_THE LEBANON_ QUESTION
Selim I.――The _Emir_ Beshir of _The Lebanon_――A Conference of
five Powers――Druses and Maronites――Massacres in Damascus――A
Military Expedition――The Protocol of August 3rd, 1860
――_General_ Beaufort _d’_Hautpoul――Achmet _Pasha_――David
_Pasha_――Joseph Karan――The Constitution of _The Lebanon_――The
boundaries――The alterations from 1861 to 1902――The Earl of
Carnarvon’s views――Jewish charity――Anti-Jewish accusations and
riots――M. E. A. Thouvenal――Lord John Russell――George Gawler’s
letter.
AFTER the conquest of Syria in 1516 by _Sultan_ Selim I. (1467‒1520),
_The Lebanon_ was ruled by a succession of Mussulman _Emirs_, the most
famous of whom, Beshir Shehaab,¹ governed benevolently from 1789 to
1840, in the later years of his reign by the help of Mehemet Ali. The
withdrawal of the Egyptian troops from Syria in 1841 was followed by
anarchy in the mountains. Lord Palmerston accordingly wrote, on 15th
June of that year: “Her Majesty’s Government feel especially called
upon to address the Turkish Government on this matter on the account
of the oppression which Haji Nejib is said to practise upon the
Christians. For England having, in conjunction with other Christian
Powers, succeeded in restoring Syria to the _Sultan_, she is entitled
to expect that the _Sultan_, in return for such assistance, should
secure his Christian subjects from oppression.” A conference of
representatives of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia
met at Constantinople on 27th May, 1842, with the ultimate result that
the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs announced on 7th December
that the Porte would act upon the advice of the five Powers, and
appoint separate _Kaimakams_ for the Druses and Maronites respectively.
This arrangement was in vogue with but slight success for nearly
twenty years.
¹ Emir Bechir Shehaab (late), Prince of The Lebanon. Fraˢ
Halpen, Lith. M. & N. Hanhart, Imp. Saunders & Otley, 1853.
This portrait is the frontispiece of Mount Lebanon....
Colonel Churchill, vol. i.... 1853.
In 1860 the lasting feuds of the tribes in _The Lebanon_ suddenly
burst into a furious attack, on the part of the Druses, on their
Maronite neighbours. The Turkish authorities connived at the massacres
which were committed. On the 9th of July, 1860, riots broke out
in Damascus in consequence of the punishment inflicted upon a few
Mussulmans who had insulted the Christians. These Mussulmans rushed,
armed to the teeth, to the Christian quarter, and began slaying,
burning and pillaging. The Turkish soldiers came to their assistance
on the pretence of quelling the disturbance, made common cause with
the rioters, and joined in the killing, robbing and plundering. A
few old Mussulmans attempted to stop the massacres, but the Turkish
officers had no desire for peace; on the contrary, they spurred
on their soldiers to further aggression against the unfortunate
Christians, and the soldiers were assisted by hordes of looters of
every sect. This state of things lasted two days, during which the
rioters did not cease to massacre the Christians, to whom the Governor
did not afford any help. The number of the victims was estimated at
3300. The places where their houses had stood were not recognizable,
all their dwellings having been reduced to ashes.
The _Sultan_ sent Faud Pasha (1815‒1869) as an Extraordinary
Commissioner with a military force. Faud _Pasha_ issued a Proclamation
to the inhabitants of Syria, in which, after alluding to the grief
felt by the _Sultan_ on hearing of the outrages, he said:――
“According to the Imperial commands, invested with a special and
extraordinary mission, and possessing full powers, I have arrived,
accompanied by a military force, to punish the guilty authors of so
many crimes.
“The Imperial _firman_ will inform you what is my mission, and enable
everyone to judge of the extent of the Imperial justice, which accords
refuge to the oppressed and punishes the oppressor.
“All may remain here in safety; the condition of the families driven
from their homes will be taken into consideration, and I undertake to
reassure them, and to extend to them the protection of the Imperial
justice.
“I command, above all, that from this day forth dissensions cease;
whichever nation dares to use violence against the other shall be
attacked by the military force which accompanies me, and every person
who forgets his duty will undergo immediate punishment.”
But Faud did not succeed in removing the difficulties, and each new
account added to the horrors of the massacre. It appeared that the
country had almost been swept clean of its Christian inhabitants.
In _The Lebanon_ not a Christian village had been spared; all the
commerce of the region was interrupted; a journey from one village to
another was no longer safe.
To put an end to these excesses and to restore peace and safety to the
province, the “Protocol of the 3rd of August” was signed. In August
the first French troops were landed on the Syrian Coast. It was a
gratifying sign of the unanimity prevailing among all civilized Powers
that although the state of Europe was at that time far from tranquil,
the European nations were yet capable of unison in the cause of
justice. It was certainly in the cause of justice that the forces of
the Western world were brought to the Syrian coast, though political
intrigue was busy circulating rumours such as are bound to be spread
abroad when an expedition of this kind is undertaken by European
Powers. That France should send troops to a country which, according
to popular belief, she had coveted for years was, indeed, enough to
excite world-wide attention. But opinion that mattered was inclined to
assert that France had acted generously and loyally. It was, indeed,
too absurd to profess the belief that intrigues in the East had given
rise to these disturbances, and that the Christians themselves had
caused the massacre so that France should achieve glory and influence.
Undoubtedly there was in every Levantine town a host of Catholic
emissaries, Jesuits, Lazarists, and the like, and it was only natural
for Roman Catholics to use the name and invoke the protection of the
Power which had once been the only Catholic Power known in the East.
The expedition of 1860 was made at the instance of France, but
according to an international convention all the Powers had to
participate in it. A contingent of European troops, which was to
be increased to 12,000 men, was to be despatched for the purpose
of restoring peace. France engaged to furnish half of these troops
at once. If it became necessary to increase the force beyond the
stipulated number, a further understanding was to be arrived at among
the contracting Powers. The Commander-in-Chief of the expedition was
to enter into communication with the special Commissions of the Porte.
All the Powers were to keep sufficient naval forces on the Syrian
coast to assist in the maintenance or re-establishment of tranquillity
there. The contracting parties fixed the term of the occupation at
six months, being convinced that this period would be sufficient to
ensure the pacification of the populace. These were the principal
terms of this important Convention, as laid down in the Protocol by
the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia
and Turkey at Paris on the 3rd August.
“The Plenipotentiaries of, _etc._, desirous of establishing, in
conformity with the intention of their respective Courts, the true
character of the assistance afforded to the Sublime Porte, by the
provisions of the Protocol signed this day, the feelings which have
dictated the clauses of this act, and their perfect disinterestedness,
declare in the most formal manner that the contracting Powers do not
intend to seek for, and will not seek for, in the execution of their
engagements, any territorial advantage, and exclusive influence, or
any concession with regard to the commerce of their subjects, such as
could not be granted to the subjects of other nations.”
Troops were landed on the 16th of August under _General_ C. M. N.
Beaufort _d’_Hautpoul (_b._ 1804). Subsequently a Commission
representative of the Powers was appointed to investigate the facts.
The Druses escaped into the Hauran Desert, and it was found that Turks
and Damascene fanatics were really responsible for stirring up the
strife, in which the Maronites had acted with a vindictiveness equal
to that of the Druses. Punishment was meted out to the Mohammedans
who were principally responsible, and among others Achmet _Pasha_, the
Governor of Damascus, was shot. The French occupation continued till
the 5th June, 1861, and the French and English squadron patrolled the
coast for several months after. In June, 1861, the troops returned to
France, and the Commissions drew up a scheme of government for _The
Lebanon_. It provided for the appointment of a Christian Governor,
to be chosen by the Porte, and for dividing the region into seven
districts, each of which was to be controlled by a chief professing
the religion held by its inhabitants. David _Pasha_, an Armenian
Christian, was the first Governor. He was installed on the 4th of July,
1861. In spite of many difficulties, he succeeded in restoring order;
and by raising a military force from the inhabitants of _The Lebanon_
he made the presence of the Turkish soldiery unnecessary. The district
Council included four Maronites, one Druse, one Orthodox Greek, and
one Separatist Greek. The constitution did not satisfy the Maronites,
whose revolt, under Joseph Karan, kept _The Lebanon_ in a very
unsettled state for several years. The privileged province of _The
Lebanon_ was finally constituted by the Organic Statute of the 6th of
September, 1864.
_The Lebanon_ was constituted a _sanjak_ or _mutessariflik_, dependent
directly on the Porte, which was to act in this case in consultation
with the six great Powers. The province extended about 93 miles from
north to south (from the boundary of the _sanjak_ of Tripoli to that
of the _caza_ of Sidon), and had a mean breadth of about 28 miles
from one fort of the chain to the other, beginning at the edge of
the littoral plain behind Beyrout and ending at the western edge of
the Beka’a: but the boundaries were ill-defined, especially on the
east, where the original line drawn along the crest of the ridge had
not been adhered to, and the mountains had encroached on the Beka’a.
_The Lebanon_ was under a military Governor (_mashir_), who had been
a Christian in the service of the _Sultan_ (1861‒1876), Abdul Aziz
(1830‒1876), approved by the Powers, and who had, so far, been chosen
from the Roman Catholics, owing to the great preponderance of Latin
Christians in the province. He resided at Deir-al-Kamar, an old seat
of the Druse _Emirs_. At first appointed for three years, then for ten,
his term has been fixed since 1892 at five years, the Porte fearing
that the longer term might lead to a personal domination. Under the
Governor were seven _Kaimakams_, all Christians except a Druse in Shuf,
and forty-seven _mudirs_, who all depended on the _Kaimakams_, except
one, in the home district of ♦Deir-al-Kamar. A central _mejliss_ or
Council of twelve members was composed of four Maronites, three Druses,
one Turk, two Greeks (orthodox), one Greek Uniate and one _Metawel_.
This was the original proportion, and it has not been altered, in
spite of the decline of the Druses and the increase of the Maronites.
The members are elected by the seven cazas. In each _mudirich_ there
is also a local _mejliss_. Judges are appointed by the Governor,
but _Sheikhs_ by the villagers. Commercial cases, and law-suits in
which strangers are concerned, are carried to Beyrout. The police
is recruited locally, and no regular troops appear in the province
except on special requisition. The taxes are collected directly, and
must meet the needs of the province before any sum is remitted to the
Imperial treasury. The latter has to make deficits good.
♦ “Dier” replaced with “Deir”
This constitution has worked well on the whole. The only serious hitch
that occurred was caused by the attempts of the Governor-General and
the _Kaimakam_ to supersede the _mejliss_ by autocratic action, and
to impair the freedom of the elections. The attention of the Porte
was called to these tendencies in 1892, and again in 1902, on the
appointment of new Governors. The railway is French, and a precedence
in ecclesiastical functions is accorded by the Maronites to the
official representatives of France.
Henry Howard Molyneux Herbert (1831‒1890), the fourth Earl of
Carnarvon, wrote: “In estimating the past, and in taking security
for the future, it must never be forgotten that for generations the
policy of the Turkish Government has been eminently hostile to the
maintenance of Druse nationality. As charity obliges us to believe
that no state in Christendom would deliberately instigate the massacre
of several thousand Christians, so the common instincts of humanity,
and even self-interest, oblige us to acquit the Imperial Government
of Constantinople from planning, or recommending to the execution
of others, a policy of such detestable iniquity towards the subjects
for whose protection they are responsible. Both suppositions are too
monstrous to be entertained. But as it would not be the first time
that Christian rulers have fostered the disputes or exasperated
the irritation of other nations, and have set the rock in motion,
unforeseeing and to a great extent reckless of the course which
it will take, or the misery which it will inflict; so the local
authorities in Syria might not unreasonably count upon a favourable
interpretation in Constantinople of conduct, which might result either
in some moderate spoliation of the Christian population, or in a
humiliation of the Druse mountaineers, or in a convenient opportunity
for intervening in the affairs of _The Lebanon_. It is a natural
expedient, it is doubtless the wish of the Turkish Government, to
divide and rule the tribes of _The Lebanon_;... The desire to break
down Druse independence enters at least equally into these schemes....
It is equally clear that it is not for the advantage of England,
as far as she has an interest in these questions, to consent to
the annihilation of Druse nationality.... Again whilst convents and
schools, ... have long laboured to create a French party among the
Maronites, and to establish a French influence in _The Lebanon_, a
strong connection of gratitude on the one hand, and of good offices on
the other, has existed between the Druses and England; at all events,
_The Lebanon_ has to be relieved of Turkish administration, because
it would be indifferent statesmanship to stimulate still further the
centralizing policy that threatens Turkey equally with every other
nation in Europe, and to allow the independent strength of local
institutions and a peculiar race to be confounded in the ruin of an
empire now tottering to its fall.”
This was a sound political opinion, clear, logical, based upon justice.
It is to be regretted that the same policy was not applied to other
provinces and other distinct races. As regards British interests, we
find again the old and indisputable truth expressed as follows:――
“Territorial extension, indeed, need never enter into the dreams
of English statesmanship; but it would be an act of infatuation
to overlook the vast importance of Syria in any present or future
distribution of European Power, which either the weakness or the
crimes of other nations may necessitate. The country which now, not
less than in the reigns of the _Ptolemies_ and the _Mamelukes_, guards
and therefore governs the northern frontier of Egypt――which now,
as in the days of Alexander [(III.) the Great] (356‒323 _b.c.e._),
commands one at least of the great approaches to India――is no
petty principality, to be surrendered to the love of ease or the
importunities of allies.”¹
¹ Recollections of the Druses of the Lebanon, and Notes on
their Religion. By the Earl of Carnarvon. London:... 1860,
(_pp._ 117‒120.)
The calamity that had befallen the Christians of Syria had aroused
the deepest commiseration among the Jews all over the world. Sir
Moses Montefiore led the way with a letter in the _Times_, July 12,
1860 (_p._ 9), and M. Crémieux in France followed his lead. Several
_Rabbis_ and Presidents of Jewish communities addressed appeals to the
Jewish population, and handsome contributions were collected.
But unfortunately false accusations were again brought against the
Jews in Damascus. Some of the fanatics were envious of the Jews,
especially because they had escaped the slaughter. The accusations
commenced whilst Faud _Pasha_ was still there and was conducting the
inquiries in person. The Maronites accused the Jews of being in league
with the Druses, the orthodox Greeks charged them with being on terms
of reciprocity with the Maronites, and after all these slanders the
blood accusation was circulated. Faud, who knew perfectly well that
the Jews had nothing in common with the Druses or the Maronites, and
that they were a peaceful and law-abiding people, would not listen
to these calumnies. But after the _Pasha_ had left, Christian and
Mohammedan fanatics, by means of bribery, conspired against the
unfortunate Jews, and had some prominent members of their community
arrested, bringing forward false witnesses to testify that they saw
such and such a Jew committing murder. Happily, most of them were at
once released by Faud _Pasha_ on his return to the city. This act of
justice was performed by the Turkish functionary spontaneously, before
any remonstrance from Europe could have reached him. Nevertheless, the
two European Powers acted with promptness and used their influence in
the matter.
M. E. A. Thouvenal (1818‒1866), Minister for Foreign Affairs of
France, had on September 23rd, 1860, given the most stringent orders
to his agents in Syria to protect the Jews, and to prevent any injury
being done to them; and so had Lord John Russell (1792‒1878), who had
also generously joined the defenders of the Jewish population in the
East. This united action on the part of the two Governments prevented
misfortunes and the perpetration of crimes against the Jews, and as a
consequence 1860 bore no analogy to 1840.
But if the Jews were saved from massacre and riot, this did not solve
their problem. Dr. Abraham Benisch, in an editorial,¹ pointed out
that “In permitting this terrible outbreak of fanaticism in Syria,
Providence has once more prominently directed the attention of the
world to the country forming the inalienable inheritance of the
descendants of the patriarchs, and the cradle of the institutions
that have regenerated and reinvigorated a decrepit and decaying
civilisation, and has once more forcibly reminded the world that ever
since the ruthless Romans exterminated the Jew from the land of his
ancestors, no race has found there rest for the sole of its feet, and
no population has been permitted to enjoy in peace, for any length of
time, the blessings of a ground due to the wandering tribe of the sore
foot.”
¹ _Jewish Chronicle_, July 27, 1860.
With reference to these remarks, the following letter was received
from the Christian Zionist, Colonel Gawler:――
“DEAR SIR,
“I cannot refrain from giving expression to my sincere
gratification at your valuable leading article of the 27th
inst. I need scarcely mention that your views are met by my
very warmest reciprocity on the point that, ‘in permitting
this terrible outbreak of fanaticism in Syria, Providence
has once more prominently directed the attention of the world
to the country forming the inalienable inheritance of the
descendants of the Patriarchs.’
“You may remember a plan to which I gave publication on
the occasion of the war between the Druses and Maronites
in 1845, upon the ‘tranquillisation of the East by planting
Jewish (agricultural) settlements in Palestine.’ I entertain
strongly the anticipation that something of this kind may
arise from the present disturbances.
“To give Jews in Palestine the means of maintaining
themselves and their families by honest and healthy industry
would be the best preparation of the way for better things,
to the Jewish nation and to the whole human race, that could
be desired.
“In maintaining such projects I am not at all proposing
faithlessness to ‘our allies’ the Turks. So long as the
empire stands, Jewish civilised settlement in Syria would
be a strength and a blessing to it. It is only in the event
of its ever falling that I should be glad to see the claim
boldly enforced in reference to Palestine, ‘This portion
belongs to the God of _Israel_, and to his national people.’
“I should be truly rejoiced to see in Palestine a strong
guard of Jews established in flourishing agricultural
settlements, and ready to hold their own upon the mountains
of Israel against all aggressors. I can wish for nothing more
glorious in this life than to have my share in helping them
to do so.
“May your anticipation be richly realised, that great good
will come out of the existing Syrian evils.
“GEORGE GAWLER.¹
“... July 30, 1860.”
¹ _Ibid._, August 10, _p._ 6.
All these developments stirred up Jewish public opinion in England
and in France. Great possibilities threw their light into the future
like a beacon of hope. The new _Lebanon_ Constitution was, indeed, an
indication of the future of Palestine: but the time was not yet ripe
for the realization of these hopes.