Determination of the Allied Courts to secure the Hereditary Pachalic for Mehemet Ali—Correspondence between Baron Sturmer and Lord Ponsonby—Decisive Instructions from Lord Palmerston to Lord Ponsonby—Conference of the Allied Ministers with Rechid Pacha—Project for settling the Egyptian Question—Lord Ponsonby’s Observations at the Conference—The Firmans decided on—Refusal of Lord Ponsonby to allow the English Consul-General to return to Egypt—Lord Ponsonby’s Letter to Rechid Pacha.
Before the last communication could reach the British Ambassador, indeed before it was written, Baron StÜrmer in a letter of the 7th of January[94], had told him that Prince Metternich had written in the most peremptory terms, that the Four Courts had pronounced that the hereditary succession in the functions of the Government of Egypt should be granted to the family of Mehemet Ali, and he finishes by condoling with Lord Ponsonby, that the Allies have destroyed the hope they both had of seeing the power of Mehemet Ali crumble to pieces. He adds, “My part is played, and it only remains for me to await in silence the orders which my Government may be pleased to transmit to me, and execute them scrupulously.”
The English Ambassador, in no way daunted, replies[95], “It is wholly indifferent what may be the private opinion of any of us as to this question, which is the affair of our Governments, and for which none of us are responsible; but it is another thing to act ‘without orders,’ and I will not incur ‘that’ responsibility, and therefore I must decline acting in concert with you until I am authorized to take the steps you propose, by instructions to that effect. It is necessary I should acquaint our colleagues and the Ottoman Ministers with my position, and I shall do so without loss of time. I have been told by the best authority, including yourself, if I mistake not, that your Government had not decided to grant the hereditary right to Mehemet Ali; and at the Conference it did appear that you had no authority to mention that point. This matter, however, is not of a very recent date, and it is not at all impossible that more than one alteration may have taken place in the language or opinion of that Government, and that which is erroneous now, may have been right before, or possibly may be so again, for in this affair there has been a perpetual fluctuation of circumstances. If my Government has not sent me orders, it cannot be for want of time, as they would have reached me through Vienna as soon as the instruction you have received.”
The Ambassador wrote in the same sense to M. Titow and Count KÖnigsmark[96], complaining of the breathless haste they were proceeding in, in recommending the hereditary succession, and urging every argument to prevent it in the first instance; all of which happily failed, and at last he got decided instructions from home, which produced a couple of short notes to the other Ministers and M. Pisani.
“My dear Sir,
“Therapia, Jan. 10, 1841.
“I hasten to acquaint you, that in consequence of what I have received from my Government by the messenger who has just arrived here, I have instructed my Dragoman to inform his Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that the British Government advises the Sublime Porte to grant to Mehemet Ali the hereditary government of Egypt.
| “I have, &c.,
(Signed)“Ponsonby.” |
“Sir,
“Therapia, Jan. 10, 1841.
“You will acquaint his Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that I am ordered to counsel the Sublime Porte, in the name of the British Government, to grant to Mehemet Ali the hereditary government of Egypt.
| “I have, &c.,
(Signed)“Ponsonby.” |
“To M. Frederick Pisani.”
Lord Palmerston, in a short letter of February 10[97], approves of the Ambassador’s conduct, without stating whether it was the long correspondence to endeavour to induce the Allied Ministers not to recommend the grant of the hereditary tenure, or the short correspondence recommending the grant to be confirmed.
Notwithstanding that Lord Ponsonby had been foiled in his first attempt to prevent the Porte from conferring the hereditary pachalic on Mehemet Ali, he was not discouraged, and returned to the charge with fresh vigour, on the question of attaching such conditions to the hereditary title, as would render it worse than useless; and I have shown that on reflection, the Allied Ministers altered their opinion, and Lord Ponsonby in consequence withdrew his proposal.
On the 4th of February the Allied Ministers were invited to a conference with Rechid Pacha, who laid before them his project of definitively settling the Egyptian question, which was as follows:—
“Hereditary succession of Egypt granted on condition that all the Treaties and all the laws of the empire shall be applied to Egypt as to every other part of the Ottoman empire.
“The Sultan reserves to himself to choose among the male descendants of Mehemet Ali whom he shall please. The heir chosen for the Government of Egypt shall not have the title of Vizier until he shall have received the investiture of the Sultan, and after such investiture he shall be styled Vizier, and treated like the other Viziers of the empire. Considering the advanced age of Mehemet Ali, he is exempted from proceeding to the capital; his successors are under an obligation to do so.
“As the Porte contemplates an improvement in its coinage, the money which Mehemet Ali may coin in Egypt should have the same alloy and value as that of the Sultan.
“All appointments to civil and military employments must proceed from the Sultan, and all promotions emanate from His Highness; wherefore Mehemet Ali is prohibited from appointing to any employment, and making provision for any office without the authorisation and consent of His Highness; in order, however, to leave him means of military organisation, he is permitted to appoint up to the rank of captain inclusive.
“The tribute to be paid yearly shall be fixed separately.
“The distinctive marks (nischan) of every rank, as well civil as military, are to be ordained by His Highness.
“The uniforms, as well civil as military, must resemble those worn by the civil and military officers of the Sultan, the whole adapted to the climate; it being well understood that the cut and shape must be absolutely the same.
“With respect to the garrison for the maintenance of good order in Egypt, the Porte proposes from 20,000 to 25,000 troops.
“The conscription which in the other provinces furnishes one man in a hundred, shall not in Egypt furnish more than one in two hundred.
“The Government of Egypt has always been bound to provide for the wants of the Holy Cities; Mehemet Ali must therefore, as a faithful subject, act in conformity with what is imposed on him by the situation of Governor of Egypt[98].”
Lord Ponsonby, being first called upon for his opinion, stated, he had no objection to offer, but after his colleagues had spoken he should make some observations on the Tribute. The other Ministers gave their assent to the propositions of Rechid Pacha; the arguments they used Lord Ponsonby does not report to Lord Palmerston, as they would appear in the Protocol, but which Protocol is not, I suppose for some wise purpose, inserted in the Levant Papers. We must, then, content ourselves with the British Ambassador’s own observations. He begins by stating, that Mehemet Ali having been deposed, and the Porte appealed to, to reinstate him, sufficiently proves that the Treaty of the 15th of July does not bind the Allies. His Lordship, I believe, was singular in this opinion, for it has been distinctly and repeatedly stated by the Allied Ministers both in London, Vienna, and Constantinople, that the Treaty of the 15th of July should be the basis of the settlement of the Egyptian question; and in no part of the correspondence does it appear that the Allies approved of the deposition of Mehemet Ali, and it may therefore be fairly inferred that they entirely disapproved of it.
His Lordship takes for granted the Treaty is not an absolute rule, and thus observes:
“If the Treaty be not the absolute rule, why are we to counsel the Sublime Porte to take a measure that was adopted in that Treaty, at a time when affairs were in a state totally different from their actual state? The Treaty was a compromise with Mehemet Ali, and all its stipulations were conditional, and with a view to engage him to accept it. Mehemet Ali decided to refuse the Treaty, and to try the chance of arms. He has been vanquished, and he has made unconditional submission to his Sovereign. How then can the Treaty be obligatory upon the Allies, (of whom the Sultan is one,) to take the measures framed for another position of affairs which has ceased to exist?
“If then the Treaty be not obligatory upon the Allies, the counsel to be given by us to the Ottoman Porte is to be based upon the instructions we have received from our Courts; and we are not to advise the Porte to adopt measures that are impossible to be reconciled one with another, and contradictory, so as that one measure, if adopted, shall defeat almost every other measure which we are ordered to recommend.”
The document is much too long, but may be seen in the Levant Papers. The burden of it is, that Mehemet Ali should be crippled in his finances to prevent him doing further mischief; and the Ambassador finishes by saying, “I have reason to believe my colleagues entertain an opinion different from mine. They have had before them for their considerationconsideration the instructions from Lord Palmerston so often referred to. They are possibly better able to interpret them than I may be, but I understand them in the sense I have described; and it is for others, not for me, to decide, and to take such part as they may esteem the best. Those whom I have now addressed can judge, as well as I can do, what is the opinion of the British Government. My opinion is of little importance, excepting to myself, but I must stand before my country and justify my acts[99].”
All this would have been right enough if the Porte had the power to enforce it, but not having the power, they only exposed their own weakness to Mehemet Ali, and gave him an opportunity of treating their overtures with the contempt they deserved.
On the 15th of February Rechid Pacha officially delivered to M. Pisani, Lord Ponsonby’s dragoman, copies of the firman granting the hereditary succession, the firman for governing the provinces bordering on Egypt, as likewise an official note to the four Ministers, and a letter from the Vizier to Mehemet Ali[100], communicating to them at the same time, that the Consuls might proceed to Alexandria in the steam-boat, which would leave in the afternoon without fail. This information had been privately communicated by the dragoman to Lord Ponsonby on the 13th.
Nothing was, however, further from his Lordship’s intention than allowing the British Consul-General to return. He appears to have been dissatisfied because he was not consulted before the measure was decided on, and he informed the Turkish Minister that he should not require the Consul-General to return, because it might not suit the British Government to establish the Consul-General on the same footing as before; that Mehemet Ali might refuse; and lastly, that Colonel Hodges could not leave Constantinople so suddenly[101]. Of these three arguments the only valid one seems to be, the probability of Mehemet Ali’s refusing the conditions; but even granting that, it would have been more politic to have sent the Consuls with the Turkish Commissioner who bore the firmans, with orders to persuade Mehemet Ali, if possible, to accept them, and to signify to him at the same time that the flags would not be hoisted till that point was arranged. They being on the spot, and in an official capacity, furnished with instructions from the Ambassador at Constantinople, would have seen how far it was possible for MehemetMehemet Ali to accept the firman without risking the tranquillity of Egypt, and would necessarily have more influence on the Pacha than I could have, being totally unprovided with instructions, and not having received a single line from the Ambassador to guide my conduct.
On the 15th of February Lord Ponsonby wrote officially to Rechid Pacha[102], disowning having had any thing to do with the firman, and stating that he never had been consulted at all, or knew any thing about it, till every thing was decided, and ordered to be sent to Alexandria. The fact is, the Porte saw that Lord Ponsonby was determined to keep the question open, and therefore arranged the firman without asking his advice. What that advice might have been is hard to say; but we must infer that had he been consulted, the firman would have been much more stringent than it was, and which, as it turned out, was not palatable to the Pacha, who absolutely constrained the Porte to alter it, and give him more favourable terms; in this, as we shall see, he was supported by the majority of the Ambassadors.
