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
_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
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