Correspondence Relating to Executions in Turkey for Apostacy from Islamism

I am, &c.,

* A similar despatch was addressed on the 20th January to Sir Robert

Gordon and the Earl of Westmorland.

(Signed) ABERDEEN.

No. 20

Lord Cowley to the Earl of Aberdeen.—(Received January 22.)

My Lord, Paris, January 19, 1844.

With reference to your Lordship's despatches of the 16th instant on the subject of the execution of a Greek for returning to Christianity after having embraced Islamism, I have the honour to report that I had yesterday evening an interview with M. Guizot, when I communicated to him the contents of those despatches, and also of your Lordship's instructions to Sir Stratford Canning in consequence of the aforesaid transaction; and I have now the honour to inclose a copy of the despatch which, conformably to your Lordship's instructions, I have addressed to Sir Stratford Canning informing him of what passed upon this subject between M. Guizot and me.

My despatch was forwarded last night to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and will reach Marseilles in time to go by the steam-vessel which sails from that port on the 21st.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) COWLEY.

Inclosure in No. 20.

Lord Cowley to Sir Stratford Canning.

Sir, Paris, January 18, 1844.

I have received instructions from Lord Aberdeen to communicate to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs your Excellency's despatches to his Lordship respecting the execution of a Greek near Brussa who had apostatized from Islamism, as also his instructions to your Excellency, under date the 16th instant, in consequence of that transaction. I am also desired to take the earliest opportunity of acquainting you with what may have passed between M. Guizot and me after this communication.

I had this evening a conference with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when I communicated to him the contents of your despatches upon this subject, and also Lord Aberdeen's instructions to you of the 16th instant, and I am happy to be enabled to state that M. Guizot expressed his entire approbation of those instructions.

He also assured me that he had signified to M. de Bourqueney, in terms not less strong than those used by Lord Aberdeen in his instructions to you, the indignation and disgust of the French Government at this transaction, affording as it did a painful testimony of the total disregard of the Porte to the remonstrances of the Allies upon a previous act of a similar kind.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs then assured me that he had directed M. de Bourqueney to consult with your Excellency as to the best manner of carrying into effect the instructions of the two Governments. The Representatives of France at St. Petersburgh, Vienna, and Berlin, have likewise been directed to bring the subject under the consideration of those Courts; but M. Guizot inclines to the opinion that a separate, rather than joint, representation to the Turkish Government would be advisable. He trusts, however, that the British and French Plenipotentiaries will act in concert upon this occasion, as they have done successfully in every other transaction at Constantinople in which the Allies have taken any interest.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) COWLEY.

No. 21

The Earl of Westmorland to the Earl of Aberdeen.—(Received January 30.)

My Lord, Berlin, January 24, 1844.

In compliance with the directions contained in your Lordship's despatch of the 20th instant, I have communicated to Baron Bülow your instructions to Sir Stratford Canning relative to the late execution of a Greek at Brussa. Baron Bülow gave me an instruction to read addressed to M. de Le Coq, which was dated only two days later than your Lordship's, and which expressed in strong terms his reprobation of the conduct of the Turkish Government upon this occasion. Baron Bülow felt the greatest satisfaction at the statements made by your Lordship, and determined to write again to M. Le Coq directing him to act in accordance with them. He hopes that by conduct and language so energetic as that adopted by your Lordship an impression may be made upon the Turkish Government, and an end be put to the barbarous cruelties of which it has of late been guilty.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) WESTMORLAND.

No. 22

Sir Robert Gordon to the Earl of Aberdeen.—(Received February 24.)

(Extract.) Vienna, February 16, 1844.

In compliance with your Lordship's instructions, I have communicated to Prince Metternich, for the information of the Austrian Government, your despatch to Sir Stratford Canning relating to the execution of the Greek renegade by the Turkish authorities at Brussa on the ground of his apostacy from Islamism.

Whilst I stated to his Highness that my Government did not think it necessary formally to solicit the co-operation of the Internuncio in a matter which could only be viewed by every Government in Europe with the greatest abhorrence, I have been anxious to ascertain in how far the instructions which are forwarded from hence would be made to coincide with your Lordship's; and I have now to state that, although agreeing in the principle upon which have been founded the remonstrances of Her Majesty's Government, and seeking to arrive at the same result, the Austrian Minister has nevertheless a decided objection to the wording of your Lordship's instructions, and the peremptory terms in which it is endeavoured by them to enforce the Sultan's compliance.

No. 23

Lord Stuart de Rothsay to the Earl of Aberdeen.—(Received February 24.)

(Extract.) St. Petersburgh, February 6, 1844.

In obedience to the orders contained in your Lordship's despatch of the 16th January, I have communicated to Count Nesselrode a copy of your instructions to Sir Stratford Canning upon the subject of a Greek who had been executed near Brussa as an apostate from Islamism.

I did so without alluding to the wish of Her Majesty's Government that the Russian Minister at Constantinople might be furnished with instructions on the subject. The Vice-Chancellor, nevertheless, said that he should consider attentively the communication I had made, and see how far it might be useful to adopt a similar course, adding, that although he quite participated in the feelings which actuated Her Majesty's Government, he thought that other means might be tried which would be more efficacious in attaining our common object. He afterwards remarked that through the instrumentality of some of the Russian Consular Agents Pashas had not unfrequently been persuaded, in an unofficial manner, to facilitate the removal from their Government of Greeks and others who had rendered themselves liable to capital punishment for apostacy; and he gave me to understand that he was of opinion that greater security to Christians would be obtained by the exercise of the individual influence of foreign agents, than by seeking an alteration in the fundamental laws of the Turkish Empire, such as appeared to be the object of Her Majesty's Government.

Count Nesselrode appears disposed to instruct M. Titow to give his general support to Her Majesty's Ambassador.

No. 24

Sir Stratford Canning to the Earl of Aberdeen.—(Received March 8.)

(Extract.) Constantinople, February 10, 1844.

On the 5th instant I received your Lordship's instructions of the 16th ultimo, relating to the execution of a Greek near Brussa for relapsing from Islamism, and directing me to require of the Porte an unequivocal renunciation of the principle involved in that barbarous act. I received at the same time, from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris a despatch informing me that he had communicated those instructions to M. Guizot, and was authorized by him to express that Minister's approbation of their contents, and his intention of ordering M. de Bourqueney to concur with me for the attainment of the object to which they were directed.

I proceeded at once to execute the commands of Her Majesty's Government. To the French Minister I read your Lordship's first instruction, and also Lord Cowley's despatch. He returned my confidence by putting me in possession of M. Guizot's instructions to him of the 13th ultimo, and by expressing his readiness to act in concert with me for the accomplishment of our common purpose. To Rifaat Pasha I communicated a copy, together with an exact translation, of your Lordship's first instruction. I waited upon his Excellency by appointment for this object on the 9th instant, having apprized the Russian, Austrian, and Prussian Ministers of my intention the day before.

The Ottoman Minister for Foreign Affairs read, in my presence, the whole of your Lordship's instruction translated into Turkish. Having finished it, he rose from his seat rather abruptly, without saying a word, and left the room for a few minutes. On his return, he told me that the subject was too important for him to give me an answer without referring to the Council; but, if I were inclined to listen, he would at once impart to me such observations as occurred to his mind. I assured him that I was willing to receive with becoming consideration whatever he thought proper to state; and he then proceeded to draw a strong line of distinction between custom and divine law, intimating that a practice derived from the former source might be abandoned to meet the wishes of Europe, or even of Great Britain alone, but that a law, prescribed by God himself, was not to be set aside by any human power; and that the Sultan in attempting it might be exposed to a heavy, perhaps even to a dangerous, responsibility. He sought to learn from me whether your Lordship had been fully aware of this view of the case in writing the instruction communicated to him; and it seemed to be his object both to prepare me for an unsatisfactory answer, and to obtain from me some admission which might give him an advantage in shaping the decision of the Council.

I had already, in presenting the instruction, endeavoured to make it clearly understood, that Her Majesty's Government had no object in view but the one so distinctly and powerfully stated therein; and also to show how imperiously the welfare of the Porte itself requires that a practice and principle which operate as moral barriers between Turkey and Christendom, should now be once for all renounced and utterly abandoned. I had every reason to believe that your Lordship had instructed me with a full knowledge of the question in all its bearings and eventual consequences; that the course deliberately adopted by Her Majesty's Government, and announced to the principal Courts of Europe previously united in reprobation of the late impolitic and atrocious executions, was not to be receded from; and that any opening to a compromise on so vital a point could only encourage resistance and endanger the most important interests. I, therefore, rested entirely on the terms of your Lordship's instruction, to which, in truth, there was nothing for me to add.

Although I replied to some of Rifaat Pasha's remarks in a considerate and conciliatory manner, I referred him steadily to your Lordship's instructions, and left no reason to hope that any evasive or temporizing assurance would be accepted as satisfactory by Her Majesty's Government.

No. 25

Sir Stratford Canning to the Earl of Aberdeen.—(Received March 8.)

My Lord, Constantinople, February 12, 1844.

The interview which I had on the 9th instant with Rifaat Pasha was followed yesterday by one of a similar character between that Minister and the French Representative. M. de Bourqueney obligingly called upon me as soon as he returned from the Pasha's house; and his report of the conference presented in substance a counterpart of what had before passed between his Excellency and myself. He stated that he had given in a paper composed of the strongest passages from M. Guizot's instruction to him of the 13th ultimo; that he had found in Rifaat Pasha's remarks the same indication of resistance on the ground of religion which I had experienced; that in reprobating the executions complained of, and urging the abandonment of so barbarous a law for the future, he had placed himself as nearly as possible on the same ground with me, and that he had carefully avoided any premature discussion of the form of declaration by which the Porte would probably, in the end, attempt to satisfy the remonstrating Governments without a surrender of the principle, or more than a virtual suspension of the practice.

Notwithstanding the want of any instruction from M. Guizot, subsequent to Lord Cowley's communication to that Minister, Baron de Bourqueney found himself sufficiently authorized by the instruction of the 13th to give me his cordial and unqualified support.

Agreeably to M. Guizot's suggestion, as conveyed to me in Lord Cowley's despatch, we have acted separately in form, though concurrently in substance.

I have, &c.,

(Signed) STRATFORD CANNING.

No. 26

The Earl of Aberdeen to Sir Stratford Canning.

Sir, Foreign Office, March 19, 1844.

I have received your Excellency's despatch of the 10th of February, giving an account of the manner in which you had executed the instruction of the 16th of January, which I addressed to your Excellency on receiving your report of the execution of a Greek near Brussa on the ground of his having renounced his profession of Islamism and returned to Christianity.

I have to acquaint you that Her Majesty's Government entirely approve of your having rested your communication to the Turkish Minister on the terms of my instruction, and of your having steadily referred his Excellency to that document, while replying in a considerate and conciliatory manner to the remarks which he addressed to you.

Nothing, indeed, can be further from the wish of Her Majesty's Government than that a communication which they have been compelled by a strong sense of duty, and, I may add, by a sincere regard for the welfare of Turkey, to make to the Porte, should be rendered more unpalatable than from its nature it was likely to be, by being conveyed in harsh or dictatorial terms; and they wish, if the question is still under discussion when this despatch reaches your Excellency's hands, that you should constantly bear in mind, that Her Majesty's Government, although they propose to abide by the general tenour of the communication which you have been directed to make to the Porte, have no desire, and would deeply regret, that the acquiescence of the Porte in the demand which they have addressed to it, should be attended with unnecessary pain to the feelings of the Turkish Government.

Her Majesty's Government are persuaded that if the Ministers of the Porte will dispassionately consider what has been desired of them, they will find that, without any real sacrifice of national or religious opinion, they may place themselves in harmony with the wishes and the feelings of the Christian Powers. Her Majesty's Government have not urged, and do not propose to urge, them to abrogate any law, divine or human, but merely to revert to the system which Her Majesty's Government believe to have been for some time past constantly acted upon, and to allow the law to remain practically dormant, and thus silently withdraw from a practice which cannot be enforced without rousing the feelings of Christendom, and rendering it impossible for the Turkish Government to retain the good-will of Christian Powers.

The Ministers of the Porte cannot, on calm reflection, suppose that if they deliberately deprive their Government of the moral or physical support of Christendom, the Turkish Empire can long be preserved from the destruction with which, from numerous causes, it is continually menaced; neither can they believe that, although the sentiments of the various Powers of Europe on the question to which the revival of an obsolete practice has now unfortunately given rise, may be conveyed to the Porte in terms more or less decided, there is any real and essential difference between the expectations and the intentions of all. All must yield to public opinion universally expressed; and the Porte may rest assured that Christian States will, with one accord, refuse to tolerate any longer a practice which, both in the principle on which it rests and the manner in which it is carried into execution, is designed to stigmatize the faith which they profess and cherish.

I am, &c.,

(Signed) ABERDEEN.

No. 27

Count Nesselrode to M. de Titow.—(Communicated by Baron Brunnow to the Earl of Aberdeen, March 19.)

St. Pétersbourg, le 15/27 Février, 1844.

Je n'ai pas manqué de prendre les ordres de l'Empereur sur le contenu de votre rapport No. 10, du 21 Janvier/2 Février, par lequel vous nous avez rendu compte de la fâcheuse impression que la nouvelle exécution religieuse qui a eu lieu à Biligik a produite à Constantinople.

Sa Majesté a voué une attention sérieuse aux diverses considérations que vous nous avez exposées pour décider du plus ou moins d'opportunité qu'il y aurait pour les Puissances de l'Europe en général, et pour la Russie en particulier, à protester contre des actes de cruauté incompatibles avec les principes d'humanité dont la Porte devrait se montrer pénétrée à l'égard de ses sujets Chrétiens. D'une part, nous avons reconnu la difficutté, pour ne pas dire l'impossibilité, de découvrir le moyen propre pour paralyser d'une manière définitive les effets de la loi du Coran qui concerne les apostasies; d'autre part, nous ne saurions ne pas élever la voix, lorsqu'il s'agit de l'application de la peine de mort à des individus qui, en embrassant le Christianisme, ou en retournant dans le sein de l'Eglise, invoquent notre protection, et nous imposent le devoir de les soustraire aux rigueurs d'une législation barbare.

Dans un tel état de choses, l'opinion que vous a communiquée M. le Comte de Stürmer, nous a paru celle qui offre le plus de chances de succès. Cette opinion est d'ailleurs conforme aux vues que j'ai été dans le cas de vous développer sur la même matière dans une occasion précédente. Il est donc de l'intention de l'Empereur que vous déclariez à la Porte Ottomane, sous la forme d'un conseil bienveillant, que nous nous attendons positivement à ne plus voir se renouveler des exécutions qui soulèvent contre elle l'indignation de toute la Chrétienté. C'est dans son propre intérêt que nous lui adressons cette demande. La Porte ne doit pas se faire illusion sur les élémens qui fermentent en Turquie. Au lieu de s'aliéner les sentimens des populations Chrétiennes, le Gouvernement Ottoman doit travailler plus que jamais, à se les concilier. Qu'il comprenne enfin la nécessité de laisser tomber en désuétude des dispositions surannées de la loi Mahométane, qui ne peuvent être maintenues qu'au mépris des représentations unanimes de toutes les Puissances. Tel serait à peu près le langage que vous auriez à tenir, Monsieur, à la Porte Ottomane, de concert avec les autres Représentans, et nous espérons qu'en la rappelant ainsi à la conscience de ses devoirs et de ses intérêts réels, nous l'empêcherons de retomber dans la voie vicieuse qu'elle a suivie en dernier lieu.

Recevez, &c.,

(Signé) NESSELRODE.

(Translation.)

St. Petersburgh, 15/27 February, 1844.

I have not failed to take the orders of the Emperor upon the contents of your despatch No. 10, of the 21 January/2 February, in which you have reported the painful impression which the fresh religious execution which has taken place at Biligik has produced at Constantinople.

His Majesty has given his serious attention to the various considerations which you have laid before us in order to determine the greater or less degree of propriety there would be in the principal Powers of Europe generally, and in Russia particularly, protesting against acts of cruelty incompatible with the principles of humanity with which the Porte should show itself animated as regards its Christian subjects. On the one hand, we have perceived the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of discovering the suitable means of definitively paralyzing the effects of the law of the Koran relating to apostacy; on the other hand, we cannot but raise our voice when it is a question of inflicting the penalty of death upon individuals who, in embracing Christianity, or in returning into the bosom of the Church, appeal to our protection, and impose upon us the duty of withdrawing them from the rigours of a barbarous legislation.

In such a state of things the opinion which M. de Stürmer has communicated to you, has appeared to us to be that which offers the greatest chance of success. This opinion is, moreover, in conformity with the views which I have had occasion to explain to you on the same subject on a former occasion. It is then the Emperor's intention that you should declare to the Ottoman Porte, in the form of friendly counsel, that we positively expect no longer to witness executions which array against it the indignation of all Christendom. It is with a view to its own interest that we address to it this demand. The Porte must not delude itself with regard to the elements now in a state of fermentation in Turkey. Instead of alienating from itself the feelings of the Christian population, the Ottoman Government ought more than ever to labour to conciliate them to itself. Let it comprehend, in fine, the necessity of allowing to become obsolete antiquated enactments of the Mahomedan law, which cannot be upheld but in disregard of the unanimous representations of all the Powers. Such should be the purport of the language which, Sir, you should hold to the Ottoman Porte, in concert with the other Representatives; and we trust that in thus recalling it to a sense of its duties and real interests, we shall prevent it from again falling into the vicious system which it has recently followed.

Receive, &c.,

(Signed) NESSELRODE.

No. 28

Lord Cowley to the Earl of Aberdeen.—(Received March 21.)

(Extract.) Paris, March 18, 1844.

With reference to the representations made to the Ottoman Government by the French and English Representatives at Constantinople on the subject of the execution of a Greek near Brussa, as reported in Sir Stratford Canning's despatches of the 10th and 12th February, I have the honour to state that M. Guizot has communicated to me the substance of what passed at a conference which he has had within these few days with Reshid Pasha upon that subject.

The Pasha said that he was instructed to express in strong terms the concern of the Sultan at this interference of the Allied Sovereigns (of Great Britain and France in particular) in the internal concerns of his empire; that a compliance with these demands might be attended with very serious consequences to himself and his Government; and that he (the Pasha) was instructed to express the fervent hope of his Master, that they would not be persisted in.

M. Guizot replied that the French and British Governments never could desist from expressing their abhorrence of such atrocious acts of cruelty as had been perpetrated upon the late occasion, and which had given rise to a renewal of the requisition that the practice should be entirely abandoned, and that they confidently expected that their representations would have the desired effect upon the Ottoman Government.

No. 29

The Earl of Aberdeen to Lord Cowley.

(Extract.) Foreign Office, March 22, 1844.

I transmit to your Excellency herewith a copy of an instruction which I addressed on the 19th instant to Sir Stratford Canning, in reply to his Excellency's despatch of the 10th of February last relative to the execution of the Greek near Brussa, a copy of which was forwarded to your Excellency on the 15th instant.

You will lose no time in communicating this instruction to M. Guizot and you will at the same time, suggest to him the propriety of instructing the French Minister at the Porte to make it perfectly clear to the Turkish Government, that neither Great Britain nor France demand the abrogation of any law of the Turkish Empire; and that all that we desire is an assurance that the practice which has so justly called forth the reprobation of all Christian countries, shall cease, by the law being suffered to remain, as it had long been, dormant.