The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murder

by Ali Haydar Mithat

“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.