^{page 148 note 2} Among these studies are: Harik, Iliya, Politics and Change in a Traditional Society, Lebanon 1711–1845 (Princeton, 1968);Google ScholarPolk, William R., The Opening of South Lebanon, 1788–1840 (Cambridge, 1963);CrossRefGoogle ScholarMa'oz, Moshe, Ottoman Reform in Syria and Palestine, 1840–1861 (Oxford, 1968);Google Scholar the introductory chapter in Kerr, Malcolm (trans.), Lebanon in the Last Years of Feudalism, 1840–1868 (Beirut, 1959);Google ScholarSalibi, K. S., The Modern History of the Lebanon (London, 1965), chaps. iv and v;Google ScholarIsmail, Adel, Redressement et Déclin du Féodalisme Libanais (Beirut, 1958);Google Scholar and two articles by Chevallier, Dominique, ‘Aux origines des troubles agraires libanais en 1858’, in Annales, vol. 14 (1959), pp. 35–64,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and ‘Que possédait un Cheikh Maronite en 1859? Un document de la famille al-Hâzen’in Arabica, vol.7 (1960), pp. 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} Spagnolo, John P., ‘Constitutional Change in Mount Lebanon, 1861–1844’, to appear in Middle Eastern Studies in January 1971.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 1} For a short biographical study, in Armenian, see Poghossian, P. E., Karapet Artin Pascha Daoud (Vienna, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Spagnolo, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 3} For what may be the first appreciation of ‘habituation’ in the study of modern Lebanese political developments see Shils, Edward, ‘The prospect for Lebanese civility’, in Binder, Leonard, ed., Politics in Lebanon (New York, 1966), p.8.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} For a perceptive study of centralization and decentralization in the Empire at that time see Davison, Roderic H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (Princeton, 1963), chaps. iii–v;Google Scholar for an example of the effect of the Tanzimat on the internal organization of an important millet see Sanjian, Avedis K., The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Dominion (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 39–45.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} Appreciation of Dâûd's policies which inevitably pitted him against the Lebanese hero, Yûsuf Bey, is still difficult to find among Maronite historians. Sim′an Khâzin summarily dismisses Dâûid as ‘more Turkish than the Turks in the preservation of their policy’, than any governor of Lebanon from 1861 to 1915. Al-Harb fî Sabîl al-Istiqlâl (Jûniya, 1957), p. 62.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 2} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 16, 29 Jan.1865.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 152 note 1} Ibid. 3 Apr. 1865.

^{page 152 note 2} Ibid. des Essards dispatch of 11 Apr. 1865, and draft of A.E. instructions to des Essards dated 28 Apr. 1865.

^{page 152 note 3} F.O. 195/787, 11 Nov. 1865, Consul General Eldridge dispatch.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 4} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 17, 23 Nov. and 20 Dec. 1865 and 2 Jan. 1866, des Essards dispatches.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} Ibid. vol. 16, 22 May 1865, Fain, Dâûd's French military advisor, to Drouyn de Lhuys, French Foreign Minister.

^{page 153 note 2} Ibid. vol. 17, 2 Jan. 1866, des Essards dispatch.

^{page 153 note 3} The account of subsequent developments is drawn from des Essards dispatches of 2, 3, 7 (telegraphic), 8 and 13 Jan. 1866 ibid.; and Elridge’s dispatches of 20 and 23 Jan. 1866, F.O. 195/866. For an account of these same developments as seen by a local observer who, without disparaging Dâûd, admired Karam as a hero, see Antûn Dahir al'Aqîqi as translated by Kerr, op. cit. pp. 79–91.

^{page 153 note 4} The boundaries fixed by the Powers for the Lebanon included a small area north of the Biqâ', around the Hirmil, inhabited by Shi'is. Karam's reliance on their support did not please some Maronites.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 1} In order to excite the population Karam was, on at least one occasion, made to appear as the ‘representative of Christ’. A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 17, 13 Jan. 1866, des Essards dispatch. The image remained for ‘Aqîqi describes how, though Karam was ‘surrounded by great danger and evil, God rescued him by divine favour’. Kerr, op. cit. p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} A. E., Cor. Pol Con., Beyrouth, 21 Jan. 1866, des Essards dispatch.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 3} The account of the subsequent developments is drawn from dispatches of 3, 7 and 11 Feb. 1866, from a copy of a report to the Ministry of War by Fain's successor, Althabe, of 20 Feb. 1866 Ibid.; and from Eldridge's dispatch of 3 Feb. 1866, F.O. 195/866.

^{page 154 note 4} A.E., Turquie, vol. 367, 23 Feb. 1866, draft of A.E. instructions to Moustier.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 17, 17 Feb. 1866, draft of A.E. instructions to des Essards. The account of succeeding events is drawn from correspondence dated 8 Jan., 17 and 22 Feb., 5 and 17 Mar., and 17 Apr., and a memorandum prepared by ‘Abdullah Khhadrâ dated 6 Mar. 1866; supported by F.O. 195/866, Eldridge dispatches of 18 and 22 Feb., and 3 Mar. 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 2} A.E., Turquie, vol. 367, 21 Feb. 1866, copy of letter from Moustier to Admiral Simon.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 1} Marginalia on des Essards' dispatch of 5 Mar., op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 2} Ibid. 8 Mar. 1866, draft of A.E. instructions.

^{page 156 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 156 note 4} Ibid. 18 Apr. 1866.

^{page 156 note 5} A.E., Turquie, vol. 367, 21 Mar. 1866, Moustier to Drouyn de Lhuys.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 6} Ibid. 4 Apr. 1866.

^{page 157 note 1} A.E., Turquie, vol. 369, 15 Jan. 1867, Bourée to Moustier.Google Scholar

^{page 157 note 2} The account of the subsequent developments is drawn from des Essards' dispatches of 22 Jan. and 2 Feb. 1867, A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 158 note 1} Until Karam died in Naples in 1889, his return was inevitably rumoured during every crisis that affected the Lebanon. Except for one occasion related below these threats were discounted. Embittered by the absence of effective support, Karam published a number of polemic brochures critical of those who had let him down. See his Joseph Karam aux Gouvernements et Nations de l'Europe (Rome, 1871);Google ScholarMémoires à la Ste. Eglise et à la France (Rome, 1876);Google ScholarLa Situation du Liban et celle de l'Eglise Maronite (Rome, 1877);Google ScholarSuite à la Situation du Liban et celle de l'Eglise Maronite (Rome, 1877).Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 1} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 16, 3 Apr. 1865, des Essards dispatch.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 2} Ibid. vol. 17, 3 Nov. 1865 in a memorandum dated 25 Dec. 1865 Fain reported that Dâûd hoped to obtain control of part of the Biqâ' as early as 1863 so that he could ‘hold the Maronites through their crop’.

^{page 160 note 1} Davison, op. cit. pp. 29 and 166;Google ScholarRâshid Pasha's reputation as an administrator and reformer has had to overcome a barrage of criticism from the all too influential pens of Richard Burton and his wife arising out of their brief occupation of the Damascus consulate from which they were recalled on the Vâlî's insistence. This is a further example of the inherent bias in the nineteenth century against a non-European contender in a trial of wills with a European; for a more balanced view of this affair consult the relevant correspondence in the F.O. papers, particularly the dispatches of Consul General Eldridge in vols. 195/965 and 195/976.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} This and subsequent developments are drawn from correspondence in A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 18, dated 10 May; 13 June; 22, 27 and 28 Oct.; 9, 20, 26 and 28 Nov.; 8, 17, and 28 Dec. 1867.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} Rogers, Richard, the British Consul in Damascus acting for Eldridge in Beirut during the latter's absence, believed that Dâûd ‘has encouraged the movement, but I think that no pressure was necessary’. Rogers found that the petitions from Sidon, Hasbaya and Rashaya had been prepared by former temporary employees of Dâûd's administration. F.O. 195/866, 29 Dec. 1867. In the following January Dâûd admitted that, while he had not encouraged the Sidon petition, he had agreed to forward it to the Porte over Râshid's head. He justified this action, Rogers reported, by arguing that ‘unless generally governors of neighbouring provinces are allowed to receive and forward complaints, the grievances of the people cannot be known’. F.O. 195/903, 18 Jan. 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 2} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 18, 27 Oct. 1867.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 161 note 4} Dib, Pierre (Bishop), Histoire de l'Eglise Maronite (Beirut, 1962), vol. 1, pp. 228 f.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 1} Cf. F.O. 195/903. 3 Feb. 1868, Rogers dispatch.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 2} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 18, 26 Nov. 1867, Walewski dispatch.Google Scholar

^{page 162 note 3} Ibid. 28 Nov. 1867.

^{page 162 note 4} Ibid. 26 Mar. 1868, draft to A.E. instructions to Walewski; 12 Apr. 1868, Walewski dispatch.

^{page 163 note 1} A.E., Turquie, vol. 375, draft of A.E. instructions to Bourée of 18 Mar. 1868; for subsequent developments see correspondence dated 30 Mar., 5 and 12 May 1868.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 2} Ibid. 5 May 1868, Bourée to Moustier.

^{page 163 note 3} Hariciye Arsivi (hereafter H.A.) 35/5, 11 May 1868, telegraphic dispatch, Fu'âd to Jamîl.Google Scholar

^{page 163 note 4} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 18, 29 Apr. 1868, Rousseau dispatch; F.O. 195/ 903, 25 Apr., private, Rogers to Elliot, British Ambassador to Istanbul.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 1} F.O. 78/2020, 1 May 1868, Elliot to Stanley, Foreign Secretary. Earlier, on 21 Apr., Elliot had observed to Stanley on the Porte's disapproval of Dâûd's activities. In his opinion the French were pressing matters with ‘more energy than may perhaps have been altogether agreeable to the Turkish Ministers’.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 2} H.A. 35/5, 15 May 1868, Jamî;l to Fu'âd.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 3} Davison, op. cit. p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 4} A.E., Turquie, vol. 375, 19 May 1868, Bourée to Moustier.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 5} It is probable that the French Ambassador's interest in the Ministry of Public Works lies behind Elliot's opinion that Bourée was not as keen a supporter of Dâûd as was the Quai d'Orsay. There is no evidence that Bourée was in any way more responsive to Maronite interests than was Moustier. F.O. 78/2020, 19 May 1868, Elliot to Stanley.Google Scholar

^{page 164 note 6} A.E., Turquie, vol. 375, 15 May 1868, draft of telegraphic instructions from A.E. to Bourée. For Moustier's continued defence of Dâûd see also H.A. 35/5, 18 and 19 May 1868, telegraphic dispatches, Jamîl to Fu'âd.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 1} Ibid. 7 Apr. 1868, Bourée to Moustier.

^{page 166 note 2} A.E., Cor. Pol. Con., Beyrouth, vol. 16, 11 Apr. 1865, des Essards dispatch.Google Scholar

^{page 166 note 3} These observations are drawn from a larger work on the period of the Mutasarrifiya in Mount Lebanon now in preparation by this writer.Google Scholar