Part 11 (1/2)

_Sir Stratford Canning to the Earl of Aberdeen_.--(_Received April_ 4.)

(Extract.) _Constantinople, March_ 14, 1844.

Since I had last the honour of addressing your Lords.h.i.+p the Turkish Ministers have been almost exclusively occupied with the great question which formed the subject matter of your Lords.h.i.+p's instruction of 16th January. The deferred settlement of this question is, indeed, a source of much inconvenience to all who have business to transact with the Porte. The affairs of Her Majesty's Emba.s.sy, and those of the French and even of the Austrian Legation, are almost suspended. I have, therefore, been doubly anxious to obtain the Porte's definitive answer; but notwithstanding every exertion consistent with the consideration due to an independent and friendly Government, I have only this moment succeeded in obtaining it; and I lament to say that it is so unsatisfactory as to induce me to reject it without a moment's hesitation.

In this decision the French Minister concurs with equal prompt.i.tude and completeness. I inclose herewith the terms of the answer, as reported to us by our respective interpreters. It was given verbally, but with some additional authority derived from the presence of the Grand Vizier and the President of the Council.

The 16th instant had been previously fixed for the delivery of the Porte's answer, and we were content to wait. This morning, however, I received through several channels a confirmation of intelligence which had reached me imperfectly the evening before, to the effect that an unfavourable resolution had already been adopted by the Council, and that the Turkish Ministers deferred the communication of it for the sole purpose of engaging the Sultan's word, and frustrating any eventual appeal to His Majesty. At the same time, therefore, that, in concurrence with the French Minister, I directed M. Pisani to demand an audience, if an immediate and satisfactory answer were not delivered at the Porte, I sent to the Grand Marshal of the Palace and called upon him to apprize the Sultan forthwith of my intention to seek a formal audience of His Majesty, and to entreat that the Royal decision might be withheld until I had an opportunity of executing your Lords.h.i.+p's instruction in that respect.

Meanwhile in spite of adverse appearances, I still retain the opinion expressed in a former part of my correspondence. The Porte, I am satisfied, is prepared to give way in the end, though with much reluctance. Nothing whatever has occurred to warrant the alarming rumours of popular excitement and insurrection diligently circulated, and even countenanced by Rifaat Pasha, some days ago. If my information be correct, there is reason, on the contrary, to believe that not only the Mussulman inhabitants of the capital are sufficiently indifferent to the question at issue, but that many of the upper cla.s.ses, some of the most distinguished Turkish statesmen, and a few even of the Ulemah are favourable to our view of the subject.

Inclosure in No. 34.

_Answer of Rifaat Pasha to M. Frederic Pisani, March_ 14, 1844.

La reponse de son Excellence Rifaat Pacha, dite verbalement et officiellement, se trouve dans une piece qui nous a ete presentee.

Cette piece etait un extrait d'une depeche a Aali Effendi et a Rechid Pacha. Nous avons refuse de la prendre parcequ'elle n'est pas satisfaisante. Elle est concue ainsi: ”Comme la loi ne permet nullement de changer les dispositions a l'egard de la punition des apostats, la Sublime Porte prendra des mesures efficaces, les mesures possibles, pour que l'execution des Chretiens qui, devenus Musulmans, retournent au Christianisme, n'ait pas lieu.”

(Translation.)

The answer of his Excellency Rifaat Pasha, verbally and officially p.r.o.nounced, is contained in a doc.u.ment which was presented to us.

This doc.u.ment was an extract from a despatch to Aali Effendi and to Res.h.i.+d Pasha. We refused to take it, because it is not satisfactory.

It is couched in these terms: ”As the law does not admit of any change being made in the enactments regarding the punishment of apostates, the Sublime Porte will take efficacious measures, the measures which are possible, in order that the execution of Christians who, having become Mussulmans, return to Christianity, shall not take place.”

No. 35.

_The Earl of Aberdeen to Sir Stratford Canning_.

(Extract.) _Foreign Office, April_ 6, 1844.

The latest account which I have received from your Excellency of your proceedings with regard to the question pending with the Porte, arising out of the execution of the Greek near Brussa on the charge of apostacy from Islamism, is contained in your despatch of the 14th of March. From that despatch it appears that, in conjunction with your French colleague, you had rejected as unsatisfactory the communication made to your dragomans on that day by the Ministers of the Porte, and that you were taking measures to secure an audience of the Sultan, in the event of your failing to obtain from the Porte without further delay, a more satisfactory reply.

On the statements in that despatch I have to acquaint your Excellency that Her Majesty's Government concur with you in considering that the communication made to you through your dragoman on the 14th of March, was not of that absolute and unequivocal character which you were instructed in my despatch of the 16th of January to require from the Porte; and that you consequently acted rightly in refusing to receive it, and in taking steps to obtain either a more satisfactory communication from the Ministers of the Porte, or admission to the presence of the Sultan for the purpose of addressing to His Highness in person that appeal which you were directed in case of necessity to make to him.

With regard, however, to the nature of the communication which Her Majesty's Government would consider satisfactory, I have to state to your Excellency that Her Majesty's Government are content to abide by the terms which, it appears from your despatch of the 6th of March, were suggested to Rifaat Pasha on the preceding day by your Excellency and M. de Bourqueney, namely, that the Porte should make ”an official declaration that effectual measures would be taken to prevent the recurrence of executions for apostacy,” or, as the proposition has been reported by M. de Bourqueney to his Government, ”that the Porte will take effectual measures to prevent the renewal of executions similar to those which have recently taken place at Constantinople and Biligik.”

With such a declaration, officially made, Her Majesty's Government would be perfectly satisfied, even without the additional clause reported by your Excellency, which appears to them to be unnecessary.