The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murderAli Haydar Mithat
History
The life of Midhat Pasha; a record of his services, political reforms, banishment, and judicial murder
Ali Haydar Mithat
Midhat Paşa, 1822-1884; Statesmen -- Turkey -- Biography; Turkey -- History -- 19th century
He then conducted him on board the _Izzeddine_, which, with steam
already up, immediately weighed anchor and steamed off in the
direction of the Sea of Marmora with Midhat on board. The Captain of
the _Izzeddine_ had sealed orders, which he was only to open in the
Sea of Marmora. These orders were, that he should wait for twenty‐four
hours in the Bay of Tchekmedje, and if he received no telegram within
that space of time, he was to conduct Midhat to any European port on
the Mediterranean that the ex‐Grand Vizier might select. No despatch
arriving, he proceeded on his course to Brindisi, where he landed
Midhat.
That the forcible banishment of the Grand Vizier was a violation of
the letter as well as the spirit of the Constitution promulgated and
sworn to by the Sultan, has never been seriously denied. The “reason
of State” urged would obviously cover any act of arbitrary power
whatever. It was for the express purpose of putting an end to such an
arbitrary _régime_ that the Constitution was framed and insisted on.
The flimsy pretext put forward, that it was in accordance with the
113th Article of the Constitution, will not bear the most superficial
examination. The power therein conceded to the Sultan was in a rider
to a clause declaring a state of siege when the safety of the State
required it, and the purport and limits of the clause must necessarily
govern the subsidiary provisions of the clause itself. Not only could
a rider of this description not bear the interpretation sought to be
placed upon it, but other substantial clauses of the Constitution
directly forbade the exercise of any such arbitrary power, and provided
for the elementary right that no man should be punished except after
due trial. But further: clauses 31, 32, and 34 contained special and
minute provisions for the arrest and trial of Ministers guilty of
treason or malversation, so that both positively and negatively, in its
substantial provisions and in its omissions, the banishment of Midhat,
with its attendant circumstances, was as clear a violation of the
Constitution as the _coup d’état_ of the 2nd December 1852 in France.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account