Chapter VII: Sultan and Pasha (2)

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]