The life of Midhat Pasha 39

The life of Midhat Pasha 39

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.