CHAP. I.] REJECTION OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE.

33

Is Christian evidence admitted in Courts of Justice? and if not, point out the cases where it has been refused."

Observe the sophism which lurks in the adroit form in which this question is worded. It might be answered with perfect truth that Christian evidence was hardly ever refused in Turkish Courts of Justice; and one or two of the Consuls fell into the trap and gave the sort of answer which the question so clearly suggested. Yet an answer of this kind would be an entire perversion of the truth; and the Consul whose report is first on the list, Consul Abbott, detected the fallacy and exposed it within the short compass of four lines of print. His answer is as follows:

It is admitted at the Tahkik Medjlis (Court of Inquiry). There Christian witnesses are sworn, whereas Mussulmans are not. I cannot point out cases where it has been refused at the other Courts, as, it being considered an established rule not to admit Christian evidence, a Christian has never dared present in a suit one of his co-religionists to give his testimony.' 2

Thus we see that a Christian's evidence is not admitted at all except in the preliminary Court of Inquiry; and even there, let me add, it is only admitted when a foreign Consul happens to be in the place. Moreover, the Christian is put upon his oath, and the Mussulman is not. This is a sample of the way in which a perfectly truthful, yet an entirely false, account may be given by casual travellers of the real condition of things in Turkey. The traveller has an introduction to some official, who takes him to see a trial going on in a Tahkik Medjlis. He sees the Christian and the Turk each producing his witnesses; and, not understanding

Turkish, he is not aware that the Christian is sworn while the Turk is not. The Turk gets one or more of the group of Mussulmans who hang about the Courts to sell their evidence to the highest bidder of their own faith, and the judge decides in his favour. The Christian cannot appeal; for his evidence is not received at all in the superior Courts. If the judge sees that a Frank is present, he will probably decide in favour of the Christian, in order to make an exhibition of his fairness. But the latter is in no better plight for that, because the Turk will appeal to a Court where the Christian, from his disability in the matter of evidence, has no locus standi. The traveller comes home and writes an indignant letter to the newspapers, denouncing the scandalous libels propagated against these honest and truthful Turks; for did he not see with his own eyes a Christian's evidence received in Court, and on the strength of that evidence the case decided in his favour? I have read a good deal of this sort of thing during the past six months.

Lest, however, the experience of Consul Abbott should be considered singular, it may be well to support it with some additional testimony. Consul Abbott's Report is dated from Monastir.

Consul Finn,1 writing from Jerusalem, answers as follows:

In the Mehkemeh or Cadi's Court non-Mussulman evidence is always refused. In the various Medjlises some subterfuge is always sought for declining to receive non-Mussulman evidence against a Mussulman, or recording it under the technical name of witness. These Courts and the Pashas will rather condemn at once a Mussulman in favour of a Christian

1 P. 27.

CHAP I.] REJECTION OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE.

35

without recording testimony, than accept non-Mussulman evidence. Evidence of Christian against Christian or Jew, or vice versa, i.e., non-Moslem against nonMoslem, is always received.'

Vice-Consul Blunt,' writing from Pristina, says :'Christian evidence in lawsuits between a Mussulman and a non-Mussulman is not admitted in the Local Courts.'

2

'It is not admitted,' says Consul Skene, writing from Aleppo; and the attempt is never made to obtain its admission.'

In cases between Christians, yes,' says Major Cox from Bulgaria; but in cases between Christians and Mahometans, no.' 3

So far the testimony of her Majesty's Consuls in 1860. Let us take a leap of seven years, and see whether there is any improvement. The following evidence is from the Consular Reports of 1867 on 'The Condition of Christians in Turkey.'

Sir R. Dalzell, writing from Rustchuk, notes, as one of the principal grievances at present complained of,'' the non-admission of Christian evidence,'' notwithstanding the repeated assurances given to me by Midhat Pasha,' who was at the time Governor-General of the district. And then he gives the following illustration in a note: As to the manner in which Christian evidence is got rid of, &c. A Kaimakam, Mudir, &c., refuses to hear a Christian offering evidence; he then makes his Medjlis (Council) put their seals to a mazbata (procès-verbal), stating that the accused was discharged, there being no ipsat (proof): the fact being, not that there is no evidence, but that there is no Mussulman evidence. The Governor-General rests satisfied á P. 58.

1 P. 35.

2 P. 50.

with the mazbata as he receives it; and if the matter is inquired about, the mazbata, approved by the GovernorGeneral, is produced by the Porte to show that the proceedings were perfectly regular At Kustendji an Englishman was lately murderously assaulted by a Turk the case is under investigation. The Vice-Consul informs me that the Mudir offered difficulties to the admission of Christian evidence. The Vice-Consul then required the Mudir to state in writing that he declined to receive the Christian evidence. This the Mudir very naturally was afraid to do, and admitted the evidence. Had the complainant been a Rayah, the evidence would not have been put in.' 1

Vice-Consul Sankey, of Kustendji, says:—

In a court of justice, when a Turk is plaintiff or defendant, Christian testimony is not received, and a Rayah, although able to produce fifty witnesses, has to pay two Turks to bear witness for him; and this is of daily occurrence.'

2

Consul Wilkinson, of Salonica, says :

The chief grievance of the Christians, the nonadmission of their testimony before the civil tribunals, has been only nominally removed; for in the mixed courts established since the promulgation of the Hattihumayoun, the proportion of Christians to Mussulmans is so small as to place the decisions virtually altogether in the hands of the latter. It is besides in the power of the Cadi, who sits in those courts as one of the judges, either to reject the evidence of Christian witnesses by evoking the Sher'eat or religious law, or refer the case in dispute to the Mehkemé, a tribunal which is under the jurisdiction of the Sheik-ul-Islam, where Christian evidence is not admitted, and in which the Cadi is sole

judge.'s 1 P. 1.

2 P. 3.

3 P. 5.

CHAP. I.] REJECTION OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE.

Vice-Consul Maling, of Cavalla, says :

37

The great test of the equality of Christian and Mussulman before the law, the admission of Christian evidence, signally fails before the experience of the last ten years. Christian evidence is utterly rejected in the lower criminal courts, and only received in the higher when corroborated by a Mussulman. But as virtually the Spiritual Courts are paramount and leave no jurisdiction to the others, Christian testimony is practically ignored altogether, as the Spiritual Courts will take no notice of it. . . A Mussulman's simple A Mussulman's simple allegation, unbacked by evidence or even by his oath, will upset the best founded and most incontrovertible claim. The nearest Court of Appeal being 180 miles away, the Christian is, of necessity, in most cases a helpless sufferer.' 1

'The rejection of Christians' evidence is one of their fundamental rules,' says Vice-Consul Sandwith in his description of the Courts of Cyprus.' 2

Consul Sandison, writing from Broussa, says :-

'In fact, when a Rayah prefers a criminal suit against a Mussulman, he is required by the Criminal Court to support it by Mussulman witnesses, who, if there were any such present when the offence was committed, will rarely or never appear against one of their own creed in favour of a Christian. Such requirement of Mussulman evidence is, however, in direct contravention of the rules prescribed to the Court in conformity with the Hatti-humayoun, subversive of the principles on which it was established, and of the ends for which it was adopted. Christian subjects are thus virtually debarred of those rights to justice accorded to them by the Imperial Edict, and the infringement of