CHAPTER XI

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.