Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:04:49.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. British Policy Towards Parliamentary Rule and Constitutionalism in Turkey (1830–1914)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

Harold Temperley
Harold Temperley
Affiliation:
Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge
Get access

Extract

Baron Aehrenthal told the British Ambassador at Vienna in 1908 that British policy was “idealistic and humanitarian” while “his was frankly realistic.” In practice British “idealism” hasnowhere been more strongly dashed with “realism” than in Turkey. The dogma of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire became established as a principle of British policy during the late thirties. This result was mainly due to Palmerston and to the revelation of the dependence of Turkey on Russia implied in the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. The presence of Russian warships on the waters, and Russian troops on the shores, of the Bosphorus taught a lesson to Englishmen. The defence of Constantinople became a sort of dogma, which ultimately extended to almost all parties in the state. Cobden and Bright resisted the infection but they were in a small minority. The Crimean War was a result of this dogma, and it is to be noted that even Aberdeen—who so greatly regretted the bloodshed—thought it right for England to defend Constantinople. Even so late as 1878 Disraeli was able to rally the majority in Parliament and in the country in defence of the same cause and city. And the reason for this defence was British interests.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , 1933 , pp. 156 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gooch and Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the War [1928], v, 340Google Scholar, Sir E. Goschen, 15 February 1908.

2 [Public Record Office] G[ifts] & D[eposits], 22/21, Pte Russell papers. Palmerston to Russell, 13 December 1860.

3 Hans[ard] Parl[iamentary] Deb[ates], 21 May 1852, CXXI, Palmerston, p. 903, Disraeli, p. 905.

4 Report of Select Committee on Diplomatic Service [1870], p. 179, § 1932.

5 Vide Temperley, History of Serbia, pp. 222–3.

6 Vide F. S. Rodkey, “Palmerston and the Regeneration of Turkey 1830–41,” in Journal of Modern History, December 1929.

7 [Public Record Office], F[oreign] O[ffice], 78/773. From Stratford, No. 84 of 12 March 1849, ends Memo.

8 F.O. 65/360. To Mr Buchanan (St Petersburg), No. 102 of 20 April 1849. One explanation may be given in the words of Hammond, the Permanent Under-Secretary of the period. Long after his retirement he informed Lord Fitzmaurice in 1885 that neither he, nor Palmerston, nor Stratford believed “at all as to the possibility of a long duration of the Turkish Empire.” After 1856 they determined “to give them another chance,” and gave up in despair when they saw what they made of it. Obviously granting a constitution was no use, unless it was to last for a long time.

9 F.O. 78/1429. From Bulwer, No. 202 of 29 March 1859.

10 F.O. 195/627. From Pisani, 17 September 1859.

11 Vide Engelhardt, La Turquie et le Tanzimat, Paris [1882], 1, 172.Google Scholar Bulwer's own account is in F.O. 195/630, No. 224 of 26 May 1860 and F.O. 78/1506, No. 274 of 23 May. The W[iener] S[taats] A[rchiv], Berichte aus Konstantinopel. From Prokesch-Osten, XII, 69, No. 83 A (cf. 14 November 1860, No. 86 B of 23 November) states that Bulwer failed by being too precipitate and by not consulting the French.

12 N[ederland] R[ijks] A[rchief]. From Dubois (Constantinople), No. 45 of 21 February 1861.

13 F.O. 78/1649. From Bulwer, No. 132 of 19 March 1862.

14 W.S.A. Berichte aus England, VIII, 58. From Apponyi, No. 106 C of 31 December 1860.

15 F.O. 78/1431. Russell to Bulwer, Tel. 29 May 1859.

16 F.O. 195/619. To Bulwer, No. 104 of 20 August 1859.

17 Both in P., G. and D., 22/21, Pte Russell papers.

18 F.O. 96/26. Russell and Bulwer drafts of Tels. of 23 and 28 July 1860.

19 W.S.A. Berichte aus England XII, 58. From Apponyi, No. 74 D of 18 August 1860, f. 53. So also F.O. 146/906. Russell to Cowley, No. 790 of 11 Aug. 1860.

20 Vide his instructions F.O. 195/820, 10 August 1865.

21 B[ritish] M[useum] Add. MSS. 38,992, Pte Layard papers, f. 131. Clarendon to Layard, pte, 28? December 1865.

22 W.S.A. Weisungen nach Konstantinopel, XII, 87. Beust to Prokesch-Osten enclosing report from England of Derby, 2 January 1867.

23 W.S.A. Berichte aus London, VIII, 75. From Apponyi, No. 69 of 25 September 1867.

24 B.M. Add. MSS. 38,990, f. 57. Russell suggested the Sultan might go mad.

25 N.R.A. From Dubois (Constantinople), No. 208 of 3 November 1862. For Austrian views see W.S.A. Berichte aus Konstantinopel, XII, 76. From Prokesch-Osten, No. 83 of 31 October 1862, and XII, 78, No. 1 A of 2 January 1863.

26 F.O. 195/744. From Napier, No. 45 of 25 January 1863.

27 F.O. 78/1661. From Bulwer, No. 179 of 31 December 1862.

28 F.O. 195/823. From Bulwer, No. 65 of 1 July 1865.

29 F.O. 78/2018. From Elliot, No. 55 of 5 February 1867, quoting Morris—to Seward of 11 August 1866; F.O. 78/2020, No. 138 of 21 April 1868.

30 F.O. 195/998. From Elliot, No. 226 of 19 November 1872.

31 F.O. 195/994. From W. Kirby Green (Damascus), No. 8 of 12 March 1872; No. 20 of 28 May; No. 31 of 24 August; F.O. 195/1027, No. 27 of 3 June 1873.

32 F.O. 78/2218. From Elliot, No. 126 of 4 August 1872.

33 E. Engelhardt, La Turquie et le Tanzimat, I, 231. This was not published at the time.

34 F.O. 78/1958. From Lyons, No. 101 of 20 March 1867.

35 Midhat, Life [1903], pp. 143, 164.

36 E. Engelhardt, La Turquie et le Tanzimat, II, 150–1.

37 Elliot, Some Revolutions and other Experiences [1922], pp. 230–40. The Life of Midhat bases its account on the Blue Books, but there are important omissions. I quote these where needed.

38 F.O. 78/2458. From Elliot, No. 536 of 25 May 1876.

39 Vide Pears, Sir E., Life of Abdul Hamid (1917), pp. 41–6Google Scholar, who thinks it was in writing. The Memoirs of Ismail Bey [1920], p. 117, say Abdul Hamid took an oath.

40 B.M. Add. MSS. 38,935, Layard, Unpublished Memoirs, f. 77.

41 At a later stage Abdul Hamid had the most absurd suspicions of Midhat, e.g. he showed Layard a letter of accusation, which the latter thought a forgery. Add. MSS. 39,838, f. 24. He suspected and disgraced the loyal Said.

42 Gladstone's pamphlet quoted in my “Bulgarian and other Atrocities,” Proc. Brit. Acad. [1931] XVII, 23.Google Scholar

43 Midhat, Life, pp. 106–12.

44 The first of these references is in Lady Cecil, G., Salisbury, Life [1921], II, 117.Google Scholar To Lord Derby, 29 December 1876. The second is in Pte Disraeli MSS., Hughenden, Tel. Salisbury to Beaconsfield, 28 December 1876.

45 A[ccounts] & P[apers] [1877], XCI, Turkey [c. 1641], No. 152, Derby to Salisbury, 10 January 1877.

46 The Pte Disraeli MSS. Hughenden records the interview with Odion in January. The year is not given but is undoubtedly 1877.

47 This is what he told Layard next year. Also vide Midhat, Life, p. 223. One of the motives of the trial of Midhat in 1881 was plainly to hold up Murad, the mad ex-Sultan, as a conspirator! It was a motive worthy of the accuser of Midhat.

48 Midhat, Life, p. 145.

49 B.M. Add. MSS. 39,838, Layard, Unpublished Memoirs, f. 26, ap. August 1876.

50 An authoritative account is in Midhat, Life, ch. X–XIII; Elliot, Pears, and Dickson, the British doctor who examined the body, all agree that the charge against Midhat was absurd. The fact that Midhat returned to Turkey after his exile is a strong argument in his favour.

51 B.M. Add. MSS. 39,022, Pte Layard papers, f. 241 of 15 October 1878; 39,023, f. 66 of 12 November; f. 117 of 17 November. All are to Mr Mayers and were seen by Layard.

52 B.M. Add. MSS. 38,938, Layard, Unpublished Memoirs, f. 159.

53 Vide F.O. 78/2219. From Sir H. Elliot, 25 September 1873.

54 W.S.A. Berichte aus Konstantinopel. From Ludolph No. 30 E of 28 May 1872.

55 F.O. 195/891. From Dalyell, No. 22 of 24 April 1868.

56 W.S.A. Berichte aus Konstantinopel. From Ludolph No. 52 A of 13 August 1872.

57 Vide Engelhardt, II, ch. XVII. The Committee on the Constitution had three Christians, two soldiers, ten ulemas and Midhat on it. So Mohammedan religious representatives were in the majority.

58 In his article in The Nineteenth Century (June 1878) Midhat says: “Turkey ought to be governed by the Constitutional régime if it is desired that serious reforms be carried out” (p. 982). “It bears in itself the germ of her regeneration in days to come by the intellectual and moral development of all the nations” (p. 991). He then insists on the advantages of “fusion” (pp. 992–3).

59 F.O. 363/5/769, Tenterden private Papers, Memo, of Conversation with Midhat by Lord Tenterden, 5 June 1877, seen by Lord Derby, spelling etc. as in original.

60 Pears, Life of Abdul Hamid, p. 67. Sir Edwin, whose authority is very great, is also favourable to the Parliament, vide pp. 49–52.

61 B.M. Add. MSS. 38,938, Layard, Unpublished Memoirs, f. 257. These were written before Midhat's death!

62 B.M. Add. MSS. 38,934, Layard, Unpublished Memoirs, f. 144. This was in May 1877 and is described in Ismail Kemal Memoirs, pp. 157–61. For other views of Layard on the parliament, vide 38,935, ff. 292–4.

63 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty [1891], IV, 2779. A special organisation had been provided for Eastern Rumelia in Art. 13, and this was worked out by a Special International Commission.

64 Add. MSS. 38,938, Layard, Unpublished Memoirs, f. 24. These concessions were granted in the autumn of 1877, and confirmed by firman of 25 October 1878.

65 F.O. 97/530. From Fitzmaurice, memo, of pte letter of 31 July 1880 to Granville.

66 F.O. 97/528. From Fitzmaurice, No. 44 of 28 June 1880. This part is unpublished. What follows is in A. & P. LXXXI [1880], c. 2703, No. 15. The New Law for the European Provinces, etc. pt. 1, No. 44, of 28 June 1880.

69 Pte Gladstone MSS., Gladstone to Mme Novikov, 2 January 1877.

70 Hans. Parl. Deb. 3rd Ser. CCLIV, 23 July 1880, p. 1283.

71 Gladstone in Nineteenth Century, March 1878, p p. 603–4. v. infra, p. 191, n. 81.

72 Pte Gladstone MSS., Gladstone to Mr Speaker, pte, 12 October 1880; Salisbury to Layard, 13 November 1879, Pte Layard papers, Add. MSS. 38,938, f. 197; Goschen, Report of Conversation of 30 December 1880, in F.O. 363/5/769, Tenterden Pte Papers.

73 I do not here refer to the vexed question of how far the “Young Turks” of 1908 were the heirs of the Midhat movement. They certainly tried to represent themselves as such. Thus a postcard which I bought in Constantinople, shortly after the fall of Abdul Hamid, gave portraits of the new Sultan and his heir, of four “Young Turks” and of “Le grand patriote Turc, Midhat Pasha.”

74 Mr G. H. Fitzmaurice, pte, to Mr Tyrrell, 25 August 1908; Sir G. Lowther to Sir E. Grey, pte, 4 August and official, 13 November. Gooch and Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the War, v, 262, 264–5, 268–70.

75 Gooch and Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the War, V (No. 199), 256–7.

76 The question of Abdul Hamid's complicity is examined in a despatch of Sir G. Lowther of 20 April 1909, vide Gooch and Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the War, V (No. 218), 313–19. Mr Fitzmaurice, while expressing doubt, believed in his innocence. Sir Edwin Pears, Life of Abdul Hamid, p. 315, sums up, though dubiously, against him.

77 Thus Abdul Hamid did not ask the Sheikh-ul-Islam for a fetva to subdue the rebels who had raised the standard of the Constitution in July 1908. He knew it would not be granted.

78 See the accounts in Pears, Life of Abdul Hamid, ch. XIII; the data as to Essad were told me by one who knew him, and I had confirmation from another Young Turk.

79 Gooch and Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the War, v, 260, 263, 266–7, 319. The quotations are all from private letters.

80 Gooch and Temperley, British Documents on the Origins of the War [1933], IX, pt. 1, 687, n. 7Google Scholar, comment of 10 September 1912. On inquiry in 1932 Lord Grey informed me that he could no longer recollect events clearly, but that the private letters above quoted could undoubtedly be taken as representing his real sentiments at the time.

81 Lord Fitzmaurice has stated that “so far as I know, there is no evidence of any of them [i.e. British statesmen of the nineteenth century] having favoured it [parliamentary institutions in Turkey] or suggested it.” But to this rule (vide supra, pp. 184–5, n. 68) he himself was an honourable exception.

Gladstone's adverse opinion of Midhat and his constitution (vide supra, p. 185 and n. 71) was not shared by Lord Fitzmaurice. He has informed me that he thought Midhat ‘honest’ and the constitution ‘a step forward.’