found various pretexts for the invasion of Syria, on the actual possession of which, it was manifest, the supremacy of the Porte or of the Khedive of Egypt would depend.

In 1831 A.D., the Egyptian army and Ibrahim Pacha passed the frontier. As soon as the Porte was apprised of this event, an order was immediately despatched to Mehemet Ali to recall his troops. To these and further orders he turned a deaf ear. An official declaration of war against him, preceded by a religious anathema or public declaration that he and his sons were rebels, and out of the pale of Mussulman law, did not stop his course.

In May 1832, Acre was captured by his troops. Not long afterwards all Syria was conquered for him by Ibrahim, his general and son. The armies of the Porte were routed and destroyed, and the advance of the conqueror upon Constantinople was only prevented by the intervention of the great European Powers. Nevertheless, by a kind of convention, usually called the treaty of Kutaieh, between the Sultan and Mehemet, the latter obtained a great addition of power and territory; for he retained possession of Syria and the passes of Mount Taurus, or the district of Adana. He undertook, indeed, to pay tribute for Syria, as well as Egypt; but, with his army and navy untouched, and with these possessions, the Pacha of Egypt was allowed to remain, in fact, more powerful than his nominal master at Constantinople.

But in the interval between 1833 A.D. and 1841 A.D. the scene is greatly changed. The actors remain, but play very different parts.

Nor is it unimportant to observe, that the stream of Egyptian political history, however immiscible the characters of the individual Mohammedan and Christian may be, has ever since this epoch been greatly affected by the currents of European diplomacy. I pass by earlier treaties, and the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi in 1833 A.D., which, placing Turkey under the protectorate of Russia, has been superseded by a later Treaty. Mehemet Ali and Ibrahim, in

1834 A.D., pursued the scheme of uniting all the provinces belonging to the caliphate under their government; but discontents arose among the natives of Syria, which were not appeased by the disarmament of the Druses and of the population generally. These discontents revived the hopes of the Sultan, and in 1839 A.D., he sent another army into Syria, which was defeated at Nezib. But in 1840 A.D., Mehemet Ali was made aware that the European Powers would not allow an Arab empire to be established on the ruins of the Ottoman State.

England sent an agent to warn the Pacha of his danger, and, in answer to a statement of his rights, the following language was used: "I have to instruct you," said Lord Palmerston to Colonel Hodges, the agent employed, "on "the next occasion on which Mehemet Ali shall speak to "you of his rights, to say to his Highness, that you are in"structed by your Government to remind him that he has no "rights except such as the Sultan has conferred upon him; "that the only legitimate authority which he possesses is "the authority which has been delegated to him by the "Sultan over a portion of the Sultan's dominions, and which "has been entrusted to him for the sole purpose of being "used in the interest and in obedience to the orders of the "Sultan; that the Sultan is entitled to take away that "which he has given; that the Sultan may probably do so "if his own safety should require it; and that if in such 66 case the Sultan should not have the means of self-defence, "the Sultan has allies, who may possibly lend him those means " (b).

66

And on July 18, 1840, Lord Palmerston wrote to Colonel Hodges as follows: "You will see that orders have "been given to the British fleet to act at once, by cutting "off the communication between Syria and Egypt, and by "helping the Syrians. If Mehemet Ali should complain of

(b) Correspondence relating to the Affairs of the Levant, presented to Parliament in 1841. Part I. p. 502.

"this, and of its being done without notice, you will remind "him civilly that we are the allies of the Sultan, and have

66

a right to help the faithful subjects of the Sultan in main"taining their allegiance, and to assist the Sultan against "those of his subjects who are in revolt against him, as "Mehemet Ali is; and that Mehemet Ali not being an independent Sovereign with whom the four Powers have any political relations, those Powers are not bound to give "him any notice of their intended proceedings " (c).

66

And again on September 14, 1840, Lord Palmerston wrote: "With reference to your despatch of the 17th "of August, I have to instruct you to state in writing to "Mehemet Ali, if the state of things should render it neces"sary to do so, that Egypt is a portion of the dominions of "the Sultan; that British subjects have certain rights and "privileges as to the security of their persons, property, and "commerce in all parts of the Ottoman Empire, by virtue "of treaties concluded between the British Crown and the "Porte; and that any subject of the Sultan, whether in a "state of obedience to, or of revolt against the authority "of the Sultan, who should take upon himself in any way "or in the slightest degree to molest British subjects, or to "interfere with the exercise of their rights and privileges, "would incur a heavy and most serious responsibility "(d).

The principles of international policy enunciated in these despatches were fully carried into execution by the Convention of July 15, 1840, by which Austria, England, Prussia, and Russia concurred in the determination to protect the Porte by coercive measures, if necessary, against the Pacha. Whether the Pacha should be a Sovereign Prince, or a subject, however powerful, of the Porte, seems to have depended on the result of this war. But the consequence of this European intervention was the rapid

(c) Correspondence relating to the Affairs of the Levant, presented to Parliament in 1841. Part II. P. 5. (d) Ibid. Part II.

p. 187.

overthrow of the Pacha's power in Syria; after which the Sultan issued to the Pacha the Firman of February 13, 1841.

In 1849, Mehemet Ali, having ceased to rule, on account of imbecility, in the preceding year, died, and was succeeded by Abbas, who died in 1854 A.D.; to him succeeded Said, who died in 1863 A.D., and to him succeeded the present Khedive. In 1866, 1867, 1869 A.D., circumstances induced the Porte to issue additional Firmans. In these documents, as well as in the Firman of 1841, and a further Firman in 1873 (e), granted after the judgment in The Charkieh, are to be found the existing relations between the Porte and the Pacha of Egypt, now called the Khedive. The principal and most important of these relations may be said to form part of the present public law of Europe.

The result of the historical inquiry as to the status of his Highness the Khedive, instituted in the case of The Charkieh, was as follows: That in the Firmans, whose authority upon this point appears to be paramount, Egypt is invariably spoken of as one of the provinces of the Ottoman Empire; that the Egyptian army is regulated as part of the military force of the Ottoman Empire; that the taxes are imposed and levied in the name of the Porte; that the Treaties of the Porte are binding upon Egypt, and that she has no separate jus legationis; that the flag for both the army and navy is the flag of the Porte.

All these facts, according to the unanimous opinion of accredited writers, are inconsistent and incompatible with those conditions of sovereignty which are necessary to entitle a country to be ranked as one among the great community of States.

In accordance with these facts and the principles deducible from them, the Court of Admiralty decided in 1873, in the case of The Charkieh, that the ship of the Khedive was not entitled to the privileges of a vessel of war belonging to an independent State.

(e) Printed at length in the Journal des Débats, July 7, 1873.

On November 3, 1839, the Porte published an Ordinance for the regulation of its provinces and of its vassal States, called Hatti-Sheriff of Gulhané. This Hatti-Sheriff was followed by the promulgation of a collection of Laws called the Tanzimat, and this, with certain modifications, has been applied to Egypt by a Firman décoré d'un Hatti-Sheriff (ƒ), of July 1852. This Firman appears to overrule the Code d'Abbas, which had been established in Egypt.

This Firman can hardly be said to affect the International relations of the Pacha; the principal derogation from the sovereignty of the latter consisting in the reservation to the Sultan of the power as to life and death over the subjects of the Pacha.

In the Separate Act annexed to the Convention, concluded at London on July 15, 1840, between the Courts of Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia on the one part, and the Sublime Ottoman Porte on the other, the International Status of Egypt is described in the following articles :

66

"1. His Highness promises to grant to Mehemet Ali, "for himself and for his descendants in the direct line, the "administration of the Pachalic of Egypt; and his High"ness promises, moreover, to grant to Mehemet Ali for his "life, with the title of Pacha of Acre, and with the com"mand of the fortress of Saint John of Acre, the administra"tion of the southern part of Syria, the limits of which shall "be determined by the following line of demarcation :

66

:

"This line, beginning at Cape Ras-el-Nakhora, on the "coast of the Mediterranean, shall extend direct from thence "as far as the mouth of the River Seizaban, at the northern extremity of the Lake of Tiberias. It shall pass along the "western shore of that lake. It shall follow the right of the "River Jordan and the western shore of the Dead Sea. From "thence it shall extend straight to the Red Sea, which it "shall strike at the northern point of the gulph of Akaba;

(f) It describes itself as-"Firman adressé à mon illustre et judicieux Vizir Abbas Halmi Pacha, actuellement et héréditairement Gouverneur de l'Egypte, avec le rang éminent de Grand Vizir."