"ways of European Turkey in respect to their completion "and connection, as well as for the working of the railways "situated in its territory.

"The Conventions necessary for the settlement of these "questions shall be concluded between Austria-Hungary, "the Porte, Servia, and the Principality of Bulgaria imme"diately after the conclusion of peace."

By Article XI. "the Ottoman army shall no longer "remain in Bulgaria; all the old fortresses shall be razed "at the expense of the Principality within one year or "sooner if possible; the local Government shall immediately take steps for their demolition, and shall not be "allowed to construct fresh ones.

66

"The Sublime Porte will have the right of disposing as it "likes of the war material and other effects belonging to the "Ottoman Government which may have remained in the "fortresses of the Danube already evacuated in virtue of "the Armistice of the 31st January, as well as of those in "the strongholds of Shumla and Varna."

By Article XII. "Mussulman proprietors or others who "may take up their abode outside the Principality can con"tinue to hold there their real property, by farming it out, or having it administered by third parties.

"A Turco-Bulgarian Commission shall be charged with "the settlement, in the space of two years, of all questions "relative to the mode of alienation, working, or use, on the "account of the Sublime Porte, of State property and reli

66

gious foundations (vakoufs), as well as of the questions "regarding interests of the individuals concerned therein. "Persons belonging to the Principality of Bulgaria, who "shall travel or dwell in the other parts of the Ottoman Empire, will be subject to the Ottoman authorities and "laws."

66

XCVH. Article LXII. of this Treaty (d) upon the subject of Religious Liberty is important, having regard

(d) Vide ante, Art. v., et vide post, chapter on Intervention.

to the right of Intervention which it may be maintained this Treaty gives to the Signatory Powers in the event of the infringement of its provisions.

"The Sublime Porte having expressed the wish to main"tain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the "widest scope, the contracting parties take note of this "spontaneous declaration.

"In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against an individual as a ground for "exclusion or incapacity as regards the discharge of civil "and political rights, admission to the public service, func"tions and honours, or the exercise of the different profes"sions and industries.

"All persons shall be admitted, without distinction of "religion, to give evidence before the tribunals.

"Liberty and the outward exercise of all forms of worship "are assured to all, and no hindrance shall be offered either "to the hierarchical organisation of the various communions "or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs.

66

66

Ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of all nationalities travelling in Turkey in Europe, or in Turkey in Asia, "shall enjoy the same rights, advantages, and privileges.

"The right of official protection by the Diplomatic and "Consular Agents of the Powers in Turkey is recognized "both as regards the above-mentioned persons and their religious, charitable, and other establishments in the Holy "Places and elsewhere.

66

"The rights possessed by France are expressly reserved, "and it is well understood that no alterations shall be made "in the status quo in the Holy Places.

66

"The Monks of Mount Athos, of whatever country "they may be natives, shall be maintained in their former possessions and advantages, and shall enjoy, without any "exception, complete equality of rights and prerogatives." XCVI. The 68th Article may give rise to some contention. It is somewhat vague, though by no means unimportant. It is as follows:

66

"The Treaty of Paris of March 30, 1856, as well as the Treaty of London of March 13, 1871, are maintained in "all such of their provisions as are not abrogated or modified "by the preceding stipulations."

XCVIII (e). States that pay tribute, or stand in a feudal relation towards other States, are, nevertheless, sometimes considered as Independent Sovereignties. It was not till 1818 that the King of Naples ceased to be a nominal vassal of the Papal See; but this feudal relation was never considered as affecting his position in the Commonwealth of States. Of the same kind some German Jurists appear to consider the subsisting or former relation between Kniphausen and Oldenburg: but, in fact, it is a relation which can hardly be said to exist in these days, except where, as in the instances of the Barbary States, there is a direct and practical acknowledgment of a superior sovereignty.

(e) §§ xcvi. xcvii. in former editions are omitted.

CHAPTER IIA.

EGYPT.

XCIX. THE status of Egypt with respect to her international relation is very peculiar (a).

The conquest of Egypt was effected by Amrou, the General of the Caliphs, in 638 A.D., and from the death of Caliph Omar, in 644 A.D., it continued to be a province of the Arab empire under a Governor appointed by the Caliphs. This nominal subordination to the Caliphs appears to have continued while the government de facto was in the hands of various dynasties, who reigned under the title of Soldan or Sultan of Egypt. The last Sultan of the Memlook dynasty of Egypt, which had been established about 1250 A.D., was overthrown in 1517 A.D., by Selim I., the Ottoman Sultan of Constantinople.

About this time the last of the Caliphs in Egypt died; the Caliphate of Egypt came to an end, and the title of Caliph was thenceforward assumed by the Sultan of Constantinople. Although Selim I. abolished the dynasty of the Memlooks, he preserved an aristocracy of that race under the authority of the Viceroy, nominated by the Porte and designated Pacha of Egypt.

By this new Constitution, 24 Beys were created; and the obligation was imposed of sending tribute to Constantinople, and of furnishing 12,000 men in time of war. This quasi republic, composed of a Memlook aristocracy, was not wholly abolished till after the period of the French invasion, at the close of the last century. During this interval, however,

(a) From The Charkieh L. R. 4 Adm. & Eccl. p. 75 seq.

successful chieftains continually revolted from the Porte, and the more powerful of the Beys exercised absolute dominion over the country. In 1747 A.D. Ibrahim Kehia seized upon the supreme authority and declared the independency of Egypt. In 1758 A.D., Ali Bey, not the least remarkable of the warriors who rose to the surface in those troubled times, possessed himself of the government of Egypt, and ruled over that country some time with an appearance of deference to, and a recognition in the abstract of the sovereignty of the Porte, up to the period of 1774 A.D., when his eventful career was ended. In 1798 A.D., the invasion of Egypt by Buonaparte took place under the pretext of delivering Egypt from the Memlooks. In 1801 A.D. the victories of England once more restored Egypt to the dominion of the Porte.

In 1806 A.D., an important epoch begins. In that year Mehemet Ali obtained from the Sultan a legal nomination to the Pachalic of Egypt, the actual authority of which he was already exercising. After the departure of the English from Alexandria, and the massacre of the Memlook Beys, Mehemet took the command of forces previously sent by him into Arabia, to subdue the sect of the Wahabees. During the interval between this period and 1831 A.D. he possessed an army of 60,000 men, and a considerable navy, established a de facto empire from Senaar and Kadofan over all Syria to Adana, a part of Cilicia at the foot of Mount Taurus, and ruled over the island of Candia. The Porte, struggling with the rebellion of the Pacha of Ianina, not subdued till 1822 A.D., and the uprising of the Greeks, whose liberties were established by the battle of Navarino in 1827 A.D., opposed a fitful, underhand, and feeble opposition to the continued practical aggression, however disguised in language, of its great subject.

Between the battle of Navarino (1827 A.D.) and the Treaty, presently to be mentioned, of 1833 A.D., an important portion of Egyptian history intervenes. Mehemet Ali, on being refused the Pachalic of Acre by the Porte,