from that moment Midhat’s fate was decided. As no legal proofs of his
complicity in the seditious agitation could be produced, other means
had to be employed for getting rid of him, and the regicide inquiry
was used for this purpose.”
_“Times,” 11th July 1881._—“_Constantinople, 10th July._—During
the last few days representations have been twice made to the
Sultan by the British Ambassador concerning the State trial. It is
believed at the Palace that Lord Dufferin acted on the first occasion
spontaneously, and on the second occasion by the express orders of
Lord Granville. The later communication is said to be couched in
strong terms, urging His Majesty for his own sake to refrain from
carrying out the sentence of the tribunal. The Sultan has received
also a telegram from the Ottoman Embassy in London, in which Musurus
Pasha describes the unfavourable impression produced by the trial in
England, and implores His Majesty to prevent at least the capital
punishment being inflicted.”
_“Times,” 28th July 1881._—“_Constantinople, 26th July._—Since the
judgment was pronounced at the State trial considerable hesitation
and embarrassment have harassed the Sultan and given rise to
numberless exaggerated and contradictory rumours, which I have
thought it undesirable to report at the time of their production,
because they were in some cases manifestly without foundation and
in others largely improbable. During the last few days, however,
an attempt has been made on the part of the Sultan to lessen his
responsibility in the matter, through the instrumentality of a Grand
Council, comprising the highest dignitaries of the State both in
and out of office. The Council contained twenty‐seven members, of
whom five were ex‐Grand Viziers, fourteen were Ministers in and
out of office, and eight were Ulemas. We now hear that in that
solemn assembly, which sat at the Palace for three days, opinions
were divided, and finally an important minority courageously voted
against carrying out the extreme penalty of the law, especially in
the case of those of the accused who had not confessed, and against
whom no positive proof of guilt had been elicited at the trial.
This minority is said to have included most of the more prominent
members, viz.:—four Grand Viziers and the present Prime Minister,
three Ministers in the Cabinet, one of the most influential high
ecclesiastics, and one former Minister. The majority is said to
have voted in the sense of a confirmation of the judgment given
at the trial, subject, of course, to the exercise of the Imperial
clemency. It included ten Ministers in office, most of them specially
antagonistic to Midhat Pasha, and seven Ulemas. The Sultan has
chosen to adopt the opinion of the minority and to decide that the
accused shall be banished for life. It is not quite clear why, in
the circumstances, His Majesty should have chosen this course; for
it was supposed that the Council had been called together with a
view to make it share the responsibility of the signature of the
death‐warrants, which His Majesty hesitated to sign without the
direct sanction of the great officers of State. The repugnance of
the Sultan to have criminals executed is well known, and since his
accession he is said never to have sanctioned a single capital
sentence. While securing the removal of the criminals to some
distant and safe locality, where they will be powerless to work
harm, he avoids at the same time the issuing of the fatal decree,
so repugnant to his feelings. Much must be attributed to the action
of our own Government. Brilliant, indeed, has been the commencement
of the mission of Lord Dufferin, who has already gained much favour
in public opinion here both native and foreign. Considering the
popularity and prominent personal value of at least one of the
accused Pashas, the impression that his life has been saved through
the intervention of the British Ambassador tends to remove much of
the popular clamour which had lately become so loud against British
influence, and it is a significant sign of the times that one of the
semi‐official Turkish organs publishes to‐day an article advocating a
close alliance between England and Turkey. A few months ago this same
officially inspired print loudly proclaimed that England’s friendship
was more hurtful to Turkey than the enmity of any other Power.”
_“Times,” 1st August 1881._—“_Constantinople, 30th July._—The
Sultan is greatly disappointed with the result of the State trial.
He expected that the proceedings would have received the approval
of public opinion, both in Turkey and in Western Europe, and he
finds that the reverse has been the case. The Court of Appeal, as
I ventured to predict, confirmed the sentence; but the Ulemas,
who are the custodians and expounders of the Sacred Law, made an
evasive reply to the questions addressed to them, and in the Grand
Council, composed of Ministers and other great personages, there was
a large and influential section of members who recommended that the
capital sentence should not be carried out. Both in the Assembly of
Ulemas and in the Grand Council the proceedings were very curious,
as showing that, even under the present reign of terror, there are
a few men who have the courage to maintain openly opinions which
they know to be unpalatable in the highest quarters. The obsequious
Sheik‐ul‐Islam, for example, who wished to cover the illegal
proceedings by art, encountered a determined resistance from the
Mufti Emini, whose duty it is to give a written decision to any legal
questions which may be addressed to him. The old man said in a calm
decided tone: ‘During my long life, I have never willingly given an
unjust decision, and now, when I have one foot in the grave, I shall
certainly not begin to deviate knowingly from the path of right.
The accused have been tried and condemned by a Civil tribunal,
according to laws and a procedure with which we have no professional
acquaintance. If we are to give a decision, the case must be tried
again from the commencement, according to the procedure prescribed by
the Sacred Law. To the question as it at present stands, the Sacred
Law provides no answer, and consequently no _fetva_ can be issued.’
“Similar courage was shown by some of the civil functionaries,
especially Haireddin Pasha, who, with his usual frankness and
fearlessness, condemned the proceedings of the Criminal Tribunal
in no measured terms. The ex‐Grand Vizier, Safvet and Kadri, spoke
more cautiously in the same sense. Osman, Mahmoud Nedim, and
Djevdet, Minister of Justice, were in favour of having the sentence
executed. Soubhi Pasha tried to find a middle course. He admitted
that irregularities might have been committed by the Tribunal, but
at the same time maintained that the Council had no power to reverse
the decision. This argument was tersely refuted by Haireddin, who
reminded his colleagues that they were called upon, not to reverse
the decision, but simply to give advice regarding the exercise of the
Imperial clemency. The Sultan, as you have heard, has commuted the
capital sentence as far as his two brothers‐in‐law are concerned,
on the ground that these personages acted according to stringent
superior orders. In this way one of the objects for which the trial
was instituted is attained more completely than by executing the
accused, for the ex‐Sultan Murad, who is supposed still to have
adherents, is thereby represented as being the real culprit.”
* * * * *
_Parliamentary Debates, 1st July 1881._—“Mr M’COAN asked the
Under‐Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any other report
than that published at the time had been received from Dr Dickson
(page 90), physician to Her Majesty’s Embassy at Constantinople, and
a member of the Medical Commission, who examined the body of the
late Sultan Abdul Aziz immediately after his death, of the result of
such examination, and, if there be, whether he will lay it upon the
table of the House; and also, whether in the interests of justice
and humanity, and in view of the report made at the time by such
Medical Commission, it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government
to interpose its friendly good offices at the Porte, or directly
with the Sultan, to save Midhat Pasha, and any or all of the other
persons convicted with him yesterday of complicity in the alleged
murder of Abdul Aziz, from execution of the sentences severally
passed upon them. He desired to express, before the question was
answered, his absolute distrust of the capacity and probity of the
members of the Turkish court which conducted the recent trial; and,
from his own personal knowledge, he accepted all the responsibility
of stating that they were persons not entitled to the respect of
Europe, or of that House.
“Sir CHARLES W. DILKE—Sir, the substance of a report by Dr Dickson
was laid before Parliament (_Turkey_, No. 3, 1876), and no further
report has been received. Lord Granville is in communication with
Lord Dufferin with regard to the recent State trial; but it would be
premature to make any announcement at present.”
* * * * *
_4th July 1881._—“Earl DE LA WARR asked the noble Earl the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information could be given
with reference to the trial of Midhat Pasha, which was now proceeding
at Constantinople. He was quite aware that this was a question of
great delicacy as regarded interference on the part of Her Majesty’s
Government; but it could not be otherwise than a matter of deep
interest to their Lordships, and to the country generally, to know
that all that was possible was being done to insure a just trial,
as upon the issue of the trial might depend the life of a great and
distinguished statesman.
“Earl GRANVILLE—My Lords, I have been in communication with Lord
Dufferin on this subject, which is exciting great interest in Europe.
Of the trial I have received no authentic report, and it would
clearly not be right for me to express any official opinion upon it.
I am not, at the present moment, able to give your Lordships any
further information on the subject.”
_7th July 1881._—“Mr STAVELEY HILL asked the Under Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any information from
Constantinople, with regard to the fate of Midhat Pasha.
“Sir CHARLES W. DILKE—I can give no information upon this subject.
The telegrams which have passed, up to the present time, do not show
what are Lord Dufferin’s views; but representations are being made.”
_11th July 1881._—“Viscount FOLKESTONE (for Mr Staveley Hill)
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her
Majesty’s Ambassador at Constantinople has been instructed to call
the attention of the advisers of the Sultan to the allegations of
the grave irregularities in the trial of Midhat Pasha, and to urge
upon His Majesty that the execution of that distinguished statesman
upon the result of such a trial may be regarded as a judicial murder
brought about by political rivals.
“Mr M’COAN asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether the Christoferides Effendi who presided at the recent trial
of Midhat Pasha is identical with the person of the same name who, in
May 1871, was an employé of the Turkish Ministry of Police.
“Sir CHARLES W. DILKE—Sir, with regard to the first question, I
have to say that this is a somewhat delicate matter. I have already
said that communications are passing. Looking to the object which
the hon. Member has in view, it would not be wise that I should make
any public statement at the present time. The second question I must
answer in the affirmative.”
_21st July 1881._—“Mr M’COAN asked if there was any truth in the
newspaper report of that day that Midhat Pasha was to be sent in
exile to a place near Mecca.
“Sir CHARLES DILKE said that up to four o’clock that afternoon no
telegram had reached the Foreign Office to that effect.”
_22nd July 1881._—“Mr M’COAN asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs if he had received any information with regard to the
execution of the sentence passed on Midhat Pasha.
“Sir CHARLES W. DILKE said that within the last forty‐eight hours
they had received no further information from Lord Dufferin on the
subject.
“Mr M’COAN said in view of a telegram of peculiar significance
published that morning, and which seemed to point to an almost
immediate decision in regard to the sentence passed at the recent
State trial at Constantinople, he must plead the urgency and gravity
of the case if he trespassed upon the time of the House for a few
moments, and would, if necessary, conclude with a motion. The case
was, shortly, this:—One of the most noted figures in European
politics, a statesman of the highest antecedents and reputation
(‘No!’), at least, for an Eastern statesman, had been tried in a way
notorious to the House, and his life at that moment was trembling
in the balance. He did not say that Her Majesty’s Government could
bring any more pressure to bear on the Porte than they had done
with reference to the subject. He was aware of the delicacy and
difficulty, probably the impracticability, of any Government putting
pressure upon the Sultan, except in the way of friendly intercession,
which so far, had had no effect. He therefore now wished to elicit
from the House its opinion in reference to the recent trial and the
action of the Turkish Government with respect to it, and he had
reason to believe that such expression of opinion would have the best
possible effect at Constantinople. Midhat Pasha, after passing a
distinguished official career, became Governor of Bulgaria, which he
found overrun with brigandage, and in such a state that the revenue
could not be collected. In a few months he put down brigandage,
caused the revenue to be collected, and, under his rule, Bulgaria
became one of the most prosperous provinces of the Turkish Empire.
One of his most persistent opponents was the Russian Ambassador.
Midhat was doing everything to revive European confidence in Turkey,
and as that did not suit Russian views, General Ignatieff became his
most persistent enemy, and intrigued against him.
“Mr NEWDEGATE rose to order. He submitted that the Honourable and
learned member was asking the House to give an expression of opinion
upon a motion for adjournment, which was placing the House in a false
position, because it was precluded by its own forms from giving an
opinion on that subject on a motion of adjournment.
“Mr SPEAKER said that, as the House was aware, the only question on
which the judgment of the House could be taken on the motion for
adjournment was whether the House should or should not adjourn.
“Mr M’COAN said he would make his observations very brief.
Subsequently Midhat Pasha became Governor of Bagdad. It was said by
some that Midhat Pasha was a poor man, and therefore, presumably,
an honest man; by others that he was a rich man, and therefore,
presumably, a corrupt man; and he was sorry to say that a very high
authority—the Prime Minister—had given expression to the latter
opinion in an article he published. This, however, he knew: that
though the revenues of the provinces he governed, passed through
Midhat Pasha’s hands, he returned from each of them a poor man—in
one case not having sufficient funds to pay his own and his retinue’s
travelling expenses, and in another not being possessed of £500.
Afterwards he became Grand Vizier, and his famous Constitution
elicited from Liberal politicians everywhere praise and admiration,
and it was no fault of his that that admirable scheme did not become
an organic law of Turkey. He failed in his efforts to reform the
Administration, and to turn corrupt misrule into good government.
Subsequently, both in Syria and Smyrna, he carried out the same
principles of administrative reform. He was undoubtedly a party to
the deposition of the Sultan; but it was widely believed that he
was no party to his death, if he did not die by suicide. The Under
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had admitted that the Report
of the Medical Commission was in favour of the opinion that the death
was caused by suicide. Dr Dickson, the physician to the English
Embassy at Constantinople, joined in that opinion, and had assured
him (Mr M’Coan) that after the most careful examination of the body
he was clearly of opinion that it was a case of suicide. But what
happened at the so‐called trial? Why, that two of the doctors, who
had as Commissioners certified that it was a case of suicide—Marco
Pasha and Dr Castro—actually at the trial gave evidence to the
effect that, in their opinion, death had been caused by murder. Such
evidence was worthy of the tribunal before which it had been given.
In a reply to a question put by him, the Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs had stated that the President at the trial had
been formerly an employé of the Municipal Police at Constantinople,
and that he had himself positive knowledge of the corruption of the
man when he held a judicial position. He had also evidence, though
not so direct, that this same person had continued to be one of the
most corrupt judicial functionaries in the service of the Porte; and
also evidence, less direct still, that the other members of the Court
which tried the State prisoners were of no whit better character.
No European community, therefore, would hang a dog upon the finding
of such a tribunal. He knew that Her Majesty’s Government could not
interfere directly, and that an unofficial or indirect appeal on
the part of Her Majesty’s Ambassador might have no effect, but he
was proud to know that no other opinion in Europe could have such
an effect upon the Porte, or in the Palace, as that of the House of
Commons, because it was thoroughly understood there that such opinion
reflected that of the country, and so influenced the action of the
Government. He begged to move the adjournment of the House, in the
hope that such opinion would be expressed on behalf of an innocent,
distinguished, and falsely condemned statesman.
“THE O’DONOGHUE seconded the motion.
“Motion made and question proposed.—‘That this House do now
adjourn’—(Mr M’COAN).
“Sir H. DRUMMOND‐WOLFF said he would not follow the last speaker
in criticising the trial that had taken place at Constantinople,
a trial which he thought would not be considered satisfactory in
this country. He would not make an appeal to the right honourable
gentleman at the Head of the Government to interfere in regard to
the trial; but he would remind him that upon more than one occasion
the interference of the British Government had saved the lives of
men who had been condemned to death in Turkey. He trusted that the
Premier would see his way to take some steps to bring the influence
of Her Majesty’s Government to bear upon the Porte, with a view of,
at any rate, reducing the sentence passed on Midhat Pasha. He was a
man of what was called a very liberal mind, and had discharged his
duties in a remarkably impartial manner, and with much enlightenment,
considering the difficulties under which he had had to labour. He
ventured to suggest that the Premier would be doing a graceful act in
using his great influence on behalf of this unfortunate man.
“Mr ASHMEAD BARTLETT said it was remarkable to notice the intense
interest taken in Turkish Pashas by the honourable gentleman, who
had lost no opportunity hitherto of denouncing them. The trial had
by no means been so unfair as was represented, and the evidence
against most of the accused was very strong. Everyone sympathised
with Midhat Pasha, who was a great statesman and patriot, and it
would be a most unfortunate thing if the trial resulted in his
death. He doubted, however, if there was any danger of that. The
present Sultan was a most humane and kind‐hearted man—and neither
Midhat Pasha nor the other two Ministers who were condemned with
him were in danger of execution. He thought the question might be
safely left to the discretion of Her Majesty’s Government without
any formal expression of opinion by the House. It would be most
unfortunate if any representations were made on behalf of the other
condemned Ministers, Mahmoud Damad and Nouri Pashas, who were openly
corrupt, and were guilty of almost every possible offence against the
interests of their country and of civilisation. It would be a matter
of rejoicing if they could be brought to justice. It would be better
if representations were made diplomatically by the Government without
the direct interference of the House; and although the influence of
the British Government was much less than it used to be, he had no
doubt they would have due effect.
“Mr GLADSTONE—I do not know that much advantage would be gained
by a prolongation of the discussion. In answer to the appeals
made, especially by the honourable Member for Portsmouth (Sir H.
Drummond‐Wolff), I think I can state very briefly what is a very
simple matter—namely, the limits of action laid down for us, and
the fact that we have not scrupled to act within them. Those limits
were necessarily narrow. I was sorry to hear the honourable gentleman
who made this motion introduce statements of so pointed a character
respecting the individuals who have been called upon to conduct
the inquiry. He may be quite warranted in all he says; but it is
perfectly impossible that we can know that, and it is perfectly
impossible, in justice to those individuals, to go in this House into
the circumstances of which he speaks. If the trial be bad, an attempt
to re‐try the case in an Assembly of this kind, with the view to an
expression of opinion on the definitive merits of the case, would
likewise, be open to much objection.
“The real state of the case is this—Have we a right of intervention
in a matter of this kind? Clearly we have none. I use the words
‘right of intervention.’ But there are considerations of policy and
humanity which have, on various occasions, led to representations,
more or less formal, which are in the nature of interference
with private affairs, but which are grounded on a sincere and
dispassionate anxiety, in the first place, for the general
principles of humanity and justice, and, in the second place, for
the interests of the great Power in whose counsels you appear to
intervene. Unquestionably, though we have no power to pass a final
sentence on the nature of the proceedings in Constantinople, there
has been a public opinion in regard to these proceedings, both in
Constantinople and Europe generally, such as to make us believe that
it would be greatly for the interest of the Sultan of Turkey were
he moved to pursue a humane and liberal course. Recognising these
facts, we have not scrupled to act upon them. So early as 4th July
instructions were sent to Lord Dufferin to use the least obtrusive,
but, at the same time, the most confidential, direct and effective
means to make the kind of representations which we desired to be
made. Lord Dufferin has, I think, with as much tact and delicacy as
are in the possession of any man, and with, at the same time, as much
good feeling and zeal, acted readily upon these instructions, and
has, to the best of his power, made representations in the general
sense I have described. We have no doubt whatever that a lenient
and a considerate course will give satisfaction to the enlightened
opinion of Europe, and will be greatly for the interests and peace of
Turkey. Having said that, I think I had better add no more. I see no
advantage in implicating or attempting to pass judgment on anyone.
We have stood on the purely general consideration I have described;
and I believe the House will be disposed to think, on the general
statement I have made, that without any special merit on our part, we
have discharged our duty.
“Mr J. COWEN said he was sure the House had listened with
satisfaction to the humane and generous observations of the Prime
Minister. He trusted his hon. friend, the Member for Wicklow, having
elicited such an expression of opinion, would be content, and not
push his motion to a division. He entirely sympathised with him
in the course he had pursued. It was desirable that the British
Parliament should have an opportunity of recording its opinion of the
very exceptional proceedings under the name of law that had recently
taken place at Constantinople. Midhat Pasha was a distinguished
Turkish Pasha. He had served his country ably and honourably in the
highest offices the Sultan could confer. He had proved himself to
be a friend of England and of progressive principles. He (Mr Cowen)
had the privilege of his acquaintance, and he could confirm the
high character that the hon. Member for Wicklow had given him. He
recognised the delicacy of the position, and he could appreciate the
difficulties that the Premier had referred to. To interfere with the
action of the Turkish Courts, however they were constituted, might
be regarded as trenching upon the freedom of an independent State.
If representations were made in a too emphatic way, they might be
resented by the Sultan, and have the very opposite effect than was
designed. This was a possibility which they should all bear in mind,
and of which the Government, no doubt, were conscious. They should
remember also that it was impossible for the House to review the
proceedings of the Constantinople tribunal. They might have their
opinions; but they were not, and could not, be informed of all the
details. But still, admitting all this, the English Government had
on other occasions interceded with foreign rulers on behalf of
fallen statesmen or popular leaders. There were many instances in
history where there had been such friendly interference; and they
had, therefore, the warrant of precedent for doing what was now
suggested. He trusted that the Government would—with all the energy
that they felt themselves justified in using, but at the same time,
with the necessary friendliness—intercede on behalf of Midhat
Pasha. The Prime Minister had said that instructions to that effect
would be sent to Lord Dufferin, and the House and the country would
feel satisfied that any appeal by him would be supported by a man
of great ability, high character, and of generous spirit. Having
called attention to the subject and made this representation, he
would advise that the matter be allowed to rest in the hands of Her
Majesty’s Government.
“Mr M’COAN asked leave to withdraw the motion.”
_29th July 1881._—“Lord STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in rising to ask
the Government whether their influence at Constantinople is being
exercised to arrest proceedings in the case of Midhat Pasha, said he
hoped that in the absence—which he regretted—of the noble earl the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, some member of the Government
would be able to give an answer to his question. No doubt all the
members of the Government knew what answer to give, because the Prime
Minister really decided these matters, and his colleagues must be in
possession of his views. The fate of Midhat Pasha was a question in
which the people of this country took great interest. There was no
doubt that he had not had a fair trial, and obstacles were put in the
way of his defending himself. There was little doubt that Abdul Aziz
had put an end to his own life; and he thought that the public law of
Europe, about which so much had been said of late years, should be
put in motion on his behalf. It might be said that public law would
be an obstacle to exercising influence to arrest proceedings in the
case; but if that were so, public law had been set at nought by every
ambassador whom the Queen had employed at Constantinople recently.
“Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said he regretted the course which the
noble lord had taken as damaging to his consistency, since he usually
respected the law of nations; but now he asked the Government to do
something which was quite contrary to it. He was not only asking them
to obtain a commutation of the sentence passed on Midhat Pasha, but
to arrest proceedings. A month ago the noble lord intimated that the
Foreign Secretary had not the control of the Foreign Office, but that
the Prime Minister had; and the Prime Minister had stated in ‘another
place’ that this was a case in which the Government had no right
to interfere. The noble lord should have been satisfied with that
answer. When Midhat Pasha was Grand Vizier he was responsible for
what was going on at Constantinople; and after the time that Sultan
Abdul Aziz Khan’s death took place, he did not institute any enquiry
into any of the circumstances that had surrounded it. No doubt, it
was unfortunate that in the recent trial the Ottoman Government
had adopted European forms, and it would have been better if the
Turkish Government had followed their own forms of trial in this
case. However, he had no doubt that substantial justice had been done
to Midhat Pasha. The present question was, moreover, unnecessary,
because the sentence had already been commuted, and Midhat Pasha was
going into a healthy climate, where there need be no fear on account
of his health. Midhat Pasha was a good administrator in Bulgaria,
but he had been too much praised for what he had done, and, on the
whole, he was an ignorant, rather than a learned man. However, in
Midhat Pasha’s present situation, he would rather not make further
observations upon his administration of affairs. There was no ground
for any alarm in regard to the country to which he was banished.
“The Earl of KIMBERLEY said he was sorry that his noble friend the
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not present to answer the
question of the noble lord. As to the actual form of the question,
he agreed with his noble friend opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley)
that it would be an extraordinary interference on the part of one
Government to exercise its influence upon another, in order to arrest
proceedings which the latter had thought it necessary to take in
regard to an accusation against a subject of that Government. But
probably his noble friend desired to know what course had been taken
by Her Majesty’s Government in the whole matter; and what he had
to say was that in a question of so much delicacy, involving the
internal Government of the Porte, and touching the Sultan himself,
Her Majesty’s Government had not thought that it would be desirable
to exercise any direct advice or interference; but feeling, as they
did, an interest in this matter, they had been able, through Lord
Dufferin, in a perfectly private and unofficial manner, to express
their wish that it might be the pleasure of the Sultan to deal with
this matter in a merciful spirit. He was not in a position to state
that it had been officially notified that the sentence passed upon
the incriminated Pashas had been commuted; but he had good reason to
believe that the statement in the newspapers alluded to, that the
sentence had been commuted to banishment to Arabia, was true.”
The result of the humanitarian intervention on the part of the English
Government was that the death sentence on Midhat Pasha was changed to
one of imprisonment for life.
The Sultan Abdul Hamid knew far better than any one else that Midhat
was innocent, and that Abdul Aziz had committed suicide, as was fully
proved by the Medical report; if Abdul Hamid had had genuine proof on
which to accuse Midhat before the eyes of Europe and the law, nothing
could have prevented the death penalty from being executed, since he
had sworn to put an end to Midhat Pasha. Although the Sultan was thus
foiled in his attempt to put away Midhat by form of law, he did not
relinquish his intention, but sought other clandestine means to attain
it. How this was accomplished, will be proved by documents in the
following pages.