« PreviousContinue »
Phillimore's judgment in The Charkich), the administration of the Pachalic was granted by the Sultan of Turkey to Mehemet Ali and his descendants in the direct line, with the right to collect and retain to his own profit taxes and customs, and to maintain military and naval forces.* The internal rights, however, were not wholly granted. The right of independent legislation was denied, for, by Section Four of the Act annexed to the Convention for the pacification of the Levant, which defines the status of Egypt, all the laws of the Ottoman Empire were to apply to Egypt. Also, the full right of determining the Constitution was not granted ; this is shown by the fact that when it was desired to modify the succession to the Viceroyalty, it was not done by the Viceroy, but by a special Firman issued by the Porte.f The powers granted under this Convention were confirmed and extended by various Firmans of later date. By the Firman of June 8th, 1867, complete autonomy, including the right of legislation, was granted to Egypt. It recites that the “internal administration of the province, and consequently its financial, niaterial, and other interests are confided to the Government of Egypt without any reservation, even to the extent of the furtherance of those interests by "entering into arrangements with foreign agents," and by it was also given permission to the Egyptian Government to“ frame such regulations as may seem necessary in the form of special Tanzimat for the Interior.”+ The original sovereign rights, however, of the Porte were expressly reserved ; no treaties or conventions having any
* See the Convention between Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia and Turkey, 15th July, 1840; Herslet's Treaties, V., 535.-Map of Europe, II., 1008.
† Firman, May 27th, 1866.-Hertslet's Treaties, XIV., 1025. Confirmed by Firman, June 8th, 1873.-Ibid, p. 1029.
Confirmed by Firman, September 10th, 1872.-Hertslet's Treaties, XIV., 1027.
political signification might be concluded by Egypt, all such power being reserved to the Porte. The Firman of June 8th, 1873,* made the granting of internal and the withholding of external rights still more definite. By it the civil and financial administration, the authority to make internal regulations and laws, contract loans, maintain troops to guard and defend the country, confer military rank up to colonel, † and coin money were confirmed to the Khedive; but the Egyptian land and sea forces were to be considered part of the Imperial Ottoman army and navy, and were to carry the Imperial flag, the money was to be struck in the Imperial name, and foreign political relations were to be conducted by the Porte.
Servia, previous to the Treaty of Berlin, I was subject to the suzerainty of the Porte. It is somewhat uncertain, however, when it was first considered to have developed from a simply subject to a vassal State. After the struggle of the Servians for liberty in the first twelve years of the present century, the Porte, by the Eighth Article of the Treaty of Bucharests, promised to make over to them “the administration of their internal affairs." An insurrection broke out the following year, and was put down by the Porte, and consequently no effect was given to the provisions of this Article. Then came the Treaty of Ackermann in 1826, il by the Fifth Article of which the Porte promised to put the clauses of the Eighth Article of the Treaty of Bucharest into immediate execution, and (Annex 2) to grant to Servia certain privileges, the most important being the “choice of its Chiefs " and the “ Independence of its internal
* Hertslet's Treaties, XIV., 1029.
† loternal defence, it may be presumed, not requiring an army oficered by any of higher rank,
Article XXXIV. § Between Russia and Turkey, May, 1812. - Hertslet's Map of Europe, III, 2030.
!, Heitslet's Map of Europe, I., 758.
administration." It was not, however, until after another Russo-Turkish war and another treaty, that of Adrianople, in 1829,* containing a renewal of the promise of the Porte, that any of these privileges were in fact given to Servia. In that year by Hatti-Sherif, and in 1830, 1833, and 1838 by Firman, constitutional rights were formally granted. In none of these treaties or proclamations was Servia referred to as other than a subject part of the Empire, and the Servians as equally with the Turks, subjects of the Porte. It is generally said that Servia, as well as Moldavia and Wallachia were placed under the suzerainty of the Porte at the Peace of Paris in 1856, but on reference to the Treaty † it will be seen that though as to Moldavia and Wallachia, it is declared that they “shall continue to enjoy under the Suzerainty of the Porte their privileges, and the Porte is spoken of as their “Suzerain Power,f with regard to Servia, it is simply declared that it shall “continue to hold of the Sublime Porte.” Nevertheless, in 1862, in the Protocol of Conference signed by the Seven Powers, including Turkey,ş relative to the affairs of Servia, the Porte is styled the Suzerain Power.|| If, however, Servia was vassal in 1862 it is difficult to see any reason for considering that she was not equally so in 1830. It was then that Servia first received an independent constitution, and the subsequent Treaty and Firmans did little more than confirm the same. Certainly none of the later Firmans can be considered in the light of the first creation of a vassalage. It is clear, indeed, that Servia claimed to be vassal only, not only before the Treaty of 1862, but
* Hertslet's Map of Europe, II., 813. + Hertslet's Map of Europe, II., 1250. | Art. XXII., XXV., &c.
Hertslet's Map of Europe, II., 1515; Hertslet's Treaties, XI., 575. || In the Firman of April, 1867, the Porte adopts the same title.-Hertslet's Map of Europe, III., 1800.
before that of 1856, for in the Protest addressed by the Servian Government to the Sublime Porte in 1854 against the occupation of the Principality by Austrian troops, the Porte is referred to as the “Suzerain Court," and this would hardly have been done if the position had not been so considered at Constantinople, as the document is couched in the mosi deferent terms, evidently with no intention of raising an unfriendly feeling, which an assumption of an unauthorised degree of freedom would certainly have done. By the Firman, then, of that year (1830),t hereditary succession was decreed to Prince Milosch with the right of "Internal Administration” (administration of justice, liberty of worship, organisation of armed force for the security of the public peace in the interior, &c.), but Turkey reserved the right to maintain and garrison the Imperial fortresses in the country. This might not have been intended to in any way check the free exercise of internal government but that the Porte considered it still had a right to interpose in internal matters, is shown by the Firman of the 24th of December, 1838 § in which the Sultan orders that a Council shall be formed in the manner he thereby defines, to decide questions relating to justice, taxes, number of troops, &c., and deciding other constitutional arrangements.
The interference of the Porte in the internal arrangements of Servia was, gradually minimised, and the administration more freely exercised by the Prince, but Servia obtained no international rights while the Porte remained Suzerain, the number of her troops was theoretically, at least, strictly limited to that “necessary to maintain the tranquility and internal order of the
* Hertslet's Map of Europe, II., 1196.
+ Ibid, 812. It was not till 1867 that Turkey withdrew these garrisons.--See Firman of April 10th, 1867; Ibid, III., 1800.
Hertslet, Map of Europe, v. II., 968.
country,"* and apparently no attempt was openly made to enter into relations with foreign powers, or affect the right to do so.
The history of the vassalage of Moldavia and Wallachia from the treaty of Bucharest, to the freeing of the United Provinces under the name of Roumania by virtue of the Treaty of Berlin (Act XLIII.) is similar proof of the power of the Suzerain to grant limited or unlimited internal government, and the practice of not allowing to the Vassal any exterior rights.
The Treaty of Ackermann in 1826 confirmed the right of the Principalities to self-government, but reserved to the Porte the right to be consulted in the appointment of the Hospodars. The Treaty of Adrianople, in 1829, again confirmed to the Principalities “the privilege of an independent “internal administration ” under the suzerainty of the Porte. By the Treaty of St. Petersburg, between Russia and Turkey, in 18341, the Porte formally agreed to recognise the constitution of the Principalities, “ finding nothing in “them which can affect its rights of sovereignty ; and to publish a Firman in accordance with the same, it being settled by the same Treaty that the garrisons in the two provinces should be fixed at the pleasure of the Porte, which should also give colours to the garrisons and a flag to the merchant navy.
Later in the same year the Firmans published, by which
which Hospodars were to be elected to exercise full “internal adminis
* Treaty of Kanlidja, 1862. Hertslet's Treaties, XI., 575; Map of Europe,
† At least before 1869. In that year the Servians assumed a Constitution, the 8th Article of which commences, “ Le prince représente le pays dans toutes ses relations extérieures et conclut les Traités avec les Etats étranger."-Hertslet, Treaties, XV., 471. By this time, however, all dependency on the Porte had been repudiated by Servia, although its independence was not generally recognised.
| Hertslet, Map of Europe, II., 936. * Hertslet, Map of Europe, II., 951.