It will be remembered that, in the autumn of 1833, both France and Great Britain ineffectually protested against the treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi. But so long as Russia and Austria were closely united, neither Palmerston nor Broglie were prepared to enforce their demands by actual measures of hostility. Both, however, were resolved vigilantly to watch the course of events at Constantinople, and to interpose should the Russian fleet return to the Bosphorus. Being thus anxious to avoid a collision with Russia, it became their policy to prevent a fresh outbreak of hostilities between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali, in order that the Tsar should be furnished with no excuse for intervention. It was soon apparent, however, that the preservation of peace between Mahmud and his powerful vassal would prove a difficult matter. Already, in the summer of 1834, only a little more than a year after the conclusion of the Convention of Kiutayeh, there was once more grave danger of an armed conflict between the Sultan and the Pasha of Egypt.

In 1832, the Syrians had welcomed Ibrahim as their deliverer from Turkish misrule. But no sooner had they become the subjects of the Pasha, than their disenchantment began. The introduction of the conscription into Syria was fiercely resented. In the spring of 1834, the whole country was in a state of rebellion, and it required sixteen months of arduous operations, attended with much bloodshed, before Ibrahim could disarm the tribes, and restore the authority of his father over the revolted districts.[424] But in the eyes of the Sultan, the insurrection was an opportunity for attacking Ibrahim under favourable conditions, and for wiping out the humiliations of the former campaign. Accordingly, he prepared to renew the struggle, and it was only in deference to the protests of the Powers that he refrained from carrying out his intention.[425] At the same time the consuls at Alexandria insisted that Mehemet Ali must strictly comply with the conditions of the Convention of Kiutayeh, and afford Mahmud no pretext for beginning hostilities. Nevertheless, on September 4, 1834, the Pasha officially informed the agents of the Powers that he was resolved to proclaim his complete independence.[426] He soon, however, perceived the necessity of postponing the execution of this design, in face of the unanimous declaration of the different Cabinets that he must abandon “a project which the policy of Europe could not allow him to realize.”[427]

But, although the five Powers thus combined to check the ambitious schemes of Mehemet Ali, the suspicion with which the policy of Russia towards Turkey was regarded by France and England was in no way diminished. So strained were the relations of Great Britain and Russia, at the beginning of 1834, that Nicholas, notwithstanding his inveterate dislike of Louis Philippe, allowed Nesselrode to make certain discreet advances towards France. These half-hearted overtures, however, led to no results. Although Broglie indulged in less provocative language than the British minister, and deprecated the idea of another naval demonstration in Levantine waters, he was in complete agreement with Palmerston in the eastern question.[428] A personal dispute served to increase the tension which existed between the Imperial Cabinet and the English government. Notwithstanding Prince Lieven’s intimation that the Tsar would greatly dislike the appointment,[429] Palmerston had allowed Sir Stratford Canning to be gazetted as ambassador to the Russian Court. Nesselrode, thereupon, informed Mr. Bligh, the British chargÉ d’affaires, that Sir Stratford would not be received. His “suspicious, overbearing and irritable disposition” appears to have been the reason assigned for the objections which were made to his appointment. Palmerston, however, absolutely refused to send any one else in his place. “The whole thing,” he believed or affected to believe, “was a mere remnant of the Apostolical and Holy Alliance abomination of the name of Canning.”[430] But Nesselrode was equally unyielding and no British ambassador was, in consequence, accredited to the Russian Court. Matters continued upon this footing until Nicholas, in the spring of 1834, decided to recall Prince Lieven from London and merely to appoint a chargÉ d’affaires to replace him. The departure of the Lievens created a great sensation, and was by many people regarded as a prelude to a complete rupture between Russia and Great Britain. The ambassador was a commonplace person, but his wife[431] was a conspicuous figure in the fashionable and political world. Besides being well acquainted with most of the prominent diplomatists in Europe, she had, during her long stay in England, enjoyed the confidence of Grey, Aberdeen and other statesmen. It may be imagined how bitterly she deplored the necessity of exchanging a life, replete with political interest in London, for an existence at the Court of St. Petersburg, bereft of all the excitement in which she delighted. It was to her influence, she considered, that Palmerston owed his appointment as Foreign Secretary, and she never forgave him for his share in the events which led up to her husband’s recall.[432]

Whilst the Duke of Wellington was at the Foreign Office, during Sir Robert Peel’s “Hundred Days,”Anglo-Russian relations perceptibly improved. The Duke’s views upon the question of the Dardanelles differed from those which Broglie and Palmerston had hitherto entertained. In his opinion England and France should endeavour to effect the closure of the straits to the warships of all nations. The evil arising from the passage of Russian ships from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean would not, he maintained, be diminished by the opening of the Dardanelles to the fleets of the Powers. Accordingly, he cancelled Palmerston’s secret instructions of March 10, 1834,[433] authorizing Ponsonby, should the Porte ask for assistance against Russia, to call upon the Mediterranean squadron to enter the Dardanelles. Moreover, apart from this particular question, it was not fitting, in the eyes of the Duke, that “the King’s ambassador should have the power of placing the country in a state of war with another Power.”[434] Wellington also proposed to restore the diplomatic relations of the two countries to their normal condition by the despatch of an ambassador to St. Petersburg. But his selection of Lord Londonderry for this post was disapproved of by the House of Commons. Londonderry was an ultra-Tory who was supposed to have used unsympathetic language about the Polish insurrection, and, had he not voluntarily declined the mission, the government would certainly have suffered a defeat upon the question of his appointment.[435]

Palmerston, upon his return to the Foreign Office in the spring of 1835, was struck by the soundness of the Duke’s opinion upon the subject of the Dardanelles.[436] Ponsonby was, in consequence, given no further authority over the movements of the Mediterranean squadron. No man at this time was more absolutely persuaded of the Machiavellian character of Russian policy than Lord Ponsonby. Neither words nor deeds could shake his opinion upon that point. Although the Russian envoy at Constantinople had co-operated with his colleagues in preventing a renewal of the struggle between the Sultan and the Pasha, the British ambassador was none the less convinced that Nicholas was secretly scheming to create a pretext for intervention. Again, when M. de Boutenieff assisted him in obtaining redress for the ill-treatment of a British subject at the hands of the Turkish police, he explained his conduct by suggesting that “the Russian minister was perhaps taken by surprise, and that those honourable feelings, which are natural to him, operated upon him.”[437] Nor would he allow that the Cabinet of St. Petersburg was actuated either by disinterested or generous motives when, in 1836, it consented to remit some of the indemnity due from Turkey and to evacuate Silistria. That fortress, he declared, was of no value to Russia, and, by relinquishing it, she “would obtain the advantage of making the world believe in her moderation.”[438] Being thus convinced that the Tsar and his advisers entertained the most sinister designs against the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, he concluded that a secret understanding must exist between Russia and Mehemet Ali, the powerful and disaffected vassal of the Sultan.

The effect of Lord Ponsonby’s alarmist despatches was to some extent counteracted by the more statesmanlike reports of Lord Durham, his nephew by marriage. The Duke of Wellington’s intention to send an ambassador of St. Petersburg had enabled the Whigs, upon their return to power, to despatch Lord Durham in that capacity to the Russian capital. Durham, during the two years he was in Russia, travelled through the southern provinces and made an exhaustive study of the resources of the country. The result of his observations and enquiries convinced him that Russia’s power for offensive war had been greatly exaggerated. Furthermore, he was persuaded that the Tsar Nicholas and almost all intelligent Russians were sincerely desirous of establishing a good understanding with England, and had altogether abandoned the idea of acquiring Constantinople. In short, he saw no reason why “a rival and an enemy should not be converted into a friend and an ally.”[439]

Meanwhile, Palmerston and Broglie had been quietly endeavouring to induce Austria to join with France and Great Britain in guaranteeing the integrity of Turkey. But Metternich, having contracted the secret agreement with Russia[440] for the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire, was not disposed to incur the Tsar’s displeasure by entering into a second compact. Broglie, finding that his advances met with no response, suggested that France and England should separately conclude a treaty for the object which both their governments had at heart and invite Austria to adhere to it. Palmerston[441] acquiesced in this plan, but was unable to obtain the assent of his colleagues to its execution. Before any further discussion of the subject could take place Broglie fell, and the Presidency of the Council and the direction of Foreign Affairs passed into the hands of M. Thiers. The new minister professed to be as anxious as his predecessor to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, but it was apparent, at once, that his first political object, to which all other questions of European diplomacy would for the present be subordinated, was the negotiation of a marriage between the Duc d’OrlÉans and an Austrian Archduchess.[442]

With the downfall of the Duc de Broglie the harmony, which had hitherto characterized French and British relations, began to diminish. Both Whigs and Tories had scrupulously abstained from raising the delicate question of the French occupation of Algiers.[443] Broglie and the Doctrinaires were opposed to the permanent retention of the colony, and a considerable section of the Chamber looked upon it as a useless and expensive encumbrance. M. Thiers, however, thought otherwise. He was in favour of “nationalizing the Arabs”—an expression which Mr. Aston[444] interpreted to mean that he was contemplating their extermination. No sooner was he in office than he began to prepare an expedition against the Bey of Constantine, with whom the French authorities had a long-standing dispute. At the same time, whilst protesting that he had no thought of extending French domination over either Tunis or Tripoli, he refused to recognize the sovereignty of the Sultan over those regencies. To support this policy he sent Admiral Hugon to Tunis to oppose, by force if necessary, the entry of the Ottoman squadron into the bay. “I really believe,”privately wrote the British chargÉ d’affaires to Lord Palmerston, “that in order to gain popularity he wishes for a war with Turkey, provided he could make it appear that it was undertaken to protect French interests.”[445]

Whilst M. Thiers thus set himself to consolidate the French rule over Algeria a secret negotiation was initiated, at Constantinople and at Cairo, for the purpose of establishing, under the guarantee of the French government, the relations of the Sultan and the Pasha of Egypt upon a more secure foundation. Campbell appears to have received the first intelligence of what was taking place from his Austrian colleague. The news caused him to pay a visit to M. Ferdinand de Lesseps,[446] who, in the absence of M. Mimaut, was acting as French consul-general. Lesseps was in a great state of indignation, and in his wrath was inclined to be communicative. M. Thiers, he confided to Campbell, before he left Paris, had told him that an important negotiation was in progress, but that he would not discuss it with him as, upon his arrival at Alexandria, he could learn all about it from a perusal of the documents at the consulate. Mimaut, however, had carefully removed every paper relating to the affair, and he was, in consequence, in complete ignorance of all that had passed. He had endeavoured, he added ingenuously, to make Boghos Bey believe that he was acquainted with the transaction, but the astute secretary of the Pasha had discovered the true state of the case and had promptly changed the conversation.[447]

Soon after Campbell’s interview with Lesseps, on December 11, 1836, Sarim Effendi, who was described by Mehemet Ali as a confidential agent of the Sultan, arrived at Alexandria. Ostensibly his mission was concerned with questions of arrears of tribute. In reality, however, he appears to have been empowered to propose some repartition of territory. The statements upon the subject which Campbell succeeded in extracting from Mehemet Ali were conflicting. At one time he told the British consul that the Sultan was willing to invest him with the hereditary government of Egypt and the Pashalic of Acre, whilst, on another occasion, he asserted that the hereditary tenure of all the territories which he actually occupied had been offered to him, on condition that he would undertake to reduce his army.[448] In Paris Lord Granville was unable to obtain any information about this affair. In answer to his enquiries he was told that Roussin had, “with the object of saving the dignity of the Sultan, held out to the Pasha the prospect of obtaining for his son the reversion of his Syrian possessions, in return for the abandonment of the other territories which he occupied.” But he was assured that the admiral had acted without instructions from his government, which had, on the contrary, “discountenanced his proceedings.”[449]

If Mahmud really empowered Sarim Effendi to make substantial concessions to the Pasha, such conduct on his part is altogether inconsistent with the sentiments of implacable hostility which he had constantly entertained towards his powerful vassal. In the spring of 1836 he had shown a strong disposition to renew the struggle, and had sent a secret agent to London to solicit help. His appeal was rejected, but Palmerston intimated that the British government was constrained to urge him to keep the peace from fear that his military resources would be unequal to the contest, rather than from any desire to see the status quo in Syria maintained.[450] Finding that no assistance would be forthcoming from England, Mahmud may have listened to the advice of the French government to make further concessions to Mehemet Ali, in order to put an end to the armed peace which was draining his depleted treasury. But the conditions, whatever they may have been, which were proposed to the Pasha were not accepted. Nevertheless, the negotiation, although it led to no direct results, had an important influence upon the march of events. It disclosed to Mehemet Ali that France and England were pursuing different objects in the East, and gave him grounds for hoping that he need no longer fear a combination of the two naval Powers against him.

But, although the Sultan may have been disappointed and annoyed at the refusal of Great Britain to assist him actively, he could derive comfort from the knowledge that the power of Mehemet Ali was regarded with misgivings in England. Ponsonby’s influence at the Porte grew in proportion as it became more and more evident that his government disapproved of the Egyptian occupation of Syria, and was prepared to uphold the sovereignty of Turkey over Tunis and to resist French encroachments. On the other hand, the Russian ambassador, who declared unceasingly that under no circumstances must the status quo, as established by the Convention of Kiutayeh, be disturbed, found his authority diminish. Early in 1836, shortly before the arrival in England of the Sultan’s secret agent, Palmerston had despatched General Chrzanowski, an able and experienced Polish officer, to Asia Minor. He had served in the Turkish campaign of 1828-1829, and was, Palmerston considered,[451] “just the sort of man to be of the greatest use to Reshid Pasha.”[452] But as the Russians, by whom he was looked upon as a deserter, would greatly resent his employment, he was instructed to avoid Constantinople, and to proceed direct to Smyrna. He would never appear to have been given a command or to have been employed officially by the Sultan, who probably scarcely ventured to defy his powerful neighbour so openly. He was allowed, however, to travel about Asia Minor, and to study the strategical situation. He was thus enabled to furnish Palmerston with excellent military advice, in return for the salary which Lord Ponsonby was instructed to pay him, from the moment of his arrival in the East.[453] Several Prussian officers, among them a certain Major von Moltke, destined to become very famous, were at this time serving with the Turkish army, to the re-organization of which, in preparation for the coming struggle, Palmerston unceasingly urged the Sultan to devote his whole attention.

Whilst instructing Ponsonby to impress upon the Turkish ministers the necessity of increasing the efficiency of the army, Palmerston was intent on creating embarrassments for Mehemet Ali. The economic system, which he had established in Egypt, and which he was imposing upon Syria, presented an excellent field for hostile criticism. By often very equivocal methods the Pasha had gradually expropriated the former freeholders, and had converted them into his own tenants. He would then buy at a fixed rate their produce, and thus, before long, the sale of almost all articles of prime necessity became a monopoly of the State. At first his system appeared to work well, but, when he began to pile up his armaments, he met the increased expenditure which they entailed by reducing the price, which he had hitherto paid to the unfortunate occupiers of the soil. In order to compensate themselves these people were necessarily compelled to raise the price of all articles which the government did not take from them. In 1838 Colonel Campbell computed that, as the result of the Pasha’s administration, articles of ordinary consumption in Egypt were from six to ten times dearer than they had been under the rule of the Mamelukes. Moreover, Mehemet Ali, ever since the year 1816, had been busily endeavouring to convert Egypt into a manufacturing country. With this object he had imported at great expense skilled workmen and machinery from France and England. The native labour required was obtained in the same manner as the army was recruited. Men, women and children were impressed and compelled to work in the factories. But by their unskilfulness they injured the machinery, nor did the articles which they turned out pay the cost of manufacture. The result of this experiment was that some 30,000 peasants, who might with advantage have been engaged in agriculture, were forced to labour unprofitably in the factories of the government. The Pasha, however, was too ignorant of the most elementary principles of political economy to understand the folly of these proceedings, in which he was encouraged to persevere by the foreign merchants, who sold him machinery or who bought his cotton and his indigo upon very advantageous terms.[454]

The British government had always been desirous to put an end to the old system of capitulations,[455] and to negotiate a new commercial treaty with the Porte. But as many influential persons in Turkey were interested in the preservation of existing abuses, the proposals of successive ambassadors had constantly been eluded. At the beginning of 1838, however, Palmerston directed Ponsonby to bring the matter forward again, and to lay great stress upon the prejudicial effect which the abolition of monopolies throughout the Ottoman Empire would not fail to have upon the personal position of Mehemet Ali.[456] This argument attained the desired result. Mahmud quickly resolved that no vested interests should be allowed to interfere with a commercial arrangement, which must either seriously embarrass Mehemet Ali or, should he refuse to adhere to it, bring him into conflict with Great Britain. The Sultan’s consent having been obtained, Ponsonby entrusted to Henry Bulwer the negotiation which was brought to a satisfactory conclusion on August 19, 1838.[457]

In the meantime, it had not escaped the vigilance of the Indian government that the protracted resistance of the Wahabites was weakening, and that Mehemet Ali was upon the point of making himself master of the whole of Arabia. The importance of Aden as an intermediate coaling station between Bombay and Suez had been realized, and it happened, most opportunely, that a quarrel[458] between the ruler of that port and the East India Company enabled the Governor-General to take action at the very moment when the absorption of the Yemen by the Pasha was imminent.[459] The management of the affair was confided to Captain Haines of the Bombay navy, who, early in 1838, was able to inform Ibrahim that the Sultan of Aden had ceded the port to the East India Company “par simple motif d’amitiÉ et de son cosentement.”[460] Nevertheless, the expedition sent from India to take possession of the place encountered, on January 16, 1839, a fierce resistance which was only overcome after a sharp engagement. Palmerston, upon receipt of the news of its cession, at once directed Campbell to warn Mehemet Ali that any movement of his troops against Aden would be treated as an attack upon a British possession. The Pasha, although unable wholly to conceal his chagrin, accepted the situation with a good grace.[461]

Ever since the beginning of the year 1838, great military preparations had been in progress both in Egypt and Syria. The consuls, had in consequence, been instructed to inquire of Mehemet Ali the reason of his armaments. It was whilst they were engaged in warning him that any aggression upon the Sultan would bring down upon him the vengeance of the Powers that the news arrived of the submission of Nejd, the great central district of Arabia, extending from Medina and Mecca to the Persian Gulf.[462] It was impossible to calculate what might result from the enhanced prestige which he had thus acquired in the eyes of the faithful. The immediate effect was seen, a few days later, when he sent for the consuls and announced to each of them separately his unalterable resolution to proclaim his independence. “The interests of his family,” he declared to Campbell, “imperiously called upon him to fix their future state, and it was les larmes aux yeux et le coeur serrÉ that he had taken his present resolution.” Nevertheless, he would wait a reasonable time in the full persuasion that the British government would take such steps as would permit of an amicable and satisfactory settlement.[463]

The Cabinets of the Powers were not greatly disturbed by the Pasha’s threats. Palmerston alone showed any anxiety to arrange the military measures which might be put into force against Mehemet Ali, should he proceed to carry out his declared intentions.[464] But it was soon evident that the Pasha had no desire to bring on a crisis. Although he continued to impress upon the consuls that he was fully as determined as ever to obtain for his children the succession of the countries which he governed, he at the same time announced his intention of proceeding to Upper Egypt to inspect his gold mines. Furthermore, he duly transmitted his yearly tribute to the Sultan. Nevertheless, his military preparations were not relaxed and reinforcements were continuously despatched to Ibrahim in Syria. It was clear that he had no intention of affording the Powers a pretext for taking active measures against him, but hoped, by keeping them and the Porte in a constant state of apprehension, to weary them into conceding him some of his demands.[465] In pursuance of this astute policy he accepted the British commercial treaty with the utmost unconcern. He was confident, he assured Campbell, that he could derive a larger revenue from duties on exports and imports than he had ever obtained under his system of monopolies.[466] M. MolÉ, on the other hand, testified his surprise and annoyance at the success which had attended Lord Ponsonby’s negotiations. He was greatly afraid, he told Granville, that Mehemet Ali would now be provoked into an immediate declaration of independence. But, upon learning that the Pasha had announced his intention of adhering to the terms of the British treaty, he promptly instructed Roussin to conclude, on behalf of France, a similar arrangement with the Porte.[467]

Whilst the aims and ambitions of Mehemet Ali were once more attracting the attention of the Powers, Anglo-Russian relations again assumed a threatening aspect. Both the British and Indian governments had, for some time past, been disturbed by the ascendency which Russia was acquiring over the Court of Teheran, and by the intrigues of her agents in Afghanistan. Encouraged by Count Simonitch, the Russian envoy, the Shah, who entertained pretensions to the sovereignty of Afghanistan, at the close of the year 1837, marched against Herat. Before the siege had been long in progress both the British and Russian ministers arrived upon the scene—the one to endeavour to bring about a cessation of hostilities, and the other to direct the operations of the Persian army. Whilst Macneil and Simonitch thus strove for supremacy in the camp of Mohammad, Eldred Pottinger, a subaltern of the Indian army, who had reached Herat disguised as a horse-dealer, stimulated by his example the courage of the garrison. At the same time Captain Witkewitch, a secret agent of Count Simonitch, arrived at Cabul, for the purpose of drawing Dost Mohammad into the Russo-Persian alliance and of counteracting the influence of Alexander Burnes, who, like his Russian rival, was in Afghanistan upon a mission which was described as commercial. The idea of a Russian agent established at Cabul, free to intrigue with Ranjit Singh, the Maharajah of Lahore, and supported by the whole weight of Mohammedan Persia, seriously alarmed Lord Auckland, the Governor-General.[468] To combat this danger he conceived the fatal plan of sending an Anglo-Indian army into Afghanistan to overthrow the Barakzai dynasty, and to set up in the place of Dost Mohammad an exiled Sadozai prince, a pensioner of the Indian government.

The conduct of the Russian agents in Persia and Afghanistan was made the subject of a note which, on October 26, 1838, Clanricarde, the British ambassador at St. Petersburg, was directed to deliver to Count Nesselrode. The Russian Chancellor, whilst deprecating the construction placed by Palmerston on some of Count Simonitch’s actions, admitted that he had exceeded his instructions and undertook to recall him.[469] This promise was duly carried out. Consequently, when Witkewitch arrived at St. Petersburg he was coldly informed that he must forthwith return to his post at Orenburg. In despair at finding that the negotiations, which he had conducted so skilfully, were to be disavowed, the unfortunate man blew out his brains.[470] Only a little more than two years later Burnes, his rival, perished at Cabul at the hands of an infuriated mob.

The assurances and explanations of Count Nesselrode were accepted as satisfactory by Lord Palmerston. The visit of the Tsarewitch, the future Alexander II., to London, in the spring of 1839, contributed still further to restore harmonious relations. Nevertheless, the general situation which confronted Palmerston was disquieting. Russia, which by means of the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi had assumed the exclusive protectorship of Turkey, now appeared to exercise a dangerous ascendency over the Court of Persia. Although the Shah had been compelled to raise the siege of Herat, and although the proceedings of Simonitch and Witkewitch had been disavowed, there was room for grave anxiety. Distant as was the frontier line of the Sutlej from the most advanced Cossack posts, the presence of Russian agents in the intervening States foreboded trouble. At Lahore, Hyderabad and Cabul, the appearance of a new power in Central Asia could not fail to be eagerly discussed.

But it was not alone the advance of Russia beyond the Caspian which gave those responsible for the safety of British India cause for uneasy reflection. At this time, when the introduction of steam as a means of transport was making the question of rapid communication a matter of the first importance, Mehemet Ali was building up an Arab Empire which already extended from Khartum to the Taurus mountains and the Persian Gulf. Whether in the future the Indian mail would be carried over the Isthmus of Suez, or whether Colonel Chesney should succeed in establishing steam communication by way of the Euphrates, the ruler of Egypt was master of either route. Nor did he stand alone. Whilst busily engaged in strengthening her own position as a Mediterranean power, England’s most formidable naval rival was showing a marked disposition to befriend him. In Syria France was the acknowledged protector of the Catholics, and her influence was reported to have increased of late years.[471] From Algiers she was extending her grasp over the whole north coast of Africa, whilst in Spain she was striving to re-establish that predominating influence which she had formerly exercised. It seemed possible that France, in alliance with Spain and Mehemet Ali, might yet be enabled to realize Napoleon’s dream of converting the Mediterranean into a “French lake.”

When Mehemet Ali had announced his intention of shaking off his allegiance, Mahmud had seemed to defer to the pacific counsels of the Powers, and had refrained from ordering his troops in Asia Minor to invade Syria. But, before the spring of 1839, it was clear that he was resolved to appeal to arms, and that all the efforts of diplomacy to prevent a renewal of the conflict would be fruitless. It was not alone his bitter hatred of his rebellious vassal which prompted the Sultan to disregard the advice of the ambassadors at Constantinople. His sole claim to the Khalifate rested upon the protection of Mecca, and, inasmuch as Mehemet Ali was in possession of the Holy Cities, were he to declare himself independent, Mahmud must forfeit his right to command the temporal obedience of Mohammedans. Already Constantinople was seething with disaffection, and he is said to have been aware that a plot had been formed to depose him and to enthrone his son, under the guardianship of Mehemet Ali.[472]

Mahmud was dying from a complication of disorders, but he gave his whole expiring strength to his military preparations. Men, horses and guns were hurried across the Bosphorus and forwarded to Hafiz Pasha in Asia Minor. Moltke with his plane-table was busily engaged in exploring the country up to Nezib, “a small town hidden among the olive trees close against the Syrian frontier.”[473] At the news that the Porte was bent upon war, Mehemet Ali, curtailing his visit to Khartum, hastily returned to Cairo, whilst at Constantinople the ambassadors made a last endeavour to dissuade the Sultan from disturbing the peace.[474] But Mahmud was not to be diverted from his object, and in Paris, on May 23, 1839, it was known that Hafiz Pasha had crossed the Euphrates and that hostilities were about to begin.

French historians have generally imputed duplicity to the British government in this affair. Palmerston, they say, whilst pretending that he was anxious to dissuade the Sultan from war, was in point of fact allowing Lord Ponsonby, his agent at Constantinople, to encourage the Turkish ministers to break the peace. Ponsonby was unquestionably opposed to the policy of maintaining the status quo in Syria. In his opinion Mehemet Ali was the sore which was sapping the strength of the Ottoman Empire, and, seeing that it was a British interest that Turkey should be in a condition to resist Russia, he held that England should assist the Sultan to crush his too-powerful vassal.[475] It is undeniable that Palmerston allowed him a liberty of action and of language which he would not have tolerated in any other ambassador. There can be no doubt, moreover, that he regarded the Egyptian question in very much the same light as Ponsonby. But he differed from him in one very important particular, inasmuch as he considered that the moment had not yet come when Mahmud could, with a reasonable chance of success, try conclusions with the Pasha. France, he was well aware, would never join in an attack upon Mehemet Ali. Indeed, it was rather a question whether she would not openly espouse his cause. The possibility of a combination between Russia and France could not be dismissed as a development outside the range of practical politics.[476] Hitherto, Nicholas’ dislike of Louis Philippe had rendered the chance of such a contingency very remote. But, were England to adopt a separate policy in the east, it was improbable that the Tsar would allow his personal animosity to stand in the way of an alliance, which he might consider would serve the best interests of his Empire. Accordingly, when, at the close of the year 1838, Reshid Pasha, the Reis-Effendi, arrived upon a special mission to London, he discovered, to his disappointment, that Palmerston was not prepared to hold out any hopes that the British government would join in an attack upon Mehemet Ali. Only, Palmerston explained, in the event of the Pasha beginning hostilities, could England furnish the Sultan with naval assistance. Mahmud being intent upon war, a purely defensive alliance could be of no service to him, and was declined.[477] If the bellicose policy of the Sultan had received any encouragement from Lord Ponsonby, Reshid’s conferences at the Foreign Office in London must have made it clear that the ambassador had been using language which he had no authority to employ. When, therefore, the Sultan ordered Hafiz Pasha to advance, he was perfectly aware that he was acting in opposition to the wishes of the British government, which did not believe that he had an army capable of defeating Ibrahim’s Arab and Egyptian troops.

Directly it was known that the Turkish army had been set in motion and that all hope of maintaining the peace must be abandoned, the Soult Cabinet asked the Chamber for a credit of ten million francs. The sum demanded was accorded by an overwhelming majority and, in the debates which followed, the deputies were enabled to declare their views upon the eastern question. The sympathies of the majority were plainly on the side of Mehemet Ali, and ministers were given clearly to understand, by the long succession of orators who in turn ascended the tribune, that with the large sum which had been placed at their disposal they must do something both great and glorious.[478] Soult, in the meanwhile, had despatched two officers, the one to Constantinople and the other to Alexandria, with instructions to proceed, after conferring with Admiral Roussin and M. Cochelet, to the headquarters of the two armies, in order to endeavour to bring about a suspension of hostilities. The friendly feelings towards England entertained by Marshal Soult, and the better understanding with regard to Spanish affairs between the French and English governments, which followed his assumption of office, have already been mentioned. Their co-operation in the eastern question was no less cordial. “We are in complete accord,” said Palmerston to Bourqueney, the French chargÉ d’affaires in London; “our communications are not those of one government with another but of two colleagues in the same Cabinet.”[479] It was decided that both the French and British fleets should proceed to the Levant, and that the admirals should be instructed to do all in their power to induce the opposing generals to suspend hostilities. Both Soult and Palmerston, however, were agreed that the great danger in the situation lay in the possibility that Nicholas might avail himself of the outbreak of war for invading Turkey, under the plea that Constantinople must be protected against Ibrahim. They, accordingly, resolved to intimate to the Porte that, in the event of Russian aid being invoked, or of a Russian fleet entering the Bosphorus, permission should be given to the French and British squadrons to pass through the Dardanelles into the Sea of Marmora.[480]

Mehemet Ali, when the news arrived that the Turks had crossed the Euphrates, displayed the greatest self-restraint. In his heart he was, doubtless, eager for the fray, but he was determined that the responsibility for the outbreak of the war should rest with the Sultan. Accordingly, he delivered a written communication to the representatives of the Powers, in which he undertook to withdraw his troops to Damascus, provided the Turkish army would recross the river.[481] It was only on June 10, upon receipt of a report from Ibrahim that his cavalry had been attacked within the Egyptian frontier, that he directed him to assume the offensive.[482] But three days after these orders had been despatched Captain Caillier, the officer sent off by Marshal Soult, arrived at Alexandria. He was the bearer of despatches from the Marshal to M. Cochelet, instructing him to declare to Mehemet Ali that the Powers were taking steps to settle the eastern question, and that they must insist upon the immediate withdrawal of the Egyptian army within the boundaries of Syria. The Pasha, after some little hesitation, consented to write to his son enjoining him not to pursue the Turks beyond the frontiers of Syria and to halt wherever Caillier might come up with him.[483] But before Marshal Soult’s emissary could reach Ibrahim’s headquarters that general had completely defeated the Turks, on June 24, 1839, in a great battle near Nezib.

Before the news of this disaster could reach Constantinople Mahmud was dead, and when, shortly afterwards, the intelligence of the complete defeat of Hafiz Pasha was brought to the Turkish ministers, they kept the matter strictly secret. Abd-ul-Mejid, the sixteen-year-old son of the deceased Mahmud, was proclaimed Sultan, and the ambassadors of the Powers were invited to a conference on July 3. On this occasion Nourri-Effendi, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, announced that the Porte had no reason to suppose that any engagement had yet taken place between the two armies. Nevertheless, the Sultan purposed to send “one of the eminent men of his Court” to offer Mehemet Ali a full pardon for the past and to assure him of his favour in the future. Furthermore, he was prepared to confer upon him the hereditary government of Egypt, provided he would abandon Syria and the other territories over which he now exercised his dominion. Pending the result of this negotiation orders had been sent to Hafiz Pasha to suspend hostilities.[484]

It was not until July 8 that the true facts were generally known in Constantinople, and, on the evening of that day, Lord Ponsonby was informed by the French ambassador of a fresh disaster. Admiral Lalande, who with a small French squadron was lying at the entrance to the Dardanelles, reported that the Capudan Pasha had sailed away with, he believed, the intention of delivering up his fleet to Mehemet Ali. Osman Bey, the second in command of the Turkish squadron, had had an interview with the French admiral,[485] and had declared that the Sultan had been murdered by Halil and Hosrew Pasha, both of whom were in league with the Russians. Under these circumstances the Capudan Pasha determined to place his ships in safety. On this pretext he proceeded with all speed to Alexandria, where he delivered up to the Pasha his whole fleet, consisting of twenty-one sail, of which eight were of the line.

The indifference with which Admiral Lalande had heard of the treacherous intentions of the Capudan Pasha, and the apathy which had characterized his proceedings, could not fail to attract attention. Marshal Boult himself, in discussing the surrender of the Turkish fleet with Lord Granville, was forced to admit that Lalande’s conduct appeared to him inexplicable.[486] In the course of the next few months, however, further light was thrown upon the matter. An Armenian, a certain Avedick, the confidential dragoman of the Capudan Pasha, was smuggled out of Alexandria on board a British ship. This man, when he arrived at Constantinople, agreed to disclose all he knew to Reshid Pasha. According to his statement, Admiral Lalande, accompanied by the Prince de Joinville, came on board the Turkish flagship, and held a consultation with Osman, the Reala Bey,[487] who seems to have been the evil genius of the Capudan Pasha. On learning of his intention to proceed to Alexandria, the French officers, far from attempting to detain him, applauded his resolution, bidding him only to be careful to avoid H.M.S. Vanguard, which was in Besika Bay. Ponsonby, in forwarding the papers connected with this affair, emitted the opinion that, although many circumstances appeared to confirm the truth of the dragoman’s story, “he could not feel it to be true of an honourable man like Admiral Lalande.”[488] Palmerston either adopted this view, or more probably, deemed it impossible to base a formal representation to the French government upon Avedick’s unsupported statement. But after the abdication and death of his father, the Prince de Joinville saw fit to publish, under an assumed name in the Revue des Deux Mondes;[489] an account of these transactions which confirmed the dragoman’s allegations in every particular. Throughout the French fleet there was, says His Royal Highness, a bitter hatred of England and an intense desire to avenge former defeats. The Pasha of Egypt was regarded as the ally of France in a struggle, which every man hoped and believed, would take place in the near future. Admiral Lalande was, therefore, clearly justified in encouraging the Capudan Pasha to surrender his fleet to Mehemet Ali. Although thirteen years had elapsed since the events referred to in this article had taken place, the Prince evidently experienced the greatest satisfaction in remembering that Captain Walker, and the other British naval instructors of the Ottoman fleet, had been carried off to Alexandria on ships which were to be handed over to England’s enemy, the Pasha of Egypt.

These successive disasters, Lord Palmerston maintained, should make no difference in the policy of the Powers. On the contrary, the battle of Nezib had made it the more imperative that steps should be taken to check the progress of the victorious Ibrahim.[490] Metternich held the same opinion. Russia, however, appeared disposed to adopt a different view of the situation. In 1838, when Mehemet Ali was threatening to proclaim his independence, she had refused to acquiesce in Palmerston’s proposal that the Turco-Egyptian question should be submitted to a conference of the Powers.[491] But in the following spring, when it was plain that the Sultan was resolved to embark upon war, she had not appeared disinclined to entertain Metternich’s suggestion that the seat of the negotiations should be established at Vienna. “Each Cabinet,” Metternich proposed, “might send its opinion to its representatives at Vienna, leaving a certain latitude for discussion, and from a comparison of the five opinions, one should be sought in which all might coincide.”[492] By this arrangement much delay would be obviated, and the same advantages could be obtained as by the summoning of the conference, to which Nicholas had objected. But at the news that, as a consequence of the death of Mahmud and of the defeat sustained by the Turkish arms at Nezib, the Porte purposed to open a direct negotiation with the Pasha, the Cabinet of St. Petersburg once more evinced a strong disinclination to assent to the plan of establishing a European concert for the settlement of the eastern question.[493] The disposition which Nicholas thus manifested to diverge from the policy advocated by Great Britain and Austria, was hastily seized by France as an opportunity for isolating Russia. The Soult Cabinet, accordingly, insisted upon the necessity of counselling the Porte to avoid any precipitate action, and only to treat with Mehemet Ali through the intermediary of the Powers.[494] Palmerston, as may be supposed, lost no time in expressing to the Marshal the satisfaction which he derived from seeing that he was animated by sentiments coinciding so completely with his own.[495]

In the meanwhile Akiff-Effendi, the Turkish envoy, sent to treat with Mehemet Ali, had returned to Constantinople, after a fruitless mission to Cairo. The Pasha had protested his loyalty to the young Sultan, but he had none the less received the Capudan Pasha and his officers with open arms and clearly meant to retain the Ottoman fleet. Moreover, he had declared emphatically that he must be invested with the hereditary government of both Syria and Egypt, and had expressed indignation that his old enemy Hosrew Pasha, the Grand Vizier, had not been dismissed. He had, however, undertaken that, for the present, Ibrahim should not advance into Asia Minor.[496] It was clear to the ambassadors at Constantinople that the Porte, if left to itself, would consent to all the Pasha’s demands. “I consider the Ottoman Empire to be delivered over to Mehemet Ali,” wrote Ponsonby on July 26.[497] But, on the following day, Baron StÜrmer received despatches from Vienna.[498] Metternich had either foreseen, or had obtained early information, that the Turkish ministers would make further concessions, and he, accordingly, informed the Internuncio that the five Powers were determined to resist the pretensions of Mehemet Ali, and directed him to urge his colleagues to unite with him in representing to the Porte the necessity of allowing the conditions of peace to be settled by the Powers. Lord Beauvale[499] and M. de Sainte-Aulaire had, it is said, at Metternich’s request, written in the same strain to Ponsonby and to Roussin.[500] A meeting of the representatives of the five Powers was immediately convened and a note was drawn up, informing the Porte “that agreement among the five Great Powers, on the question of the East, was secured,” and inviting it to suspend any definitive resolution without their concurrence. M. de Boutenieff, the Russian minister, appears to have made no difficulty about affixing his signature to this document, which was to be known as the collective note of July 27, 1839. When it was presented to them, the Turkish ministers expressed the utmost gratitude, and promised to suspend all negotiations and to inform Mehemet Ali that the affair was now in the hands of the five Powers.[501]

The news that the collective note had been delivered, and that it had been accepted by the Porte in the desired spirit, afforded the keenest satisfaction at Vienna and in London. Palmerston, agreeing with Ponsonby, perceived that it had destroyed the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, and that the days of Russia’s exclusive protectorship over Turkey were at an end. One of the chief objects of his eastern policy had thus been attained, and he could devote his whole attention to the other—the curtailment of the power of Mehemet Ali. In Paris, on the other hand, the situation created by the collective note awoke serious misgivings. Since the battle of Nezib, French enthusiasm for Mehemet Ali had increased alarmingly. “Men,” wrote VÉron,[502] “defended the claims of the Pasha with the same fervour as, in 1828, they had espoused the cause of Greek independence.” Ministers, under these circumstances, could only reflect ruefully that, now that France was a party to the collective note, they must join with the Powers in devising measures for depriving Mehemet Ali of the fruits of his victories. Nor could they escape from the dilemma by disavowing Admiral Roussin, seeing that he had only acted in strict accordance with the policy which Soult himself had advocated, in the secret hope of isolating Russia. But it was evident that the Cabinet of St. Petersburg was reconciled to the necessity of allowing the eastern question to be settled by the Powers, and it was to be apprehended that both Russia and Austria would adopt the hostile attitude towards Mehemet Ali which Palmerston had already assumed.

Palmerston had invariably proclaimed the opinion that the whole of Syria must be restored to the Sultan, before a permanent peace could be established in the East. The Egyptian desert, he had always insisted, must be interposed between the Pasha and the territories under the direct rule of the Porte.[503] Soult had hitherto contrived to elude a discussion upon this point by declaring that France and England must, in the first place, concert measures for checkmating the designs of Russia upon the integrity of Turkey.[504] Palmerston, so long as he was doubtful about the Tsar’s intentions, had been content to leave in abeyance the question of the future position of Mehemet Ali. But his tone changed from the moment that he became aware that Russia had adhered to the collective note. The French government on various pleas had declined to entertain his proposal that the French and English squadrons should combine for the purpose of obtaining from Mehemet Ali the surrender of the Turkish fleet.[505] On August 20, however, in a dispatch which Mr. Bulwer, the British chargÉ d’affaires was directed to communicate to Marshal Soult, he insisted that the restitution of the Turkish ships must be regarded as an indispensable preliminary to any negotiations between the five Powers and the Pasha. Furthermore, he declared that the decision as to the measures, which should be taken to obtain this result, “should emanate from Vienna, which was to be the central point of the negotiations instead of London or Paris,” and that Sir Robert Stopford would be instructed to comply with whatever directions he might receive from Lord Beauvale, “either with or without the co-operation of anyone of the other squadrons.”[506]

The French government, however, displayed a marked reluctance to enter into any general discussion of the Egyptian question. Notwithstanding that Soult had himself suggested Vienna as the seat of the negotiation, when he was under the impression that Russia would object to confer with the Powers on the affairs of the East, he now deprecated the selection of that capital.[507] The French government, reported Bulwer, on August 30, will refuse to consent to any measures of coercion against the Pasha, “until the whole question—that portion of it relative to the Dardanelles and Russia as well as that relating to Egypt and Mehemet Ali—is decided.”[508] About a fortnight later, Bulwer was enabled to ascertain Louis Philippe’s opinions upon the situation. It was advisable, the King considered, to discover what would satisfy the Pasha, and then to insist upon the Porte making the required concessions. When Bulwer objected that such a course was hardly consistent with the collective note of July 27, His Majesty gave him to understand that “in affairs of this kind, all notions of honour and dignity among States need not be greatly considered. I want peace,” said he, “nothing but peace, and I see no way of preserving it but by soldering up this affair as soon as possible.” The discussion then turned upon the military means which were available for the coercion of the Pasha. “Naval measures,” Louis Philippe declared, “would prove insufficient; bayonets were needed, and we (England?) had no bayonets to employ.”[509]

The very high estimate which had been formed in France of the power of Mehemet Ali was the chief reason of the attitude which her government now proceeded to adopt. Palmerston, on the other hand, had no share in the illusions which were very generally entertained as to the strength of the Pasha. Nor had the battle of Nezib caused him to alter his views. Yet neither Sir Robert Stopford,[510] the admiral of the Mediterranean squadron, nor Colonel Campbell, the British consul-general at Alexandria, agreed with him. Both were convinced that the expulsion of Ibrahim from Syria would prove a most difficult undertaking, and Campbell was to owe his recall to his strongly expressed opinion upon this point.[511] Palmerston appears to have placed the greatest faith in General Chrzanowski, the Pole, who for the past three years had been attached to the British embassy at Constantinople. This officer had made a careful study of the brief campaign which had terminated at Nezib, and was not prepared to admit that Ibrahim’s victory was due to the superiority of the Egyptian army over that of the Turks.[512] The result, he considered, would have been very different had Hafiz Pasha elected to follow the advice of Moltke, instead of listening to the foolish talk of the Mullahs, who ranked as lieutenant-generals, and were present in large numbers at his headquarters.[513] On the morning of June 24, when the battle had only lasted an hour, no less than twelve Egyptian battalions fled from the field, whilst three others deserted in a body to the Turks. The panic, which set in shortly afterwards among the troops of Hafiz Pasha, was caused by a change of position on the part of a brigade of their own cavalry. It was significant that, although the battle had consisted only of an artillery duel, and although the Egyptian infantry had never been really engaged, Ibrahim had not ventured to pursue. The report of General Jochmus,[514] a Hanoverian who had served upon the staff of the British legion in Spain, and who was now in the pay of the Foreign Office, pointed to the same conclusions. Chrzanowski, moreover, was convinced that Ibrahim would be unable to keep up his communications with Egypt, were he to be deprived of the command of the sea. A corps of 15,000 Turkish troops acting in combination with the disaffected tribes, and supported by the British fleet, would, he believed, suffice to compel him to evacuate Syria.[515]

Whilst symptoms of disagreement between the French and English governments were beginning to appear, Russia made an unexpected move. Shortly after the arrival at St. Petersburg of a despatch from Count Medem, in which he reported that Marshal Soult had declared to him that France would never consent to apply coercion to the Pasha, Baron Brunnow, the Russian minister at Stuttgart, was sent upon a special mission to London. “It would not be possible,” Nesselrode informed Clanricarde, “for the Emperor to have chosen any person more thoroughly acquainted with the foreign affairs and policy of Russia than the Baron.”[516] The proposals, which upon his arrival in London, on September 15, Brunnow was empowered to make, filled Lord Palmerston with astonishment. The Imperial Cabinet, he was instructed to declare, agreed with the English government in thinking that alone the hereditary pashalic of Egypt should be conferred upon Mehemet Ali, who must be made to restore to the Sultan Arabia, Syria and Crete. The Emperor was ready to enter into a treaty to enforce these measures upon the Pasha, and he, therefore, suggested that such military operations as might be necessary in Syria or in Egypt should be undertaken by Great Britain, France and Austria, whilst, in the event of Ibrahim advancing to the Bosphorus, the defence of Constantinople should devolve upon Russia. It was, however, to be clearly understood that any assistance which Russia might afford would be given, not by reason of the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, but in virtue of engagements about to be contracted between the Powers of Europe and the Sultan. Furthermore, the Emperor was ready to adopt the view of the British government and to consider “as a permanent principle and standing rule,” that the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles should be closed to the war ships of all nations. Lastly, Baron Brunnow was authorized to promise that, if Russia and England should come to an understanding on these matters, the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi would not be renewed.[517]

The Tsar’s sudden determination to abandon those advantages, which he was supposed to have acquired by the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, has always been ascribed to his desire to separate France and England. Without doubt, this consideration entered largely into his calculations. But he was also annoyed with Metternich and was anxious to thwart his plan of establishing the seat of the negotiations at Vienna. Moreover, it was now realized that Orloff’s treaty was a document of no practical value. Russia, by reason alone of her geographical position, could never be prevented from exercising her influence over the counsels of the Porte. Nor could the stipulation that the Sultan must close the Dardanelles at the demand of Russia be of any real utility, seeing that the maritime Powers had refused to accept this condition, and that Turkey would be unable to carry out her engagements in the face of their opposition. In a general way the doctrine that a weak State makes an excellent neighbour might be sound, but it was plainly inapplicable to Turkey—the custodian of straits so vitally important to Russia as the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Under these circumstances, there was much to be gained by waiving the purely illusory advantage to be derived from the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, and by agreeing that the closure of the straits to the warships of the Powers should be declared a law of nations.[518] Brunnow made no secret of the fact that his Imperial master would be only too pleased, were France to refuse to accede to his proposals. His desire was soon gratified. When the project was communicated to it by Lord Palmerston, the French government flatly declined to entertain it. The Russian overture, wrote Marshal Soult, was clearly a device for separating France and England, and it was with “feelings of painful astonishment” that he perceived “a man of such enlightened judgment as Lord Palmerston entertain it with so much complacency.” Russia, he proceeded, had betrayed her real intentions by insisting that she alone should undertake the defence of Constantinople. If her motives were such as she pretended, why this repugnance to the idea of “the flags of the allied Courts floating side by side with her own” in the Bosphorus? “Never,” he concluded, “with our consent shall a foreign squadron of war appear before Constantinople, unless ours appears there also.”[519] Whilst he thus declined absolutely to consider Baron Brunnow’s propositions, Marshal Soult put forward a plan for the settlement of the questions in dispute between the Porte and Mehemet Ali. But the solution of the difficulty, suggested by the French government, when it came to be examined, was found to amount to little more than an arrangement whereby the Pasha was to obtain the hereditary tenure of Arabia, Syria and Egypt, in return for which he was to restore to the Sultan the district of Adana.[520]

In Palmerston’s opinion the entry of a Russian fleet into the Bosphorus, or of a Russian army into Asia Minor, at the demand of the Powers, was a very different proceeding to an intervention in virtue of a separate engagement between the Porte and the Cabinet of St. Petersburg. Had the decision rested with him alone he would gladly have accepted the Russian proposal. But both it and Marshal Soult’s despatch had to be considered by the Cabinet, some of the members of which held opinions very opposed to his own. Lord Holland and several of his colleagues—“our Whig friends”[521] as Lord Palmerston called them—were either completely indifferent to the Imperial aspect of the question, or regarded it as a minor consideration. In their eyes the point at issue was simply whether England should break with Liberal France, in order to enter into a compact with autocratic Russia. The French party in the Cabinet gained the upper hand and Palmerston had to agree to certain concessions. He had already consented, in deference to the wishes of France and Austria, to allow his demand for the restoration by Mehemet Ali of the Turkish fleet to be merged in the larger question of the territorial settlement, and he was now obliged to inform SÉbastiani that the English government would be prepared to see, in addition to that of Egypt, the hereditary tenure of the province of Acre, exclusive of the fortress, conferred upon the Pasha. At the same time Baron Brunnow was to be told that Her Majesty’s government was ready to adopt the whole arrangement which he had proposed, with the exception of one single point—should it be necessary for a Russian force to enter the Bosphorus, a British force must enter the Dardanelles.[522]

Brunnow had no instructions to discuss the question raised by the English Cabinet, and he was, in consequence, obliged to bring his mission to an unsuccessful conclusion. But he and Palmerston parted from each other upon most excellent terms and with little doubt that their negotiations were suspended, rather than finally broken off. The French government heard of the Baron’s departure with intense satisfaction, and, a few days later, on October 15, SÉbastiani communicated to Lord Palmerston a despatch, in which Marshal Soult emphatically declared that the proposal to cede to Mehemet Ali the Pashalic of Acre was inadmissible. So trifling a concession, he averred, would merely drive the Pasha to seek to obtain by the sword the frontiers to which he considered himself entitled. Palmerston listened to the words of the ambassador in silence, and when he had concluded his statement, informed him that the offer regarding Acre must now be considered as definitely withdrawn.[523]

It was significant of the divergent courses upon which the two governments were embarked that, almost at the same time, Admiral Roussin was recalled from Constantinople, and Colonel Campbell from Alexandria—the Frenchman because of his hostility to,[524] and the Englishman because of his sympathy with, Mehemet Ali.[525] For several weeks after Brunnow’s departure from London, the situation remained unchanged. Palmerston was content to wait in the confident expectation that Nicholas would not refuse to accede to the British proposal. The Soult Cabinet, convinced that no agreement between England and Russia on the question of the Dardanelles was to be apprehended, was equally satisfied to remain inactive. “In the French councils,” reported Bulwer, “there is a mixture of positiveness and of vagueness—positiveness as to what will not be done, vagueness as to what may be done.”[526]

Early in December SÉbastiani transmitted to his government the information, which he had received from Palmerston, that the Emperor had agreed to the English conditions, and that Brunnow would shortly return to London to negotiate a convention. This news came as an unpleasant surprise to the French Cabinet. Under the circumstances, however, Soult could only express satisfaction at this most unexpected concession, which, he admitted, completely altered the character of the Russian proposals. But, at the same time, he cast the gravest doubts upon the good faith of the Imperial Cabinet, and reiterated his conviction that its real object was to effect a breach in French and English relations.[527] In due course Brunnow arrived in London, and in a note written at Holland House, on January 5, 1840, Palmerston made SÉbastiani acquainted with the result of his first deliberations with the Russian envoy. “Brunnow,”he informed him, “is empowered to negotiate with the object of bringing about a permanent and definite solution of the Turkish and Egyptian question, in order to ensure the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Baron Neumann has arrived from Vienna and has expressed to us that Austria is entirely with us and Russia in this important affair. I think I can say for certain that Prussia will look at matters in the same light. It only remains for us, therefore, to secure a European accord on a question which is incontestably the most important that we have had to deal with these last years. We sincerely hope that the co-operation of France will not be refused. . . .”[528]

Louis Philippe and his ministers were convinced, however, that, when the Powers came to consider the measures which would be required for expelling the Pasha from the territories which he occupied, they would soon discover the magnitude of the task upon which they purposed to embark. Harsh conditions, they were confident, would never be imposed upon him, once it was realized that their enforcement would entail the invasion of Syria by a large Russian army. They were, in consequence, not apprehensive, although fully informed that negotiations were in progress, that any definite arrangement would be concluded without their participation. Nevertheless, on January 27, 1840, SÉbastiani[529] reported that Palmerston had replied in the affirmative to Neumann’s official inquiry as to whether, in the event of the four Powers arriving at an agreement, and France withholding her consent, the clauses of the treaty would be acted upon in spite of her abstention. But, on the following day, the ambassador informed his government that the English Cabinet had decided that the Porte must be a party to any convention which might be concluded, and that the negotiations would, in consequence, be suspended until the arrival of the Turkish plenipotentiary. This was the last news of any importance transmitted by SÉbastiani. Soult and his colleagues, in order to propitiate the Doctrinaires, whose support was essential to their parliamentary existence, had insisted upon his recall and upon the appointment of M. Guizot to the embassy in London.[530]

Although he had studied English constitutional history so deeply, Guizot had never visited England, and, moreover, he had not before been engaged upon a diplomatic mission. He had, however, formed a friendship with Princess Lieven, who was well acquainted with most of the chief statesmen and members of the corps diplomatique of the time, and who, besides, had been a leader of English society. After her husband’s recall from London,[531] the Princess quickly tired of St. Petersburg, and, upon the plea of ill-health, took up her abode in Paris. At Talleyrand’s death in 1838, she moved into an apartment in his famous house in the Rue Saint-Florentin, where her salon soon acquired a European celebrity. Her friendship with Guizot, which was to endure to the day of her death, is said to have begun, in 1837, at Chatenay, Madame de Boigne’s house, near Paris. The Princess was at the time fifty-three years of age, whilst the grave Doctrinaire was three years her junior.[532]

Guizot arrived in London on February 28, and, on the following day in Paris, the Soult Cabinet was defeated and resigned. The King was, in consequence, reluctantly compelled to commission M. Thiers to form a government. Thiers, who himself assumed the direction of Foreign Affairs, was probably honestly desirous of maintaining a good understanding with England. But he was a convinced believer in the military strength of Mehemet Ali, and was determined to uphold his claim to the hereditary tenure of Syria. In his opinion, the collective note of July 27, 1839, was the cause of all the difficulty; it was “the rut in which the coach had stuck.”[533] But, although he was secretly resolved to escape from the obligations which his predecessors had contracted, he was not prepared openly to repudiate them. On the contrary, he admitted readily that he was bound to refrain from attempting to arrange matters between the Porte and Mehemet Ali, except in co-operation with the other signatory Powers. Should, however, the Sultan spontaneously agree to terms acceptable to the Pasha, the Powers could hardly interfere to prevent a settlement which the Porte itself pronounced satisfactory.[534] If such a result could be brought about, the collective note would become a dead letter, and France would regain her full liberty of action. Moreover, Mehemet Ali would attain the object of his ambition in a large measure owing to the goodwill of the French government.

Soult had instructed Guizot to declare that France was sincerely anxious to establish a permanent and lasting peace in the East. But to attain the desired result, she was convinced that Mehemet Ali must, at least, be given the hereditary tenure of Syria and Egypt. He was to impress upon Palmerston that the real object of the “trifling concessions,” which Brunnow had been empowered to make, was to obtain the signature of England to some agreement to which France would refuse to adhere.[535] Thiers, in his first despatch, expressed his approval of these instructions, and of the language which M. Guizot had employed in carrying them out. He directed him to persevere with his arguments and constantly to impress upon the British government that France had no “parti pris,” no “systÈme irrÉvocable,” nor was she bound by either promises or engagements to the Pasha. Her sole desire was to contribute to the establishment of peace upon a firm and durable foundation. The coercion of Mehemet Ali would demand a vast expenditure of military strength, and Lord Palmerston would, doubtless, agree that the armed intervention of Russia would greatly menace the independent existence of the Ottoman Empire.[536] Thiers, whose judgment on this, as on many other occasions, was greatly influenced by his hopes, was persuaded that the decision to call in a Turkish plenipotentiary, and the delay which it entailed, signified that the plans of Palmerston and Brunnow had encountered some serious obstacle. But the longer the negotiations could be drawn out, the better he would be pleased. Whilst matters were drifting to a deadlock in London, his agents, he trusted, would be enabled quietly to effect some definite arrangement at Constantinople or at Cairo.[537]

Guizot in his MÉmoires has described at length his proceedings in London. As he himself admits, he entertained an exaggerated belief in the strength of Mehemet Ali.[538] But, on the other hand, he had not Thiers’ serene confidence that England would never conclude an agreement for the settlement of the Turco-Egyptian question without the co-operation of France. On March 12, when relating a conversation he had had with Lord Palmerston in one of the drawing-rooms at Stafford House, he expressed the opinion “that the British government regarded the present moment as a favourable opportunity for settling affairs in the East, and that a sudden resolve might be taken to act without us.” Again, a few days later, he sent M. Thiers a warning couched in more emphatic language. Full powers to conclude a convention, Lord Palmerston informed him, had been transmitted to Nourri-Effendi, the Turkish ambassador in Paris, who would shortly arrive in London. “It is possible, therefore, that we may be on the eve of important decisions. . . . The British government has two interests at stake in the eastern question—the wish to keep Russia from Constantinople and the fear of French influence in Egypt. . . . The present moment is looked upon as favourable for the attainment of these objects. By a singular combination of circumstances, Russia is both prepared to abandon her pretensions to exercise an exclusive protectorship over the Ottoman Empire, and to assist England to weaken the Pasha of Egypt. . . . Great Britain, consequently, is far from regarding the present situation as embarrassing, but on the contrary deems it a most fortunate development which she must make use of to the best advantage. . . . She is aware, however, that in prosecuting this policy she may impair her good understanding with France. To retain our friendship she will make some concessions, but I am disposed to think that she has no intention of allowing the present opportunity of attaining her ends in the East to escape.”[539]

Matters, nevertheless, proceeded very slowly. Nor was the situation altered by the arrival, early in April, of Nourri-Effendi. The Porte in sending him to London only desired to make manifest its intention of conferring with its allies. When the deliberations should begin in earnest, it purposed to be represented by Chekib-Effendi, who had been appointed Ottoman ambassador at the Court of St. James’, and another month must elapse before he could reach England. Guizot, however, reported that he perceived a strong tendency upon the part of both Austria and Prussia to draw closer to France. BÜlow had asked him in confidence whether the concession to Mehemet Ali of the governorship of Syria for his life would meet with the approval of his government. Neumann had also talked to him in the same strain. But Thiers was little disposed to accept any compromise. These overtures, in his opinion, were symptoms that the Powers were beginning to realize that they were in a false position. Before long, he was certain, they would adopt the French view of the question in its entirety. Until some agreement should be arrived at with England, he recommended that Guizot should abstain, as far as possible, from any discussions with the ministers of the Northern Courts.[540] Nor was Palmerston’s suggestion admissible that the Turco-Egyptian difficulty should be submitted to a conference of the Powers. Under existing conditions, “the differences between France and her allies were too marked to permit of any general deliberation conducing to a satisfactory result.”

In the month of March, Palmerston’s brother, Sir William Temple, the British minister at Naples, had been instructed to insist upon the immediate execution of the King’s promise to abolish the sulphur monopoly and to ask for an indemnity on behalf of the English merchants who had suffered by its imposition. Upon King Ferdinand’s refusal to comply with this demand, Admiral Sir Robert Stopford was directed to blockade the coast and to seize and send to Malta such Neapolitan merchant vessels as he could capture. Thiers, having ascertained that his offer would be acceptable to both parties, proposed to mediate in the dispute. He was glad of the opportunity, which was thus afforded him, of displaying both that France and England were still upon excellent terms and of extending French influence in Italy. Thiers’ mediation was successful. The Neapolitan Court conceded the British demands, and, early in July in consequence, the blockading squadron was free to carry out Palmerston’s policy in another direction. Soon after it had accepted his offer to settle the sulphur dispute, Thiers made a second proposal to the English government. In this instance he was probably desirous simply of acquiring popularity at home.[541] On May 10, Guizot formally asked that the remains of Napoleon might be handed over to a deputation of officers and conveyed back to France, on board a French warship, for interment in Paris. Palmerston made no difficulty about immediately complying with this request.

The extraordinary confidence of both Louis Philippe and of M. Thiers that, under no circumstances, would Great Britain separate herself from France in the eastern question[542] reposed upon their joint conviction that Palmerston’s colleagues in the government would never allow him to disturb the harmony of French and English relations. Mr. Ellice,[543] the brother-in-law of Lord Grey, and a former Cabinet minister, was largely responsible for encouraging this erroneous belief, which was to bring the two countries to the verge of war. Since about the year 1835, “Bear Ellice,” as he was generally known, by reason of his connection with the Canadian fur trade, had been much in Paris. Although he appears to have disliked the responsibilities of office, he was keenly interested in public affairs and was an inveterate political gossip. Grey, who was well aware of his brother-in-law’s vanity and peculiarities, nicknamed him le grand faiseur. In Paris he frequented Princess Lieven’s salon, where he was consulted and listened to with a deference which he enjoyed exceedingly.[544] Not only was he very intimate with M. Thiers, but, according to Creevey,[545] “Louis Philippe could scarcely bear to have him out of his sight.” “I hear,” wrote Palmerston at a most critical time, “that Thiers says he has three agents upon whom he can rely—Guizot, Flahaut[546] and Ellice.”[547]

Guizot had quickly discovered that the Cabinet was not united upon the eastern question. At Holland House, where he was a constant guest, neither his host nor hostess concealed from him their antagonism to Palmerston. Clarendon, notwithstanding the insight into Louis Philippe’s diplomacy which he had acquired at Madrid, was a declared opponent of any solution of the Turco-Egyptian difficulty which might endanger the French alliance. Charles Greville, with whom Guizot appears to have become very friendly, had no scruples about informing him of any dissensions in ministerial circles. The vindictive clerk of the council detested Palmerston and distrusted his policy. Dedel, the Dutch minister, in talking over these events a year or two later with the Duchesse de Dino,[548] expressed the opinion that Guizot’s great mistake lay in imagining that intrigue played as large a part in public affairs in London as in Paris. Palmerston, he told her, had proofs of his proceedings, which would have justified him in demanding his recall. This last statement is probably somewhat exaggerated. Guizot, however, whatever he may have done, appears to have judged the situation with great discernment. “Not to mention Lords Holland and Clarendon,”he wrote to Thiers on June 1, “Melbourne and Lansdowne would be very loath to see the French alliance dissolved. . . Yet Palmerston, I believe, is as firm as ever, and I am far from certain whether those of his colleagues who disagree with him would stand up to him very firmly, when it comes to the point.”[549]

The overtures which BÜlow and Neumann had made to Guizot were followed by a definite proposal from Austria. Metternich was alarmed. He believed that Palmerston had formed a totally erroneous opinion of the military situation. He was certain that naval assistance alone would not enable the Turks to regain possession of Syria. He had no intention of allowing Austrian troops to be employed in the East, and Russia had recently sustained reverses in the Caucasus which might make it difficult for her to send an imposing force into Asia Minor. Great Britain was engaged upon warlike operations in Afghanistan, and was, besides, threatened with trouble in China and Canada. It would be, therefore, an arduous undertaking to attempt to coerce the Pasha without the co-operation of France. To obtain her assistance, he suggested that Syria should be divided into two portions. The southern half, including the fortress of Acre, might, he proposed, be given to Mehemet Ali. But, should the French government be not satisfied with this concession, Austria would agree to enforce these conditions upon the Pasha in combination with England and Russia and without the participation of France.[550]

Palmerston reluctantly decided to agree to the Austrian proposal and, on May 8, officially informed Guizot that the British government adhered to it. But this concession only served to strengthen Thiers’ belief that the Powers would before long adopt his views completely. Chekib-Effendi had not yet arrived, and there was, therefore, no necessity for returning an immediate answer. Even when the Turkish plenipotentiary reached London, Palmerston appeared to be in no hurry to resume the negotiations. On the other hand, Guizot was inclined to think that the representatives of the other Powers were growing restless. Even Brunnow seemed disposed to adopt a more conciliatory attitude, and there appeared to be a growing feeling that no settlement could be concluded without the assent of France. Thiers’ answer to the Austrian plan of partitioning Syria could not, however, be indefinitely postponed, and, on June 16, he directed Guizot to tell Lord Palmerston that he could not entertain it. “We could not,” he wrote, “suggest it to Mehemet Ali; he would refuse it, and we could not refute his arguments which we should ourselves consider to be sound and well founded.” He was greatly struck by the account which Guizot had sent him of Brunnow’s attitude, “which could only be ascribed to disasters in Circassia. It was clear that Russia was not ready to embark upon serious operations elsewhere.”[551]

When Thiers thus declined to consider the Austrian proposal, he believed that his hopes of bringing about secretly a direct arrangement between the Sultan and the Pasha were about to be realized. Mehemet Ali had been unable wholly to conceal his disappointment on learning of the collective note of July 27, 1839. When it was officially communicated to him by the consuls of the Powers, he declared firmly that there could be no peace until the hereditary tenure of Syria should be conferred upon him and until his enemy Hosrew Pasha, the Grand Vizier, should be dismissed from office.[552] Since then, he had sometimes angrily asserted that he would wait no longer and that he should order Ibrahim to march upon Constantinople, whilst, on other occasions, he had shown a disposition to adopt a more conciliatory attitude. Throughout the winter and the spring he pressed on his military preparations. Some of these, however, proved very unsuccessful—an attempt to form a national guard in Egypt itself breaking down completely.[553] At the same time he appears to have experienced great difficulty in keeping Ibrahim’s army in Syria supplied with money, food, and clothing,[554] whilst, to add to his embarrassments, in the spring, the Druses and other tribes began to display renewed symptoms of disaffection.[555] Palmerston, now that he no longer feared the separate intervention of Russia, would probably have been well pleased could the Pasha have been provoked into some act of aggression against the Sultan. But he was too sagacious to be moved from his attitude of prudent inaction by the threatening language of Campbell’s successor, Colonel Hodges, which, however, caused some alarm at Vienna and at St. Petersburg, where neither Metternich nor Nesselrode entertained Palmerston’s contemptuous disbelief in the military power of Mehemet Ali.[556] M. Thiers seems to have been wilfully blind to the difficulties of the Pasha’s position, and to have persuaded himself that it was from respect to the wishes of the French government that Ibrahim abstained from advancing into Asia Minor.

M. Cochelet, the French consul-general, was probably instructed[557] to urge Mehemet Ali to refrain from hostilities, to limit his demands to the hereditary tenure of Syria and Egypt and, generally, to depend upon the good offices of France for the attainment of his wishes. M. Thiers, however, was well aware that his plan of bringing about a direct arrangement between the Sultan and the Pasha would encounter far more serious difficulties at Constantinople than at Cairo. Ever since the arrival of M. de Pontois, the successor of Admiral Roussin, Ponsonby had constantly reported that the French minister was endeavouring to persuade the Porte to conclude a peace with Mehemet Ali, without reference to the Powers.[558] But the advice of M. de Pontois had hitherto been disregarded. Hosrew, Reshid, and Halil Pasha, the most influential of the Turkish ministers, were very hostile to Mehemet Ali and firm supporters of the British policy. Soon after his accession to office, Thiers appears to have decided to supplement the efforts of the recognized representative of the French government by those of an unofficial agent. At the beginning of May, a correspondence was opened between M. Jacques Coste[559] and Fethi Ahmed Pasha, the Minister of Commerce and brother-in-law to the young Sultan. Under ordinary circumstances there would be nothing to excite attention in the fact that a prominent French journalist should write on political matters to a Turkish statesman, whom he had known as Ottoman ambassador in Paris. But the close intimacy which notoriously existed between M. Coste and M. Thiers gives importance to this particular correspondence. Certainly both Palmerston and Ponsonby and, indeed, Ahmed Pasha himself, who delivered the original letters into the hands of the British ambassador, appear to have been satisfied that the sentiments and advice contained in them emanated from M. Thiers.[560]

The primary object which M. Coste had in view was to persuade Fethi Ahmed Pasha that it was essential for the Porte promptly to conclude a peace with Mehemet Ali. All the powers, he contended, were pursuing selfish ends with the sole exception of France, and she was both resolved not to intervene herself and not to allow any other Power to interfere actively in the Turco-Egyptian dispute. Her hands were free and she was strong enough to enforce her will upon Europe. The perfidy of England’s policy was manifest. As in 1839, Great Britain now proposed to incite the Porte to make war upon the Pasha. If she could achieve this object she would, of a surety, encourage Russia to intervene in order to crush the Egyptians, whilst at the same time she would insist at Vienna and in Paris upon the necessity of preventing the occupation of Constantinople by the armies of the Tsar. Should she be enabled to carry out her Machiavellian plan of bringing about a general war she purposed, in the confusion, quietly to lay hands upon Egypt, which she had long coveted for herself. He was sorry to hear that Chekib-Effendi, when passing through Paris, had declared to M. Thiers that it would be better that England should take Egypt, than that it should continue in the possession of a rebellious vassal of the Sultan. Such reasoning was deplorably unsound. “That which England takes she keeps,” whereas, in the future, it should be an easy task for the Sultan to compel the descendants of Mehemet Ali to give back the territories which must now be surrendered temporarily. Writing on June 8, M. Coste suggested, as a compromise, that Syria might be given to Ibrahim and Adana to another son of the Pasha. They would certainly quarrel among themselves, and the Porte might avail itself of their dissensions for expelling them altogether. Let the Sultan be assured of the wisdom of the old saying, “diviser pour regner.”[561] This curious correspondence continued intermittently until the fall of M. Thiers in September. But after the end of June, Coste’s communications became less frequent and were less cordially expressed. On July 8 he explained that the silence with which his well-meant advice had been received “had placed him in an awkward position with M. Thiers,” whilst to Prince Vogoride, a son of the Prince of Samos, another of his correspondents, he conveyed his surprise and annoyance that his letters, written “en quelque sorte sous la dictÉe d’un tres haut personnage” should have elicited no response.[562]

Whilst the French agents at Constantinople were thus striving to render nugatory the provisions of the collective note, another attempt to achieve the desired result was being made in a different quarter. The Sultana Mother was believed to have been concerned in the secret negotiation conducted by Sarim-Effendi,[563] under the patronage of Admiral Roussin and M. Mimaut, during M. Thiers’ first administration, and her support was now obtained to the plan of a direct arrangement between the Sultan and the Pasha. The sudden dismissal, on May 19, of Hosrew, the Grand-Vizier, was the result of her intrigues.[564] The first news of this event was conveyed to Mehemet Ali by M. Cochelet. The Pasha at once declared that the fall of his old enemy had removed the last obstacle to a satisfactory conclusion of his quarrel with the Sultan. He should, he announced, forthwith send back the Turkish fleet, and Sami Bey, his confidential secretary, should proceed without delay to Constantinople to make the necessary arrangements.[565] Nevertheless, some three weeks elapsed before the Pasha’s emissary started upon his journey, and it was only on June 13, on the eve of his departure, that the object of his mission was disclosed to Colonel Hodges and the other agents of the Powers.[566] But Cochelet, on May 26, duly reported this new development to his government in a despatch, a copy of which M. Thiers transmitted to M. Guizot with instructions that its contents must, for the present, be kept strictly secret. In spite of these precautions, however, Cochelet’s confidential communication appears to have been divulged to Apponyi, the Austrian ambassador in Paris, who, on June 16, was enabled to inform Neumann in London of the negotiation which had been initiated between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan.[567] Meanwhile, at Constantinople, Lord Ponsonby had discovered that a potent influence was at work to induce the young Sultan to surrender Syria in exchange for his fleet. But, encouraged by the British ambassador, both Reshid and Fethi Ahmed Pasha declared that they should resign, were any compact of that kind to be concluded, and their firm attitude defeated the insidious schemes of the Sultana Mother, and rendered abortive the mission of Sami Bey.[568]

M. Thiers, however, was confident that the news of Hosrew’s dismissal would be followed quickly by the intelligence that the Sultan and the Pasha had settled their differences amicably. This unexpected development would, he was convinced, place a totally new complexion upon the Turco-Egyptian question. But in point of fact, Palmerston had been informed by Neumann of the negotiation which was to be opened between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan. Thus, when the news reached London of the mission of Sami Bey to Constantinople, he was fully prepared for it. Far from being suddenly confronted by the embarrassing prospect that the settlement of the affair was about to pass out of his control, he was, on the contrary, enabled to adduce the proceedings of the French agents at Constantinople and at Cairo, as a reason for promptly concluding a treaty for the protection of the young Sultan from the machinations of his enemies.

Thiers’ illusions were by no means shared by Guizot. The ambassador divined correctly that the crisis of the affair was approaching. Since the rejection of the Austrian proposals Palmerston, he reported, had pointedly avoided all discussion of the eastern question with him. But from the moment that the news arrived that a direct negotiation was in progress between Cairo and Constantinople he had been very busy. This last development, moreover, had made a great impression upon the representatives of the Powers, and those of them, who had lately been inclined to adopt the French view of the question, were now, it was evident, less favourably disposed. Cabinet councils had been held, dissensions had arisen, and Palmerston, he believed, had threatened to resign. It was probable, he considered, that Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia would agree to some form of joint action in the East, and that France would be formally asked whether or not she would participate in whatever measures they might resolve to adopt.[569] This idea that no treaty would be actually concluded until France should have been invited to adhere to it, was the one point upon which M. Guizot may be held to have misled M. Thiers. Princess Lieven, who was staying at Stafford House, is said to have encouraged his delusion. She appears to have tried to extract from BÜlow, the Prussian minister, some information about the progress of the negotiations. Her enquiries, however, only elicited from him the fact that he was still without the new letters of credence which the recent death of Frederick William III. had rendered necessary. From this circumstance Guizot seems to have inferred that there was no immediate danger of the conclusion of a treaty between the four Powers, inasmuch as BÜlow had not yet been officially accredited to the Court of St. James’.[570]

As Guizot had correctly surmised, Palmerston experienced the greatest difficulty in inducing his colleagues to adopt his views. Both Holland and Clarendon strongly deprecated the conclusion of any treaty to which France would not be a party, and Melbourne and Lansdowne seemed disposed to agree with them. Palmerston, thereupon, placed his resignation in the hands of the Prime Minister.[571] In a long letter, on July 5, in which he recapitulated the whole history of the Turco-Egyptian question, he explained the reasons which made it impossible for him to remain at his post. Were Great Britain to elude the engagements which she had contracted towards the Sultan, because France was not prepared to co-operate with the other signatory Powers, Russia would resume once more “her separate and isolated position” towards Turkey. England, he contended, would thus by her own deliberate act, re-establish that protectorship of Russia over Turkey, which had for so long been a cause of apprehension to other Powers. “The ultimate results of such a decision would be the practical division of the Ottoman Empire into two separate and independent States, whereof one would be a dependency of France and the other a satellite of Russia.” Never would he consent to be an instrument for the execution of a policy which, he believed, must entail disastrous consequences upon his country. Unless, therefore, his colleagues were prepared to pursue the course which he advocated he must retire, even though his resignation should lead to a break up of the government.[572]

The most recent intelligence from the East had, moreover, supplied Palmerston with an argument which had a great effect in overcoming the resistance of his opponents in the Cabinet. A formidable insurrection was reported to have broken out in Syria, where the tribes were in open rebellion against Mehemet Ali. He could, therefore, contend that the treaty, which he urged his colleagues to conclude with Russia, Austria and Prussia, was a Liberal measure, inasmuch as it meant the delivery of an oppressed people from a tyrannical ruler. This last consideration, combined with the desire to avoid the crisis which must result from the resignation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, induced the dissenting members of the Cabinet reluctantly to assent to Palmerston’s proposals.[573] Accordingly, on July 15, “a convention for the pacification of the Levant” was signed by the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia, on the one side, and that of the Sublime Porte on the other. In view of the expediency of speedily affording military succour to the Syrians, it appears to have been agreed that BÜlow should be considered as empowered to act on behalf of his Court.

By the convention which was thus concluded the four Powers undertook actively to assist the Sultan to reduce the Pasha to submission—Austria and Great Britain engaging to intercept all communication by sea between Egypt and Syria. To this instrument was annexed a Separate Act in which were laid down the terms which the Porte purposed to offer to Mehemet Ali. The hereditary tenure of Egypt was to be conferred upon him together with the governorship for life of the greater part of the pashalic of Acre. But, if he should not accede to these conditions within a space of ten days, the offer of Acre would be withdrawn. A further delay of ten days would, however, be accorded him in which to consider the second proposal which would be limited to the hereditary pashalic of Egypt. If, after the specified term had elapsed, he should still refuse to accept the proffered conditions, the Sultan would be free to bring the negotiations to a conclusion and “to follow such ulterior course as his own interests and the counsels of his allies might suggest to him.” In a third document, known as The Reserved Protocol, it was laid down that, inasmuch as “the state of affairs in Syria, the interests of humanity and grave considerations of European policy” made it desirable that active operations should begin with as little delay as possible, the naval measures to which Austria and Great Britain were pledged would be initiated at once, without waiting for the ratification of the convention.[574]

The decision of the four Powers to conclude this treaty had not been communicated to M. Guizot. French historians have adduced the secrecy which was observed as a proof of Palmerston’s malevolent intentions towards France. But no other course could have been pursued with safety. It was certain that France would not take part in coercing the Pasha,[575] and it was no less certain that she would warn him of the measures which the allies were proposing to adopt against him.[576] Inasmuch, therefore, as it was advisable that the naval commander in the Mediterranean should receive his orders before Mehemet Ali could be aware of the nature of the pressure which was to be brought to bear upon him, it was impossible to acquaint M. Guizot with the resolution of the Powers. Nor was the expediency of enabling the British fleet to forestall any hostile move on the part of the Pasha the only reason which made secrecy desirable. Although Palmerston was not apprehensive that the French government would proceed to extremities, it was possible that M. Thiers might decide actively to support the Pasha. In that case war could not be avoided and it was very necessary that Sir Robert Stopford should receive the earliest information of the intentions of his government. No communication, accordingly, was made to the French ambassador until the couriers from London had obtained a start of forty-eight hours. But, on July 17, Palmerston invited M. Guizot to call at the Foreign Office, where he read out to him a memorandum acquainting him with the convention which had been concluded. The numerous efforts which had been made to induce France to co-operate with the other Powers were insisted upon, and great regret was expressed that she had not seen fit to comply with the several proposals which had been communicated to her. Palmerston then proceeded to explain the general nature of the measures of coercion which it was intended to apply to Mehemet Ali, without, however, supplying the ambassador with a copy of the treaty. Guizot, after disputing the accuracy of certain statements contained in the memorandum, took his departure. The situation was so grave that he must receive instructions from his government before he could discuss it.[577]