The life of Midhat Pasha 36

The life of Midhat Pasha 36

“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.