The life of Midhat Pasha 40

The life of Midhat Pasha 40

“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.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER XII

 

EXILE OF MIDHAT PASHA

 

 

The Sultan, yielding to the humane intervention of England and Europe,

named the town of Taïf, in Arabia, as the place of exile for Midhat

Pasha. Taïf is a town situated to the south of Mecca, and is renowned

for its verdure and for its surrounding fortress. Midhat Pasha, Damad

Mahmoud Djelaleddin and Nouri Pashas, with the other prisoners, were

taken by a special steamer and landed at Djeddah, and reached Taïf by

way of Mecca. The Sheik‐ul‐Islam, Haïroullah Effendi, who had been on a

pilgrimage to Mecca when he was accused of being an accomplice in the

alleged murder of Abdul Aziz, had been imprisoned at Taïf, where Midhat

found him on his arrival.

 

After the banishment of Midhat, his family were detained in exile

in Smyrna, and his son and daughter sought refuge from any possible

contingency at the British Consulate, where they remained for three

months, returning to their mother when the storm of these events had

passed. Two years after his exile, Midhat sent his family the most

alarming information in his letters, of which we give a translation.

These letters were carried to Smyrna by men who were the devoted

friends of the family, and who made the journey for that express purpose.