Tanzimat

TANZIMAT IN THE BALKANS:
MIDHAT PASHA’S GOVERNORSHIP IN THE DANUBE PROVINCE

(TUNA VILAYETI), 1864-1868
A Master’s Thesis
by
MEHMET ÇELİK
THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

BİLKENT UNIVERSITY
ANKARA
June 2007
To Prof. Stanford J. Shaw
The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences

of
Bilkent University
by
MEHMET ÇELİK
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
in
THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
BİLKENT UNIVERSITY
ANKARA
June 2007
I certify that I have read this thesis and have found that it is fully adequate, in scope
and in quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in History.
---------------------------------------
Asst. Prof. Evgeni Radushev
Supervisor
---------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Özer Ergenç
Examining Committee Member
---------------------------------------
Assoc. Prof. Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu
Examining Committee Member
Approval of the Institute of the Economics and Social Sciences
---------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Erdal Erel
Director
ABSTRACT

Çelik, Mehmet
M.A., Department of History
Supervisor: Asst Prof. Evgeni Radushev
June 2007
This study aims at analyzing Midhat Pasha’s governorship in the Danube
province between 1864 and 1868 within two dimensions: Midhat Pasha as an
Ottoman governor symbolizing the Tanzimat ideology and modernization in the
countryside; and the rise of the Bulgarian revolutionary movements supported by the
Russian Pan-Slavist policies. For this purpose, focus is placed on Midhat Pasha’s
reforms in this pilot region, which would be carried out as examples for the other
provinces within the empire, and also his struggle against the national uprisings. The
huge amount of relevant single documents in the Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives
in Istanbul and the Ottoman archives in Sofia along with the provincial newspaper,
(Tuna), the yearbooks of the province, and the memoirs of Pasha himself constitute
the main source and bases of this thesis.
Key Words: Tanzimat, Balkans, Midhat Pasha, Danube province, Reforms, Pan-
Slavism
iii
ÖZET
BALKANLAR’DA TANZİMAT:
MİDHAT PAŞA’NIN TUNA VİLAYETİ VALİLİĞİ, 1864-1868
Çelik, Mehmet
Yüksek Lisans, Tarih Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Yrd. Doç. Dr. Evgeni Radushev
Haziran 2007
Bu çalışma Midhat Paşa’nın 1864 ve 1868 yılları arasındaki Tuna Vilayeti
valiliğini iki temel boyutta incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır: Tanzimat ideolojisini ve
modernleşmesini taşrada temsil eden bir Osmanlı valisi olarak Midhat Paşa; ve
Rusya’nın Panislavist politikalarıyla yükselen Bulgar ihtilal hareketleri. Bundan
dolayı, bu çalışma hem Midhat Paşa’nın bu pilot bölgedeki imparatorluk içerisindeki
diğer vilayetlere de örnek teşkil edecek reformları, hem de milli ayaklamalara karşı
mücadelesi üzerine odaklanmaktadır. İstanbul’daki Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi’nde
ve Sofya’daki Osmanlı Arşivinde konuyla ilgili çok sayıdaki ayrı evrak, vilayet
gazetesi (Tuna), salnameleri ve Paşa’nın kendi hatıratı ile birlikte bu tezin temel
kaynaklarını oluşturmaktadır.
Anahtar Sözcükler: Tanzimat, Balkanlar, Midhat Paşa, Tuna Vilayeti, Reformlar,
Pan-Slavism.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank my original supervisor Prof. Stanford
Shaw, who sadly passed away on December 15, 2006, for many insightful
conversations during the development of the ideas in this thesis, and for helpful
comments on the initial texts. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to
Prof. Evgeni Radushev, who adopted me at this stage, for his guidance and for
everything I learned from him. I am also grateful to my professors, Halil İnalcık,
Oktay Özel, Ezel Kural Shaw, Hasan Ünal, Evgenia Kermeli and Ahmet Simin for
their encouraging help and support in my thesis. Many thanks to Prof. Özer Ergenç
and Prof. Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu for taking the time to read my thesis and providing
valuable comments as jury members.
I am also grateful to Prof. Bekir Koç, Seyit Ali Kahraman, H. Dündar
Akarca, Safa Saraçoğlu, Fatma Şimşek and Hasan Bacacı for their help in accessing
the sources. I owe a lot to my friends for their friendship and support. My warm
thanks go to Muhsin Soyudoğan, Mustafa İsmail Kaya, Hasan Çolak, İlker Demir,
Bayram Selvi, Tarık Tolga Gümüş, Derya Dumlu, Forrest Watson, Ayşegül Keskin,
Fahri Dikkaya and Veysel Şimşek for their invaluable support and encouragement.
Special thanks to Prof. Timothy Roberts, Donna Pruiett and Bryce Anderson for
editing the thesis. I am also thankful to the director of the dorms Zeki Samatyalı and
our dormitory staff Nimet Kaya for taking care of me as a family during my stay at
v
Bilkent University. Needless to say, I owe the most to my family, who have
supported and encouraged me with great sacrifices all throughout my life.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii
ÖZET .......................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER II: THE BALKANS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ...................... 7
II.1 The Tanzimat-ı Hayriye (Auspicious re-ordering) and Its Perception in the
Balkans ..................................................................................................................... 7
II.2 The National Awakening of Bulgarians in the Nineteenth Century .......... 10
II.3 The Life of Midhat Pasha and His Career until His Nomination to the
Governorship of the Nish Province ........................................................................ 15
II.4 Midhat Pasha’s Governorship in Nish, 1861-1864 ................................... 20
CHAPTER III: LAND AND POPULATION ........................................................... 27
III.1 The Land and Its Geographic Characteristics............................................ 27
III.2 The Ottoman Conquest of the Region and Its Geopolitical Importance for
the Empire .............................................................................................................. 28
III.3 The Ethnic and Religious Structure ........................................................... 31
CHAPTER IV: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DANUBE PROVINCE AND
THE REFORMS ........................................................................................................ 34
IV.1 The Establishment of the Danube Province (Tuna Vilayeti) ..................... 34
vii
IV.2 The Ideological Bases of the Reforms of 1864 and the Reforming Cadres
……..... ................................................................................................................... 36
IV.3 The Administrative Structure .................................................................... 41
IV.3.1 The administration of the Livas, Kazas, Nahiyes and Karyes ................ 48
IV.3.2 Electoral System ..................................................................................... 49
IV.4 The Economic Reforms ............................................................................ 52
IV.4.1 The Agricultural Credit Cooperatives Bank (Menafi Sandıkları or
Memleket Sandıkları) ......................................................................................... 58
IV.5 The Improvement of Transportation......................................................... 62
IV.6 The Extension of Telegraph Lines............................................................. 68
IV.7 Educational Reforms ................................................................................. 72
IV.8 The Printing House and the Danube Newspaper (Tuna Gazetesi) ............ 83
IV.9 The Revolutionary Movements: Eşkiyas, Çetes and Komitas .................. 88
IV.10 Police Stations (Karakols) ......................................................................... 91
IV.11 The Question of the Tatar and Circassian Refugees.................................. 93
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 99
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 107
Appendix I: The District Centers of the Danube Province (1864)....................... 107
Appendix III: The Road Lines Constructed in the Danube Province between 1864
and 1868 ............................................................................................................... 109
Appendix IV: Ethnic/religous group percentages per city (1866) ....................... 110
Appendix V: Overall Population Figures............................................................. 111
Appendix VI: Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali ..................................................... 112
Appendix VII: The Extension of the Telegraph Lines ......................................... 126
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table IV. 1: The Administrative Staff of the Danube Province....…………….…...42
Table IV. 2: The First Appointed Officials………………………..………………..43
Table IV. 3: The Governors of the Districts, 1864-68………………….…………..44
Table IV. 4: The Profit of the Rusçuk-Varna Railroad…………………………..…67
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The reform edict known as the Tanzimat-ı Hayriye (Auspicious re-ordering),
prepared and promulgated by Mustafa Reşid Pasha on November 3, 1839, initiated a
new era in the modernization process of the Ottoman Empire. His successors, Ali and
Fuad Pashas, advanced this fundamental reform movement by training the influential
statesmen, sometimes the de facto leaders of the government. Midhat Pasha was
among the most prominent and liberal of them all. After passing through various
grades of offices in the Ottoman bureaucracy, he was given important
responsibilities, which had a great impact on his career. For instance, in 1854,
Kıbrıslı Mehmet Emin Pasha, the Grand Vizier, charged him with the important task
of pacifying the separatist organizations and the bandits in the Balkan provinces and
he successfully accomplished this role. The Sublime Port appreciated his
administrative and reforming talents in this duty. Afterwards, he was nominated to
the governorship of the Nish province in 1861. In this way, Midhat Pasha was
promoted to the administrative class with the Ottoman bureaucratic rank of vezir.
It is important to emphasize that until the 1860s, the focus of the Tanzimat
reforms principally aimed the center rather than the periphery of the state. Midhat
Pasha was chosen by the Ottoman administration for the significant mission of
introducing the Tanzimat to the countryside. Accordingly, the Danube region was
1
given priority over the other parts of the empire for the reforms. In those years, this
region became the most troublesome place in the empire owing to the local
revolutionary committees related to the central revolutionary organizations of the
Bulgarians stationed in Bucharest and influenced by the Pan-Slavist ideology
supported by the Imperial Russia. In addition to the separatist movements, the
internal problems such as banditry, unjust treatment of landowners to the peasants
and unfair taxation made it inevitable for the Ottoman administration to establish
reformation in the Danube region. Therefore, Midhat Pasha’s appointment to the
governorship of Nish should be considered as an introduction of the Tanzimat to the
provinces. As a result of his outstanding success in this province, Ali and Fuad
Pashas summoned him to the center in order to formulate a general organic law for
the government of the provinces in 1864. Soon after, the establishment of the Danube
province (Tuna Vilayeti) was declared on October 13, 1864, together with a set of
regulations (Tuna Vilayet Nizamnamesi)1. Midhat Pasha became the governor of this
new province, which was a combination of the provinces of Nish, Vidin and Silistre.
The Danube province was considered as “a pilot region” where the reforms would be
carried out as examples for the rest of the empire. Thus, Midhat Pasha’s
governorship in the Danube province was of great importance in the late Ottoman
history.
Midhat Pasha symbolized the rising Tanzimat ideology as a diligent governor
in the provinces.2 However, his reforms and projects such as schools, banks, police
stations, orphanages, printing houses in the Danube province should be analyzed not
1
See the Vilayet Nizamnamesi, Düstûr 1. Tertip (Istanbul 1289), pp. 608-624, and the Tuna Vilayet
Nizamnamesi, BOA, I.MMS no:1245. Also see M. Hüdai Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar
Meselesi (1850–1875), (Ankara: TTK, 1992), pp. 253–271 for the differences between these two
copies of the nizamname and their transliteration to the Latin alphabet.
2
Midhat Pasha’s governorships in the provinces: Nish (February 4, 1861- October 25, 1864), Danube
(October 25, 1864- March 6, 1868), Baghdad (February 27, 1869- July 31, 1872), Syria (November
24, 1878- August 5, 1880) and Aydın (August 5, 1880- May 17, 1881).
2
only within the context of the Ottoman reform movement, but also in a broader
perspective which includes Russia’s political and military challenge of the Ottomans
in the Balkans. It is thus an oversimplification to consider the problems in this
province just as a “Bulgarian Question”. It is also necessary to take the Crimean War
(1853-1856) and the 1848 Revolutions in Europe into consideration. Russia had been
seeking the ways to take the revenge of the Crimean War and to reach warm water
ports by controlling the Balkans as well. Furthermore, the 1848 revolutions created
an anti-imperial atmosphere, in which the Poland revolutionaries against Russia and
the Hungarian ones against Austria were backed by the Ottoman Empire. Similarly,
the Balkan nations perceived Russia as their Slavic ally against the Ottoman rule.
The Ottoman policy was to modernize the Danube province in accordance
with the westernization ideology of the Tanzimat, while pacifying the nationalistic
movements. On the contrary, Russian policy was to create and organize Bulgarian
revolutionaries that would lead to national uprisings, which was the ground Russia
needed to intervene and even occupy the Balkans. It was assumed that Russian
military success against the Ottomans in such a possible war would enable Russians
to have control over the land including Istanbul and the result would be the
establishment of the Russia controlled independent Bulgarian state and Russian
access to the warm water ports in the Mediterranean Basin. In order to achieve this
goal the Russian consuls, schools and press carried out systematic Pan-Slavist
propaganda in the Balkans. That is why, after Midhat Pasha’s nomination to the
governorship of the Danube province, this region turned into to be a chess board
between the Ottoman governor, Midhat Pasha, and the Russian ambassador, Cont
N.P. Ignatiew (1864-74).
3
The focus of my research is to analyze Midhat Pasha’s governorship in the
Danube province with an emphasis on his reforms and struggle against the Pan-
Slavist ideology. Even if some studies have been conducted on this issue it has not
received appropriate attention from scholars. Although the previous studies will not
be mentioned here in detail an overview of the different approaches in the
historiography is indispensable.
In the Russian historiography this subject seems to be rather neglected. E.I.
Fadeeva’s studies on Midhat Pasha’s life and career might be considered as the only
significant one.3 It is valuable work as it contains a wealth of information in
historical detail but its focus is limited only to Pasha’s political activities in the
center rather than his reforms in the countryside. It regards Midhat Pasha as a big
enemy to the Russian imperial interests and mentions his activities in the province
just to expose the faults of the Ottoman administration. For example, the project of
road construction was reflected as an unjust work labor imposed on the peasants
instead of its contribution to the transportation network and the improvement of local
economies within the province.
Bulgarian historians have contributed the most to the study of modernization
in the Danube region but their approach to Midhat Pasha and his reforms was quite
parallel to the Soviet-Russian perspective until 1989 when important democratic
developments were achieved in the country. Afterwards, they have tended to base
3
E.I. Fadeeva, Midhat Pasha:Jizn i Deyatel’nost [Midhat Pasha: His Life and Career],(Moscow:
1977); “K Harakteristke Deyatelnosti Midhad Pashi v Bulgarii v 1864-1868 g” [About the Main
Characteristics of Midhat Pasha’s Activities in Bulgaria 1864-1868] VIII Godich Nauchnaya Sesia LO
Ivan, Moscow, 1972; “K Harakteristke Obshestrenno – Politicheskih Vzglyadov Ahmeda Midhad
Pashi” [About Ahmed Midhat Pasha’s Social and Political Conceptions], Arabskie Strani, Turtsia,
Iran, Afganistan, Istoria Economika, Moscow 1973; “Reformatskaya Deyatel’nost Midhad Pashi v
Bulgarii”[Midhat Pasha’s Reformation Policy in Bulgaria], Turkologicheskii Sbornik, Moscow 1974;
“Tabsıra-i Ibret” i “Mirat-i Hayret” Kak Istochniki Dlya Izuchenia Obshestvenno- Politicheskih
Vzglyadov i Deyatel’nosti Ahmeda Midhad Pashi” [“Tabsıra-i Ibret” and “Mirat-i Hayret” as a Source
of Ahmed Midhat Pasha’s Socio-Political Conceptions and Activities] X Godichnaya Nauchnaya
Sesia LO Ivan, Moscow 1974.
4
their works on more balanced evaluations than before. The valuable works of Georgi
Pletnyov and Milen Petrov might be good examples of these studies.4
Midhat Pasha’s life and career as a research topic is very popular among
Turkish historians but they mainly deal with two aspects of it, his statesmanship as
heroic figure of the Tanzimat and his judicial execution because of the murder of
Sultan Abdülaziz.5 Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı and Bilal Şimşir, two well known
Turkish historians, conducted essential researches on the second aspect. Moreover,
the political biography of Midhat Pasha was written by his son Ali Haydar and
published in English, Turkish and French. He also published the autobiography of his
father in two volumes, Tabsıra-i Ibret and Mirat-ı Hayret. In general, Turkish
historians have reflected Midhat Pasha’s governorship in the Danube province as a
story of successful career, except Ilber Ortaylı who draws attention to Midhat
Pasha’s failure in reviving the ideology of Ottomanism (Osmanlılık) in the Balkans.
The most remarkable of them are M. Hüdai Şentürk and İsmail Selimoğlu, whose
works are highly supported by a great amount of archival documents but devoid of
essential analysis of each document.6
In terms of the Western perspective of the issue, one should mention that
most of the early Western contributions on the Tanzimat era perceive modernization
in the Ottoman Empire as a part of “Eastern Question”. Later on, Roderic Davison’s
4
Georgi Pletnyov, Midhat Paşa i Upravlenieto Na Dunavskiya Vilayet [Midhat Pasha and His
Governorship in the Danube Province], (Veliko Tarnova 1994); Milen Petrov, Tanzimat for the
Countryside: Midhat Pasa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868, Unpublished PhD thesis Princeton
University, Department of Near Eastern Studies (Princeton: September 2006).
5
After his judicial execution he was called as “Hürriyet Şehidi”, which means the martyr of liberty.
6
M. Hüdai Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), (Ankara: TTK, 1992); İsmail
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878, Unpublished PhD thesis, Ankara
University, Institute of Social Sciences (Ankara: 1995).
5
comprehensive book, on the Tanzimat reforms, approaches to the issue from a
broader perspective by taking the local dynamics into consideration.7
My thesis aims at analyzing Midhat Pasha’s governorship in the Danube
province and figuring out to what extent his reforms became successful. The
incredible amount of documents in Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (the Prime Ministry
Ottoman Archives) in Istanbul and the Ottoman archives in Sofia, Bulgaria constitute
the main source and bases of my research. Although there are a number of Temettuat
defters (collections of financial records), which reveal the economic dynamics of the
provinces in detail, I intend to make use of the huge amount of single documents in
both achieves, which directly concern Midhat Pasha’s activities and reforms in the
Danube province. These single documents, which bear an enormous significance for
the researchers, were mainly comprised of the Irades (imperial degrees) such as
Irade Dahiliye, Irade Hariciye, Irade Meclis-i Vala etc. In addition to these
documents, the first provincial newspaper, (Tuna Gazetesi) founded by Midhat
Pasha, the Salnames (yearbooks of the provinces) and the memoirs of Pasha himself
were also used in my research along with a number of secondary sources written in
English, Turkish, Bulgarian and Russian languages.
7
Roderic Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876, (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1963).
6
CHAPTER II
THE BALKANS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
II.1 The Tanzimat-ı Hayriye (Auspicious re-ordering) and Its Perception in
the Balkans
Although the earlier reform efforts made by Selim III in the late eighteenth
century aimed at modernizing the empire, they achieved nothing more than initiating
the reforms that would be undertaken by the following sultans. The failure of Selim
III resulted from the resistance of conservative bureaucrats, religious circles in power
and also by the Janissaries who were strongly against the reforms, which threatened
the bases of their power. Thus, in 1807, a Janissary revolt dethroned Selim III and
brought his Nizam-ı Cedid army to an end. Mahmud II ascended to the throne in
1808 as the last surviving member of the dynasty. In the early years of his reign, he
was unable to carry out the reforms he wanted owing to the same problems Selim III
faced. Instead of making real reforms he had to content himself with planning them,
training the new generation bureaucrats and gradually placing them into key
positions until the Janissaries were overthrown and wiped out on July 10, 1826.1
The destruction of Janissary corps, the Vaka-yi Hayriye (Auspicious Event),
paved the way for implementation of the reforms necessary to modernize the empire.
1
Stanford J. Shaw, From Empire to Repulic Vol.I, (Ankara: TTK 2000), p.19.
7
The sultan focused on building a new army, a more efficient taxation system to
generate money for the military, and a modern central and provincial bureaucracy
which was essential for an efficient taxation system.2 On the other hand, during the
reign of Mahmut II, a comprehensive reform edict, the Tanzimat-ı Hayriye, was also
prepared but could not be declared before his passing away on June 30, 1839. This
reform edict also known as Gülhane Hatt-ı Hümayun, (the Imperial Edict of Rose
Garden) prepared by the leading reformer and Foreign Minister Mustafa Reşid
Pasha, was promulgated on November 3, 1839 on behalf of Sultan Abdülmecid. The
edict marked a turning point in the process of the modernization in the Ottoman
Empire. It included essential promises of four main issues: establishment of
guarantees for the life, honor and property of the sultan’s subjects, replacement of the
tax-farming (iltizam) with a new taxation system; regulations in the conscription for
the army; providing equality among all the subjects of the sultan. Thus, it initiated a
new era, which is referred to as the Tanzimat Period in the Ottoman history.
The reforms introduced by the Gülhane Edict were perceived in different
ways by each social class within the empire. The reaya (the tax paying subjects of
the Ottoman sultan) was excited about the equality, especially in taxation where the
Tanzimat promised that the taxes would be levied equitably in accordance with the
assessment of the wealth. In addition, the sultan ordered the nobles to abolish the
corvée labor and to ease the work load of the reaya since they had been suffering
from the hard work imposed by the new land owners (gospodars). However, the
privileged Muslim and non-Muslim groups, the Muslim land owners, Çorbacıs or
Kocabaşıs (Local Christian notables), were not in favor of losing their privileges and
paying high amounts of taxes. They complained about the high taxes assessed on
2
Eric J. Zürcher. Turkey: A Modern History, (London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 1997), p.41.
8
wine and rakı. Then, they threatened the reaya by saying that they would not give
them jobs in their vineyards and they also would not buy the grapes grown by them.
Thus, both notables and the reaya stood against the newly imposed taxes.3
In addition to this, the leaders of religious communities had been strongly
opposed to the national movements against the Ottoman order because their authority
over their own community members was provided by the central administration.
Accordingly, the Ottoman millet system allowed all the non-Muslim and Muslim
communities to regulate themselves in respect to religion, education, marriage,
divorce, inheritance etc. However, these religious leaders began to lose their
authority as a consequence of the Tanzimat’s attempted reforms for the
democratization of the Millet system. Therefore, they started to support the national
movements and uprisings and even provoked their own communities to rebel against
the Ottoman rule.4
Consequently, the reforms of the Tanzimat disappointed the Muslim people
because of the rights given to the non-Muslim subjects of the sultan. Some high
ranking religious functionaries and scholars, notables, and even some governors who
lost their authority and privileges provoked the Muslim population to revolt against
the reforms. This situation caused discontent and the rise of national ideology among
the non-Muslim minorities who had great expectations from the reforms.5
3
Halil İnalcık, “Tanzimat’ın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkiler”, Belleten, XXVIII/112 (Ekim 1964),
p.642.
4
Stanford J. Shaw, “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Azınlıklar Sorunu”, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e
Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol. IV, (İstanbul: İletişim, 1985), p. 1005.
5
İnalcık, “Tanzimat’ın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkiler”, p.624.
9
II.2 The National Awakening of Bulgarians in the Nineteenth Century
The nineteenth century, which İlber Ortaylı called the “longest century of the
Ottoman Empire”, witnessed the rise of national consciousness in the Balkans as a
whole. National ideas had also begun to spread in the Bulgarian lands as in the other
parts of the Peninsula. However, Bulgarians were struggling not only for their
national independence but also for their religious emancipation from the Greek
Patriarchate. The Greek nationalist policies beginning from the late eighteenth
century constituted the major threat for the existence of Bulgarian identity. The
religious and political authority of the Patriarch given by the Ottomans provided
Greeks with a privileged position in the empire and turned them into decisive factor
of the cultural processes among the Christian subjects of the sultan. Thanks to this
authority, in 1767, the Greek Patriarchate abolished the Bulgarian Orthodox
archbishop of Ohrid, which represented the Bulgarian Christians in religious and
cultural terms. After that, in 1800, the patriarch in Istanbul closed the Bulgarian
religious schools and declared the Greek language as the only one of the Orthodox
churches in the empire. He also forbade publication of religious books in languages
other than Greek and this process continued with more strict applications such as the
prohibition of the religious ceremonies carried out in Bulgarian language, burning

6
Slavic books and replacing them with Greek ones. Thus, the Greek clergy
Hellenizing the Bulgarian people was accused of suppressing the Bulgarian language
and cultural traditions, and bringing about the historical amnesia that characterized
the Bulgarians during the Ottoman period.7 This situation led to the rise of anti-
Greek feelings among the Bulgarians. At the same time, the Greek bourgeoisie also
6
Halil İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, (İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 1992), pp. 18–19.
7
George G. Arnakis, “The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan Nationalism”, in The
Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth
Century , edited by Charles and Barbara Jelavich (Hamden: Archon Books 1974), p. 136.
10
controlled the commercial activities of the Bulgarians who lived in the villages and
mountainous towns, in addition to the Greek hegemony in religion and culture.
However, although Bulgarian bourgeoisie had gradually appeared in the course of
the nineteenth century it tended to be Hellenized and merged into the Greek one.8
Thus, Bulgarian nationalism emerged initially as a reaction to the Greek hegemony.
The Bulgarian nation was not the only one that suffered from the
“Greekification” policy of the Patriarchate; all other Orthodox people, Bulgarians in
the first place among them, were affected by it and they struggled against the
nationalistic policies of the patriarchate, which suppressed their culture and
language.9 On the other hand, owing to the reforms of the Imperial Edict of 1856, the
Orthodox Church was influenced by the reforms as well. Each Balkan nation that
Bulgarians were leading, wanted to develop its own national church. Therefore, the
authority of the Greek Patriarchate grew weak over the Balkans. As a result, the
Russian Empire became more influential in the Balkans with its Pan-Slavist
ideology.10
As Midhat Pasha mentioned in his famous article published in London in
May 1878, Russia had found a new weapon against the Ottomans called “Ittihad-i
Islav” (Unification of Slavs). According to it, Russia began to use schools along with
printing houses and their publications as an influential way of spreading out the pan-
Slavist ideology and underground revolutionary activities among the Bulgarians.11
8
Nikolai Todorov, The Balkan City, 1400–1900,(Seattle-London, University of Washington Press
1983), p. 540.
9
İlber Ortaylı, “Balkanlarda Milliyetçilik”, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol.
IV, (İstanbul: İletişim,1985), p. 1028.
10
Cevdet Küçük, “Osmanlılarda Millet Sistemi ve Tanzimat”, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye
Ansiklopedisi, Vol. IV, (İstanbul: İletişim, 1985), pp. 1021–1022.
11
Midhat Pasha’s famous article published in London, in May 1878. It was published in French and
English. “La Turquie: son Passé, son présent, son avenir”, La Revue Scientifique, 2e série 7, no. 49
(June 8, 1878), pp.1149-1154; “The Past, Present and Future of Turkey”, The Nineteenth Century 3,
no. 16 (June 1878), pp. 981-993. Later on it was translated to Ottoman Turkish as “Türkiye’nin Mazisi
11
Thanks to the Tanzimat reforms, the number of Muslim and Christian schools
increased in the Balkans. Although some of them were opened by the Ottoman
administration there were many other schools, mainly Bulgarian, constructed by the
minority groups on their own. At the same time, American missionaries promoted
education by opening new schools and distributing books in the Bulgarian
language.12 In this respect, one can say that the newly opened schools, Russian
political and cultural influence and to some extent the colleges of the American
missionaries all contributed to the development of liberal-national political ideology
among the Bulgarians.13 American schools including Robert College in Istanbul
helped to educate many of the Bulgarian leaders and created an avenue of vital
contacts with the English speaking countries.14 Meanwhile, Russia opened consulates
in the main centers such as Sofia, Plodiv, Ruse and Varna and appointed Pan-Slavist
consuls in order to organize the people against the Ottoman rule.15
The rise of nationalism and the discontent continuing in the Balkans along
with the Russian encouragement and propaganda in the 1850s led to national revolts
in some important areas such as Vidin, Nish and Tırnovi. In this way, Bulgarian
national movement reached its peak in terms of both ideological development and
organization in the beginning of the 1860s. The Bulgarian revolutionary committee
established its central community in Bucharest in 1862.16 The reaction of the
Tanzimat statesmen on power was to appoint Midhat Pasha to the province of Nish
in 1861 and later on to the province of the Danube in 1864 as an Ottoman governor
ve İstikbali”, by Ahmet Refik, (Istanbul: Tab’ı ve Naşiri Kitabhane-i İslam ve Askeri, Artin
Asaduryan Matbaası, 1326 (1908–1909), see pp. 14–17.
12
Ömer Turan, The Turkish Minority in Bulgaria,(Ankara: TTK, 1998), p.42.
13
Charles and Barbara Jelavich, The Establishment of the Balkan National States 1804–1920, (Seattle,
London: University of Washington Press 1986), p.136.
14
Marin V. Pundeff, “Bulgarian Nationalism”, in Nationalism in Eastern Europe, edited by Peter F.
Sugar and Ivo John Lederer, (Seattle&London: University of Washington Press, 1994), p.107.
15
Turan, The Turkish Minority in Bulgaria, p.42.
16
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), p. 182.
12
who symbolized a new mentality in an old empire of keeping up with the times and
modernization.17
During his four years of governorship Midhat Pasha fought successfully
against the separatist movements and the pan-Slavist policies of the Russian Empire.
Furthermore, he carried out a number of reforms in order to combine the non-Muslim
population with the Muslim one, which the situation became more problematic for
the local government with the refugees coming from the lost territories, under the
ideology of Ottomanism. Meanwhile, the Russian ambassador in Istanbul, Cont N.P.
Ignatiew, was horrified that Midhat’s policy ran directly opposite to the ways of the
Russian Pan-Slavic policy and made great efforts to force the sultan to recall him
from the Danube province.18 After Midhat Pasha’s removal from his position in
1868, the Bulgarian national organizations regained their power and accelerated their
struggle against the Ottoman rule and also the Greek Patriarchate. One of the most
important achievements of Bulgarians after 1868 was the official recognition of the
independent Bulgarian Orhodox Church by an imperial edict on March 11, 1870.
According to it, the Bulgarian National Church (Exarchate) would be independently
in charge of the religious affairs of the Bulgarian community.19 The re-establishment
of the national church infused new power in the Bulgarian national movement.
After gaining religious independence, Bulgarians continued to fight for their
national freedom by two strong revolutionary attempts in 1875 and 1876. These
revolts against the Ottoman rule might be considered as continuation of the Bosnia-
Herzegovina revolt in 1875. This was a turning point in the Balkans, which ended up
17
İlber Ortaylı, “Midhat Paşa’nın Vilayet Yönetimindeki Kadroları ve Politikası”, Uluslararası
Midhat Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler Tartışmalar Edirne: 8–10 Mayıs 1984, (Ankara: TTK 1986),
pp.227–228.
18
Ahmet Mithat Efendi, Üss-i İnkılâp, edited by Tahir Galip Seratlı, (İstanbul: Selis Kitaplar, 2004),
p. 123.
19
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), pp. 220–221.
13
with a disastrous defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman-Russian war of 1877-
78.20
Despite the fact that these rebellions were a complete failure as a
revolutionary action against the central power, it was all Russia needed to intervene
in the situation and to convince the European powers to organize an international
conference in Istanbul in order to discuss the future of the Balkan nations (September
1876). During the conference Midhat Pasha was assigned as the Grand Vizier and
thanks to his efforts, four days after his appointment, the first Ottoman constitution
was declared on December 23, 1876. This was supposed to ease the high tensions
between the Ottoman rule and the Great Powers insisting on autonomy for the
Balkan nations or establishment of independent states there.
Another considerable objective of the constitution was that Midhat Pasha
wanted to obtain the support of Britain not only against the unacceptable demands of
Russia but also against the sultan, Abdülhamid II, who was not in favor of a
constitutional regime. However, he could not attain the expected gains from the
proclamation of the constitution owing to the Russian sympathies of the British
representative, Lord Salisbury.21 Consequently, the Great Powers gave an ultimatum
to the Ottoman Empire which included the final decisions made in the conference.
According to this ultimatum, Bosnia and Herzegovina would be separated and they
would be given autonomy and have their own military forces. Bulgaria would be
divided into two parts (East and West) which would be governed by Christian
governors and they would also be given autonomy. In addition, a commission
consisting of the representatives of the Great Powers would be set up in order to
directly deal with the reforms and the new administration, which would be
20
Mithat Aydın, Balkanlar’da İsyan, (İstanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi, 2005), p. 146.
21
Mithat Aydın, “Osmanlı-İngiliz İlişkilerinde İstanbul Konferansı (1876)’nın Yeri”, Tarih
Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt XXV Sayı 39, (Ankara: Mart 2006), p. 110.
14
established in Bulgaria. Furthermore, 5000 Belgian soldiers would be in charge of
protecting this commission. Moreover, the Ottoman Empire would have to withdraw
its military forces from Serbia and Montenegro whose borders would be extended.22
The response to this ultimatum by the Ottoman government was determined
by the grand vizier Midhat Pasha and then sent to the Parliament. Midhat Pasha was
not in favor of accepting the decisions made in the conference. In his famous speech
in the parliament he explained the details of the ultimatum and pointed out that these
demands could not be acceptable for the Ottoman government. He knew that the
rejection of them would cause a possible war with Russia but according to him,
fighting with Russia would be far more honorable for the empire.23 The Parliament
made up of 237 members from different regions and religious communities discussed
the issue and rejected the ultimatum. Thereupon, the representatives of the Great
Powers demonstratively left Istanbul.24 Afterwards, although they organized a new
conference in London, they could not solve the problem, which led to the Ottoman-
Russian War of 1877-1878. As a result, the Ottomans lost about a third of the
empire’s territory and over 20 percent of its population.
II.3 The Life of Midhat Pasha and His Career until His Nomination to the
Governorship of the Nish Province
The memoirs of Midhat Pasha, together with the numerous documents in the
Ottoman Archives in Istanbul and Sofia, are the main sources providing researchers
with a great deal of information on Midhat Pasha and his period. These memoirs are
22
Fahir Armaoğlu, 19. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi (1789–1914), (Ankara: TTK 2003), p. 513.
23
The full text of his speech in the parliament was included in his memoirs, Tabsıra-i Ibret. See
Midhat Paşa’nın Hatıraları: 1, Hayatım İbret Olsun [Tabsıra-i İbret], edited by Osman Selim
Kocahanoğlu, (İstanbul: Temel Yayınları, 1997), pp. 288–295.
24
Ali Haydar Mithat, Hatıralarım 1872–1946, (İstanbul: Güler Basımevi, 1946), pp. 17–18.
15
composed of two volumes which are called Tabsıra-i İbret and Mirat-ı Hayret.25
They are not only the accounts of Midhat’s personal life and experiences but also a
valuable overview of the political, social and economic history of the Ottoman
Empire in the nineteenth century. In addition to them, Midhat Pasha’s son, Ali
Haydar Midhat, also wrote a book telling the story of his father’s life.26
Midhat Pasha’s life might be divided into four main periods: a record of his
services, political reforms, banishment and judicial execution. He was born in
Istanbul in October 1822. His father, Hacı Ali Efendizâde, was a native of Rusçuk.
Midhat’s real name was Ahmet Şefik but after memorizing the Quran by the age of
10 he was called as Hafız Şefik. He started to take the usual education provided by
the local schools. In 1833 because of his father’s nomination to Vidin as a regent he
moved there with his family. After a year they returned to Istanbul and Midhat began
to work as a clerk in the Imperial Council (Divan-ı Hümayun) thanks to the favor of
Akif Pasha who was the minister of Foreign Affairs. Then he was given the name of
Midhat, which was how he would be called afterwards, because of his success in this
office. Soon after this, he had to take a break from his work since his father was
appointed to the regency of Lofça, one of the main towns in the Danubian Bulgaria.
He returned to Istanbul in 1836 and after a few years obtained a position in the
Secretariat of the Grand Vizier’s office, from where he was promoted to higher
ranking employment in the provinces. He worked as an assistant director of the
register office in Damascus for two and a half years and then, after a short interval in
25
For the transliteration of them to Latin Alphabet see, Midhat Paşa’nın Hatıraları: 1, Hayatım İbret
Olsun [Tabsıra-i İbret], edited by Osman Selim Kocahanoğlu, (İstanbul: Temel Yayınları, 1997);
Midhat Paşa'nın Hatıraları: 2 Yıldız Mahkemesi ve Taif Zindanı (Mir'at-ı Hayret), edited by Osman
Selim Kocahanoğlu, (İstanbul: Temel Yayınları, 1997). In this study, the transliteration of the first
volume is abbreviated as “Tabsıra-i Ibret” and the second one as “Mir’at-ı Hayret”.
26
Ali Haydar Mithat, Midhat Paşa: Hayat-ı Siyasiyesi, Hidemat, Menfa Hayatı, (İstanbul: Hilal
matbaası, 1909, [1325]). This book was also translated to English and French. See, Ali Haydar
Midhat, The Life of Midhat Pasha: A Record of His Services, Political Reforms, Banishment and
Judicial Murder, (London: John Murray, Albemarle Street W. 1903); Ali Haydar Midhat, Midhat-
Pacha; Sa Vie, Son Oeuvre. Par Son Fils, Ali Haydar Midhat, Bey, (Paris: Stock, 1908).
16
Istanbul, he proceeded to Konya as secretary to Sami Bekir Pasha’s Council in 1844.
Afterwards, he was nominated to Kastamonu with the same position and then
returned to Istanbul. In 1848 he was appointed as an inspector to the reporting office
of the Supreme Council (Meclis-i Vala), with the favor of Rıfat Pasha, the president
of this council. Soon he was promoted to the highest rank in the office which was
called Başhalife.27
After passing through various grades of office, Midhat was chosen for two
important missions, which had a great impact on his career. At that time, the
government was having difficulties in collecting the taxes from Cezayiroğlu Mıgırdıç
and Sarraf Misak, the tax farmers of these Custom Houses of Damascus and Aleppo.
Midhat was dispatched there as an inspector to settle the question of the Customs in
the favor of the government. His second mission was to solve the problems with the
conduct of the commander-in-Chief of army of Arabia, Kıbrıslı Mehmet Pasha. The
young inspector completed both of these missions successfully. A great amount of
money from the Custom Houses was restored to the Ottoman Treasury and Kıbrıslı
Mehmet Pasha was dismissed from the command of the Syrian army as a
consequence of his report. The Grand Vizier of the day, Reşid Pasha appreciated
Midhat’s success and appointed him to a confidential post in the Supreme Council,
which he maintained during Grand Vizierate of Reşid, Ali, Rıfat and Rüştü Pashas.28
In 1854 when Şekib Pasha was the president of the Supreme Council, the secretary of
this council was separated into two departments, one for Anatolia and one Rumelia,
and Midhat was appointed to the department of Anatolia as the assistant director.29
27
Judicial Murder,p.32; Tabsıra-i İbret, pp. 19–21.
28
Ibid, pp.32–33.
29
Cevdet Paşa, Tezakir 13-20, edited by Prof. Cavid Baysun, (Ankara: TTK 1991), p.104. For detailed
information about the Meclis-i Vala see, Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu, Tanzimat Devrinde Meclis-i Vala
(1838-1868), (Ankara: TTK 1996).
17
On the other side of the huge empire, toward the end of 1853, the Crimean
War broke out between Russians and the Ottomans. Russia occupied Wallachia and
Moldavia, and soon after began to organize some groups of brigands in Nish in order
to provoke the Bulgarians to fight against the Ottoman rule. Soon after, this rising
brigandage of the local Christians turned into a well organized revolt.30
Meanwhile, Kıbrıslı Mehmet Pasha, who was dismissed from the command
of Syrian Army Corps as a consequence of Midhat’s report, became the Grand Vizier
in 1854. Then, he appointed Midhat Pasha to the Balkans with the mission of
pacifying this part of the state. In this way, he planed Midhat’s failure as an
appointed Ottoman official in this problematic region in the Balkans. However,
Midhat Pasha took the disturbed region under the control by arresting 284 people
who played active role in these events. After their trial, four of them were executed.
Following their suppression, Midhat Pasha prepared a report on the necessary
precautions that had to be taken to solve the problems in the Balkans as whole. His
point was the reconstruction of the provincial administration with the establishment
of the Temporary Council (Meclis-i Muvakkat) with full power in order to provide
security in each province in the Peninsula. Midhat submitted his report for approval
of the government. In the meantime, Reşid and Ali Pashas drew up regulations for
the government of the provinces. Midhat’s plan was accepted but because of the
continuing Crimean War and the governmental problems, the execution of this
reform plan was delayed until 1864.31
After completing his mission in the Balkans, Midhat was assigned to Bursa
where a horrifying earthquake happened in 1855. His task was to help the victims by
organizing an aid campaign. He made great efforts to rebuild the important city in a
30
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), pp.115–119.
31
Tabsıra-i İbret, pp. 23–24.
18
short period of time. Then, in 1856, he went to Vidin and Silistre along the Danube
River as a special commissioner to inspect these regions, where there were uprisings
against the central authority. He prepared a report on the administration of Muammer
Pasha, the governor of Vidin, and Mirza Sait Pasha, the governor of Silistre, as he
had previously done in Syria. As a result of his report, the two Pashas were dismissed
from their positions but they complained to Sultan Abdülmecid about Midhat’s
report. Thus, with the order of the sultan, another functionary, Fahreddin Efendi, was
appointed to these provinces with the same mission as Midhat’s. However, he also
submitted the exact same report to the government and the result did not change.
Meanwhile, Reşid Pasha passed away and Ali Pasha ascended the Grand Vizierate.
After all these events, Midhat Pasha decided to travel to Europe for six months, with
the permission of Ali Pasha, in order to improve his French, which was the language
of bureaucracy of the time, and to learn more about the European administration
system. In this short period of time, he went to Paris, London, Vienna and Brussels
and obtained valuable information. Then, he returned to Istanbul and was nominated
to the Supreme Council as the chief secretary.32
At the same time, Kıbrıslı Mehmet Pasha ascended to the Grand Vizierate
again and soon after, he made an investigative trip to the Balkan provinces,
especially the towns of Rusçuk, Nish and Vidin. The discontent from these regions
had risen sharply because of the problems with so called Gospodarlık regime, special
kind of landholding system that spread in the Balkans in the mid nineteenth century.
In this system, the peasantry was obliged to pay not just the state taxes and but a rent
to the landlords and to do corvee labor in their private farms (çiftliks). This situation
along with the increasing Russian influence on the Balkans created serious problems
32
Ibid. pp. 23–24.
19
for the Ottoman administration both in the interior and international arena. As a
consequence of the survey trip, Kıbrıslı Mehmet Pasha realized that the financial and
administrative problems had an equal impact as the Russian influence on the
uprisings and the rise of underground revolutionary activities among Bulgarians.
National movements in Serbia also had a significant influence on the Bulgarian
nationalism. In addition, the increasing number of Muslim refugees from the lost
territories and the problems with the establishment of the Bulgarian National Church
constituted the other important part of the problems in the Ottoman Balkans.33 That’s
why; he nominated Midhat Pasha to the governorship of Nish in 1861 because of his
previous successes in the missions he completed in the Balkans. In this way, Midhat
Pasha was promoted to the administrative class from a clerical office with the
Ottoman bureaucratic rank of vezir.34 After this, he was called with the title of Pasha,
indicating his status in the Ottoman administration.
II.4 Midhat Pasha’s Governorship in Nish, 1861-1864
Although Midhat Pasha was appointed to the governorship of Nish on
February 4, 1861, he arrived there on March 20, 1861. During this period, Osman
Pasha, former governor of Nish, nominated by Kıbrıslı Mehmet Pasha, replaced
him.35 Midhat Pasha was not fond of using armed forces to pacify the province.
Instead of this, he wanted to gain the confidence of the local Bulgarians by
cooperating with them in solving their problems. Thus, soon after his arrival, he
invited the notables of the districts and listened to their complaints in order to
33
Yonca Köksal and Davut Er, “Tanzimat Döneminde Bulgaristan: Kıbrıslı Mehmed Emin Paşa’nın
Rumeli Teftişi”, Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-
13 Mayıs 2005, (Eskişehir: Odunpazarı Belediyesi Yayınları 2005), pp. 371-372.
34
Cevdet Paşa, Tezakir 13-20, p.104. Tabsıra-i İbret, pp. 29–30.
35
BOA, A.MKT.UM, Dosya no: 453, Gömlek no: 48.
20
identify the reasons behind the turmoil in the province and also the migrations from
this region. Then, he pointed out the reasons as: lack of security that the high
tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims caused, the rampant banditry which
made life and property insecure, heavy tax burden which were not assessed fairly and
equitably, debts of farmers who borrowed great amounts of money from the
gospodars, absence of roads, bridges and other means of transportation, which made
it difficult to find markets. Midhat Pasha also paid great attention to the cruel
treatments of the troops to the reaya, especially those in the Serbian border36
Pasha’s next step was to take precautions against these problems and priority
was given to the security problem. He initially changed the positions of the high
ranking military officers who misused their authority by collecting illegal taxes from
the locals. On the other hand, he increased their salaries to a certain amount allowed
by the provincial budget since they had been complaining about their low salaries.
Then, he ordered the troops in the villages back to their barracks and it was forbidden
for them to live among the local people. A new big barrack in the province and
blockhouses along the borders were constructed in order to provide the troops with
regular accommodation, food and equipment.37 In addition, Midhat Pasha ordered
repair of the existing barracks.38 Thanks to these regulations, the pressure of regular
and irregular troops on the people in the province was eased and the elaborate system
of blockhouses all along the Serbian frontier put an end to the incursions of the
armed bands of Serbians, which had fostered and sustained disturbance in the
36
Bekir Koç, Midhat Paşa 1822-1884, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ankara University, Institute of
Social Sciences, (Ankara: 2002), p.15.
37
BOA. I.MVL. no: 21461; 24519.
38
BOA. I.MVL. no: 21115.
21
province. Therefore, those who had immigrated to Serbia now began to return to
their former dwellings.39
At the meantime, an extensive operation was carried out against brigands,
without need for additional military forces from the center. The bandits arrested in
the operation were penalized with dissuasive punishments including death penalty.40
Moreover, a new prison was built instead of the existing one, which was in bad
condition.41 In this way, following the stronghold policy the brigandage was entirely
pacified in a short period of time.
After solving the security problem, Pasha dealt with the difficulties in
transportation since people had problems in finding markets to sell their products
because of the absence of roads and bridges. Thus, he initiated a comprehensive
project of constructing a transportation network within the province. A number of
paved roads (Şose) were laid out in every direction. The first one was constructed in
Nish-Sofia-Pazarcık direction, which was considered as a mother road. Then, the
roads in the directions of Nish-Kumanovo and Sofia-Dobnice-Salonika were
repaired, and three big bridges were constructed over the Morava River together with
many small ones over the other rivers.42 Meanwhile, police stations (karakols) were
established in order to secure transportation on these newly opened directions and to
guarantee the peaceful collection of taxes.43 The construction of the roads and
bridges provided people with a good transportation network in the province. Thus,
the trade routes had been changed to the new directions instead of the one along with
the Danube River. Previously, the products from Europe and Istanbul were
39
Judicial Murder, p.36.
40
Koç, Midhat Paşa 1822-1884, p. 16.
41
Nejat Göyünç, “Midhat Paşa’nın Niş Valiliği Hakkında Notlar ve Belgeler”, Tarih Enstitüsü
Dergisi, XII, (Istanbul: 1982), p. 286.
42
43
22
distributed to the province over Serbia because of the lack of roads but now this route
changed to the inner side of the province over the Çorben road. In addition, a car
factory was also founded to foster the transportation and the economic activities
within the province.44
Another important problem in the province was the settlement of the refugees
from the lost territories. About 2000 immigrants from Belgrade came to Nish and
they were settled in the houses of volunteers and the empty buildings within the
province. An aid campaign was organized to help these refugees and new residences
were constructed for them.45 In those years, a number of the Circassian and Tatar
refugees, exiled from their homeland, had come to the Ottoman territories and Russia
provoked the Bulgarians by claiming that the Sublime Port was planning to replace
them with Tatar and Circassian refugees. Therefore, about 20.000 Bulgarians,
influenced by this propaganda, ventured to Russia from the Vidin region. After a
while, because of the hard economic and climatic conditions they rapidly wanted to
come back to their homelands. In the first stage, 24 Bulgarian families, consisting of
137 members, returned to Vidin and the mufti together with the notables of the
region welcomed them as their in order to prevent the spread of bad ideas and
propaganda against the Muslims from the Russian side.46 Since they spent all their
money and possessions during the migration, the Ottoman government allocated a
steamship for them to return. After their arrival, the agricultural lands that they
previously possessed were given back to them with oxen and necessary agricultural
equipments.47
44
Tabsıra-i İbret, p. 33.
45
BOA. A.MKT.MHM. no: 247/50; Koç, Midhat Paşa 1822-1884, pp. 17-18.
46
BOA, BI. No.77.
47
BOA, B.I. no: 76; Midhat Pasha, “Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali”, p.15.
23
Midhat Pasha also concerned with the debts of farmers to the local
gospodars. They borrowed considerable amounts of money from them with a high
interest, and their debts together with regular taxes, which they had to pay to the
state, turned into a heavy burden that they could not afford to pay. Thus, Midhat
Pasha removed many vexatious taxes and eased their tax burden, and then he
established Agricultural Credit Cooperative (Menafi-i Umumiye Sandıkları), which
formed the origin of the agricultural bank of Modern Turkey. The first one was
established in Pirot (Şehirköy) in 1863. It was the first foundation in Ottoman history
supplying credits for the farmers to promote agriculture. Its funding was provided by
opening some arable state lands within the province, which had not been cultivated
till then for farming. The income of these lands was collected for the foundation and
then allocated for the farmers with a low interest, no matter whether they were
Muslim or Christian.48 In this way, farmers would have enough capital to use without
paying high interests to the local gospodars, and it would develop solidarity and
cooperation among them.
In addition to all of these regulations, Midhat Pasha wanted to ease the high
tensions between different ethnic and religious groups in the province. Soon after his
appointment to the governorship of Nish he established a Governmental Council in
order to diagnose the problems, especially those of non-Muslim subjects, in the
province. Thanks to this council non-Muslim groups had a chance to state their
complaints to the local government. Afterward, the region of Prizrend inhabited by
Albanians was included in the province but a traditional vendetta had existed among
them for centuries and caused huge problems for the local order. Therefore, Midhat
Pasha established a Temporary Council (Meclis-i Muvakkat) and then invited
48
Seçil Akgün, “Midhat Paşa’nın Kuruduğu Memleket Sandıkları: Ziraat Bankası’nın Kökeni”,
Uluslararası Midhat Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler Tartışmalar Edirne: 8–10 Mayıs 1984, (Ankara: TTK
1986), pp. 189–191.
24
Albanian leaders and the notables of the district along with high ranking officials and
religious leaders. Then, they solved this problem by constituting a permanent
commission to settle money for bloodshed.49
Midhat Pasha also made great efforts to increase the education level in the
province. He encouraged families, especially refugees, to send their children to
schools but he also realized that the orphans and poor children suffering from
miserable life conditions also needed to be educated. Therefore, he initiated a project
of establishing a specialized school, which was a kind of reformatory, offering
elementary education for Muslim and Christian children alike and training them as
artisans.50 It was assumed that in this way, orphans and poor children, no matter
Muslim, Christian or Jewish, would be gathered, protected and educated under the
state control. The object in view was to bring the young people of the different
creeds into closer sympathy. Thus, in 1860 Midhat Pasha constructed the first of
these schools in Nish and after his appointment to the governorship of the Danube
province; two more were established in Sofia and Rusçuk. These reformatories were
funded with the donations of local notables together with the budget allocated by the
state.51
Consequently, in spite of Midhat Pasha’s important achievements in Nish,52
the problems in the provinces of Vidin and Silistre grew worse because of the
continued and systematic interference of Russia by means of her consuls and
underground revolutionary organizations. That is why, he was summoned to the
capital in 1864 and then after the establishment of the Danube province, which
49
BOA. I.DH. no: 36825; Bekir Koç, “Midhat Paşa’nın Niş ve Tuna Vilayetlerindeki Yenilikçi
Valiliği”, Kebikeç, Sayı 18. (Ankara: 2004), pp. 410–411; Tabsıra-i İbret, p. 38.
50
BOA. I.DH, no: 36231.
51
Osman Ergin, İstanbul Mektepleri ve İlim, Terbiye ve Sanat Müesseseleri Dolayısile Türkiye Maarif
Tarihi Vol.I-II, (İstanbul: Osmanbey Matbaası 1939), p. 524.
52
For Midhat Pasha’s report on his governorship in Nish see, BOA, A.MKT.MHM 274/ 37.
25
combined Nish, Vidin and Silistre into a single government, he was nominated to the
governorship of this newly founded province.
26
CHAPTER III
LAND AND POPULATION
III.1 The Land and Its Geographic Characteristics
The Danube Province was comprised of seven districts, which included
Rusçuk, Varna, Sofia, Vidin, Tulça, Tırnovo and Niş, extending from Eastern Serbia
to the Black Sea and from the Greek lands to the Danube River, covered 91,624 km²
of territory.1 Compared with the size of Modern Bulgaria, 110,912 km², the Danube
province consisted of a rather large area.
The province land is rather rich in terms of fertile plains. The most important
one is the Lower Danubian plain stretching from the ridges of the Balkans Mountains
to the Danube River. Although there are some low hills and plateaus, it has rather flat
lands, which are of great importance for agricultural activities. In addition, the
Danube River, originating in the German lands and flowing into the Black Sea after
passing through several Central and Eastern European city centers, constituted the
major trade and passenger route between Western Europe and the Balkans. Thus,
there were a number of port cities on the Lower Danube such as Vidin, Nikopol,
Rusçuk etc. That is why; this area of the province was highly populated. The Dobuca
region, the northeastern region of the Danube delta between the Black Sea and the
1
A.N. Moshenin, “Pridunasyskaya Bulgaria (Dunayski Vilaet) [Danubian Bulgaria (Danubian
Vilayet)], Slavyanskii Sbornik, Vol.II., (Saint Petersburg 1877), p.348.
27
Danube River, is another important part of the province covering the important towns
of Silitre, Tulça, Pazacık and Hacıoğlu. Among the seven districts of the province,
Sofia has the highest mountains along with many high plains. The Nish region in the
west has more hills and low mountains but has the fertile valleys of the Nisava and
upper Morava rivers, which were densely populated.2
Thanks to fertile plains, rich water sources with a number of rivers and a
temperate climate, the Danube region was an ideal place for cultivation of grains
such as wheat, barley and especially maize. Along with the commercial port cities on
the Danube River and the Black Sea coast it constituted an important part of the
Balkans.
III.2 The Ottoman Conquest of the Region and Its Geopolitical Importance
for the Empire
In the mid-fourteenth century, the Ottomans began their career of conquest in
the Balkans, which was supported by the decline of the Byzantine ruling model and
the rise of feudalism in the Peninsula. During this period, Tsar Ioan Alexander, ruler
of Bulgarian Kingdom was compelled to divide the state between his two sons
because of the disorder and dynastic struggles. In the 1340s, he lost control over the
Dobruca region to a local lord named Balik. After Ioan Alexander’s death, the
division of the state was officialized when his sons started to rule their regions
independently. In the historiography, this period is known as “Three Bulgarias”, the
Vidin region ruled by his direct successor Stratsimir (1370-96) and central part in
2
Petrov, Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Pasa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868, p.32.
28
Tırnova remained under the control of Tsar Ioan Shishman (1371-93), and the
Dobruca region governed by Balik.3
With the disintegration of Bulgaria, the Ottoman expansion in the Balkans
grew intensely over this region. Prior to the end of 1360s the Ottomans gained
control over the upper Thrace with its main cities, Plodiv (Philipopolis-Filibe) and
Stara Zagora (Eski Zagra). Sultan Murad I. captured Sofia (1385) and Nish (1386).
The Ottoman conquest continued in the Nothern part of the state between Balkan
Mountains and the Danube River under the guidance of Çandarlı Ali Pasha. In 1389,
Murad was killed on the battlefield of Kosovo and his son, Bayezid I, replaced him
on the throne. In a short term, he captured the two important centers along the
Danube River, Vidin and Nikopol, in 1393. The Ottomans also conquered the capital
town of Tırnova and Shishman fled to the Nikopol region and Stratsimir, on the other
hand, reaffirmed his vassalage. Afterwards, Hungarian King Sigismund organized a
crusade against the Ottomans in 1396 but Bayezid defeated them in Nikopol and then
invaded Stratsimir’s lands. With Vidin’s fall, Bulgaria disappeared from the political
map of the Balkans as an independent state.4
The Danube River was of great geopolitical importance for the Ottoman
Empire, as being a natural northern border for centuries against the enemies from the
North and northwest. Thrace. Nikopol and Vidin were the main military strongholds
along the Danube River. There is no historical evidence about the existence of the
Ottoman town under the name of Rusçuk in the lower Danube during the first
centuries of the conquest in the Balkans. This part of the region was defended by the
3
Dennis P. Hupchick, The Balkans: From Constantinople to Communism, (New York: Palgrave
2002), p. 108.
4
Hupchick, The Balkans: From Constantinople to Communism, pp.108-113; Halil Inalcık, The
Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age 1300-1600, (London: Phoenix Press 1988), pp.14-16.
29
medieval castle of Çerven.5 In the course of time, the military and economic
importance of the area increased somewhere in the 1640s one can find the region
mentioned as kaza (county) with its center in Rusçuk.6
There were a number of reasons why Rusçuk had gained importance
beginning in the first half of the seventeenth century. Firstly, it served as a gateway
opening to the Eastern European countries and the Black Sea Basin thanks to the
bridges constructed over the Danube River that the Ottoman troops passed over.
Furthermore, the rise of Imperial Russia with Peter the Great in the late seventeenth
and the early eighteenth century constituted a significant threat for the Ottoman
Empire in the north. Thus, the Ottoman military strategy changed to focus on the
northeastern frontier where the possible Russian attacks would come. Most of the
Janissary garrisons stationed in the inner part of the country moved to this region,
comprised of Rusçuk, Silistre, Varna and Shumnu, which would be called as the
“Security Quadrangle” in the military history. Rusçuk played the most vital role in it,
functioning as a firewall against Russian attacks, thanks to its geopolitical position.
Russian military forces never managed to move into this well protected zone, even
during the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878, which ended with a complete defeat
of Ottoman Empire.
Moreover, the Danube River, extending from German land in the West to the
Black Sea, passing through Austria, Hungary, Wallachia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, was
the backbone of economic and social relations between Western Europe and the
Ottoman territory thanks to its role as a natural route. Merchants transported their
products from the West to the port cities on the Danube River in the Balkans, namely
5
Çerven is a small place close to the town of Ruse (Rusçuk) in Modern Bulgaria.
6
Teodora Bakardjieva, “Ruse and the Ruse Region in the Context of Demographic Processes in the
Lower Danube Region /end of 14th –beginning of 17th c.”, Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet
Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005, (Eskişehir: Odunpazarı Belediyesi
Yayınları 2005), pp.39-48; BOA. TTD. no: 771.
30
Vidin, Nikopol, Rusçuk and Silistre. However, after the first half of the seventeenth
century Rusçuk became a significant commercial center having good connections
with the important port cities of Silistre on the Danube River, Varna in the Black Sea
cost and Istanbul by sea or over Shumnu and Edirne. Especially in the nineteenth
century, Rusçuk turned into the economic and administrative center of the entire
Danube region. When the Ottoman Empire signed an agreement with the British
railroad, on January 23, 1857, for construction of the railroads within the empire, the
Istanbul-Edirne-Shumnu-Rusçuk line was considered as the first and very essential
railroad in the Balkans.7 Afterwards, in November 1866, the Rusçuk-Varna railroad,
which connected the two important port cities, began to function.8 In 1864, with the
establishment of the Danube province, Rusçuk became its center.
III.3 The Ethnic and Religious Structure
The Ottomans tried to follow a systematic settlement policy in the Balkans,
beginning from their early conquest. The mass Turkish migration and settlement in
the Peninsula began from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards. When
the Mongols gained control over Anatolia in the thirteenth century a big wave of
migration took place from the East to the western Anatolia. Later on, as a result of
Timur’s invasion in the beginning of the fifteenth century a considerable number of
people entered the Ottoman Balkans. As a consequence of these migration
movements, Thrace, eastern Bulgaria, the river valley of Maritsa, and then the
Dobruca region became thickly populated by Turks. The evidence of the Ottoman
7
Vahdettin Engin, Rumeli Demiryolları, (Istanbul: Eren 1993), pp. 45-46.
8
BOA, I.ŞD, no.62.
31
population and tax registers indicate that Muslim Turks constituted a large part of the
population in these regions in the sixteenth century.9
The ethnic and religious structure of the Danube province in 1864 (when it
was created) reveals a great diversity. The Orthodox Christian Bulgarians and the
Sunni Muslim Turks formed the main ethnic and religious components. The
population of the province also included the Sunni Tatar and Circassian refugees
who migrated from the lands lost to Russia in Crimea and Caucasus, the Roma
(Gypsies) who were divided into Muslim and Christian subgroups, Sephardic Jews,
Orthodox Wallachians and Greeks, and Gregorian Armenians. In addition to these
groups, there were some small communities such as Pomaks (Bulgarian speaking
Muslims), Gagauzes (Turkish speaking Christians), Bulgarian Roman Catholics,
Shiite Muslims (Alevi and Bektashi Muslims), Russian old believers, Ukrainian
Cossacks, Ashkenazi Jews, and Protestant Armenians etc.10
Midhat Pasha also gives some information, in his already mentioned
article, about the population of the Danube province. According to him, the number
of the total population was about 2 million.11 In the 26 administrative units of the
province the Christian Bulgarians constituted the majority as 60-80 percent of the
total population.12 However, this was 70 percent for the Muslim population in the
towns located in the eastern side of the Yantara River, which was a sort of natural
9
Halil İnalcık, “Rumeli”, Encyclopedia of Islam, CD version, VIII:607b.
10
Petrov, Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Pasa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868, p. 40.
About the Muslim population in Modern Bulgaria see, Mary Neuburger, The Orient Within: Muslim
Minorities and the Negotiation of Nationhood in Modern Bulgaria, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press
2004).
11
Fadeeva also gives the same number, Fadeeva, Midhat Pasha:Jizn i deyatelnost [His Life and
Career], p. 22.
12
The 26 administrative units included Zishtovi, Yanbolu, Rabova, Lum, Vidin, Adiliye, Belgradcık,
Berkofca, Vraca, Lofca, Pluna, Selvi, Tırnova, Gabrova, Ihtiman, Samokov, Izladi, Orhaniye, Sofia,
Dobniçe, Radomir, Köstendil, Leskofca, Nish, Iznebol and Prut
32
border between the Muslims and the non-Muslims.13 Even some towns were entirely
composed of Muslim population.14 The rest of the population in the eastern side
included Bulgarians, Armenians, Greeks and Jews etc.15
13
The main towns in the eastern side of the Yantara River consist of Rusçuk, Razgrad, Osmanpazarı,
Shumnu, Tutrukan, Silistre, Tulca and Varna.
14
They are Karlıova, Tuzluk, Osmanpazarı, Hezargrad and Hacıoğlupazarı which are in the
Deliorman region located Shumnu- Silistre line.
15
Midhat Pasha, “Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali”, p.27. In 1874 the date for ethnic and religous
diversity in the Danube province from the census started by Midhat Pasha in 1866 was published in
the provincial newspaper. For the summery table of the date see, Petrov, Tanzimat for the
Countryside: Midhat Pasa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868, p.42. For the table of Muslim-non-
Muslim population from the yearbook of the Danube province dated 1290 (1873-74) also see,
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878, pp.143-147.
33
CHAPTER IV
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DANUBE PROVINCE AND THE
REFORMS
IV.1 The Establishment of the Danube Province (Tuna Vilayeti)
The Danube region where different ethnic and religious groups managed to
get along with one another over centuries turned into the one of the most problematic
parts of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century because of the rise of
nationalism. The Bulgarians took important steps in their struggle for religious and
national independence, while all the ordinary in the countryside, traders and
producers of the towns’ people suffered from the increasing anarchy, terrorism and
banditry in the Balkans. On the other hand, Russia was taking the problems in the
Balkans to an international platform in which it might make direct interventions by
presenting itself as the protector of the Orthodox Slavs.
The Ottoman administration perceived this situation as an alarming threat to
the integrity of the empire and the safety of its subjects in the Balkans. Thus, Ali and
Fuad Pashas, successors of Mustafa Reshid Pasha, were making great reform efforts
in the provincial administration. They appreciated the reforming talents of Midhat
Pasha who served as an inspector after the uprisings of 1854 in the Vidin region and
then had been the governor of Nish since 1861. They summoned him to Istanbul in
34
1864 in order to consider with them a general organic law for the government of the
provinces of the empire.1
Consequently, they reached the conclusion that a new province would be
established by combining the provinces of Silistre, Vidin and Nish into a single
government under the name of the Danube Province (Tuna Vilayeti). Then, they
declared the establishment of the new province together with a set of regulations
(Tuna Vilayet Nizamnamesi)2 dealing with the provincial administration.
Accordingly, Midhat Pasha was appointed to the governorship of this province.
This fundamental reform movement and the nomination of Midhat Pasha for
the implementation of it in the province faced an opposition of the conservative
groups headed by the Sheikh-ul Islam Saadettin Efendi because they thought the new
system, in which all the subjects would be represented in the councils and the judicial
system for the non-Muslims was incompatible with the religion and the regime.3
Sururi Efendi, the regent of Rusçuk, also supported this conservative group.
However, the influence of Fuad Pasha managed to overcome all such oppositions and
they could not prevent the approval of the reforms and the nomination of Midhat
Pasha to the governorship of the new province in the Council of Ministers (Meclis-i
Vükela).4
Another opposition came from Nusret Pasha who had personal problems with
Pasha. He was in charge of the settlement of the Circassian and Nogay refugees in
the Balkans and he went against the reforms because he thought that the reforms
1
2
See Vilayet Nizamnamesi, Düstûr 1. Tertip (Istanbul 1289), pp. 608-624, and also Tuna Vilayet
Nizamnamesi, BOA, I.MMS no:1245. Also see Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–
1875), pp. 253–271 for the differences between these two copies of the regulations and their
transliteration to the Latin alphabet.
3
They mainly opposed to the establishment of the Provincial Appellate Court that they considered as
closing down the şer’i courts.
4
BOA, I.DH, no: 36825. Midhat, The Life of Midhat Pasha: A Record of His Services, Political
Reforms, Banishment and Judicial Murder, p.38.
35
would not be helpful to solve the problems, especially those of the settlement
policies. Before the Nizamname of 1864, the refugees were not accepted as the
subjects of the sultan and they had a separate administration by Nusret Pasha. That is
why he behaved like their governor. For example, when local administrators
imprisoned some of the refugees he attacked on the prison and rescued them as if
they were the citizens of a different government.5 Then he was banished from his
position since he continued to act arbitrarily.6 After all these oppositions were
subdued successfully, Midhat Pasha accelerated the implementation of the radical
reforms throughout the province.
Meanwhile, Russia paid a special attention to all these developments and
became horrified because of Midhat Pasha’s appointment to the governorship of the
Danube province. Pasha was considered as a dangerous obstacle to the Russian
interests in this significant part of the Balkans because of his achievements in the
province of Nish. Thus, Cont N.P. Ignatiew, a passionate pan-Slavist and director of
Asian affairs of Russian Foreign Ministry, was nominated to the Russian embassy in
Istanbul in 1864 to pressure the Ottoman government for removal of Midhat Pasha
from his position in the province.7
IV.2 The Ideological Bases of the Reforms of 1864 and the Reforming Cadres
The reform movement of the Tanzimat initiated by Mustafa Reşid Pasha was
furthered by his successors, Fuad and Ali Pashas. The next generation led by Midhat
and Cevdet Pashas followed them and advanced this movement to its peak with the
declaration of the first Ottoman constitution in 1876. These great reformers of the
5
BAO, I.DH. no: 37109- 37120.
6
Tabsıra-i İbret, p. 46.
7
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı devleti’nde Tuna Vilayeti (1864-1878), p. 34.
36
Tanzimat, symbolizing a new mentality in an old empire making efforts for its
modernization, had liberal ideas that the conservative bureaucrats of traditional
Ottoman regime strongly resisted. For instance, they were in favor of a constitutional
regime, in which all the subjects of the sultan would be equally represented.
In 1864, Midhat Pasha played the major role in formulating the
administrative reforms, together with Fuad and Ali Pashas, because of his
administrative talents and the experience he gained as the governor of Nish. The
foundation of the Danube province would be the first step in the reconstruction
process of the provincial administration in the Ottoman Empire.8 His main intention
was to strengthen the local governments and to modernize the province, while
keeping the central authority powerful and pacifying the local elements that
supported the nationalistic organizations.
The Danube province was considered as a pilot region and the reforms
introduced to this newly established province would be carried out as examples for
the rest empire. It was assumed that if they become successful, they would be applied
to other provinces as well. Afterwards, the same reforms were introduced to the other
significant parts of the empire such as Baghdad, Edirne and Aleppo.
The most outstanding difference of the new provincial administration system
from the classical one was that the authority of the governor had increased to cover
all the provincial affairs. Although the French “Département” system was replicated
in the new system, the regulations of 1864 indicated a more centralist tendency than
the French one.9 It pointed out that the ministries of the Ottoman government in
Istanbul, rather than the governor of the province, would be in charge of nominating
and appointing high-ranking provincial officials. For instance, the provincial
8
L. Leouzon Duc, Midhat Pacha, (Paris: 1877), p. 39.
9
İlber Ortaylı, Türkiye İdare Tarihi,(Ankara: Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi yayınları 1979), p.
290.
37
accountant (muhasebeci) was nominated by the Ministry of Finance, the director of
the foreign affairs (umur-u ecnebiye müdürü) by the Foreign Ministry, the official of
the judicial affairs (umur-u şer’iyye memuru) by the Sheik-ul Islam in Istanbul.
According to a Bulgarian researcher, Midhat Pasha, as governor, had a virtual free
hand in all bureaucratic appointments in the province. However, although he was in
charge of the provincial police forces and border patrols, he had no authority over the
military chain of command in the Imperial Second Army (which was stationed in the
province, with its headquarters in Shumnu), nor is there evidence that Midhat Pasha
ever had (or sought to have) any influence in military appointments.10
However, it is known that when Midhat Pasha was the governor of Nish he
changed the positions of the high-ranking military officers, who misused their
authority by collecting illegal taxes from the reaya. Pasha ordered the construction of
a large barrack in the province and also blockhouses along the borders providing
housing for the military. Since then it was forbidden for the troops to stay in the
villages.11 All of these indicate that Midhat Pasha also had an authority over the
appointments of the high-ranking military officers and the army in the Danube
province.
On the other side, the lower and middle level officials of the provincial
bureaucracy -the county governors (kaza müdürs), the scribes in the various district
councils, the managers of the local branches of the Agricultural Credit cooperatives,
police officers, etc- were often holdovers from the previous administration. This
situation reflects a degree of cadre continuity in the administrative body of the
province. That is to say, the bureaucratic transition from the old system to the new
one was not smooth and conflict-free. Thus, Midhat Pasha dismissed majority of the
10
Petrov, Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Pasa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868, pp.54-
55.
11
BOA, I.MVL, no: 21115.
38
county governors, except of those who proved to be trustworthy (bittecrübe
eminiyetbahş).12
Midhat Pasha came to the Danube province together with a very cosmopolite
cadres like Armenian Odiyan Efendi, the director of the foreign affairs, Albanian
Ismail Kemal Bey, the director of official record office (tahrirat müdürü). Most of
them were from different nationalities but sharing a common ideology of
Ottomanism (Osmanlılık).13 However, Pasha was not able to compose his own group
of officials to carry out the reforms in the Danube province. The government in
Istanbul nominated most of the high-ranking officials, including Sururi Efendi, the
regent of Rusçuk, and Senih Efendi, the chief secretary of the province, who actively
took part in the opposition to the reforms of 1864 and Midhat Pasha’s appointment as
a governor. They attempted to mislead the other officials such as Nazif Efendi, the
Inspector of judges (Müfettiş-i Hükkam), by telling them that the establishment of
the Provincial Appellate Court (Temyiz-i Hukuk Mahkemesi) would mean the
closing down of the traditional Islamic courts and the removal of the legal principles
of Islam but the mufti of Rusçuk, Mehmet Efendi, managed to prevent them.14 Along
with Nusret Pasha they made it difficult for Midhat Pasha to implement the reforms.
That is why he removed them from their positions in the provincial administration
soon after their appointments, thanks to the support of Fuad Pasha in the center.15
Nazif Efendi was replaced with Necip Efendi, Senih Efendi with Rıfat Efendi.16
As a reformist and radical governor Midhat Pasha would be able to cooperate
with neither the conservative bureaucrats of the Ottoman Empire nor the Bulgarian
12
Petrov, Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Pasa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868, p. 64;
BOA. I.MVL. no:24978.
13
Ortaylı, “Midhat Paşa’nın Vilayet Yönetimindeki Kadroları ve Politikası”, p. 227.
14
BOA, I.DH. no: 37120 -37109.
15
Tabsıra-i İbret, pp. 45-46.
16
BAO, I.DH. no: 37109- 37120.
39
nationalists in the towns or countryside in order to modernize and to pacify the
province. Thus, he chose to work together with the reformist Grand Vizier, Fuad
Pasha, and the local notables, who were not fond of separatist movements, in
diagnosing and resolving the problems. He appointed the local economic and cultural
elite to the various positions in the provincial administration and cooperated with
them. His main intention was to create a Turkish and Bulgarian intelligentsia and his
own reforming cadres in the province thanks to the schools, reformatories, (which
would transform into Industrial schools) and printing houses he established. For
example, after 1864, a number of Bulgarian students, such as D. Minchov, Dagorov,
C. Georgiev, Kirkov, Tachov, Chomakov etc., were sent to the Ottoman Imperial
School (Mekteb-i Sultani) in Paris to study French, geography and history.17
Furthermore, Ahmet Midhat Efendi, who would be the chief editor of the provincial
newspaper and a famous Turkish journalist, and Dragan Tsankov, who was the
director of the provincial printing house and would become the prime minister of
independent Bulgaria later on, were two examples of intellectuals of the Danube
province that appeared during the governorship of Midhat Pasha.
The Russian ambassador in Istanbul, Ignatiew, carefully followed these
developments in this part of the Balkans with a great care, while providing all the
detailed information to the center, which came from the Russian spies spread through
out this region. According to one of his reports, Sabri Pasha, governor of Rusçuk
appointed by Midhat Pasha, was in contact with a prominent person from the clergy,
called Ioan, helping him cooperate with Bulgarian bourgeoisie in Rusçuk. It also
pointed out that the target group of the Ottoman rule was the wealthy city dwellers,
17
Raia Zaimova, “The Sultan’s Subjects at the Ottoman Imperial School” after the Crimean War”,
Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005,
(Eskişehir: Odunpazarı Belediyesi Yayınları 2005), p.271.
40
who were well educated, speaking both Bulgarian and Turkish.18 Midhat Pasha also
appointed some Bulgarians to high positions in the provincial administration and
awarded those successful ones with imperial medals. For example, Haci Ivancho
Efendi (the head of the Court of Commerce) was promoted to the higher office called
Kapıcıbaşı with the second rank of the Ottoman bureaucracy. Karagözoğlu Stefan
Efendi (a member of the provincial administrative council) was also honored with
the same position. Mihaylovski Efendi (the head of educational staff in Tırnovo),
Dimitroki Efendi (a physician in Rusçuk), Mösyö Andonaki (a physician in
Samakov) were also awarded the fifth rank imperial medal (Mecidiye Nişanı). In
addition to them, Mr. Vacha from the Austrian shipping agency in Rusçuk was also
granted the third rank imperial medal.19 As a result, Midhat Pasha tried to create such
a sort of Bulgarian bourgeoisie attached to the Ottoman rule and supportive of his
reforms in the province.
IV.3 The Administrative Structure
The Danube province, which was composed of parts of Northern Bulgaria
and Eastern Serbia, was divided into seven livas (districts), namely Rusçuk, Tulca,
Vidin, Nish, Sofia, Tırnova and Varna, and 48 kazas (counties). Each of these kazas
was separated into nahiyes (communes) and karyes (villages) in accordance with a
systematic hierarchy.20 However, the number of nahiyes was kept rather low,
because according to the Vienna protocol of 1855 in which Russia and Austria
participated, the nahiye administrations had to be improved by local councils
18
A report of the Russian Embassy in Istanbul in the Archive of the Foreign Ministry of the Imperial
Russia cited by Fadeeva, Midhat Pasha:Jizn i deyatelnost [His Life and Career],(Moscow: 1977), p.
22.
19
BOA, I.DH. no: 38984.
20
See Appendix II; The Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 3, 4, 5.
41
consisting of their own members chosen from their inhabitants. They would be set up
in all the nahiyes and led by someone elected among their members. Thus, Midhat
Pasha perceived this as a danger in the regions where the non-Muslim population
was dense, since it would pave the way for separatist organizations. In spite of the
fact that the number of the nahiyes should have been more than one hundred in
comparison with the number of livas and kazas, just 15 localities had the status of
nahiye.21 Rusçuk became the capital of the new province because of its importance
as a port city, commercial center having good connections with Black Sea region and
military base in the lower Danube.22
The administrative staff of the Danube province was described in the
Nizamname (Regulations) of 1864 as follows:
Table IV.1: The Administrative Staff of the Danube Province
Vali (Governor)
Vali Muavini (Assistant governor)
Kaymakam or Mutasarrıf (Governor of the districts)23
Defterdar (Chief financial officer)
Muhasebeci (Accountant)
Umur-u Şer’iyye Memuru (Official of judicial affairs) with the title of Müfettiş-i
Hükkam-i Vilayet (Inspector of judges of the province)
Mektubcu (Chief Secretary of the province)
21
Ortaylı, “Midhat Paşa’nın Vilayet Yönetimindeki Kadroları ve Politikası”, Uluslararası Midhat
Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler Tartışmalar Edirne: 8–10 Mayıs 1984, p. 230.
22
According to some authors the Ottoman administration had two different ideas about the name of
province and its capital. One of them was that the name of the province would be the Bulgarian
province and Tırnova would be the capital. Other one was that the name of province would be the
Danube province having Rusçuk as the capital. The second option was chosen by the Sublime Port
because of the Bulgarian national movements and the Russian threat. Pletnyov, Midhat Paşa i
Upravlenieto Na Dunavskiya Vilayet [Midhat Pasha and His Governorship in the Danube Province],
p. 39.
23
Midhat Pasha replaced some terms, which had been used in the Ottoman bureaucracy, with the
similar ones such as kaymakam instead of mutasarrıf, müdür instead of kaymakam because according
to Midhat Pasha the word “mutasarrıf”, which means law owner or governor of districts, is so
despotic. Ortaylı, “Midhat Paşa’nın Vilayet Yönetimindeki Kadroları ve Politikası”, p. 230.
42
Umur-u Ecnebiye Müdürü (Director of foreign affairs)
Ticaret, Ziraat ve Nafia Müdürü (Director of commerce, agriculture and public

works)24
Defter-i Hakani Müdürü or Tahrirat Müdürü (Director of the cadastral office)

Maarif Müdürü (Director of education)
Evkaf Müdürü (Director of pious foundations)
Alay Beyi (Head of gendarmerie)
In addition, in the ottoman accounts one can find the names of some
administrative staff mentioned as:25
Table IV. 2: The First Appointed Officials.
Vali: Midhat Pasha, the former governor of Nish.

Mektubcu: Senih Efendi, the former director of the Mühimme Odası (Bureau for
the management of pressing affairs of importance in the government ministry).
Muhasebeci: Rif’at Efendi, the former accountant of Konya.
Politika Memuru (Official of Politics) or Umur-u Ecnebiye: Odiyan Efendi, the
former Chief Secretary of the foreign affairs.26
Umur-u Şer’iyye Memuru or Müfettiş-i Hükkam-i Vilayet: Hafız Necib Efendi.
Kaymakam of Vidin: Sabri Pasha, the former governor of Tulça.
Kaymakam of Nish: Süleyman Pasha, the former governor of Lazistan.
Kaymakam of Tulça: Ahmet Rasim Pasha, the former governor of Sofia.
Kaymakam of Rusçuk: Mahmud Fâiz Pasha, the former governor of Yeni-Pazar27
Furthermore, some of the governors of the seven districts between 1864 and
1868 were as the following:28
24
At first there were director of commerce and agriculture and that of public works independent of
each other but later on they were combined together.
25
Vak’a-Nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi Tarihi, Vol. X, edited by Prof. M. Münir Aktepe, (Ankara: TTK,
1988), pp. 126–127.
26
Şentürk gives a different name for this responsibility, which is Pavlaki Efendi, Osmanlı Devleti’nde
Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), p.172.
27
There are different information about the name of this official. Şentürk meantions it as Nazif Molla
Efendi, see, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), p.172.
28
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878, pp.105-108.
43
Table IV. 3: The Governors of the Districts, 1864-68.
Rusçuk: Mahmut Faiz Pasha (1864), Ahmet Necip Pasha (1865), Esad Pasha (1866),
Hilmi Efendi (1867) and Tahsin Efendi (1868).
Vidin: Mehmet Sabri Pasha (1864) and Aziz Pasha (1867).
Sofia: Fehim Pasha (1864) and Esad Pasha 1867.
Nish: Süleyman Pasha (1864) and Abdurrahman Pasha (1867).
Tırnova: Hasan Tahsin Pasha (1864), Ahmet Necip Pasha (1865), Cavit Pasha
(1865), Ali Bey (1867) and Hilmi Bey (1868).
Varna: Mustafa Mustafa Arif Efendi (1864), Asım Pasha (1865), Abdurrahman
Pasha (1867), Rıfat Efendi (1868).
Tulça: Ahmet Rasim Pasha (1864) and Süleyman Pasha (1867).
In addition to these appointed officials and governors, the local councils,
which had lost their power and became symbolic authority acting as puppets in hands
of local powers,29 were reconstructed with the Nizamname of 1864. Various
administrative and judicial councils, made up of elected Muslim and non-Muslim
members, were set up within the province in order to prevent the misuse of local
councils and to provide cooperation between the governor and the inhabitants. Since
it was the first time in the Ottoman history that the local Christians were represented
in the councils, this reform constituted an important step in the development of
parliamentary system, which was strongly desired by Midhat Pasha and the other
statesmen of the Tanzimat. Although the Ottoman Empire experienced a
constitutional regime in 1876, for the first time in its history, thanks to the great
efforts of the Midhat Pasha, the Danube province was the region where the early
practices of such a regime were carried out.
The Nizamname of 1864 clearly described the functions and authority of
these councils together with the administration of the districts, kazas, nahiyes and
karyes, and the electoral system that would be used in the new administrative system
as the following:
29
İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, (İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 1992), p.77.
44
1- The Provincial General Assembly (Meclis-i Umumi-i Vilayet)
This assembly was made up of regional delegates, two Muslim and two non-
Muslim from each district,30 and met once a year in Rusçuk under the leadership of
the governor in order to discuss reform proposals by the governor and the complaints
and petitions of the reaya in respect to the important issues such as construction of
roads, trade, agriculture, education, taxation etc. Each meeting took no more than 40
days.31 It functioned as the Ottoman Council of State (Şura-yı Devlet) in Istanbul,
which received regular annual legislative recommendations from each annual
provincial representative assembly and was divided into five departments
Administration- Police-Military, Finance- Endowments, Justice, Public Works-
Trade-Agriculture, and Education.32 Similarly, the Provincial General Assembly
reviewed the governmental policies with the delegates chosen from livas and kazas
and took advice from them. In this way, all Muslim and non-Muslim groups played a
significant role in policy making by representing themselves in the Provincial
General Assembly, which might be considered as a sort of parliament.
2- The Council of Provincial Administration (Meclis-i Idare-i Vilayet)
This council headed by the governor was comprised of the Müfettiş-i
Hükkam-ı Şeriye, the Mektubcu, the Defterdar, the Umur-u Ecnebiye Müdürü and
three Muslim and three non-Muslim delegates chosen from the reaya.33 It was the
highest administrative council in the province, which mainly dealt with four issues,
30
Article 82 pointed out that three delegates from each district would join the assembly. Thus,
although 28 delegates from the districts should have been in the assembly only 21 delagates from the
districts, together with the governor and the high-ranking officials totally 35 members, attended in the
meeting of the Provincial General Assembly, BOA, I.MVL, no: 26162 cited by Selimoğlu, Osmanlı
Devleti’nde Tuna Vilayeti (1864-1878), p. 51.
31
Musa Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapıları, (Ankara:
TTK, 1991), pp.261–262. Articles of the 1864 Nizamname no: 27, 28, 29,63,64,74.
32
Stanford J. Shaw, “The Central Legislative Councils in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman Reform
Movement before 1876”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, V.1, No.1, (January 1970), p.
74.
33
Article of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 13.
45
the civil service (Mülkiye), foreign affairs (Hariciye), public works (Bayındırılık)
and agriculture (Ziraat). It covered broad responsibilities such as purchasing the
things ordered by the government, preparing the official agreements, tax collection,
hospitals, reformatories, cemeteries, market places, mining, police force,
municipalities etc.34 Moreover, this council was also in charge of solving the
problems among the governmental offices and officials, while listening to the
complaints from the reaya.35 However, it had no right to intervene in the judicial
courts.36
On the other hand, at least five members out of ten were required to start
discussions in the Council of Provincial Administration and two third of the total
votes were required to make decisions. In the case where votes were equal, the
governor’s vote would determine the decision.37
3- The Appeal Court and The Criminal Court (Meclis-i Temyiz-i Hukuk and Meclis-i
Cinayet ve De’vâi)
According to the Nizamname of 1864 an appeal court and a criminal court
were established.38 However, afterwards these courts were combined together while
keeping their responsibilities independent of each other since the number of issues
concerned with the Appeal Court was rather limited.39 Since it was the highest
judicial council- made up of six elected members, three Muslim and three non-
Muslim, and the Müfettiş-i Hükkam, it decreased the authority of the Islamic courts.
Thus, the conservative groups strongly opposed to the establishment of this court. It
was in charge of judicial issues which could not be successfully concluded in the
34
35
36
37
38
Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 13-24.
39
BOA, I.MVL no:23773.
46
Islamic courts, the religious courts of the minorities or the Court of Commerce
(Meclis-i Ticaret).40
4- The Court of Commerce (Meclis-i Ticaret)
This court was a special court for commercial trials established in the center and the
districts in order to solve problems in the commercial activities.41
5- The Municipal Councils (Belediye Meclisleri)
In spite of the fact that the establishment of the municipalities was not
included in the Nizamname of 1864, it was materialized, for the first time in Ottoman
history, about one year later, on November 13 1865, with Midhat Pasha’s proposal to
the Sublime Port. Although European examples were modeled in the municipalities it
was difficult to establish exact replicas. Thus, the first of them was established in the
center of the province, as a model. As a consequence of its success in this “pilot
region”, it was introduced to all the livas and some kazas.42 This issue was discussed
in the Provincial General Assembly on October 24, 1867 and concluded with the
decision to establish municipal councils in the livas and kazas with the Talimatname
(Regulation) drawing up their responsibilities, which mainly included infrastructural
works, like construction of roads, streets, pavements, sideways and their
maintenance, controlling buildings under constructions; manipulating the shops,
shopkeepers and market places to provide fair economic activities; ensuring hygiene
and cleanliness and supplying fire departments.43 These municipal works and
services were rather close to the modern ones.
At the same time, municipal councils were composed of some officials with
at least two and at most six elected members, who were mostly the notables and
40
BAO, I.MMS, no:2371.
41
42
43
BAO, I.MVL, no: 26138-24362.
47
wealthy people of the region. In addition to them, an engineer and regent would
serve as consultants for the council. The functionaries and an infantry group from the
army would be ready in the command of municipal council, which would be directly
headed by kaymakams or by an appropriate official appointed by them.44 The number
of appointed members of the municipal councils was rather high in comparison with
that of the elected ones, which were from both Muslim and non-Muslim population.
This indicates that these councils were highly controlled by the government.
The taxes assessed on buildings and real estates together with fines
constituted the major revenue sources for the municipalities. While the head and
members of the councils worked for free, the engineer, regent, some other
functionaries and infantry troops were paid by the government. It was the council’s
responsibility to send a report of its incomes and expenditures to the center of the
province, which would evaluate it in the administrative council and then send a copy
of the budget for the following year to the municipal council after its approval by the
Ministry of Interior Affairs (Dahiliye Nezareti) in Istanbul. 45
IV.3.1 The administration of the Livas, Kazas, Nahiyes and Karyes
The administrative staff of the livas included a kaymakam, a muhasebeci, and
a tahrirat müdürü. In addition to them, the administrative council comprised of
kaymakam, muhasebeci, tahrirat müdürü, kadı (Muslim Judge), mufti, the religious
leaders of the non-Muslim minorities and six elected members, three Muslim and
three non-Muslim, was established in the districts. This council would deal with the
44
BAO, I.MVL, no: 26138-24362.
45
48
civil service, public works, treasury, tax collection, police forces, agriculture and
cadastral office.46
In respect to judicial affairs, a kadı was appointed by the Sheikh ul-lslam in
Istanbul and the Appeal Court and the Criminal Court were also set up in the livas.47
In the kazas, the müdür was in charge of governing the kaza and kaza katibi
dealt with financial and cadastral affairs there. The Appeal Court and the Criminal
Court were also established in the kazas.48 Governor of nahiye (nahiye müdürü)
would administrate the nahiyes in the centers, which were close to villages and farms
(çifliks), along with the Council of Nahiye, made up of two Muslim and two non-
Muslim members, which met twice a week.49 In the villages, there would be two
elected head of villages (muhtars), who would be attached to the müdür in the kaza.
However, those less than 20 houses would have just one muhtar. The Council of
Elders (Ihtiyar Heyeti) would also be set up in the villages in order to assist the
muhtar in the administration.50
IV.3.2 Electoral System
The election system in the Danube province varied from one administrative
unit to another in accordance with its status such as karye, nahiye, kaza or liva. First
of all, the subjects of the sultan inhabiting in the villages, at the age of 18 or above
and paying at least 50 guruş taxes to the state per year, had right to vote for muhtar
and the Council of Elders. The candidates for muhtar and membership of the village
46
Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 31,32,33,34,35,36.
47
Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 39,40,41,42,43,4,45,46.
48
Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 48,49,50,51,54 ,55; Vak’a-Nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi Tarihi,
Vol. X, pp. 126–127. BOA, I.MMS, no: 1245 cited by Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi
(1850–1875), (Ankara: TTK, 1992), p.172.
49
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878, pp. 75-76.
50
Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 58,59,60,61,62.
49
council had to be among the subjects of the sultan inhabiting the same village, at the
age of 30 or above and paying at least 100 guruş taxes. These elections were held
once a year and the members of the council could participate in the elections as
candidates again. In the case that the muhtar is dismissed or the members of the
council including the muhtar pass away, the elections might be held earlier than its
normal time. After the kaymakam approved the results of the elections they started to
work.51
The Müdür and the members of the administrative council in nahiyes were
elected among the subjects of the sultan at the age of 30 or above and paying at least
100 guruş taxes to the state per year and the müdür had to be literate. If the nahiye
was comprised of both Muslim and non-Muslim populations the müdür would be
from the majority group and the assistant müdür would be from the other group. The
imams, priests, teachers and officials could not be the müdür or the member of the
administrative council. The results of the elections had to be approved by the
governor through the kaymakams.52
The election of members of administrative and judicial councils in the kazas
were held every two years by a commission (Tefrik Cemiyeti), organized by the
kaymakam, the high ranking officials and the leaders of the religious communities.
This commission’s duty was to prepare the lists of the proper candidates -among the
Ottoman subjects at the age of 30 or above, paying at least 150 guruş taxes to the
state per year and if possible literate- and to submit them to the Council of Elders in
the villages within the liva. These lists contained three times more names than the
number of seats. The candidates were equitably divided between Muslims and non-
Muslims. If there were more than one non-Muslim group then the non-Muslim
51
The Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 67, 68, 69,70.
52
BOA, I.MMS, no: 2382, articles 10, 11, 12, 13.
50
candidates were also divided among these groups. Then, one third of names on the
lists were eliminated by the votes of the Council of Elders. After that, the kaymakam
of the district eliminated half of the names on the newly prepared lists and the
remaining names were considered as elected.53 The same procedure with some slight
differences was applied to elect the members of the administrative and judicial
councils in the districts and capital of the province. For instance, higher property
qualifications, those paying at least 500 guruş taxes to the state per year, were
required to be a candidate and the governor specified the final list and submitted it to
the Sublime Port for approval.54
The important point in the election system and the administrative and judicial
councils in the Danube province was that the non-Muslim minorities would be
included in the provincial administration but the central authority would remain
highly influential over the whole province. Midhat Pasha was a great statesman who
had liberal ideas. He wanted to try a kind of parliamentary system in which all the
subjects of the sultan would be represented. That is why, for example he established,
in Rusçuk, the Provincial General Assembly having equal Muslim and non-Muslim
members. However, in the Council of Provincial Administration, the number of
Muslim members outnumbered the non-Muslim ones (7 Muslim to 4 non-Muslim
members).55 Although Midhat Pasha tried to integrate the local powers to the
administration to pacify the separatist feelings the number of Bulgarian officials
placed into key positions in the administration was also kept rather limited.56 In this
way he kept his authority in the province. For instance, the councils in the kazas and
the province center in comparison with those in the village and nahiyes were
53
The Articles of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 71,72,73,74,75.
54
The Article of the Nizamname of 1864, no: 81.
55
Skender Rızaj, “Midhat Pasha’nın Rumeli’de Vilayetler Kurulmasındaki Rolü”, Uluslararası
Midhat Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler Tartışmalar Edirne: 8–10 Mayıs 1984, (Ankara: TTK 1986), p. 60.
56
Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, p. 154.
51
favorably more controlled by the authority of the governor thanks to this election
system.
Furthermore, these councils set up in the newly established province were
devoid of political and administrative authority to make important decisions since
they had to be approved by the center. However, they concerned with all of the
important provincial affairs and assisted the governors in diagnosing the problems of
the people in respect to the issues such as administration, education, taxation,
commerce, agriculture, crime and courts etc. In other words, they functioned as an
advisory and consultative body to the administration. For example, with their help all
the property in each district was valued equitably and fairly, and the taxes based on
this assessment were collected efficiently without complaint from the reaya. In spite
of the abolition of many vexatious taxes and the increased salaries of the responsible
officials, the new revenue of the province showed a considerable and increasing
surplus.57
IV.4 The Economic Reforms
One of the most essential issues that the Tanzimat reforms focused was to
solve the problems dealing with taxation and land use. In the Ottoman Empire the
state was the absolute owner of the lands called miri (State owned) but the sultan
granted the revenues of these lands to some statesmen or commanders for their
services, especially for their military services, under the name of tımar, which was a
form of land tenure. In this way, they became the tax collectors of a given region. If
they did not follow their military and administrative obligations or the peasants
57
52
complained about them the sultan would take “their portion” of revenue away from
them. However, this system began to lose its importance as a consequence of the
socio-economic developments of the seventeenth and the Ottoman administration
had to alter fiscal institutions together with the military changes in the process of the
imperial consolidation. Thus, tımar system left its place to another form of taxation,
well known in the Ottoman history as iltizam (tax-farming), in which individuals
having liquid capital lent to the government and in return they had right to collect the
state taxes and revenues of a given region for a certain amount of money. It
attempted to maximize revenue through competitive bidding that bidders undertake
to supply an agreed upon sum regardless of the actual yield of the revenue source. If
the revenue source is higher than the contracted amount, the tax farmers benefit from
the discrepancy. Tax farming is a high risk and high yield investment.58 However,
wealth succeeded to be advantageous from the system.
Moreover, in the iltizam system, the tax-farmers mostly concerned with
maximizing their personal profit in tax collection instead of providing the state with a
steady cash flow. That is why they were frequently replaced with new ones. In this
situation, the peasants and farmers had difficulties in paying taxes in cash, which
they paid in kind before, not only in the bad harvest but also in the good one since
there was no enough market within the empire to sell their products. In addition,
there was not an institution to provide the farmers with seeds, animals and credit for
their agricultural activities. Thus, they had to resort to loan sharks to borrow money.
On the other hand, in the times of financial crisis, the state had to sell the ownership
of the state lands. Therefore, in order to solve these problems and to secure regular
58
Linda Darling, Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administraion in the
Ottoman Empire 1560-1660, (Leiden-New York-Köln: E.J.Brill 1996), pp. 1-21, 119-120. For an
example of a mukata registers see, St. St. Cyril and Methodins National Library, Sofia, Oriental
Department, CK 9-4.
53
cash flow from the provinces the Ottoman administration introduced a developed
form of tax farming system called Malikhane in 1695. According to this system, the
sate would farm out the revenue sources on a lifetime base with a great amount of
initial payment and then regular annual payments. This lifelong ownership would
pass directly to the son. 59 In this way, in the eighteenth century the tenants became
the permanent owners of these lands and a new social group called ağa, bey, ayan,
voyvoda, gospodar, emerged in the provinces between the state and the reaya.
These new landowners were a lot different from those of tımar holders and
tax farmers of the seventeenth century, who were directly under the state control.
They also had high authority over the land and peasants living there and so began to
collect taxes illegally to raise their profit. The state could not manage to manipulate
these rising powers of this new class, instead it made agreements with them to keep
them under the justified state authority. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
century the Ottoman Empire faced financial crisis because of the continuous wars
and defeats, which caused total discontent and uneasiness in the Balkans. The unjust
treatment of the local land owners and the abuses in the tax collection brought about
anarchy in the Balkans and the emergence of local bandit groups, which were called
haydut.60
In the second half of the eighteenth century, the ayans (powerful local
notables) appeared as the de facto rulers of the provinces. Some of the most
outstanding examples of the influential ayans in the Balkans were Pazvantoğlu
Osman in Vidin, Tirsenikli İsmail Ağa in Rusçuk, Tepedelenli Ali Pasha in Albania
etc., who symbolized an obvious reflection of decentralization in the Ottoman
59
Mehmet Genç, Osmanlı Imparatorluğunda Devlet ve Ekonomi, (Istanbul: Ötüken 2000), pp. 105-
108. For an example of Malikhane registers see, St. St. Cyril and Methodins National Library, Sofia,
Oriental Department, D 235 fol. 1-20.
60
Turan, The Turkish Minority in Bulgaria, p. 29.
54
Balkans. Pazvantoğlu himself, for instance, was one of the wealthiest notables of
Vidin, who had considerable amount of çifliks (farms). Furthermore, especially
Vidin, Belgrade and Bosnia were very important military bases, where a number of
Janissary garrisons stationed and the mentioned Pazvantoğlu Osman was one among
the most influential of them and considered himself as the leader of centrifugal
movement in this part of the Balkans. He revolted against the central power,
controlled the Vidin region- northwestern Bulgaria and eastern Serbia- and even
defeated the forces sent by the sultan against him in 1794. That is why; Sultan Selim
III was forced to nominate him to the governorship of Vidin.61
These powerful groups from the Janissary origin managed to obtain lease
rights to extensive holdings and carried out a number of functions such as collecting
taxes, raising troops and keeping internal order.62 In 1826, the Janissaries, who
frequently threatened the central authority and opposed the reforms, were destructed
mostly in the capital but many of their garrisons remained in the Balkans, especially
in the Vidin, Belgrade and Bosnia region. However, they lost their political and
economic strength. Thus, they needed to transform themselves to the local landowner
class known in the history as gospodar. They suppressed the peasants and established
their own çiftliks over the land they took by force from the local peasantry. These
gospodars were in favor of the old traditional regime and they opposed to the
Tanzimat reforms, even in some cases they directly supported the revolts against the
reformist central power.63
61
Vera Moutafchieva, L’Anarchie dans les Balkans à la Fin du XVIIe Siècle, (Istanbul: ISIS 2005),
pp. 27-44; Yücel Özkaya, Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Dağlı İsyanları, (Ankara: AÜDTCF Yayınları
1983), pp. 79-84.
62
Halil İnalcık, “The Ottoman Dceline and Its Effects”, Aspects of the Balkans, Continutity and
Change. Contributions to the International Balkan Conference held at UCLA, October 23-28 1969,
ed. Henrik Birnbaun & Speros Vryyonis Jr., Mouton, The Hague 1972, p 352.
63
İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi,pp.8-10.
55
By 1839, the problems with banditry, gospodars and their abusive way of
taxation rose drastically. The Ottoman government introduced a set of reforms with
the Tanzimat to solve these problems in the Balkans. On March 5, 1840, Christian
kocabaşıs appointed by çorbacıs (Bulgarian notables) were given the responsibility
of tax collection from the non-Muslims, instead of Muslim tax collectors, in order to
prevent any abuses in tax collection. In 1851 the cizye tax, which was paid by non-
Muslims, was considered to apply to all of the subjects but the reform on this was
realized with the reform edict of 1856 when the cizye tax was transformed to a
military service tax to provide equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.
However, these measures were not enough to maintain order in the province. In
1849-1850 the reaya in the Vidin region revolted against gospodar regime. It was
not directly towards the Ottoman rule but to the local administrators, çorbacıs and
gospodars. This revolt was suppressed by the irregular bandit groups called
başıbozuks, which were organized by the local gospodars.64
As the Tanzimat promised the taxes that would be levied equitably in
accordance with the assessment of the wealth, the privileged Muslim and non-
Muslim groups, the gospodars, çorbacıs or kocabaşıs, were not in favor of losing
their privileges and paying high amounts of money. They complained about the high
taxes assessed on wine and rakı. Then, they forced the reaya to stand against the
taxes by saying that they would not give them jobs in their vineyards and they also
would not buy the grapes grown by them.65
Consequently, the Vidin revolt indicated that the reaya expected the tanzimat
reforms to be solved in its favor but the local powers did not want to lose their
64
İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, pp. 7-11. With this edict non-Muslims were also required to
fulfill military service and after a long refusal they accepted to pay a fee to be exempted from the
military service.
65
İnalcık, “Tanzimat’ın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkiler”, p. 642.
56
control over the land. Thus, this situation turned out to be a dilemma for the Ottoman
administration, which realized that the only way to do reforms and to prevent the
peasant revolts in the Balkans was to remove the power of the gospodars, who were
strongly against the reforms. Thus, the Imperial Edict, which made it possible to sell
the lands of gospodars to the reaya in the Vidin region, was issued in 1851.
However, this edict also was not enough to solve problems since the real intention of
the reaya was to gain the land for free. During the Crimean War the reaya fom the
Vidin region revolted again by appealing the support of Russia and Serbia but it was
also suppressed in short period of time. However, the situation there remained as
troublesome for the central authority.66 Furthermore, in 1857 the çorbacı institution
was regulated by the government in order to reduce their rights since they misused
their power over the Christian reaya. Even they continued to collect illegal taxes
from them. On the other hand, they gave loans to peasants with high interest and in
the harvest time they took their agricultural products in low prices and they sold
these products with high prices.67
Another important development of the Tanzimat period was the
transformation of the miri lands to private ownership. Although some regulations on
this issue had been done in 1847 and 1851, the fundamental reforms were carried out
with the Arazi Kanunu (Land Law) of 1858, which regulated the use of miri lands
and paved the way for private ownership and passing it to their children through
inheritance. Later on, the civil code, (Mecelle), prepared by Ahmet Cevdet Pasha
between 1869 and 1876, also revised the principles of private ownership and
inheritance. However, the transformation to the private land ownership could not be
achieved in a short period of time since the reaya could not afford to buy lands or
66
İnalcık, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi, pp. 104-107.
67
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), pp. 128-129.
57
real estates.68 This process continued even after the foundation of the Turkish
Republic.
While these economic, political and social problems still continuing in the
Balkans, Midhat Pasha was nominated to the governorship of Nish in 1861 and then
to the Danube province in 1864. Thus, his economic and agricultural reforms in this
part of the empire will be analyzed in this historical context.
IV.4.1 The Agricultural Credit Cooperatives Bank (Menafi Sandıkları or
Memleket Sandıkları)
Although the economy of the Ottoman Balkans was highly dependent on
agriculture there were no institutions like those in Europe offering loans to the
farmers and meeting their needs such as seeds and animals. The loan sharks and
gospodars benefited from the lack of such an institution by lending money to the
peasants with high interest rates. In this situation, the peasants had no chance to
advance their agricultural activities, which were highly dependent on these loan
sharks and land owners. Midhat Pasha was aware of this problem. That is why he
observed the examples of agricultural organizations in Europe. Thus, in 1863, when
he was the governor of Nish, he established an experimental agricultural credit
cooperative called Memleket Sandığı in Pirot (Şarköy or Şehirköy), to provide the
farmers with credits in low interest rates, seeds and animals, to create cooperation
among them and to promote the agricultural production to a higher degree
independent of the gospodars.69 It was the first agricultural credit cooperative in
68
Halil Cin, Miri Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Özel Mülkiyete Dönüşümü, (Ankara: Çağ Universitesi
Yayınları 2005), pp. 347-351.
69
BOA. I.DH. no: 36970.
58
Ottoman history that would form the origin of the agricultural bank of Modern
Turkey.
According to some authors, these cooperatives were modeled on the network
of rural credit unions that Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen established in Prussia in the
late 1840s.70 However, Midhat Pasha created an original agricultural institution that
had not appeared even in Europe. Only after the 1880s and 1890s such institutions
began to emerge in Austria, Belgium, Italy and Hungary.71
As a result of the success of the first cooperative founded in Nish, in 1863,
Midhat Pasha continued to extend this project after his nomination to the Danube
province in 1864 but he knew that the center would not be able to fund this project.
Thus, these cooperatives had to be self-funded and his plan was to use a system
known as imece (collective labor) in which the peasants work together in a plot
allocated by the government as half dönüm72 for each house to generate income for
the cooperatives together with collecting five percent of öşür taxes.73 The provincial
government opened some arable state lands within the province, which had not been
cultivated till then, for farming or, if no arable land available, rented some lands in
order to plant wheat, barley and especially maize, which suited the best with the
climate and land in the Danube region. The peasants would shoulder the labor work
by Imece system that they would work in their off days, Sundays for the Christians-
Fridays for the Muslims. After harvests the Council of Elders in the villages would
be in charge of collecting the production and selling it on auction in the kazas. The
revenue from this sale would directly come to the treasury of the cooperative and
then be allocated to the farmers as loans with the interest of 1 % per month. The
70
71
Akgün, “Midhat Paşa’nın Kuruduğu Memleket Sandıkları: Ziraat Bankası’nın Kökeni”, p. 201.
72
A land measure of 1000 square meters.
73
Öşür taxes were collected from the agricultural products of the Muslim population.
59
farmers who wanted to borrow money from this foundation had to submit a
document approved by the Council of Elders saying that they were eligible for it. In
addition, they had to have guarantors for their debts. After this process, farmers
might borrow money from the cooperatives no more than 2000 guruş that had to be
returned in a year. One third of the money received as interest would be included in
the budget of the cooperative, while the villages shared the rest of income to be spent
for their infrastructural works and schools.74
As a regulation, Midhat Pasha prepared a layiha (explanatory document),
consisting of twenty principles about the foundation of the agricultural credit
cooperative, its funding, loan rules and the use of its revenue, and delivered its copies
to the kazas, while submitting a copy of it to the Supreme Council in Istanbul. As a
result, the central government officially approved the establishment of these
agricultural credit cooperatives on February 7, 1865.75 Afterwards, a Nizamname,
comprised of the principles of this layiha and nine additional principles, was issued
on July 19, 1867 in order to extend the establishment of these cooperatives within the
whole empire.76
Four officials, two Muslim and two non-Muslim, were appointed for the
administration of the cooperatives along with two secretaries, one Muslim and one
non-Muslim. They worked under the guarantees of two Muslim and two non-Muslim
trustworthy merchants. The government appointed an inspector to these cooperatives
once or twice a year to check their accountancy. New buildings were constructed for
the cooperatives, which would be opened once a week in the beginning. As a result
74
Tabsıra-i İbret, pp. 49-50; BOA. I.DH. no: 36970.
75
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878, p. 110.
76
BAO, I.DH. 36970. For the texet of the Nizamname of Memleket Sandıkları see, Düstûr I. Tertip.
V.2. pp. 387-398. For its transliteration see, Akgün, “Midhat Paşa’nın Kuruduğu Memleket
Sandıkları: Ziraat Bankası’nın Kökeni”, pp. 202-211.
60
of high demand for loans they worked at least twice a week and even more when it
was needed.77
The first agricultural credit cooperatives was established in Rusçuk, Nish,
Cuma-i Atik, Şehirköy and Leskofça.78 Their activities were announced in the
provincial newspaper, Tuna Gazetesi. For instance, in May 1865, it was announced
that the capital of the cooperatives increased to 226,000 guruş that 198,000 guruş of
it was lent to the farmers as loans for purchasing oxen.79 This amount rapidly
increased to 20 millions guruş in three years and to 60 millions guruş in the end of
1876.80
Although these cooperatives were successful in supporting the farmers
Midhat Pasha wanted to establish an institution functioning like the European banks,
in which people could save their money and gain profit with interest. In this way, the
city dwellers would also benefit from this institution. Thus, he projected it and
submitted it to the Sublime Port for approval. The central government approved
Midhat Pasha’s project after long discussions but pointed out that the name of the
institution had to be changed to Emanet Sandığı (Safe Box). In this way, the first one
was opened in Rusçuk as an example on January 20, 1868 and then spread within the
province. If people invest the amount of money between 20 and 500 guruş in the
Emanet Sandığı they would gain in return 9% percent profit per year and this money
would be lent to the farmers with interest of 12% per year.81 The Emanet Sandığı in
Rusçuk constituted the backbone of the modern Ottoman banking system.
77
BOA, I.MVL. no: 26172.
78
Tuna Gazetesi, issue: 1.
79
80
For the table showing the budgets of the cooperatives see, Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna
Vilayeti 1864-1878, pp. 113-115.
81
BOA, I.MVL. no:26200.
61
Until the Ottoman-Russian war of 1877-1878 the institutionalization process
of the Memleket or Emanet Sandıks in the Danube province continued but after this
war the region, where they were highly institutionalized, came under the Russian
governance. With the Berlin Treaty in 1878, most of the region constituted the newly
founded Bulgarian Princedom. Until 1903 these cooperatives existed in the
Princedom of Bulgaria and after that time, they were transformed to Bulgarian
Agricultural Bank. The rest that remained in the Ottoman Empire were modernized
and, in 1888, became Ziraat Bankası (Agricultural Bank), which still exists with the
same name in Modern Turkey.82
IV.5 The Improvement of Transportation
Despite the developments in agriculture, the absence of an elaborated
transportation network within the Danube province made it difficult for people to
find markets to sell their products and also to reach the goods coming from Europe
and Istanbul. Midhat Pasha, as the governor of Nish, had already initiated a
comprehensive project of constructing paved roads (Şose) and bridges in essential
directions in the province.83 This project was one of the main priorities of his
governorship in the Danube province as well. According to the laws issued by the
Ministry of Public Works, the financial burden of roads and bridge construction
would be shouldered by the local inhabitants. All the expenditures and labor would
be levied on the peasants and city dwellers but in practice it was a difficult task for
the governor to carry out such a project. Midhat Pasha’s way to execute it was to
measure length of the roads and to specify the people who would benefit from them,
82
Akgün, “Midhat Paşa’nın Kuruduğu Memleket Sandıkları: Ziraat Bankası’nın Kökeni”, pp. 199-
200.
83
62
and then divide the labor into portions among the villages in accordance with their
population.84 Although he tried to encourage people to work voluntarily, everyone
was required to work. Local authorities had to mobilize the population and raise
manpower necessary for the road building in their territory, even by using police
force if necessary.85 Since the corvée labor had been officially abolished with the
advent of the Tanzimat reforms and Midhat Pasha approved this after his arrival to
Rusçuk, so the peasant workers were paid a wage of six guruş per day. However, this
system did not work properly because of the tardiness of the government in
supplying funds for such wages and venality of local intermediaries such as foremen
and engineers.86 Although it was assumed that the inhabitants would work 5-6 days
on road constructing, in reality they had to work 30-36 days. In some cases, farmers
complained that the scheduled work time was not convenient for them because of
their own agricultural season. This project had a considerable contribution to the
infrastructure of the province but Russian propaganda benefited from the situation by
provoking people to stand against the work load and taxes imposed by the
government.87
At the same time, a considerable number of bridges within the province were
built and their expenses were mainly compensated by the donations from the local
notables. Two important bridges were constructed over the Yantara and Rositsa
rivers and the population living along the road between the towns of Tırnova and
Razgrad provided the necessary materials for them.88 These bridges are still
functioning in Modern Bulgaria.
84
BOA. I.MVL. no: 24965. Tabsıra-i İbret, p. 48.
85
Tuna Gazetesi, issue:1.
86
87
Pletnyov, Midhat Paşa i Upravlenieto Na Dunavskiya Vilayet [Midhat Pasha and His Governorship
in the Danube Province], p. 109; Fadeeva, Midhat Pasha:Jizn i deyatelnost, p. 25.
88
Tabsıra-i İbret, p. 48; BOA. I.MVL, no: 25533; 23958; 23400.
63
Within three years, in the Danube province closely 3000 kilometers Şose
roads and 1.420 bridges, including those in Nish, were constructed.89 The biggest one
called Bele was constructed over Yantara. The five new bridges constructed over the
Morava and Iskar rivers as well.90 After that, in October 1867, Midhat Pasha
submitted a report of the new road network to the central government and pointed
out the need for workers to care and repair the already constructed roads and bridges.
He was aware of the fact the local people would not want to do this job since they
were tired of the work load that had been imposed on them before. Thus, his plan
was to hire 200 full-time workers and a chief to organize them. This system was
modeled after Europe. He considered that the new roads had a 450 hours length and a
worker was needed in every 2 hours distance. Each worker would be paid a wage of
1200-1500 guruş per year and the chief would receive 3000 guruş. The wages and
the purchase of necessary equipments such as shovels, picks and carts would be
compensated by a one guruş additional tax to the regular taxes that each household
used to pay. If the poor families could not afford to pay this additional amount the
wealthy ones had to pay for them. All of these were estimated on the basis of
200,000 tax paying households in the province.91
Another important project of Midhat Pasha to enhance the transportation
system within the province was to establish a company, which would make it easier
to transport loads, cargos, mails and passengers.92 It was founded it in Rusçuk and
began to work in the Rusçuk-Varna-Shumnu line. Afterwards, with the construction
of new roads and bridges the transportation company also served in the other
89
According to some authors, the number of the bridges was an exaggeration and the real number was
230. Pletnyov, Midhat Paşa i Upravlenieto Na Dunavskiya Vilayet [Midhat Pasha and His
Governorship in the Danube Province], p.109.
90
Tuna Gazetesi issue: 1; Tabsıra-i İbret, p. 48; Pletnyov, Midhat Paşa i Upravlenieto Na Dunavskiya
Vilayet [Midhat Pasha and His Governorship in the Danube Province], p. 108.
91
BOA, I.MVL. no: 25981 and 24965.
92
64
directions as well, in accordance with the regional demands.93 The destinations and
fares were regulated and announced in the provincial newspaper.94 The company
offered 250 shares and each of them valued 20 liras. After a short period of time it
became a good profit yielding company distributing 2 liras profit to each of its
shareholders. The number of horse-drawn carriages increased to 133 and the number
of horses doubled. Together with its real estate, its capital rose up to 10,000 liras.95
Furthermore, he also established a factory producing horse-drawn carriages, phaetons
and their equipments to meet the needs of the transportation company. The factory
increased its capital and began to meet the demands of other consumers rather than
this company.96A general director along with a secretary and regional officials
managed the transportation company and the carriage factory, which hired a number
of workers, drivers and officials dealing with the post services.97
Midhat Pasha was also concerned with the freight transport on the Danube
River, the major route between the central Europe and the Black Sea, which was
highly dominated by Austria. The Ottoman Empire made use of a few number of
ships only for military purposes. However, Pasha’s project was to purchase
numerous steamships and to take part in the trade network on the Danube. He
resorted to different means, which was necessary to raise money for this project. First
of all, he decided to put some state-lands on sale.98 He allowed the construction of
buildings and shops in the fairgrounds within the province. Since the famous fair in
Cuma had always been held in a narrow but convenient place close to the town,
Midhat wanted to move it to a more suitable region, where a number of buildings,
93
BAO, I.DH. no: 37383.
94
95
96
Tuna Gazetesi, issues: 27, 10, 48.
97
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878, pp. 118-119.
98
BAO. I.MVL. no: 24614; 24714.
65
consisting of about 2000 shops, would be constructed. The kaza of Cuma would pay
for expenses of the construction of the fairground and after the sale of the shops,
which was supposed to generate 100,000 kese guruş, the invested money would be
taken back. 99 Similarly, Karasu fairground was also sold with high prices and this
operation provided 3,000 liras. Moreover, some heavily forested lands in the Tırnovo
region, which created problems among local villagers, were also sold to people living
there. The first sale was carried out in the region of Dobreval, which supplied 4,000
liras to the provincial treasury. These additional incomes enabled Midhat Pasha to
purchase initially two steamships named “Nish” and “Seyyare” and then two more
named “Sofia” and “Midhat” Pasha.100 Another three steamships, named “Vidin”,
“Lom” and “Ziştovi” together with nine cargo-ships were bought from Europe by
Akif Pasha. Afterwards, two more steamships named “Abdülaziz” and “Rusçuk”
were also ordered.101
The Ottoman trade and passenger fleet came into being as a state department
related to the provincial administration was established under the title of Idare-i
Nehriyye (River Administration).102 It was be in charge of operating freight transport
on the Danube River. It began to function with the first four steamships in spring
1867103 and provided the government with a great income.104
Along with the paved roads, bridges and steamships, the province needed a
railroad between the two important port cities, Rusçuk and Varna. In the nineteenth
century Rusçuk became a commercial center, which was of great significance as a
port city on the Danube River. The government made an agreement with a British
99
BOA, I.MVL no: 26288.
100
Tabsıra-i İbret, pp.50-52.
101
BOA. I.MMS. no:1697.
102
103
BOA. I.MMS. no:1697; Tabsıra-i İbret, p. 52.
104
66
shareholders’ company for the construction of the railroad. The peasants provided
cheap labor for the project. During the first two years of its construction fifteen
thousand workers worked on the project.105 In November 1866, the Rusçuk-Varna
railroad began to function.106 According to the report of the Russian consul, A.N.
Moshin, in Rusçuk, the profit from the railroad between 1869 and 1870 was as
follows:107
Table IV. 4: The Profit of the Rusçuk-Varna Railroad
Profit from the Profit from the

Amount of crop
Number of passengers and crop Total Profit
Years transportation
Passengers the post services transportation (in Francs)
(in tons)
(in Francs) (in Francs)
1869 62,122 751,376 775,222,106 472,359 1,223,735
1870 66,285 685,124 990,521,820 505,101 1,138,288
Midhat Pasha had a great contribution to the development of the
transportation network during his governorship in the Danube province. Both the
Sublime Port and foreign observers in the province appreciated his projects,
especially the Şose one. A German engineer by the name of Presel, stated that
“Midhat Pasha granted such a well planned and successfully realized road network to
the Danube province covering an extensive territory.” In addition, according to the
famous Austrian journalist, F. Kanitz, “Midhat Pasha as the governor of the Danube
province would be remembered in history with his comprehensive and successfully
carried out road project, which had a considerable contribution to the development of
Bulgaria.” 108
105
106
BOA I. ŞD. no:62; 402.
107
Pletnyov, Midhat Paşa i Upravlenieto Na Dunavskiya Vilayet [Midhat Pasha and His Governorship
in the Danube Province], p. 99.
108
Ibid, pp. 109-110.
67
IV.6 The Extension of Telegraph Lines
The first attempts to introduce the electric telegraph into the Ottoman Empire
coincided with the Tanzimat in 1839. Samuel F.B. Morse developed his telegraph
system, and soon after its invention, one of his associates, Chamberlain, came to
Istanbul to present it to the Sultan, but his equipment failed. Then, when he was on
the way back to Vienna for repairs, his boat capsized on the Danube River, and he
drowned. Eight years after this failed attempt, on August 9, 1847, an American
professor, J. Lawrence Smith, who was employed by the Ottoman government as a
geologist, managed to conduct two successful demonstrations, which revealed to
Sultan Abdülmecid and some leading Ottoman officials the usefulness of the
telegraph. The Sultan was very impressed with it and ordered the establishment of a
telegraph line between Istanbul and Edirne but this project could not be
accomplished because of some unknown reasons.109
The construction of the telegraph lines would be realized in 1854, just after
the Crimean War broke out between Imperial Russia on the one side and an alliance
of France, Britain, Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia on the other. As a
consequence of the need for rapid communication among the allied forces, the
British, French and Ottoman governments set out to establish the essential lines to
the war effort. The Ottoman Grand Vizier, Kıbrıslı Mehmet Emin Pasha, nominated
a high level task force, composed of the three civil officials and three generals, to
supervise the beginning of the telegraph system. In addition, the Ottoman
109
Soli Shahvar, “Concession Hunting in the Age of Reform: British Companies and the Search for
Government Guarantees; Telegraph Concessions through Ottoman Territories, 1855-58”, Middle
Eastern Studies, Vol.38, No.4, (October 2002), p. 169; Nesimi Yazıcı, “Balkanlar’da İlk Osmanlı
Telgraf Hatları”, Balkanlar’da İslam Medeniyeti Milletlerarası Sempozyumu Tebliğleri Sofya, Nisan
21–23, 2000, (İstanbul: IRCICA 2002), pp.110–111.
68
government provided necessary poles and simple workmen. A French engineer, F.
De la Rue, was appointed to the head of this project. The first line to be constructed
was the belated Istanbul-Edirne line, which was to continue from Edirne to Şumnu.
The latter line was part of the Varna-Bucharest line, then under construction by the
French government. Another line, running north and west from Edirne to be built by
the Ottomans, would connect with Austrian network via Plovdiv, Sofia, Nish,
Aleksinac and Belgrade. Their constructions started in March 1855. By August 19
the Istanbul-Edirne line was completed and by September 6 the Edirne-Şumnu line
was also completed. On the other hand, in December 1854 the Varna-Balaklava and
in February 1855 the Varna-Istanbul submarine lines were constructed by the British
government. In the meantime, the most eastern terminal of Austrian telegraph system
reached Iasi and by the spring of 1855 the French government completed the Varna-
Bucharest line, passing through Shumen and Rusçuk. After meeting the immediate
communication needs of the allies, the Ottoman telegraph system connected to
European capitals and the entire length from Balakava to Paris and London was
opened in 1855. Consequently, a considerable contribution to this modest Ottoman
telegraph system came immediately after the end of the Crimean War, with the
Ottoman purchase of the French Bucharest-Varna landline and the British Varna-
Istanbul submarine line.110
On the other hand, since telegraph was invented in the west and the first
telegraph lines, those in the Balkans, in the Ottoman Empire were constructed by the
French and British companies Latin alphabet was used in the telegraph
communication. The Ottomans, who were using Arabic alphabet, were not familiar
with it. However, according to the Agreement with De la Rue, French technicians
110
Shahvar, “Concession Hunting in the Age of Reform: British Companies and the Search for
Government Guarantees; Telegraph Concessions through Ottoman Territories, 1855-58”, pp.169-170.
69
would be in charge of training the Ottoman subjects for telegraph jobs in the early
years of its introduction to the Ottoman Empire. Afterwards, in 1860, a telegraph
school was established in Istanbul in order to train Ottoman technicians who would
be equipped with necessary skills to use it.111
Along with the telegraph lines, a number of telegraph offices were also
established. According to the agreement among the British and French and Ottoman
governments, the Ottomans would be in charge of constructing the telegraph offices.
The British government requested a building in Varna to use as an office in the
Istanbul-Varna line and the Ottoman government allocated an appropriate building
for them. At the same time, a house of a merchant in Rusçuk, which cost 1000 guruş
per month, was rented by the Ottoman government to provide the French engineers
and the workers with accommodation and also to be used as a telegraph office.
Another building, in Bucharest, was also rented by the Ottoman government but it
was closed down in 1857 because there was a telegraph office used by Wallachians
and this conflict created a heavy burden on the Ottoman government. In addition to
these telegraph offices, the Ottoman government constructed seven main telegraph
offices in the Balkans in order to use for domestic purposes. They were located in
Istanbul, Edirne, Şumnu, Filibe, Sofia, Nish and Bucharest. On the other hand, on
January 6, 1858, the Sultan ordered an imperial degree for the construction of two
more telegraph lines, one from Rusçuk to Tırnovi, other one from Rusçuk to Vidin
along the Danube River, passing through Ziştovi, Plevne and Lom. Meanwhile, a
petition, signed by 124 Muslim and non-Muslim notables of Vidin, was sent to the
capital in order to state that they would voluntarily be in charge of proving the
111
Ergin, İstanbul Mektepleri ve İlim, Terbiye ve Sanat Müesseseleri Dolayısile Türkiye Maarif Tarihi
Vol.I-II, p.519.
70
necessary poles and some expenditures in the construction of the telegraph line. The
Sultan appreciated it.112
Afterwards, the process of establishing telegraph system had continued in the
Balkans. As Midhat Pasha was nominated to the governorship of the Danube
province in 1864 he carried out a successful project of road construction which
provided the province with a practical transportation network. Soon after this, he also
realized the need for spreading out the telegraph lines within the province, which
were of great importance especially in trade.113 Although the first telegraph lines in
the Balkans were established for political and military purposes Midhat Pasha was
aware of the usefulness of such a rapid communication in different functions.
Therefore, Midhat Pasha specified fifteen locations, which essentially need telegraph
system, namely Balçık, Pazarcık, Hezargrad, Cuma-i Atik, Lofça, Nigbolu, Rahova,
Köstendil, Samakov, Dubniçe, Ivraniye, Osman Pazarı, Tutrakan, Gabrova and
Ivraca. He projected the construction of the telegraph lines in those regions and
cooperated with the residents and merchants of the province to materialize it. They
promised to supply necessary poles and workmen together with constructing the
telegraph offices. However, they asked for the compensation of the expenditures for
the machines, devices and tools, which would be imported from Europe, by the
government. Thus, Midhat Pasha sent a petition to the center in 1866 and requested
62.000 Francs to spend for the technical stuff of the telegraph system. The Supreme
Council complied by sending the money.114
The extension of telegraph system, along with the recently developed
transportation network and the agricultural reforms, advanced the flourishing
economy of the Danube province to some extent that it began to create its own
112
Yazıcı, “Balkanlar’da İlk Osmanlı Telgraf Hatları”, pp. 114-115.
113
BOA. I.HR. no:12218; 12673.
114
BOA, I.MVL no: 24647; BOA. I.HR. no:12673.
71
bourgeoisie and the prospect of prosperity among its inhabitants. Midhat Pasha’s
policy was to support the merchants and the notables of the province economically
and politically in order to gain their confidence and encouragement in his reforms.
That is why; he worked together with them in modernizing the province while
pacifying the separatist movements within it.
IV.7 Educational Reforms
During the reigns of Selim III and Mahmut II, a number of students had been
sent to Europe with the hope that they would be well educated in a modern way and
then contribute to the modernization of education in the Ottoman Empire. However,
owing to the internal problems with Janissaries the focus of the reforms was on
military rather than educational. After the abolition of Janissaries in 1826 a new
army, called Asakir-i Mansura-yı Muhammediye, was established and many military
officers were brought from Prussia to modernize the army. In addition to this, a
military school (Mekteb-i Harbiye) in 1834 and a medical school (Tıbhane-i Amire)
in 1827 were established in order to provide the army with trained officers and
doctors.115 Thus, military schools had better conditions than the others within the
empire in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Despite the backwardness in education, the content of the Gülhane Edict of
1839 was devoid of the essential educational reforms. The establishment of the
Council of Medical Affairs (Meclis-i Umur-u Tıbbiye) was the only outstanding
achievement of the statesmen of the Tanzimat in the field of education till 1845.
However, Sultan Abdülmecid realized the need for educational reforms and in 1845,
115
Hasan Ali Koçer, Türkiye’de Modern Eğitimin Doğuşu ve Gelişimi (1773–1923), (Istanbul: Milli
Eğitim Basımevi 1974). p. 34.
72
ordered new degrees of change showing his distaste for illiteracy. After that, on
March 13, 1845 the Supreme Council formed a separate temporary council of
education (Meclis-i Maarif-i Muvakkat) made up of members from bureaucratic,
military and religious groups to develop a program for secular education. The
members of the council were familiar with the western culture and education. The
primary purpose of the council was to figure out the possible precautions against
illiteracy and to prepare a report about them. The council assembled twice a week in
the Sublime Porte, (Bâbıali) and after a while announced its report pointing out the
needs for the amelioration of primary schools (Sıbyan Mektebleri); the regulations in
Adolescence (Rüşdiye) schools to make them strong enough to educate the public116;
the increase in the number of religious classes; the foundations of a university
(Darülfünûn) and an academy (Daniş) providing students with accommodations; and
also the establishment of a permanent council concerning with educational
institutions. After the announcement of this report, this temporary council was turned
into a permanent council with the title of the Council of Public Education (Meclis-i
Maarif-i Umumiye).117 Then, in 1866 the Ministry of Public Education (Maarif-i
Umumiye Nezareti) was established.
Although there had been a remarkable increase in the number of schools
including foreign and missionary schools within the empire it is difficult to see a
consistent modernization in education until the Regulation for Public Education
(Maarif-i Umumiye Nizamnamesi) was issued in 1869.118 This regulation based on
116
The four year mekteb education was followed by two year Rüşdiye education which formed the
intermediary position between the mekteb and professional schools. From 1855 onwards Rüşdiye
schools followed by secondary İdadiye schools based on military school system in the major garrison
towns.
117
Necdet Sakaoğlu, Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Eğitim Tarihi, (İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları
2003), p.71.
118
For more about the modern education system in the Ottoman Empire and the details of the
Regulation for Public Education in 1896 see, Koçer, Türkiye’de Modern Eğitimin Doğuşu ve Gelişimi
(1773-1923).
73
the advice of French Ministry of Education. It foresaw a three-tier system of
education, starting with Rüşdiye schools in every large village or town quarter,
civilian İdadiye secondary schools in every town and colleges called Sultaniye
schools, modeled on the Franch Lycees, in every provincial capital. These were all-
male schools; but provisions for separate schools for girls were also made in the
regulation.119 However, even after this time, the expected developments in education
could not be achieved in the countryside because of the following political instability
between the years 1871-76, the experiment of constitutional monarchy in 1876 and
also the Ottoman-Russian war with its heavy burden on the empire. Thus, the crucial
steps in the modernization of education would be taken in the countryside after the
emergence of rather stable political conditions in 1880 and afterwards.120 On the
other hand, provincial education councils were also organized in every provincial
capital under the direction of a director (maarif müdürü) with a Muslim and non-
Muslim assistant, staff, and inspectors to tour the province to examine operations and
enforce them. The councils were given the state funds available for educational
purpose.121
Another important development of the nineteenth century was the Hatt-ı
Hümayun of 1856 (Islahat Fermanı), which promised equal treatment for adherents
of all creeds in such specific matters as educational opportunity, appointment to
government posts, and the administration of justice, as well as in taxation and
military service.122 This reform edict along with the uprisings of the minorities and
the political pressure from European powers compelled the Ottoman Empire to do
119
Zürcher. Turkey: A Modern History, p.65.
120
Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Maarif Müdürü Radovişli Mustafa Bey’in Raporları ve müslim ve
gayrimüslim eğitimi: II.Abdülhamid devri Selanik taşrasında maarif meselesi (1885-1886), Tarih ve
Toplum Yeni Yaklaşımlar 2. (Güz 2005), p. 113.
121
Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, V.II, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1976-77), p. 111.
122
Roderic Davison, “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the Nineteenth
Century” The American Historical Review, Vol. 59, No. 4. (July, 1954), p. 847.
74
reforms in education and to open new schools for non-Muslim minorities as well as
Muslim population. As one of the multi-national imperial territories where political
discontent was causing the rise of nationalism among different ethnic groups, the
Danube Province was chosen to introduce new reforms by the reformist governor
Midhat Pasha between the years 1864-1868. His reforms in the Danube Province
were carried out as examples for the rest of the empire.
The uprisings in Nish and Vidin in 1840s and 1850s were the reflections of
the dissatisfaction of the minorities with the Tanzimat reforms and also the alarming
danger of the nationalism rising in the Balkans. On the other hand, Russia had been
seeking the ways to benefit from this nationalist tendency among the Balkan nations.
According to Midhat Pasha, the Bulgarian nation was the most backward among the
Balkan nations in terms of the progress of thought (Terakkiyât-ı Fikriye). Fifty
percent of them were farmers and forty percent of them were reapers (Orakçı) and
shepherds raising sheep. That is to say, the level of education was so low among
Bulgarians and of course Russian policy in the Balkans would not be sending
teachers for the education of Bulgarian children. Instead, it was to choose the best of
them to educate in Russia with the ideology of pan-Slavism and send them back to
Bulgaria to carry out underground revolutionary activities and to stand against the
Ottoman rule.123
Until the nineteenth century, Turkish and Bulgarian educations in the Balkans
were based on religion and on the old scholastic system. Turks had primary schools
(mektep) and also medreses associated with mosques. Bulgarians had their
neighborhood schools (Kiliyni uchilishta) for each locality. The first modern
Bulgarian school was opened in Gabrova in 1835. Three years later Turkish junior
123
Midhat Pasha, “Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali”, pp. 16-17.
75
high schools called Rüşdiye began to open for the first time in the empire. Although
the Bulgarian schools were supported by missionary organizations, Pan-Slavist
committees and also by the Bulgarian people themselves, the financial burden of the
Turkish schools was shouldered almost completely by the Turkish people together
with some support from Waqfs (pious foundations).124 Afterwards, the Islahat
Fermanı of 1856 guaranteed the right of non-Muslims minorities to attend either their
own schools or the Muslim ones. Most of the non-Muslim minorities were eager to
organize and promote their own schools and orient them according to western
European and Russian secular schools (in the case of Bulgaria). Bulgarian schools
were free of charge and open to all children. The Bulgarian society was in charge of
building maintenance and provided teaching materials, school equipment and the
wages for the teachers. Teachers came from Russia to teach at these schools. The
teachers were usually Bulgarians who had studied in Russia. Free books and schools
utensils were also provided from Russia as well as financial aid.125
Midhat Pasha carried out a survey inspecting the current conditions of the
province in 1865. He was aware of the need for educational reforms and the threat of
increasing Russian influence on Balkan nations. Thus, he ordered to open new
mektebs and reformatories together with the improvement of the conditions of the
existing schools throughout the province.126 For example, new mekteps for Bulgarian
children were constructed in Filibe.127 Even in some small towns which are devoid of
primary schools a number of new mekteps were opened. For instance, in the town of
124
Bilal N. Şimşir, The Turks of Bulgaria (1878-1985), (Oxford: K. Rustem and Brother Ltd. 1988), p
13.
125
Diana Karabinova, “A Late Attempt to Find an Integrative Approach Through Common Secular
Education: Midhat Paşa as a Governor of the Danube Province (1864–1868)”, International Congress
on Learning and Education in the Ottoman World (12–15 April 1999, İstanbul), (İstanbul: IRCICA
2001), pp.240–243.
126
BOA, I.DH, no: 36231 and BOA, BAD, no: 307, p.73.
127
76
Pravadi (a part of the Varna) a mektep for Bulgarian children was opened.128 In
addition to Sıbyan Mektebs, the number of Rüşdiye and İdadiye schools had risen
sharply and Bulgarian students were also allowed to attend in the İdadiye schools,
which were the last stage of the common education.129Alternatively, by order of the
sultan a number of students chosen from the non-Muslim groups, namely Bulgarians,
Greeks and Armenians, were admitted to the Military School (Harbiye Mektebi),
Marine School (Bahriye Mektebi), and Mathematical College (Hendesehane). Some
of them were also sent to the Ottoman Imperial School (Mekteb-i Osmani) in
Paris.130
Along with these new schools, Midhat Pasha also established specialized
schools (Islahhane or Reformatory, which were later transformed to Sanayi Mektebi
or Industrial School) to provide elementary secular education and training as artisans.
The main objectives of these schools were, to increase the level of education against
illiteracy; to take the orphans and poor children under protection; to contribute to the
rebirth of native Ottoman industry and to provide Balkan people, especially
Bulgarians, with new job opportunities rather than farming, stock-raising and
reaping; and also to impose the ideology of Ottomanism as oppose to pan-Slavism in
order to break down the Russian influence and to awaken a common feeling of
Ottoman identity by bringing together Christians and Muslims.
The first of these entirely new schools was opened in Nish in 1860, then in
Sofia and the last one was opened in Rusçuk in 1864.131 These schools established by
Midhat Pasha offered elementary education for both Muslim and Christian children
and they were not only for males but also for females. The target group of these
128
BOA, MHD, no: 262, p. 339, article 1068. cited by Şentürk, p. 320.
129
BOA, I.HR no: 11857, lef 1.
130
BOA, I.HR, no: 11755.
131
77
schools was both Muslim and Christian orphans and poor children suffering from
miserable life conditions. Midhat Pasha wanted to assemble the orphans and poor
children in order to take them under protection and to train them as artisans.132
The Regulation for Reformatories was proclaimed by Midhat Pasha.133 The
first part of the Regulation deals with admissions with a particular emphasis on
nationality, age and other requirements such as parental conditions, and financial
statement. Children, thirteen years old and younger, seeking for admission could be
Christian or Muslim and were accepted whether they lived within or outside of the
province. However, they must be orphaned without parents. In the case of having a
father or mother alive, if the economic condition of their family is not good enough
to take care of their children, these children will also be admitted to the
reformatories.134 However, if their parents or relatives decide to get their children out
of reformatories after their admissions, then they would be required to pay all of
students expenses, including food, clothes etc. during the time that the students
stayed there. Children who committed a crime and were punished with an
imprisonment for a year or more would be able to get in these reformatories with an
official order by the government. All other children not in these categories would
also benefit from the schools, but their parents would need to pay 500 guruş per year.
These payments would be included in the schools’ income. In addition to this, the
expenses of the reformatories were compensated with the public donations along
132
BOA, I.DH, no:36231.
133
Islahhaneler Nizamnamesi (The Regulation of the Reformatories), Düstur, I.Tertip, II. Cilt, pp.
277–295.
134
These rules were also valid for the female students but the only difference is that female students
who would be admitted to the reformatory have to be at the age of 10 or younger than 10. BOA,
Cevdet Maarif, no: 6542.
78
with the budget allocated by the government.135 Another important target group of
these reformatories were the children of the Circassian and Tatar refugees.136
Each of the reformatories located in Nish, Sofi and Rusçuk had a capacity for
about 150-250 students. The amount of money set aside for each of them by the
government was about 200.000 kurush. However, the one in Rusçuk had a bit more
funding than the other two since it was in the center of the province. In Rusçuk, there
was a storehouse built by using the funds taken from the reformatory budget and it
provided the reformatory with 100,000 guruş annually in extra money. Thanks to
this, an additional reformatory for females was constructed in Rusçuk. The one in
Sofia was the poorest in comparison with the other two but its factory dealt with the
production of broadcloth, which had a remarkable contribution to the reformatory
budget.137
At these reformatories, students were divided into groups consisting of ten
students, among whom one was foreman and one was his assistant. All of the
students were under the control of their foreman or his assistant. If they do not obey
the rules or if they rebel against their foreman they will be punished with an
imprisonment for a certain time from 24 hours to three days or with asceticism from
one day to one week without food in accordance with the guilt.138 In the mornings
after the bell rings, all of the students had to get up. The Muslim students had to go
for ablution and then attend the morning prayer. The Christian students also prayed
according to their religion. In every student’s room, one or two students would stay
to clean the rooms. If the rules are broken once it will be forgiven but if they do it for
the second time the student will be punished with one day asceticism. If they repeat it
135
Articles of the Nizamname of Reformatories, no: 1, 2, 3. also see, Şentürk, p. 176.
136
BOA, I.MVL, no: 26270, lef 5.
137
Tabsıra-i Ibret, p. 53.
138
Article of the Nizamname of Reformatories, no: 32.
79
again then the punishment will be extended for two days and if there is a fourth time
it will be three days.139
After praying, a bell rings for the breakfast time and students go to kitchens
and to eat bread and soup. Breakfast is then followed by roll call.140 Soon after,
students go to classrooms for lectures and writing lessons. The content of the lectures
include alphabet (Elifba), Quran, catechism (ilmihal), moral education, literature,
writing (the Ottoman types of writing such as rik’a and sülüs), note taking,
computation (adding, subtracting, etc.) and Bulgarian.141 Theoretical classes were
planned to be performed for two hours in the mornings and in the afternoons students
would go to practice working in accordance with their specializations. For example,
students went to the provincial printing house, to learn lithography, typesetting and
bookbinding. Some of students were trained with masters in the schools as tailors,
carpenters, tanners and shoemakers. Female students mostly engaged in textile,
weaving and embroidery. Students trained untill 10:30 or 11 pm.142 They usually
took a break toward evening and would sometimes leave the reformatories to visit
their families and relatives.143 In order to provide discipline in the reformatories there
were always imprisonments or asceticism punishments for crimes such as smoking,
stealing, making noise, fighting with other children, etc.144
139
140
141
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), p. 177; and Ergin, İstanbul
Mektepleri ve İlim, Terbiye ve Sanat Müesseseleri Dolayısile Türkiye Maarif Tarihi Vol.I-II, p. 525.
The content of the classes in the reformatories are rather similar to those in the Mekteps except of
Bulgarian lessons and artisanship training, Nafi Atuf, Türkiye Maarif Tarihi Hakkında Bir Deneme,
(Muallim Ahmet Halit Kitaphanesi 1930), p. 169.
142
Articles of the Nizamname of Reformatories, no: 10.
143
144
Articles of the Nizamname of Reformatories, no: 38, 41.
80
The staff of the reformatory in Rusçuk was recorded in the year book
(Salname) as:145
Officials: Accountant, policeman (Zabıta), secretary, cashier (Sandık Emini),
steward (Vekilharç)
Teachers and Masters: Mathematics (Ulum-u Riyaziye), geography, Arabic,
Bulgarian and writing teachers, and tailors and shoemakers.
Students: 85 Muslim, 51 Bulgarian and 1 Jewish student.
In addition to this reformatory, another reformatory was built for female
students.146 The Bulgarian and Turkish teachers of the male reformatory also taught
there. This reformatory consisted of 27 Muslim, 21 Bulgarian and 3 Muslim paid
students. These students were mostly directed to sewing.147
The education system in the reformatories was based on a five year program.
The first year is considered as the fifth level of the education and students take
annual exams. They graduate after completion of the fifth year, which was first level
and some successful students are awarded with a certain amount of money. After
obtaining a degree, they can work in the reformatory and in return they receive some
amount of money or they will be allowed to open their own shops with the capital
borrowed from the reformatory.148These three schools that opened in the Danube
province trained a number of students as typesetters and bookbinders for province
newspaper; as craftsmen for carriage factories; and many other artisans in different
145
Vol.I-II, p. 525.
146
BOA, I.MVL, no 26270.
147
Vol.I-II, p. 525.
148
Articles of the Nizamname of Reformatories, no: 50, 51 and 52.
81
fields.149 In addition to this, female students had an outstanding contribution to the
cloth and dress production to meet the needs of the Danube army.150
The news in the Danube province’s newspaper, Tuna Gazetesi, indicates the
importance given to education in this province. It is as if an education campaign had
been launched. The Tuna newspaper began to announce in its early issues that
children above the age five or six should be sent to school, otherwise the parents will
be held responsible: it states “If children above the ages of five or six, in other words,
if little male and female children are not sent to school instead of being allowed to be
idle, and if older ones are not sent either to schools or for vocational training, the
parents will be held responsible”.151
Immediately after it began to be published the Tuna newspaper was
distributed free among junior high school students in various towns in order to
enhance reading ability. The students of the Vidin junior high school expressed their
thanks for this and their letter of thanks was published in the newspaper. The Tuna
newspaper gave priority to news about schools in almost all of its issues. For
instance, the newspaper stated that in the Danube province, a junior high school
(Rüşdiye) was going to be opened in every town, and that a senior high school
(Idadiye) was going to be opened in every district center, and that the provincial
assembly was discussing this issue. In its issue dated 21 July 1865, the Tuna
newspaper published the instructions Midhat Pasha had sent to the deputy mufti of
Plevne. According to Pasha, schools are important above all. The deputy mufti must
resort to any means which is necessary to improve education, if financial resources
are not available, he should create them. No child was to be left out. Children who
149
BOA, I.DH, no:36231.
150
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), p.177. Osman Ergin, İstanbul
Mektepleri ve İlim, Terbiye ve Sanat Müesseseleri Dolayısile Türkiye Maarif Tarihi Vol.I-II, p.525.
151
Şimşir, The Turks of Bulgaria (1878-1985), p.14.
82
were left without guardians should be sent to reformatories. It was obligatory for
parents to send their children to school. Schools and education were a duty for
everyone in this world and in the next.152
Consequently, there had been a remarkable increase in the number of both
Muslim and Christian schools in the Danube province during Midhat Pasha’s
governorship. These schools strove to bring Christian and Muslim communities
together under a common Ottoman ideology contradicting the Millet System in the
Ottoman Empire, which allowed all the non-Muslim and Muslim minorities to
regulate their own religious and educational affairs. However, they contributed to the
modernization of educational institutions and the rise of literacy and also slowed
down the expansion of the Russian pan-Slavist ideology in the Balkans. However, it
is difficult say whether or not Midhat Pasha’s attempted school reform reached its
goals and became successful. His governorship in the Danube province could not be
exceeded four years and in 1868 he was unexpectedly withdrawn from his position
owing to the Russian pressure on the Ottoman Empire. He was also confronted with
opposition from the rising Bularian nationalism, which made it difficult for him to
perform his entire plan.
IV.8 The Printing House and the Danube Newspaper (Tuna Gazetesi)
The development of the press in the Ottoman Empire differs from the one in
Europe, which evolved itself gradually. In the seventeenth century in Europe,
newspapers, newsletters and broadsheets emerged as a consequence of interest of the
rising bourgeoisie in acquiring news and information. After the second half of the
nineteenth century this turned out to be a way of massive communication along with
152
Ibid. p.14.
83
manipulating the society politically and culturally. However, the purpose of the press
in the Ottoman Empire was not to meet the need of such an elite group but to
enlighten the society from the top in the process of modernization.153 Therefore, the
policy of the Ottoman government in the Tanzimat era was to establish printing
houses in each province. However, the first of them would be realized in the Danube
province only after Midhat Pasha’s appointment to this province as a governor in
1864.
According to the Regulations of the Vilayet, a printing house would be
established in the capital of the province.154 Since there was no printing house in the
Danube province most of the books ad publications including educational and
religious materials for Bulgarians came from Russia and Austria and this situation
made it easier for Russia to impose her pan-Slavist and pan-Orthodox ideology on
Bulgarians, to set up underground revolutionary organizations within the Danube
province and to provoke them to rebel against the Ottoman rule. That is why; Midhat
Pasha founded a printing house having two lithography machines in 1864.155 It was
equipped with Turkish, Bulgarian, Greek, French and old Slavic letters to publish in
these languages. Soon after its establishment, it began to publish school materials,
office supplies, religious books, newspapers, journals, yearbooks and some literary
works of outstanding Turkish and Bulgarian writers in both Bulgarian and Turkish. It
provided schools with some educational and religious materials for free and offered a
ten percent reduction from the normal prices for commercial publications.156 The
Ottoman government paid special attention to publication of the religious books and
153
Uygur Kocabaşoğlu, “Tuna Vilayet Gazetesi”,OTAM 2 (January 1991) p. 141.
154
155
In 1877 the number of lithography machines increased to four, and together with the other printing
machines the printing house had ten machines. Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-
1878, p. 133.
156
BOA, I.DH, no:37115, lef.1.
84
materials, which the Bulgarians used in their religious ceremonies, in order to ease
the Russian influence on them. Thus, 100,000 guruş was allocated from the Treasury
to obtain and publish them for the Bulgarians.157
The printing house was in the superintendence of the chief secretary of the
province.158 Its staff consisted of both Bulgarian and Turkish employees. The first
director of the printing house was Dragan Tsankov, who was a printer and journalist
in Istanbul. He was also the French teacher of Ahmet Midhat Efendi, who would be a
famous Turkish journalist and the chief editor of the provincial newspaper, the Tuna
Gazetesi. After the Bulgarian independence, he became the leader of the liberal party
and then the prime minister of Bulgaria. Another Bulgarian writer of the printing
house was Ivan Çorapçiev, who was in charge of editing the Bulgarian publications.
He also prepared Turkish alphabet and French grammar books for Bulgarian
children. The lithographer of the printing house was Yusuf Ziya Efendi, who would
be the director later on. The printing house also served as a school, training a number
of students coming from reformatories, as lithographer, binder and writer. In
addition, twenty-five prisoners came to the printing house from the province prison
every morning in order clean and to do the hard work of the printing house.159
According to the yearbook of the Danube province dated 1869, the staff of the
Danube printing house was as the following:160
The director: Ethem Efendi
Subeditor: Cenap Bey
French interpreter: Midhat Efendi
Accountant: Selim Efendi
157
BOA, BI, no:91.
158
Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878, p. 133.
159
İsmail Eren, “Tuna Vilayet Matbaası ve Neşriyatı (1864–1877)”, Türk Kültürü, Vol. III (January
1965), pp. 313–315.
160
Kocabaşoğlu, “Tuna Vilayet Gazetesi”, p.145.
85
Bulgarian interpreters: (two persons)
Lithographer: Yusuf Ziya Efendi
Turkish chief editor: Hafız Zühtü Efendi
Bulgarian chief editor: Nikola Efendi
One of the most considerable achievements of the printing house was
publication of the Tuna newspaper, which was an influential way of informing the
inhabitants of the province about the continuing reforms in the province and news
from all over the world. The first issue of the newspaper was published on
Wednesday, March 8, 1865 and the last one on June 1, 1877. It was published in both
Bulgarian and Turkish. Each issue was composed of four pages. The first two pages
were in Turkish and the last two pages were in Bulgarian. The chief editor of the
Turkish part was at first Ismail Kemal and then Ahmet Midhat Efendi. The chief
editors and interpreters of the Bulgarian part were Ivan Çorapçiev and Stoil Popov.
There were three columns in each page, whose size was 37 cm X 26 cm in the first 8
issues and afterwards four columns in each page, whose size changed to 54 cm X 36
cm, it was published twice a week. In its fifth issue Tuna announced the number of
its subscribers as 529 and in the tenth issue this number increased to 1300. In
comparison with the circulation of the province newspaper of Bursa, Hüdavendigar,
which was about 80-100 in 1869, the circulation of the Tuna newspaper was rather
high. The price of the Tuna newspaper, its first 52 issues, was 40 paras. This amount
was quite higher than that of Hüdavendigar, which cost 40 paras but cheaper than
that of Envar-ı Şarkiyye of the Erzurum province, which was 60 paras.161
The content of the newspaper was divided into four main sections. The first
one, called Havadisat-ı Dahiliye (Domestic News), was to give information about the
161
Kocabaşoğlu, “Tuna Vilayet Gazetesi”, pp.143–144.
86
continuing reforms and activities by the government. The second one, called
Mevadd-ı Umumiye (General Matters), was to inform people about events taking
place within the province. The third one, called Havadis-i Hariciye (Foreign News),
was to state the news from other countries. The last one, called İlanat
(Announcements), was to notice official and private announcements.162
Moreover, eleven special editions of the Tuna newspaper, which included
orders, laws, and regulations, were also published in the end of every month,
beginning from April 8, 1871 to January 30, 1872. During its twelve and a half years
existence, the Danube printing house managed to publish one more newspaper and
four periodicals together with all other publications. In 1875 another newspaper
called Güneş- Le Soleil (The Sun) was published in both Turkish and French.
However, since it could not finance itself, after a short period of time it was closed
down. Ismail Kemal published a literary periodical, which was called Mecra-yı
Efkar-Istoçnik Mneniya (The Course of Ideas), as two-three issues in 1867 and 1868.
It was also in both Bulgarian and Turkish. In addition, between 1867 and 1876 Tuna
Vilayet Salnamesis (The Danube Province Yearbooks) were published in the printing
house as ten issues. At the same time, T.H. Stançev published a religious and moral
periodical, which was called Onur-Slava (Honor), twice a month between 1871 and
1872. Furthermore, R.I. Bliskov published an educational and pedagogic journal in
Bulgarian, which was called Uçilişte-Okul (School). It was also published twice a
month, between 1872 and 1874.163
Consequently, the Danube printing house, which was the first official printing
house in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire, worked by developing itself, and the
Tuna newspaper, which was the first provincial newspaper, was published until the
162
BOA, BAD, no: 308, p. 29.
163
Eren, “Tuna Vilayet Matbaası ve Neşriyatı (1864–1877)”, p.316.
87
Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-1878. The printing house was hit by a Russian missile
in 1877 and then plundered first by Russians and then Bulgarians. Afterwards, in
1877, the first Bulgarian printing house was established in Rusçuk.
IV.9 The Revolutionary Movements: Eşkiyas, Çetes and Komitas
In the 1860s Bulgarian national movements grew to be very powerful in the
Danube province, especially with the establishment of the Bulgarian revolutionary
committees in Bucharest. The bandits (eşkiya), armed bands (çete) and the Bulgarian
underground revolutionary organizations (komita) became a serious threat for the
Ottoman administration.164
In the 1867, Russia activated the Bulgarian revolutionaries, most of who were
educated in Russia with Pan-Slavist ideology and situated in some centers such
Bucharest, Ibrail, Kalas, Yerköy, Wallachia and Besarabya to revolt against the
Ottoman rule. Serbian bandits also supported them.165 Midhat Pasha was given full
authority by the Grand Vizier Ali Pasha to take the necessary military and
administrative precautions against the komitas, which were moving into the province
to provoke the Bulgarians. After secretly taking precautions, the Pasha began to wait
for the revolutionaries.166 The first of the 1867 bands appeared in April. It included
thirty members under the command of Panaiot Khitov. They crossed the Danube
River and proceeded to the inner side of the province by passing through the
Deliorman region, which was thickly populated by the Muslims. However, the local
people and administration did not realize the existence of such a çete until it reached
to the Balkans Mountains since they did not attempt any military action. Then, some
regular and irregular troops were sent to smoke it out but the çete members rapidly
164
BOA. I.DH. no: 40670.
165
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), pp. 200-201; BOA, B.I. no: 93.
166
88
run into Serbia without any fight with them.167 In those days, the Serbian border
became the core of the bandits moving into the Bulgarian land. The soldiers under
the commander of Ömer Pasha in Vidin were dispatched to the region to block
them.168
In May 1867, a Bulgarian çete of 25 people, including some Serbian and
Albanian members, under the command of Filip Totiu crossed the Danube River and
moved into the region of Ziştovi after finishing their preparations on a small island in
the river.169 It was a small band that would not constitute a big threat for the
Ottomans but their plan was to create a comprehensive revolt by provoking the
Bulgarians. While moving to the south they started their bloody attacks by killing
five Muslim shepherd boys, aged between eight and ten, to create an atmosphere in
which the Muslims would attack on the Christians to take the revenge of the boys.170
However, Midhat Pasha calmed them down and prevented any aggressive action
between Muslim and Christian people. Meanwhile, some Muslim villagers realized
the bandits and fought with them but they moved to Tırnovo. Midhat Pasha learned
about these events and sent some military forces to the region.171 The number of the
bandits rose to 180-200 but the regular Ottoman troops and irregular forces
composed of villagers surrounded them. In the fight most of the bandits were killed
and Totiu was wounded but he managed to run away with his remaining comrades.
They reached to Balkan Mountains and then escaped to Serbian lands.
Soon after suppressing the revolutionary movement by Totiu’ çete, a
temporary court (Meclis-i Muvakkat) made up of six Muslim and six non-Muslim
members, was set up in Tırnovo to penalize the arrested band members and those that
167
168
BOA, I.MMS, no: 1430.
169
Tabsıra-i Ibret, p. 63; BOA. I.MMS. no:1430.
170
Midhat Paşa, “Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali”, p. 16.
171
BOA, I.MV, no:25929.
89
were supportive of them. Those accused of murders and wounding were immediately
executed and the rest of them were punished with penal servitude (kürek cezası) and
exiled to Diyarbekir.172 Although some Bulgarians supported the Totiu’s movement
there were many that fought against it. The court judged all the people who took
active role in the uprising and punished them with severe punishments. Even some
foreigners who sympathized with the çetes were also deported.173
Thanks to Midhat Pasha’s great efforts and strict precautions, the uprisings
were subdued and the bandits were pacified. The governors who successfully
arrested the band members were also awarded by him.174 When Sultan Abdülaziz
came to the province in August 1867, after his visit in France, he appreciated the
Pasha’s achievement in suppressing the separatist organizations and creating a
province as modern as those in Europe.175
In those days, another outstanding çete movement, known as the “steamship
event” (Vapur Hadisesi), took place. Midhat Pasha had been informed, thanks to his
spies spread among the revolutionary groups, two çete leaders, one Sebian and other
one Bulgarian, were coming to Rusçuk with an Austrian steamship called Cermanya
(Germany) in order to organize the revolutionary groups. When they arrived to
Rusçuk they faced the police forces waiting for them in the port. It would be an
international problem for the Ottoman government to arrest them in an Austrian
steamship. Thus, Midhat Pasha’s plan was to send two officials to do a passport
check to find them and it worked. After a short fight one of the çete leaders was
172
BOA,I.MVL, no: 26079; Koç, Midhat Paşa 1822-1884, p. 41.
173
BOA, I.MVL, no: 26070; compare with Petrov, Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Pasa and
the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868, pp. 238-239; Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi
(1850–1875), pp. 204-205.
174
175
BOA, I.DH, no: 39696.
90
killed and other one was captured but he also died since he was severely wounded,
while one policeman died and another was wounded.176
Despite the fact that the bands were not powerful enough to lead to a big
revolt in the Balkans, Midhat Pasha followed a strict policy to suppress them. That is
why the Slavic komitas even intended to assassinate him three times. In the most
serious one, a Serbian revolutionary named Ivan pretended that he converted to Islam
and then wanted to serve in a position close to the Pasha. However, his real plan was
revealed by discoveries of with secret letters to the Serbian leader along with his
suspicious insistence on being close to Midhat Pasha. After finding this out, in
November 1867, the local government wanted to execute him but because of
Ignatiew’s pressure he was punished with a life long penal servitude in Diyarbekir.177
Afterwards, on March 6 1868, the central government in Istanbul removed Midhat
Pasha from the governorship of the Danube province by appointing him to the
Presidency of the State Council.178 It was considered that Ignatiew played the major
role in this appointment. However, Ali Pasha’s plans to develop this council also had
a great impact on it.
IV.10 Police Stations (Karakols)
The rise of national revolutionary organizations, banditry and armed bands in
the Balkans made it inevitable for the Ottoman administration to take strict
precautions against them. Midhat Pasha paid a special attention to this issue and
during his governorship in Nish he initiated an extensive project for the
176
Fadeeva, Midhat Pasha:Jizn i Deyatel’nost [Midhat Pasha: His Life and Career], p. 38; Tabsıra-i
Ibret, pp. 73-75.
177
BAO, I.MVL. no: 26048.
178
Şentürk, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Bulgar Meselesi (1850–1875), p. 209.
91
establishment of the police stations within the province.179 Many blockhouses along
the Serbian border were also constructed in order to prevent the bandits from moving
into the Bulgarian lands. After his nomination to the Danube province, he extended
the police stations within the whole Danube region, while repairing and
reconstructing the existing ones.180 The priority was given to the region along the
Danube River and the Serbian border. Although there were a number of Serbian and
Wallachian police stations in the other side of the river there were a few in the
Ottoman side. Thus, Midhat Pasha projected the construction of sixty police stations
along the Danube River. They would be comprised of the local Muslims, Bulgarians
and refugees. About 700 people applied to serve in the police stations and they were
divided into ten parts consisting of seventy people. Ten of them were reserved and
the remaining sixty were divided into the groups of five members under the
command of corporals. Each group would work for a week respectively during a
month. The troops would be paid 1.800 guruş per year and 200 guruş would be
allocated for the other expenses. The villagers would also meet the basic needs of the
police stations such as wood, water etc.181
As a result of the uprisings by the çetes in 1867, Midhat Pasha decided to
organize a new type of village militia called “Asakir-i Ihtiyatiyye” as opposed to the
Bulgarian armed bands supported by Russia and Serbia. The objective of the project
was to create additional military forces to the regular armies against a possible
massive Bulgarian revolt. Thus, the Muslim males between the age 15 and 60 would
be armed and trained every year regularly. They would not be paid for this service
but when they were called for duty they would receive the wage of 40 paras per
179
BOA, I.MVL. no:22455; 22099; 24192, 24547; BOA. I.DH. no: 39454.
180
BAO, I.MVL, no: 24230; 23100; 23031.
181
For the map showing the locations of the police stations and the division of the police forces, see
BAO, B.I. no:102; Tabsıra-i Ibret, pp. 71-72.
92
day.182 The creation of such a village militia required a huge amount of money that
would be allocated from the central government. By the fall 1867, 40.000 rifles were
ordered from the center to be distributed to the villages within the province.183 The
Ottoman government purchased a great deal of the “karabina” rifles from America.
They were allocated for both the regular armies and the irregular village troops.184 It
was assumed that in this way, the government would have Muslim military forces in
the villages ready to fight against the Bulgarian bands. However, in the long term, it
might be difficult to control these village troops. Thus, this situation could lead to
discontent among the Bulgarians and even contribute to the rise of the Bulgarian
nationalism. It is difficult to say how influential the village militia was on the
Bulgarian revolts of 1875 and 1876 but obviously it brought about uneasiness in the
region and Russia made use of it for its Pan-Slavist propaganda in the Balkans.
IV.11 The Question of the Tatar and Circassian Refugees
The Russian pressure on the Muslim population, mainly Tatar and Circassian,
in Southern Russia, Crimea and Eastern Europe, which intensified after the Crimean
War (1853-56), resulted in the influx of Muslim refugees especially in 1859 and
1860. They fled to the safer places with the empire and the Ottoman government
began to resettle them in both the Balkans and Anatolia, while making them involved
in agriculture, trade and artisanship.185 The settlement of the refugees before the
Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878 as a historical topic has not studied in detail yet.
The focus of my research also will not be on this issue but I will give an overview of
182
183
BOA, B.I. no: 90; Tabsıra-i Ibret, p. 70.
184
BOA, A.MKT.MHM. no: 352/70; 440/63, 354/40.
185
BOA, I.MMS. no: 133/5690.
93
the settlement policy in the Danube region and Midhat Pasha’s contribution to this
policy.
In 1859-60, a considerable number of Tatar and Circassian immigrants came
to the northern part of the empire through the port cities of Varna and Tulça. In 1861,
the Sublime Port appointed Nusret Pasha to Varna as a settlement functionary. Until
the establishment of the Danube province in 1864, the total number of the refugees
reached to 175,000 but he managed to settle the refugees in the regions, mainly
Varna, Tulça and Dobruca.186 According to many Bulgarian historians the Ottoman
settlement policy aimed at strategic and important regions, where possible Russian
attacks would come. In addition, it was considered that it would strengthen the
Ottoman power in the Balkans against the national movements.187 Thus, Russia
provoked the Bulgarians to immigrate to Russia by claiming that the real intention of
the Ottomans was to replace them with Muslim immigrants. As a result of this
propaganda, in the early 1860s, thousands of Bulgarians from the Vidin region
moved to Russia. However, because of adaptation problems in these residences they
rapidly returned to their homelands and the Ottoman administration resettled them in
their former lands.188
It was obvious that the increasing number of refugees caused discontent and
high tensions in the region since local inhabitants were required to meet their basic
needs while building houses and sharing their land with them. Although the main
expenses of the settlement of refugees were supposed to be compensated by the
central government the local administration could not receive adequate financial
support from the center and tried to cover them by local sources. For instance, the
186
Nedim İpek, İmparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Göçler, (Trabzon: Serander 2006), pp. 27-49; Midhat
Pasha gives the total number of the refugees in the province as 350.000; see Tabsıra-i Ibret, p.53.
187
188
BOA, B.I. no: 76; Midhat Pasha, “Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali”, p.15; for the details of this
immigration aso see, İpek, İmparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Göçler, pp.273-277.
94
immigrants were given animals, seeds and necessary tools for their agricultural
activities.189 When Midhat Pasha was nominated to the region as a governor, the
main problem was not to settle them but integrate them to the local people, while
improving their living conditions. There were disabled, elderly, widows and orphans
among them. Many of them suffered from poverty, which lead to an increase in
crime, theft, burglary, robbery etc. Thus, Midhat Pasha established a commission
headed by Şakir Pasha that would be in charge of collecting aşar taxes from the
immigrants along with the donations from the local wealthy people in order to
construct schools, hospitals, mosques.190 For example, during his governorship seven
hospitals and three reformatories, mainly serving the refugees, were constructed
together with a number of schools.191 The Pasha forced them to send their children to
the schools. His policy continued with including them also in the village militia,
which was created as a result of çete events of 1867, Midhat Pasha created and so
they also took part in suppression of the Bulgarian uprisings. In this way, Pasha tried
to bring them together with the local people.
189
BOA, I.MVL. no: 25114.
190
BOA. I.MVL. no: 24269. According to the Refugee Law of 1857, those who settled in the Balkans
would be exempted from taxes for six years after their arrival.
191
For the hospitals see, BOA, I.MVL. no: 23784; 24004; 24744; 24457; BOA. I.DH. no: 37589. For
the schools see, BOA, I.MVL, no: 26270, lef 5.
95
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
Midhat Pasha governed the Danube province successfully until March 6,
1868 when he was appointed to the Presidency of the Ottoman Council of State
(Şura-yı Devlet). During his governorship he attempted to carry out influential
reforms and improvements, which were mutually agreed upon between the local
notables and the Ottoman administration in order to gain the confidence of the
Bulgarians, while providing them with safety, peace and the prospect of returning
prosperity. It would be fruitless to define his reform movement in this region as a
complete success or failure but introducing the Tanzimat reforms to the countryside
for the first time was indeed his major achievement. In this respect, his governorship
in this problematic part of the empire should be considered as a great achievement
that would be a model for the further reforms in the Ottoman provinces, while having
a great contribution to the modernization in the Balkans.
In evaluating Midhat Pasha’s reforms and projects one should pay attention to
the Tanzimat ideology along with his real mission, which was to pacify the province
and to bring about a better understanding among its mixed population so that the
increasing Russian influence in the Balkans would be interrupted. For instance, while
Russian policy was to use schools as a way of spreading its pan-Slavist ideology
among the Bulgarians what Pasha did was to open specialized schools for Muslims
96
and Christians alike to bring the young people of different creeds into closer
sympathy. The establishment of these schools was of great significance not only as a
Tanzimat reform in education but also as a precaution against Pan-Slavist
propaganda. Similarly, in many of the newly established institutions such as
provincial councils, agricultural credit cooperatives, reformatories and printing
houses both Muslim and Christian people worked together for the development of
the region. In this way, Midhat Pasha tried to create such a sort of Bulgarian
bourgeoisie attached to the state under the ideology of Ottomanism and supportive of
his reforms in the province. Although this ideology failed in the long term, it is
obvious that it was successful to a certain degree that Christians and Muslims alike
perceived Pasha’s reforms as if the dawn of the better days was coming.
It is important to note that the main problem with the reforms in the Danube
province was that they had to be “self-financed” because the central government
could not allocate all the necessary funds. Thus, the heavy burden of the projects,
such as construction of the paved roads, railroads and extension of the telegraph
lines, was largely compensated by the labor loads or new taxes imposed on the local
population. For instance, in the construction of the telegraph lines the inhabitants of
the region were in charge of providing free labor and poles, while the central
government purchased the essential machines, equipment and tools from Europe.
Midhat Pasha mobilized the population to raise manpower necessary in the projects,
even prisoners were required to clean the printing house and the students in the
reformatories also worked in the iron foundry, carriage factory, some governmental
offices etc. In this way, he managed to realize monumental projects but the
increasing state demands on the local people created discontent in the province.
97
Russia benefited from the situation by provoking the Christian subjects to stand
against the newly imposed labor loads and taxes.
Thanks to Midhat Pasha’s reforms, the Danube region remained stable until
the Bulgarian revolts of 1875 and 1876. Although these uprisings failed as
revolutionary actions, they led to the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878, enabling
the Russians to gain control of the region.
98
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives in Istanbul
Irade Meclis-i Vala (I.MVL)
26270 (1284 L.26) 24656 (1282.Za.14) 26138 (1284.Ş.13)
26277 (1284.L.29) 24647 (1282.Za.11) 24004 (1282.S.18)
26288 (1284.Z.05) 24680 (1282.Za.21) 24947 (1283.S.24)
25520 (1283.Za.03) 24714 (1282.Za.29) 25701 (1284.M.04)
26200 (1284.N.25) 24511 (1282.Ş.17) 25784 (1284)
26172 (1284.Ş.27) 24331 (1282.C.13) 24519
25981 (1284.C.10) 24476 (1282.Ş.06) 24547
25972 (1284.C.08) 24161 (1282.R.07) 24387
24978 (1283.Ra.03) 24016 (1282.S.21) 24362 (1282. C.23)
24899 (1283.S.05) 23773 (1281.Z.03) 24269 (1282.Ca.18)
24744 (1282.Z.15) 23784 (1281.Z.06) 24075 (1282.Ra.o6)
24457 (1282.B.29) 23906 (1282.M.18) 23958 (1282.S.05)
23364 (1281.Ca.26) 23955 (1282.S.05) 23400 (1281)
23924 (1282.M.23) 23031 (1281.M.15) 23753
24965 (1283.S.29) 23100 (1281.S.14) 21461 (1279)
24614 (1282.L.25) 26048 (1284.B.04) 21874 (1279.N.15)
99
21948 (1279.Za.25) 22455 (1280.C.10); 22099 (1280)
Mektubi Kalemi Mühimme (A.MKT.MHM)
A.MKT.MHM 274/ 37 (1280.Ra.09)
A.MKT.MHM 247/50 (1279.C.01)
A.MKT.MHM 354/ 40 (1282.Z.07)
A.MKT.MHM 439/6 (1285.Z.03)
A.MKT.MHM 440/ 63 (1285.Z.20)
A.MKT.MHM 352/ 70 (1282.Za.17)
Bulgaristan Iradeleri (B.I)
76, 77, 90, 91, 93, 96, 102, 103.
Irade Meclis-i Mahsus (I.MMS)
1245, 2371, 2382, 1697, 1430, 5690.
Irade Dahiliye (I.DH)
36231, 36825, 37109, 37120, 38984, 36970, 37383, 37115, 39696, 37471, 39454,
37589.
Irade Hariciye (I.HR)
11857, 11755, 12673, 12218.
Irade Şura-yı Devlet (I.ŞD)
62, 402.
Bab-ı Asafi Ayniyat Defteri (BAD)
No: 307, p.73; no: 308, p. 29.
Cevdet Maarif (C.M)
6542.
100
Tapu Tahrır Defteri (TTD)
771.
Sofia Archives
St. St. Cyril and Methodins National Library, Sofia, Oriental Department, CK 9-4.
St. St. Cyril and Methodins National Library, Sofia, Oriental Department,D 235 fol.
1-20.
Newspaper
Tuna Gazetesi
Published Primary Sources:
Ahmet Mithat Efendi. Üss-i İnkılâp, edited by Tahir Galip Seratlı. Istanbul: Selis
Kitaplar. 2004.
Cevdet Paşa. Tezakir 13-20, edited by Prof. Cavid Baysun. Ankara: TTK 1991.
Düstûr 1. Tertip Vol. II. Istanbul 1289.
Vak’a-Nüvis Ahmed Lütfi Efendi Tarihi, Vol. X, edited by Prof. M. Münir Aktepe.
Ankara: TTK, 1988.
“Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali”. Muharriri Midhat Paşa. Mütercimi Ahmet Refik,

Tab’ı ve Naşiri Kitabhane-i İslam ve Askeri, Artin Asaduryan Matbaası.
Dersaadet 1326 (1908–1909).
Midhat Paşa’nın Hatıraları: 1, Hayatım İbret Olsun [Tabsıra-i İbret]. edited by

Osman Selim Kocahanoğlu. Istanbul: Temel Yayınları 1997.
Midhat Paşa'nın Hatıraları: 2 Yıldız Mahkemesi ve Taif Zindanı (Mir'at-ı Hayret),

edited by Osman Selim Kocahanoğlu. Istanbul: Temel Yayınları 1997.
Secondary Sources:
Akgün, Seçil. “Midhat Paşa’nın Kuruduğu Memleket Sandıkları: Ziraat Bankası’nın

Kökeni”. Uluslararası Midhat Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler Tartışmalar
Edirne: 8–10 Mayıs 1984. Ankara: TTK 1986.
Armaoğlu, Fahir. 19. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi (1789–1914). Ankara: TTK 2003.
101
Arnakis, George G. “The Role of Religion in the Development of Balkan
Nationalism”. in The Balkans in Transition: Essays on the Development
of Balkan Life and Politics since the Eighteenth Century. edited by
Charles and Barbara Jelavich. Hamden: Archon Books 1974.
Atuf, Nafi. Türkiye Maarif Tarihi Hakkında Bir Deneme. Muallim Ahmet Halit
Kitaphanesi 1930.
Aydın Mithat. “Osmanlı-İngiliz İlişkilerinde İstanbul Konferansı (1876)’nın Yeri”.

Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt XXV Sayı 39. Ankara: Mart 2006.
————. Balkanlar'da İsyan: Osmanlı-İngiliz Rekabeti Bosna- Hersek ve

Bulgaristan'daki Ayaklanmalar (1875 – 1876). İstanbul: Yeditepe
Yayınevi 2005.
Bakardjieva, Teodora. “Ruse and the Ruse Region in the Context of Demographic
Processes in the Lower Danube Region /end of 14th –beginning of 17th
c.”. Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri
Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Eskişehir: Odunpazarı Belediyesi
Yayınları 2005.
Buzpınar, Ş. Tufan. “Midhat Paşa”. TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi, Vol. 30. Apr. 2005.
Ceylan, Ebubekir Ottoman Centralization and Modernization in the Province of

Baghdad, 1831–1872. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Boğaziçi University.
Institute of Social Sciences. Istanbul: 2006.
Cin, Halil. Miri Arazi ve Bu Arazinin Özel Mülkiyete Dönüşümü. Ankara: Çağ
Universitesi Yayınları 2005.
Çadırcı, Musa. Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentlerinin Sosyal ve Ekonomik

Yapıları. Ankara: TTK 1991.
Darling, Linda. Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance

Administraion in the Ottoman Empire 1560-1660. Leiden-NewYork-
Köln: E.J.Brill 1996.
Davison, Roderic. “Turkish Attitudes Concerning Christian-Muslim Equality in the

Nineteenth Century” The American Historical Review. Vol. 59, No. 4.
July, 1954.
————. Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876. Princeton: Princeton

University Press 1963.
Draganova, Slavka. Tuna Vilayeti’nin Köy Nüfusu. Ankara: TTK 2006.
Duc, L. Leouzon. Midhat Pacha. Paris: 1877.
Engin, Vahdettin. Rumeli Demiryolları. Istanbul: Eren 1993.
102
Eren, İsmail. “Tuna Vilayet Matbaası ve Neşriyatı (1864–1877)”. Türk Kültürü, Vol.
III January 1965.
Ergin, Osman. İstanbul Mektepleri ve İlim, Terbiye ve Sanat Müesseseleri Dolayısile

Türkiye Maarif Tarihi Vol.I-II. İstanbul: Osmanbey Matbaası 1939.
Fadeeva, E.I. Midhat Pasha:Jizn i deyatelnost [His Life and Career]. Moscow: 1977.
Genç, Mehmet. Osmanlı Imparatorluğunda Devlet ve Ekonomi. Istanbul: Ötüken

2000.
Gökbilgin, M. Tayyib.“Midhat Paşa”, İslam Ansiklopedisi, Cilt: VIII.
Göyünç, Nejat. “Midhat Paşa’nın Niş Valiliği Hakkında Notlar ve Belgeler”. Tarih
Enstitüsü Dergisi. XII. Istanbul: 1982.
Hupchick, Dennis P. The Balkans: From Constantinople to Communism. New York:

Palgrave 2002.
İnalcık, Halil. The Ottoman Empire: the Classical Age 1300-1600, (London: Phoenix
Press 1988),
————. Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi. İstanbul: Eren Yayınları, 1992.
————. “Military and Fiscal Transformation in the Ottoman Empire, 1600-1700.”

Archivum Ottomanicum 6 (1980), pp. 283-337.
————. “Tanzimat’ın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkiler”. Belleten, XXVIII/112

Ekim 1964.
————. “The Ottoman Dceline and Its Effects”, Aspects of the Balkans,
Continutity and Change. Contributions to the International Balkan
Conference held at UCLA, October 23-28 1969. ed. Henrik Birnbaun &
Speros Vryyonis Jr. Mouton. The Hague 1972.
————. “Rumeli”. Encyclopedia of Islam, CD version. VIII:607b.
İpek, Nedim. İmparatorluktan Ulus Devlete Göçler. Trabzon: Serander 2006.
Jelavich Charles and Barbara. The Establishment of the Balkan National States
1804–1920. Seattle-London: University of Washington Press 1986.
Karabinova, Diana. “A Late Attempt to Find an Integrative Approach Through

Common Secular Education: Midhat Paşa as a Governor of the Danube
Province (1864–1868)”. International Congress on Learning and
Education in the Ottoman World (12–15 April 1999, İstanbul). İstanbul:
IRCICA 2001.
Kocabaşoğlu, Uygur. “Tuna Vilayet Gazetesi”. OTAM 2. January 1991.
103
Koç, Bekir. “Midhat Paşa’nın Niş ve Tuna Vilayetlerindeki Yenilikçi Valiliği”,
Kebikeç, Sayı 18. Ankara: 2004.
————. Midhat Paşa 1822-1884. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Ankara University.

Institute of Social Sciences Ankara: 2002.
Koçer, Hasan Ali. Türkiye’de Modern Eğitimin Doğuşu ve Gelişimi (1773–1923).

Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi 1974.
Köksal, Yonca -Er Davut. “Tanzimat Döneminde Bulgaristan: Kıbrıslı Mehmed

Emin Paşa’nın Rumeli Teftişi”. Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet
Dönemi Türk-Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Eskişehir:
Odunpazarı Belediyesi Yayınları 2005.
Küçük Cevdet. “Osmanlılarda Millet Sistemi ve Tanzimat”, Tanzimat’tan

Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol. IV. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
1985.
Mithat, Ali Haydar. Hatıralarım 1872–1946. İstanbul: Güler Basımevi 1946.
————. Midhat Paşa: Hayat-ı Siyasiyesi, Hidemat, Menfa Hayatı. İstanbul: Hilal
matbaası 1909 (1325).
————. The Life of Midhat Pasha: A Record of His Services, Political Reforms,
Banishment and Judicial Murder. London: John Murray, Albemarle
Street W. 1903.
————. Midhat-Pacha; Sa Vie, Son Oeuvre. Par Son Fils, Ali Haydar Midhat,
Bey. Paris: Stock 1908.
Moshenin, A.N. “Pridunasyskaya Bulgaria (Dunayski Vilaet) [Danubian Bulgaria

(Danubian Vilayet)]. Slavyanskii Sbornik, Vol.II. Saint Petersburg 1877.
Moutafchieva, Vera. L’Anarchie dans les Balkans à la Fin du XVIIe Siècle. Istanbul:
ISIS 2005.
Neuburger, Mary. The Orient Within: Muslim Minorities and the Negotiation of
Nationhood in Modern Bulgaria. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2004.
Ortaylı, İlber. “Midhat Paşa’nın Vilayet Yönetimindeki Kadroları ve Politikası”.

Uluslararası Midhat Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler Tartışmalar Edirne: 8–10
Mayıs 1984. Ankara: TTK 1986.
————. Tanzimat Devrinde Osmanlı Mahalli İdareleri. Ankara: TTK 2000.
————. Türkiye İdare Tarihi. Ankara: Türkiye ve Orta Doğu Amme İdaresi
yayınları 1979.
————. İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003.
104
————.“Balkanlarda Milliyetçilik”, Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye
Ansiklopedisi, Vol. IV. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları 1985.
Özkaya, Yücel. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Dağlı İsyanları. Ankara: AÜDTCF

Yayınları 1983.
Pletnyov, Georgi. Midhat Paşa i Upravlenieto Na Dunavskiya Vilayet [Midhat Pasha

and His Governorship in the Danube Province]. Veliko Tarnova 1994.
Pundeff, Marin V.“Bulgarian Nationalism”, in Nationalism in Eastern Europe. edited

by Peter F. Sugar and Ivo John Lederer. Seattle&London: University of
Washington Press 1994.
Petrov, Milen. Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Pasa and the Vilayet of
Danube, 1864–1868. Unpublished PhD thesis Princeton University.
Department of Near Eastern Studies. Princeton: September 2006.
Rızaj, Skender.“Midhat Pasha’nın Rumeli’de Vilayetler Kurulmasındaki Rolü”.

Sakaoğlu, Necdet. Osmanlı’dan Günümüze Eğitim Tarihi. İstanbul: Bilgi

Üniversitesi Yayınları 2003.
Selimoğlu, İsmail. Osmanlı Yönetiminde Tuna Vilayeti 1864-1878. Unpublished PhD

Thesis. Ankara University. Institute of Social Sciences.Ankara: 1995.
Seyitdanlıoğlu Mehmet. Tanzimat Devrinde Meclis-i Vala (1838-1868). Ankara:

TTK 1996.
Shahvar, Soli. “Concession Hunting in the Age of Reform: British Companies and
the Search for Government Guarantees; Telegraph Concessions through
Ottoman Territories. 1855-58”. Middle Eastern Studies. Vol.38, No.4
October 2002.
Shaw Stanford J. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda Azınlıklar Sorunu”, Tanzimat’tan

Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, Vol. IV, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları
1985.
————. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. 2 Vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976.
————. “The Central Legislative Councils in the Nineteenth Century Ottoman

Reform Movement before 1876”. International Journal of Middle East
Studies. V.1, No.1. January 1970.
————. From Empire to Repulic. Vol.I. Ankara: TTK 2000.
Shaw, Ezel Kural. Midhat Pasha, Reformer orRevolutionary? His Administrative

Career and Contribution to the Constitution of 1876. Unpublished PhD
Thesis. Harvard University 1975.
105
————. “Midhat Paşa”. Tanzimat’tan Cumhuriyet’e Türkiye Ansiklopedisi, IV.
İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları 1985.
Somel, Selçuk Akşin. “Maarif Müdürü Radovişli Mustafa Bey’in Raporları ve

müslim ve gayrimüslim eğitimi: II.Abdülhamid devri Selanik taşrasında
maarif meselesi (1885-1886). Tarih ve Toplum Yeni Yaklaşımlar 2. Güz
2005.
Şimşir, Bilal N. Fransız Belgelerine Göre Midhat Paşa’nın Sonu. Ankara: Ayyıldız
1970.
————. The Turks of Bulgaria (1878-1985). Oxford: K. Rustem and Brother Ltd.
1988.
————. “Midhat Paşa’nın İkinci Sadrazamlığı ve İngiltere”. Uluslararası Midhat

Paşa Semineri: Bildiriler Tartışmalar Edirne: 8–10 Mayıs 1984. Ankara:
TTK 1986.
Todorov Nikolai. The Balkan City, 1400–1900. Seattle-London: University of

Washington Press 1983.
Todorova, Maria N. Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1997.
Turan Ömer. The Turkish Minority in Bulgaria. Ankara: TTK, 1998.
Uzunçarşılı, İsmail Hakkı. Midhat Paşa ve Taif Mahkûmları. Ankara: TTK 1950.
————. Midhat Paşa ve Yıldız Mahkemesi. Ankara: TTK 1967.
————. Midhat ve Rüştü Paşaların Tevkiflerine Dair Vesikalar. Ankara: TTK

1946.
Yazıcı, Nesimi.“Balkanlar’da İlk Osmanlı Telgraf Hatları”, Balkanlar’da İslam

Medeniyeti Milletlerarası Sempozyumu Tebliğleri Sofya, Nisan 21–23,
2000. İstanbul: IRCICA 2002.
Yücel,Yaşar “Midhat Paşa’nın Bağdat Vilayeti’ndeki Alt Yapı Yatırımları”,

Zaimova, Raia. “The Sultan’s Subjects at the Ottoman Imperial School after the
Crimean War”. Uluslararası Osmanlı ve Cumhuriyet Dönemi Türk-
Bulgar İlişkileri Sempozyumu 11-13 Mayıs 2005. Eskişehir: Odunpazarı
Belediyesi Yayınları 2005.
Zürcher Eric J. Turkey: A Modern History, London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd., 1997.
106
APPENDICES
Appendix I: The District Centers of the Danube Province (1864)
107
Appendix II: The Adminitsrative Units of the Danube Province1
Rusçuk (Ruse) District Tulça (Tulcea) District Vidin District Niş (Nish) District
Rusçuk (Ruse) Kazası Tulça (Tulcea) Kazası Vidin Kazası Niş (Nish) Kazası
Berkofça (Berkovitsa)
Silistre (Silistra) Kazası Köstence (Constanta) Kazası Şehirköy (Pirot) Kazası
Kazası
Şumnu (Shumen) Kazası Babadağ (Babadag) Kazası Lom Kazası İvraniye (Vranje) Kazası
Hezargrad (Razgrad) Rohova (Oriakhova) Leskofçe (Leskovac)
Sünne (Sulina) Kazası
Kazası Kazası Kazası
Ürgüb (Prokuplje)
Ziştovi (Svishtov) Kazası Maçin (Macin)Kazası Adliye (Kula) Kazası
Kazası
Niğbolu (Nikopol) Kazası Hırsova (Hirsova) Kazası İvraca (Vratsa) Kazası İznebol (Trun)Kazası
Belgradcık Kurşunlu (Kursumlija)
Plevne (Pleven) Kazası Mecidiye (Medgidia) Kazası
(Belogradchik) Kazası Kazası
Cuma-i Atik Kili (Chilia Velche)
Adakale Nahiyesi Palanka Nahiyesi
(Turgovishte) Kazası Nahiyesi
Mahmudiye (Mahmudia)
Tutrakan Kazası
Nahiyesi
Yenipazar (Novi Pazar)
İsakça (Isaccea) Nahiyesi
Nahiyesi
Boğazköy (Cernevoda)
Nahiyesi
Sofya (Sofia) District Tırnova (Turnovo) District Varna District
Sofya (Sofia) Kazası Tırnova (Turnovo) Kazası Varna Kazası
Köstendil (Kiustendil)
Lofça (Lovech) Kazası Pazarcık Kazası
Kazası
Samako (Samakov) Osman Pazarı (Omurtag)
Balçık (Balchik) Kazası
Kazası Kazası
Dubnice (Dupnitsa) Pravadi (Provadia)
Gabrova (Gabrovo) Kazası
Kazası Kazası
Radomir (Botevgrad) Mankaliye
Selvi (Selvievo) Kazası
Kazası (Mankalia)Kazası
Koçluca (Suvorovo)
Orhaniye Kazası Elena Nahiyesi
Nahiyesi
Diranova (Drianovo)
İzlade (Zlatitsa) Kazası
Nahiyesi
Cuma (Blagoevgrad)
Travna (Triavna) Nahiyesi
Kazası
İhtiman (ikhtiman)
Bebrovo Nahiyesi
Nahiyesi
Preznik (Breznik) Rahovitça (Gorna
Nahiyesi Oriakhovitsa) Nahiyesi
Etrepol (Etropole)
Turyan (Troian) Nahiyesi
Nahiyesi
Teteven Nahiyesi Kazgan (Kotel) Nahiyesi
1
Tuna Vilayet Salnamesi no: 9-10 cited by İsmail Selimoğlu, Osmanlı Devleti’nde Tuna Vilayeti
(1864-1878), pp.141-142. Compare with Milen Petrov, Tanzimat for The Countryside: Midhat Paşa
and the Vilayet of Danube, p.53
108
Appendix III: The Road Lines Constructed in the Danube Province between
1864 and 1868
109
Appendix IV: Ethnic/religous group percentages per city (1866)2
Muslim Catholic
City Bulgarian Muslim Immigrant Roma Armenian Jewish /other
Ruse 37.6 51.8 - 2.2 3.7 4.7 -
Shumen 40.4 51.4 - 1.2 4.8 2.2 -
Pleven 47.3 45.1 - 5.2 - 2.4 -
Vidin 34.1 51.6 - 6.2 - 8.1 -
Varna 7.8 28.8 - 1.3 7.9 0.7 41.63
Sofia 37.6 38.7 - 4.0 - 19.7 -
Tûrnovo 65.0 33.2 - 1.8 - - -
Vratsa 73.2 24.0 - 1.7 - 2.0 -
Svishtov 57.1 37.9 - 5.0 - - -
Samokov 65.9 25.3 - 3.9 - 4.9 -
Dobrich 11.6 32.5 48.5 4.0 3.4 0.1 -
Tulcea 28.6 5.1 5.3 0.8 2.8 7.9 49.54
Lovech 36.2 60.3 - 3.5 - - -
Razgrad 27.5 67.6 - 3.8 - 1.1 -
Tûrgovishte 34.7 62.9 - 2.4 - - -
2
Data taken from Milen Petrov, Tanzimat for The Countryside: Midhat Paşa and the Vilayet of
Danube, p. 47.
3
Greeks and Turkish speaking Christians (Gagauzes).
4
Most of the others listed in this column would have belonged to Greek and Romanian communities
and a smattering of small groups such as Ukranian Cossaks and Russian Old Believers (Lipovan)
110
Appendix V: Overall Population Figures5
Total males Total population

Districts
(AH 1285 Salname) (sex ratio = 100M:95.6F)
Ruse 234,526 458,733
Varna 79,458 155,42
Vidin 149,905 293,214
Sofia 171,505 335,464
Tûrnovo 175,918 344,096
Tulcea 57,062 111,613
Nish 155,135 317,41
Totals 1,023,509 2,015,950
5
Data taken from Milen Petrov, Tanzimat for The Countryside: Midhat Paşa and the Vilayet of
Danube, p.37.
111
Appendix VI: Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali1
“Şehid-i hürriyet Midhat Paşa merhumun Rusya ile icra ettiğimiz 1293
harbine müteakib Londra’da iken bir İngiliz gazetesiyle neşr ettikleri makale-i
mühimmenin tercümesidir.”
Şark meselesinin Avrupa âmal ve menâfiine muvâfık bir suretde halline
intizâr edenler, zuhur eden her dürlü teşevvüşat karşısında bugün yanılmalarının
sebebi, aldanışlarının sebeb-i hakikisi hakikat halde neden ibaret bulunduğunu
anlamağa çalışmalıdırlar.
Bence bunun sebebi yegânesi, Devlet-i Osmaniye’yi teşkil eden akvâm-ı
muhtelîfenin tebâyi’ine, âdat ve âmâline, Devlet-i Osmaniye’nin vaziyet-i coğrafiye
ve etnografiyesi ile vekâyi-i tarihiye dair ezmine-i muhtelifede istihsal olunan
haberlerin mübhem ve nâ-tamam elde edilen malûmatın mütenakız ve gayri vazıh
olmasından ibaretdir.
Filhakika malûmat-ı mezkûre, siyaset, din ve teşkilat-ı ictimâiyye gibi üç
nokta-i nazardan yek diğeriyle kâbil-i telif olmayan ecnâs-ı muhtelifenin efkâr ve
temayülât-ı muhsusasına nazaran tebeddül etmekdedir. Hakikat-i hal ise ara sıra bu
te’sirat-ı mütezaddeye düçâr olarak ekseriya gayri malûm kalmakda veyahud
mübhem ve gayri mekşûf bir ziyâ-i hakikat altında nümâyân olmakdadır.
Fakat âmal ve menâfii, efkâr ve ihtirasâtın müsâdemât-ı dâimesi ortasında
yekdiğeriyle te’lif kabul etmeyen akvâmdan her birinin kendi menâfiine olmak üzere
nasıl ki efkâr-ı âmmeye karşı dâima mütenakız malûmat vücuda getirmesi tabii ise,
Türkiye’yi ömründe görmemiş veyahud Türkiyeyi ziyaret ederek hüküm edecegi
mesâile dair açık ve vazıh bir fikir peyda edinceye kadar Türkiye’de ikâmet etmemiş
muharrirlerin yazmış oldukları eserlerde dâima hakikate tekarrüb edememiş
olmalarını da nazar-ı taaccüble görmemelidir. Binaenaleyh hiç şübhe yokdur ki,
Şark’dan bahs edebilmek için Şark’ı iyi tanımak lazım olduğu gibi Şark’a müteallik
mesâile dair sâlim bir hüküm ita edebilmek için de hâdisât-ı şarkiyye üzerine
malûmât-ı mevsûkeye mâlik olmak iktiza eder.
1
Midhat Pasha’s famous article published in London, in May 1878. It was published in French and
English. “La Turquie: son Passé, son présent, son avenir”, La Revue Scientifique, 2e série 7, no. 49
(June 8, 1878), pp.1149-1154; “The Past, Present and Future of Turkey”, The Nineteenth Century 3,
no. 16 (June 1878), pp. 981-993. Later on it was translated to Ottoman Turkish as “Türkiye’nin Mazisi
ve İstikbali”, by Ahmet Refik, (Istanbul: Tab’ı ve Naşiri Kitabhane-i İslam ve Askeri, Artin
Asaduryan Matbaası, 1326 (1908–1909). This is the transliteration of the one in Ottoman Turkish.
112
Yakın vakte gelinceye kadar saffet-i kalb sahibi bazı kimseler, Rusya’nın
cesim bir harbi göze aldırmak fedakârlığında bulunması, sırf Şark Hıristiyanlarının
ıslah-ı hâli maksadına matuf olduğuna zâhib olmuşlardı.
Acaba Rusya’nın maksadı yalnız bundan mı ibaret idi? Bu bahane altıda şerh
ve izahata hacet olmayan daha sâir mekâsıd da mevcut değil mi idi? Bugün harbin
hâdisât-ı âhiresi bütün hakikati sahâ-i aleniyete çıkarmış olduğundan bu bâbda ne
dürlü mülâhazada bulunmak lazım geleceğini herkes bilir.
Fakat düşmanlarımız Hıristiyanların dâima esaret altında bulunduklarını ve
onları marûz bulundukları bâri-t tahakkümden kurtarmak Avrupa’nın vazifesi
bulunduğunu iddia etmekden hâli kalmadıkları gibi birçok kimseler de
Hıristiyanların hakikaten böyle bir muâmele gördüklerine zâhib olduklarından,
Türkiye’de Müslümanlarla Hıristiyanlar beyninde mevcud münâsebatdan ve bilhassa
da hükümetin teb’a-i gayr-i Müslimesi hakkındaki muâmelâtında tâkib eylediği
meslekden bahs ederek bu ithâmâtın hata olduğunu isbât etmek iktiza eder.
Sevâbık-ı tarihiyeye nazar etmek ahvâli büsbütün meydana çıkarabilir.
Evvela şurasını bast ve temhîd edelim ki, diyânet-i İslamiye müsâvât ve
hürriyet üzerine müessesdir. Devlet-i Osmaniye’nin usul ve idaresi ise bu kâide
üzerine te’sis edilmişdir. Bunun içün bilcümle teb’a-i Osmaniye nazarından hür ve
müsâvidir.
İşte yine bu kâideye mebnidir ki kâffe-i edyân Memalik-i Osmaniye’de her
zaman taht-ı emniyetde bulunmuşlar. Gerek icrâ-yi âyin ve gerek idare-i
ruhaniyelerinin menâfiini istedikleri gibi idarede son derece serbest bırakılmışlardır.
Bundan başka, malumdur ki din-i İslam âmir-i adalet olduğu gibi dâire-i adâletinden
inhiraf edeni de en şedid mücazât ile tehdid eder.
Müessesin-i Saltanat-ı Osmaniye muvaffakiyat-ı harikuladeyi silahlarının
kuvve-i kâhiresinden ziyâde herkes içün ve herkes hakkında izhâr eyledikleri adâlet
sayesinde iktisâb eylemişlerdir. Anlar nüfuz-u ibtidâiyelerini adâlet sayesinde tevsî
eylemişler ve silahlarıyla taarruz etmedikleri memleketleri manen feth ve zabt ederek
nüfuzlarını bütün civar memâlike isâl eylemişlerdir. İşte, te’sir-i adâlet bu derece bir
azamet göstermiştir.
Rumeli kıt’ası kabzâ-i Osmaniyâne geçtiği zaman Hıristiyanlara cebren
İslamiyeti kabul etdirmek bu koca fatihlerin yed-i iktidarlarında idi: anlar kat’iyyen
buna tevessül etmediler. Takib etdikleri desâtir-i necibâne dâhil dâire-i hükümetleri
113
olan akvâmın efkâr ve vicdanı üzerine hiçbir te’sir, hiçbir tazyik icrâ etmemege
anları mecbur ediyordu.
İşte bunun içün Osmanlılar idâre-i ruhaniyeleri umûrunu istedikleri gibi idâre
etmek ve hükümetin hiçbir kontrolü altında bulunmamak üzere istedikleri gibi
mektebler te’sis eylemek imtiyâzâtını, mağlublara her zaman bahş eyledikleri gibi
dinlerini, lisanlarını ve mallarını da muhafaza eylemelerine müsaade etmişlerdir.
Padişahlarımız bu güne kadar her dürlü mezâhibin hâmisi bulunmak ve olmakla
iftihâr edebilirler. Hatta o derece ki muhafaza-i edyân hususundaki müsamahamız
misilli sâir hükmüne girmişdir.
Padişahların Hıristiyanlar hakkındaki riayetine bir misal irade etmek içün
müddeiyatıma esas olmak üzere iki vakıa-yı tarihiye zikr edeceğim.
Fatih Sultan Mehmed Han-ı Sâni İstanbul’u feth ederek intizamı iade, afv-ı
umûmiye ilân eyledikten sonra bir dîvan akd edilmesini emr etmiş ve bu dîvana Rum
Patrikini davet eylemişdi. Hatta Patrik-i istikbal içün bütün vüzerâsını göndermişdi.
O zamanlar padişah, hiçbir kimseye ve hele mağlub bir milletin reis-i ruhaniyesine
kat’iyyen ayağa kalkmazdı. Fakat Fatih bu sefer bütün kaideyi lağv etmiş, ve
mevkiinden kalkub Patrik’e doğru on adım ilerlemiş, Patrik’in elinden tutarak anı
yanına oturtmuş, nüfuz-u ruhaniyesinin ihyâsına alâmet olmak üzere bir de âsâ
vermişdir ki, bu âsâ hatta bugün bile müdebdeb âyinler esnasında Patrik’in önünde
bir papas tarafından taşınılmaktadır.
Yine aynı padişah daha sonralar, İstanbul’da te’sis eylediği mahkemelerin
İslamlarla Hıristiyanlara aynı suretde muâmele edüb etmedügünü anlamak ve
sübhesiz akvâm-ı mağlubeyi henüz alışmadıkları bir davadan dolayı kalblerine
gelecek korkudan vikâye etmek içün, kendisine erbâb-ı vukuf ve malûmatdan iki
papas tavsiye etmesini rica etmiş ve anlara bütün muâmelâtdan kendisini haberdar
etmelerini tenbih ederek bazıların rivayetine göre bir sene, bazıların rivayetine göre
de üç sene müddetle mezkur mahkemelerin teftişine memur eylemişdir.
Rivayete göre papaslar vazifelerini ifa eyledikten sonra zât-ı padişahîye
beyan-ı malûmât içün saraya gelmişler ve takdim etdikleri raporda ber vech-i âti
ifâdâtda bulunmuşlardır.
“Zât-ı Padişahîleri tarafından hükümetin eyâletlerinde te’sis buyurulan
mahkemelerde buradaki gibi îfa-i vazife eder ve bu halde devam edecek olursa, zât-ı
Şâhâneleri emin olsunlar ki, şanlı ve satvetli hükümetleri pek az bir zaman içinde
mertebe-i kusvâ-i şerife vâsıl olacak müddet-i hükümetleri medîd ve teb’a-yı
114
sâdıkalarının refah ve saadeti bî-pâyân olacakdır.” Hükümet-i Osmaniye icrâ-yı
adâletle nüfuzunu te’sis ve tahkim eyledigi sırada Avrupa’nın bir ucundan öbür
ucuna kadar bütün akvâm harb ve ihtilâl ile tevellüd eden mesâib içinde pûyan
oluyorlardı.
Akvam-ı Garbiye ve Şimaliye henüz hal-i vahşetden kutulmamışlardı. Bu
sebebden dolayı tafradan fevc fevc gelen mülteciler Memalik-i Osmaniye’ye dehâlet
ediyor, Osmanlılardan melce ve himâye taleb ediyorlardı. Mezâlim ve istibdaddan
kurtulmak içün birçok Yahudilerin İspanya’dan firar etdikleri; Ermenilerin mezâlim-i
nâ-lâyıka giriftâr olmamak ve Kazakların da Rusya esaretinden kurtulmak içün
geldikleri tarih mütalaa edenlerce malûmdur.
İşte bütün bu muhâcirîn, hürriyetlerini ancak Osmanlı toprağında
bulabiliyorlardı. Anlara izhâr olunan mihmân-nüvâzilik, anlara bahş edilen himâye,
bugün bu muhâcirîn evlâd ve ahfâdının da aynı imtiyazâta mâlik olduklarını,
düşmanlarımızın da tasdik kerdesi olduğu üzere aynı saadet-i hakikiyeye mazhar
bulunduklarını tahattur etdirmelidir.
Muhtasaran beyân eylediğim şu hal, onsekizinci asra kadar devam etdi. Bu
müddet esnasında Avrupa intizam kesb etmiş, tedrîcen tarik-i terakkiye dâhil olmağa
başlamışdı. Bu asrın evâhirine doğru metîn ve pâyidâr bir gayret, medeniyet-i
hazıra’ya bir terakkî-yi cedîd bahş ediyor. Hükümetlerin şekil ve tabiatını
degiştiyordu. Fakat Devleti-i Osmaniye, icrâ olunan projelerin mükemmeliyetini ve
memlekete bir hatve ileri atdırmak ihtiyacını idrâk edecek zevâtın fıkdânından dolayı
hâl-i tevakkufda kalmış ve nizâmât-ı kadîmesi büsbütün duçâr-ı iğtişaş olarak tebdîl-i
usûl ve mesleke fevkalade muhtac bulunmuş olduğu halde nizâmât-ı kadîmesinden
hiçbir şey tebdil etmemişdi. İhtilâlât-ı dâhiliye ile Rusya’ya karşı icra edilen
harblerden dolayı hükümetin kuvve-i mâddiyesi de perişan olmuşdu.
İşte bu suretle günden güne duçâr-ı zaaf olarak asırlarca dünyanın en
muazzam hükümetlerinden mâdud olduğu halde derece-i saniyede hükümetler
sırasına tenezzül eylemişdi.
Avrupa medeniyeti, nizâmât-ı cedîde ile iktisâb eyledigi hürriyetlerin zalâl-ı
dilarâmından azâmet ve i’tilâ-i kesb eyledigi sırada bu nimetlerden külliyen mahrum
olan Türkiye, kuvvâsının tenâkus etdigini görüyor ve duçâr olacağı tehlikeleri bizzat
idrâk etmege başlıyordu.
İşte bu tehlikelere meydan verilmemek ve hükümete şevket-i sâbıkasını iâde
etmek içün Reşîd, Âli, Fuad ve daha sair zevât gibi ricâl-i hükümet-i Osmaniye,
115
hükümet-i nizâmât-ı cedîdeye nâil ederek idare-i sâbıka suistimâlâtını mahv etmege
çalışdılar.
Vakıa tamamıyla ihrâz-ı muvaffakiyet edemediler ise de, mesâileri yine akîm
kalmadı, Türkiye’nin son harbinden evvelki hâli bundan otuz sene evvelki hâliyle
mukayese edilirse, memleketde husule gelen tebeddülat-ı nafıa kâmilen tezahür eder.
Bu tebeddül başka memleketde bir asırlık mesâi neticesinde bile kuvveden
fiile gelemeyecek derecede şayan-ı hayretdir. Fakat etrafımızda vukua gelen
terakkiyat o derece seri olduğundan bu ıslahat az zaman içinde gayri kâfi bir halde
bulunmuşdur.
Halbuki memleketde ıslahat icra olunduğu halde ahâli arasında bir nevi
adem-i memnuniyet hüküm-fermâ olarak bazı şikâyetlere sebebiyet veriyor, bu
şikâyetler de Hıristiyanlar vasıtasıyla Avrupa’ya neşr ediliyordu.
Acaba bu adem-i memnuniyet neden neş’et ediyordu, bu şikayetlerin esbâbı
neden ibaretdi? Hıristiyanlar müsâvat-ı tâmmeye mazhar olmuyorlar diye mi?
Hâlbuki ıslahat icra olunduğu andan itibaren Hıristiyanların ahvâli his olunacak
derecede dahi her dürlü intizarın fevkinde ıslah edilmişdi. İçlerinden birçoğu
hükümetin en mühim memuriyetlerine kabul edilmişlerdi; müdüriyyetlerde,
mehâkimde, umur-u hükümetde ifâ-yi vazife ediyorlar, fazla olarak İslamların nâil
olamadıkları bazi imtiyâzâta da mazhar olmuş bulunuyorlardı.
Acaba bunlar hakikaten iddia olunduğu gibi Müslümanlardan şiddetli bir
tazyik görüyolar mıydı? Buna inanmak hatadır. Hıristiyanlar suistimâlât-ı idareden
müteessir oluyor idi iseler, bunların ıztırabâtına Müslümanlar da hedef oluyor, hâl-i
hazırın tebdilini şiddetle arzu ediyorlardı.
Fakat bâlâda beyan etdigim vechile bu ıztırâbâtdan şikayet eden en ziyade
Hıristiyanlar olduğu içün Avrupa yalnız Hıristiyanların meşakkat çekdigine zâhib
oluyordu.
Acaba Şark’dan ara sıra sudûr iden bu şikâyât-ı müttehidenin sebeb-i hakikisi
neden ibaretdi? Bunun izahı pek basitdir: Bâbıâli elîm, fakat kendisi içün medâr-ı
iftihâr bir tezâdd eseri olarak ecnâs-ı Hıristiyaniyeye İslamlardan daha ziyade bir
hürriyet, daha ziyade vesâit-i tedrisiyye bahş etmişdi, hükümetimizin düşman-ı
kadîmleri ise bu halden kemal maharetle istifade ederek ecnâs-ı mezkûreden
bazılarına efkâr-ı infirâdperverâne telkin etmege muvaffak olmuşlardır.
Bunun içün, Avrupa’da Hıristiyanlar tarafından işidilen şikâyetler hakikaten
Müslümanlar tarafından icra edilen tazyikât ve mezâlimden neş’et etmiyor, bunların
116
mukaddemâ lisana almağa cür’et etmedikleri âmâl ve ihtirâsâtın tahrik edilmiş
olmasından ileri geliyordu.
Binaenaleyh, ıslahata teşebbüs olunduğu zaman, daha bidayetde bütün bu
anasırı yekdigeriyle birleşdirecek vechile anları metânet bahş ve mahiyye-i hayat bir
idare etrafına toplamak ve bu ecnâs-ı muhtelifeyi telkînât-ı hariciyeye karşı ademü-t
teessür bir hale getirecek bir vatan-ı müşterek vücuda getirmek lazımdı. Bu vazife ise
Türkiye’de idare-i meşrûta ilan olunduğu sırada meclis-i Meclis-i Mebusan’ın
görüldügü üzere pek müşekkeldi.
Bundan başka, bir tarafdan Rusya da müşkilât-ı cedîde ikâ etmekden hâli
kalmıyordu.
Rusya hükümeti, 1854 senesinde bizimle harb etmek içün Kaynarca
Muahedesine müracaat etdigi gibi, 1856 Muahedesini mahvetmek içün de daha
müdhiş ve daha sehlü-l isti’mâl yeni bir silaha müracaat etmişdi, o da Islav ittihadı
idi.
Kâffe-i desâisinde mahirâne hareket eden Rus diplomasisi bir tarafdan
vazifesini ifâ eyledigi gibi, diger tarafdan da Balkanlara tohum-u nifak saçmak içün
komitalara itimâd ediyordu.
Osmanlı toprağı müttefiklerin kıtâatından tahliye edildigi günün hemen ertesi,
Prens Gorçakof bu Bulgarların hükümet-i Osmaniyeden tazyik gördüklerini beyan
etmek içün bir nota gönderiyordu.
O zaman bir tahkikat icrâ edilmiş, fakat böyle bir şey vukua gelmedigi
tezâhür etmişdi.
Yine bu sıralarda Çerkeslerle Tatarlar memleketlerinden çıkarılarak
Türkiye’de yerleşmişlerdi. Rusya hükümeti bu fırsatdan istifade ederek “Babıâli’nin
Çerkesleri yerlerine yerleşdirmek içün Bulgarları memleketlerinden çıkarmakdır”
diye Hıristiyanları iğfâl etmiş ve Bulgarları (Vidin) cihetlerine doğru muhaceret
etmege teşvik eylemişdi.
İşte o zaman yirmi bin kişi bu vesâyâya kapılarak, güzel güzel vaadlara fer-
yafte olan memleketlerinden çıkmışlar; fakat az bir zaman sonra Devlet-i Âlîyeden
tekrar yerlerine gelmelerini taleb eylemişlerdir. Bu bîçareler ellerinde bulunan cüz’i
bir meblağı da beyhude yere sarf etmiş olduklarından hükümet bunları sevk etmek
içün vapur tedârik etmege, ve kendilerine iâde olunan tarlaların zirâi içün öküz ve
âlat-ı zirâiye vermege mecbur olmuşdur.
117
1865 ve 1866 senelerinde, Rusya’da teşkil olunan çeteler Bulgaristan’da
ihtilal zuhura getirmek içün Kişinev ve Bükreş tarikiyle Bulgaristan’a geldiler.
Ziştovi civarında Tuna’dan geçerek Tırnovi ile Selvi arasında Balkanlara kadar
ilerlediler. Fakat Bulgarlar tarafından hiçbir muavenet göremeyince ahâlinin mazhar-
ı muaveneti olan jandarmalar tarafından mağlub ve perişan edildiler. Burada şunu da
ihtar edeyim ki, bu çetelerin ilk geçişlerinde irtikâb etdikleri en birinci cinayet;
yolları üzerinde gezinen sekiz on yaşlarında beş bîçare İslam çocuğunu katl
etmekden ibaret olmuşdur.
Filhakika bu müdhiş cinayetden maksad ahâli-yi İslamiyeyi Hıristiyanlara
karşı ahz-ı sâra teşvik etmek ve memleketi ihtilale vererek Avrupa’da Hıristiyanların
Türkler tarafından tazyik ve telef edildikleri zannını hâsıl eylemek içün bunun
netâyicinden istifade etmek idi. Fakat Müslümanlar buna karşı hiç seslerini
çıkarmayınca, muharriklerin planı kâmilen akîm kaldı.
Komitalar, bu hali görünce manevralarını tebdil etmege mecbur oldular.
Eskiden yapdıkları gibi Bulgar çocuklarını talim ve terbiye içün muallimler
gönderecek yerde, her sene ahâli-yi Hıristiyaniye meyânından birçok çocuklar
intihab etdiler. Çocuklar Rusya’ya gönderiliyor, avdetlerinde ise memleketlerinde
ittihad-ı Islav fikrini tâmim ediyorlardı. Bütün bu haller, Rusya’nın Dersaadet sefiri
Rum kilisesinden ayrı olmak üzere milli bir Bulgar Kilisesi açılmak içün ferman
istihsaline muvaffak olduğu zamanda vâki oluyordu.
Fakat maksadım ne Rus diplomasisinin aleyhimizde yapdığı şeyleri beyan
etmek, ne de komitalar tarafından icra edilüb bütün âlemin bildigi şeyleri tekrar
eylemekdir.
Yalnız isterdim ki, ihtilâlât ve isyanların Sultan Abdülaziz’in son
senelerindeki garabetin, sarayın masârifât-ı mecnûnânesinin, bundan dolayı husûle
gelen netâyic-i elîmenin, hâsılı birbirini müteakib üzerimize çöken felaket ve
musibetlerin az çok aynı mebâdan neş’et etdigini herkes bilsin!
Keza harbden evvelki ahvâle dair de bir şey söylemek istemem: Bunlar zaten
malûm olduğu gibi izah ve tafsile ihtiyac göstermeyecek derecede de yenidir. Yalnız,
İstanbul Konferansından bir nebze bahs etmek içün şunu beyan edebilirim ki, 9 Eylül
tarihinde Petersburg ceride-i resmiyesinde prens Gorçakof tarafından neşredilen
tamim-i siyasi zeylinin birinci fıkrası kemâl dikkatle mütalaa edilecek olursa, Rusya
hükümetinin İstanbul Konferansı ile Ayastefanos muahedesinde dermeyan eyledigi
118
şeyler beyninde hiç fark olmadığı görülüyor ki, bunu 1 Nisan tarihli varakalarında
Marki Salisbury cenabları da teslim eylemişlerdir.
O halde Rusya hükümetinin muzaffer olduğu halde Avrupa’ya güçle kabul
etdirebilecegi bir şeye Türkiye’nin derhal muvâfakat etmeyecegini tabii olarak
söyleyebiliriz. Zaten hiç bir hükümet, bir millet yokdur ki bu şerâiti kabul etsin.
Bunu bizim de kabul etmeyecegimiz tabiidir; zira bütün ahâli her ne suretle olursa
olsun haysiyet ve menâfini müdafaa etmek istiyor, beş yüz bin asker muharebe
emrine intizar ederek vatan içün feda-i can etmek şerefini temenni eyliyordu.
İngiltere hükümetinin, hakkında ne gibi tedabir ittihaz eyledigini Türkiye
bilmiyor degildi. İngiltere kabinesi mücâdelâtımıza karışmayacağını açıkdan açığa
beyan etmişdi. Biz bu kararı pek iyi biliyorduk. Keza Avrupa menâfi-i umumiyesi ile
İngiltere menâfi-i hususiyesinin Rusya ile vukuu bulan mücâdelâtımıza son derece
merbût olduğunu, İngiltere kabinesi her ne kadar bu suretle beyânâtda bulunmuş ise
de İngiltere’nin er geç bu meseleye karışmaması imkân haricinde bulunduğunu da
pekâlâ biliyorduk. Bu itimad-ı fevkalade, bâlâda beyan eyledigimiz esbaba inzimam
ederek Rusya ile icra edecegimiz muharebenin nukat-ı esâsiyesinden birini teşkil
eylemişdir. Hatta İngiltere hükümetinin bilahare vukuu bulan hareketi, Osmanlı
nazarının istidâlâtını tamamen kuvveden fiile çıkarmış, filhakika anların hissetdikleri
gibi İngiltere hükümeti müdahale etmiş ise de tahminlerden pek geç bir zamanda
müdahale eylemişdir.
İşte bu mütalaatdan da müsteban oluyor ki Rusya hükümetinin şarkdaki
politikasının yegâne muharriki Hıristiyanların İslamlar tarafından tazyik eyledigini
vesile ederek Rusya’nın Hıristiyanlara karşı daima icra etmek istedigi hakk-ı
himayeden başka bir şey degildir.
Rusya hükümeti Avrupa’ya karşı hep bu fikri ileri sürmüş ve anı bize karşı
daima bir silah olarak istimal eylemişdir. Fakat bu bâbdaki efkârı tebdile bâdi olan
bir şey varsa, o da Avrupa’nın cenub-u şarkî cihetlerinde mütemekkin Hıristiyan
unsurunun komitalar tarafından istimal olunan nüfuz, elîm mefsedetle beraber bir
takım siyasi nüfuzlar altında da bulunarak bazı defalar daire-i meşruiyetden harice
çıkması ve iddia olunduğu gibi İdare-i Osmaniye’nin suistimâlâtından kurtulmakdan
ziyade Islav ittihadı fikrini neşr ve tamim içün vesait-i şedide istimal eylemsidir.
Vakıa bu suistimâlât isyana vesile olmuyor degil. Fakat en son vekâyi tamamıyla
isbat etmişdir ki, bu isyanlar suistimâlâtı mahv ve izale etmekden ziyade imtiyaz ve
istiklâl elde etmek içün icra edilmekdedir. Fakat bu meyanda yalnız Bulgarlar
119
müstesnadır; Çünki anlar kimin eline düşmüşlerse daima körü körüne istimal edilmiş
bir alet makamına kâim olmuşlardır.
Binaenaleyh bu bâbda arzu edilen ve kemâl şiddetle takib olunan nokta, Islav
ittihadını vücuda getirmek içün hükümetin kuvve-yi mevcûdesini parçalamakdan,
Prut’dan Karadeniz Boğazı’na, Karadeniz’den Adriyatik denizine kadar teessüs eden
büyük bir hükümetin nüfuz ve te’sirinden başka bir şey degildir.
İşte Avrupa’nın mucib-i hıras olacak bir tahakküm-ü umûmi usûlünü ifham
eden bu menfaat-ı azîme-i siyasiye karşısında menâfi-i Hıristiyaniye kâmilen ortadan
kalkmakda veya az çok te’sirini zâyi eylemekdedir. Bunun en âşikâr delili de
Ayastefanos muahedesi imza olunur olunmaz Rusya’nın bize karşı âsar-ı muhabbet
izhar eylemesidir.
Rusya’nın Avrupa’ya karşı bizimle ittifak etmege ne derecelerde müsaraat
eyledigi ve bizimle icra etmiş olduğu harbi sırf Avrupa içün ve Hıristiyanlara
muhabbetinden dolayı icra etmekde olduğuna Avrupa’yı ne dürlü zâhib etmiş
bulunduğu herkesin malûmudur.
Fakat sırf mâzi ile halden şikâyet etmek kifâyet etmez. En ziyade âtiyi de
düşünmek iktizâ eder. Acaba hâli nasıl ıslâh etmeli, bu gibi hallerde ne vesâit istimal
eylemeli?
Şimdiki halde bu sualin çâre-i hâli pek çok: Daha doğrusu vaziyetin
müşkilâtından ve Avrupa’nın duçâr olduğu maraz-ı umûminin sebeb-i yegânesini
teşkil eden bir meseleyi büsbütün kapatmak hususunda zarurî ve meşru bu suretde
hissedilen ihtiyacdan dolayı elyevm bir feverân-ı tasavvurât mevcuddur.
Memleketin hâli hazırında bir gerginlik peydâ olmasından biz de alâkadarız.
Bu hâl Türkiye’nin bedbaht ahâlisi içün artık gayr-ı kâbil-i tahammül bir hâle
gelmişdir. Vaktiyle müterakki ve mesud olan vatanımız, şimdi harâbezâr halindedir.
Bu hâlin bir dâire-i hak ve adalet dâhilinde izâlesi elzemdir.
Ben bu hususda bir çâre-i hal dermeyân edecegimi iddia edemem; fakat
birçok seneler Tuna eyaletlerinde valilik etdigimden elyevm her ne suretle olursa
olsun Türkiye’nin te’min-i saadeti ile meşgul olanların nazar-ı dikkatini celb etmek
üzere izahat-ı muhtasarada bulunarak Rumeli ve Bulgaristan hakkında bazı
mülahazat dermeyân etmekligim çok görülmez zannederim
Evvela şunu nazar-ı dikkate almalıdır ki, bugün en ziyade nazar-ı dikkate
alınan Bulgarlar meyanında bir milyondan ziyade İslam vardır.
120
Tatarlar ve Çerkesler bu meyanda dâhil degildir. Bu İslamlar öyle
zannedildigi gibi Asya’dan gelüb Bulgaristan’da birleşmemişlerdir. Bunlar devr-i
istilâda ve âna takib eyleyen seneler zarfında şeref-i İslam ile teşerrüf eden
Bulgarların ahfâdıdır.
Bunlar aynı memleketin, aynı tabakadan neş’et etmiş aynı cinsin evlâdlarıdır.
Bunların içinde birçokları vardır ki Bulgarcadan başka bir lisan tekellüm etmezler.
Bu milyonlarca insanları yurdlarından çıkarub vatanlarından baîd mahallere
göndermek, bence en büyük bir insaniyetsizlikden madûddur. Böyle bir hareket ne
hakka, ne dürlü bir dine müsteniden icra olunabilir? Zan edersem Hıristiyanlık buna
müsâid degildir. Medeniyetin bir kanunu vardır. İnsaniyetin de nizâmâtı mevcuddur.
Ondokuzuncu asır da bu nizâmâta hürmeti emreder. Bundan başka, artık
Müslümanlara: “Avrupa’da durmak isterseniz Hıristiyan olunuz” denebilecek
vakitlerde degiliz.
Keza şunu da diyebilirim ki, Bulgarlar terakkiyât-ı fikriyece pek geridirler.
Akvâm-ı Hıristiyaniyenin terakkiyâtı hakkındaki sözlerim bunlara degil, Rumlara,
Ermenilere ve sâirleredir. Bulgarların yüzde ellisi çiftçi, yüzde kırkı çoban, koyun
yetiştiricisi, orakcı ve sâiredir.
İslamlara gelince bunlar tedrisat-ı diniye ve uzun müddet devam eden
hükümetin tecrübesi eseri olarak mürûr-u zaman ile kabiliyât-ı fikriyece his olunacak
derecede terakki etmişlerdir ki, bu terakkileri digerlerine nisbeten fâik bir halde
bulundurmakdadır, bunu Bulgarlar da teslim ederler.
Bugün dört asırdan beri hâkim bir milletin dün mahkûm ve zekâca da
kabiliyeti madûm bir millet idaresine girmesini taleb etmek, Balkan şube-i
ceziresinde Avrupa’nın daha bir batın devam ettigi müddetce hal-i iğtişâşda
bulunmasına sebebiyet verecek bir vaziyet tevlid eylemek demekdir.
Zira İslamlar, vatanlarından ayrılmazdan, mal ve mülklerini terk etmezden
evvel hûn-rîzâne bir muharebe edeceklerdir ki, bu muharebe zaten başlamış olduğu
gibi devam da edecekdir. Hatta bu muharebe basdırılmış olsa bile tekrar zuhur ederek
Avrupa ve Asya’yı iğtişaş içinde bırakacakdır. Hıristiyanlar ve bilhassa Rumlar,
nefret etdikleri Bulgarların mezâlim-i tahakkümünden kurtulmak içün İslam safları
arasında muharebe edeceklerdir. Çünkü İslamlarla Rumların menâfii, haklarını
müdafaa içün tevhid-i ef’âl etmelerine lüzum gösterir.
121
Hayır, müsellemât-ı umûmiye içün mahâzir-i fevkalade husule gelmeden
yalnız Müslüman oldukları içün bir milyon insanı vatanlarından ihrac etmek ve bir
gün evvel tabii olanları bugün metbû’u haline irca etmek imkan haricindedir.
Şu mütalaamızdan hâl-i sabıkın asla tebdilini arzu etmedigimiz anlaşılırsa,
cevaben deriz ki maksadımız kat’iyyen bundan ibaret degildir. Bizim maksadımız
Hıristiyanlarla İslamların ıslah-ı ahvâli içün birden çalışmak, şarkda icra olunacak
tebeddülâtı her iki taraf içün de tedricen icra etmek, ahâlinin bir kısmına bahş
olunacak ıslahatın digeri içün idbâr ve felaket haline münkaleb olmasına meydan
vermemekdir.
Benim fikrimce bu öyle bir mesele-i adalet ve râifetden ibaretdir ki bundan
inhirâf edenler icabat-ı zamana ve asra göre hareket etmemiş olmağla itham
olunacakları gibi, böyle bir asr-ı medeniyetde, âsâr-ı vahşetde bile icra olunmayan
şeylerin vukua geldigini müşahede etmek beşeriyet içün hakikaten elîm olacakdır.
Fakat bu müşkilâtı izâle içün ne dürlü bir vasıta istimâl etmelidir?
Bâlâda da beyan etdigim vechile ben bu vasıtayı bulduğumu iddia edemem,
fakat bana öyle geliyor ki Bulgaristan’ı âdilâne bir suretde tahdid etmek her dürlü
menâfii bir dereceye kadar muhafaza edebilir. Bu menâfiiden maksadım ahaliye
taalluk eden menâfiidir.
Menâfi-yi siyasiyenin de ayrıca müdafileri ve kahramanları olduğundan
menafi-yi siyasiye ile meşğul olmağa lüzum görmem.
Bulgaristan arazisi, Tuna üzerinde Rus ordusunun mahal-i müruru olan
(Ziştovi) den başlayarak (Yantara) mecrasını takib edecek ve (Osmanpazarı) ile
(Tırnova) beyninde geçecek ve (Gabrova) ile (Şıpka) geçidi arasında Balkanları
mürur eyledikden sonra dağların sırtarını takib ederek (İhtiman)’a, badehu
(Samokov) ve (Köstendil)’e gelüb (Leskofça)’ya müntehi olacak, buradan da
(Morava) vadisini takib ederek Sırb hududuna dayanacakdı ki, zan edersem böyle bir
Bulgaristan birçok ihtirasatı izâle edebilecekdi.
O zaman, tahminen iki milyon ahâli ile meskûn olan bu hatt-ı vâsia: şimalen
Tuna, garben Sırbistan ve Morava, cenûben Rumeli Vilayeti Balkanların bir kısmı,
şarken de Yantara ile muhât bulunacakdı. Mevcud nahiyeleri de ber vech-i âti
nevahîden ibaret bulunacakdı. Ziştovi Yanbolu, Rabova, Lum, Vidin, Adiliye,
Belgradcık, Berkofca, Vraca, Lofca, Pluna, Selvi, Tırnova, Gabrova, İhtiman,
Samokov, İzladi, Orhaniye, Sofya, Dobniçe, Radomir, Köstendil, Leskofca, Niş,
İznebol, Prut.
122
Şu tâdad eyledigim yirmi altı nahiyede Hıristiyan Bulgarlar ekseriyete
haizdirler. Nisbet ise mahallâta göre yüzde 60/80 dir. Bu nisbet Ruscuk, Razgrad,
Osmanpazar, Şumnu, Tutrukan, Silistre, Tulca ve Varna gibi Yantara’nın şarkında
kâin nevâhinin aksidir.
Buralarda nüfusun yüzde 70’i İslam, mütebakisi Rum, Ermeni, Alman,
Lipovan, Kazak, Ulah, Bulgar ve sâiredir. Hatta Silistre’de Deliorman, Şumnu’da
Karlıova, Osmanpazar’da Tuzluk gibi birçok mahaller sırf İslamlarla meskûndur.
Bundan başka şu hudud dâhilinde bir Bulgaristan teşkili her dürlü menâfii
temin etmekden ziyade yeniden yeniye vukua gelecek ihtilâfâtın izâlesine de
fevkalade hidmet edecekdi, yeni prenslikte kalmak istemeyen İslamlar burada
kalmak isteyen Hıristiyan Bulgarlarla mülklerini de mübadele edeceklerdi.
Sırf mevkii olan bu meseleyi fasl-u tesviye içün muhtelit bir komisyon tayin
olunacakdı.
Yeni Bulgaristan Babıâli’ye haracgüzâr olmak üzere, bir idare-i müstakile
teşkil edecekdi. Devlet-i Osmaniye de bu prenslik idare-i dâhiliyesine müdahale
etmeyecegini Avrupa’ya karşı kat’iyyen taahhüd etmekle beraber memleket-i
ecânibe karşı müdafaa içün Vidin ve Niş istihkâmâtını işgal etmek hakkını muhafaza
eyleyecekdi.
Kala-i Erbaa dâhil olduğu halde diger nevâhinin kâffesi eskiden olduğu gibi
tamamıyla Devlet-i Osmaniye’ye tabi bulunacakdı. Bu nevâhide hiçbir tesîsât-ı
husûsiye icra edilmeyecek, fakat bu nevâhi sâir eyaletler gibi Kanun-u Esasî’nin
sûret-i mükemmelede tatbiki sayesinde kendilerine temin olunacak menâfi-i hakikiye
ve kat’iyyeden istifade edeceklerdi.
Filhakika tesîsi mümkün olan bütün tarz-ı hükümetler, tasavvuru mümkün
olan bütün idare projeleri içinde Kanun-u Esasî hakkıyla tatbik olunduğu takdirde,
şark için en muvafık bir tarz- idaredir. Zira bütün ecnâsın terakkiyât-ı fikriye ve
maddiyesi vasıtasıyla vatanın terakkiyât-ı müstakbelesini temin etmek esası, bu
kanunda mevcutdur.
Kanun-u Esasî, hükümdar tarafından millete bahş edilmiş olduğu için daima
muhafaza olunacakdır.
Bu kanun, milletin mal-ı sarîhi haline geldigi gibi millet de memleketin
selameti ancak bu Kanun-u Esasî’de mündemic bulunduğuna kâni olduğu cihetle
ânın muhafazasına fevkalade bir kıymet bahş etmekdedir.
123
Bu berat-ı milliyenin tamamı tatbikine şimdiye kadar bazı esbab-ı
maddiyenin mâni olması ve bu Kanun-u Esasîden bazıları zarar-dide olmuş
bulunması ânın kıymet ve ehemmiyetini hiçbir vakit tenkıs edemez. Türkiye’de
hemen herkes idare-i meşrutanın yerleşmesini, kesb-i kuvvet etmesini, nizamâtımızın
ruh ve nizam-ı mürettebesine gelmesini arzu etmekdedir.
Vakıa Kanun-u Esasî’nin tatbiki bazı fikirlerde elân şübheler tevlid ediyor
diye itiraz olunabilir. Fakat, bu şübheler, Babıâli’nin ıslahat-ı mev’ûdadan bazılarını
henüz icra etmemiş olmasından neş’et edebilir; fakat bence Babıâlinin deruhde
eyledigi vezâifi ifâ edecegi hengamında müsadif olduğu müşkilat-ı ale’l umum efkâr-
ı âmme nazar-ı dikkate almıyor gibi görünüyor. Bu müşkilat ise her fırsatda
Memalik-i Osmaniye dâhilinde iğtişaşat-ı dâhiliye tevlid eylemege matuf olan
te’sirât-ı ecnebiye ile karışık bir halde zuhur etmiş ve Türkiye’yi Avrupa’ya karşı
deruhde eyledigi taahhüdatı ifâdan men’ eylemişdir. Şarkda vekâyî’in tarz-ı
cereyanını bir dikkat-ı sabite ile tâkib edenlerce malûmdur ki Rusya’nın en ziyade
korkduğu şey, Türkiye ahvâlinde bir salah-ı hakiki nümayan olmasıdır. İşte bu
sebebe mebnî Rusya hükümeti Türkiye umur-u idaresinde ıslahat-ı cedîdeye teşebbüs
edenlere karşı muhtelif zamanlarda icrayı te’sir etmekden hâli kalmamışdır. Bunun
içün Babıâli Kanun-u Esasî’yi ilan eder etmez bir harbin feverânı da nevâ’ma tahrik
etmiş demekdir. Rusya hükümeti esasen bu harbi hiçbir vech ile hazırlamış olmadığı
gibi Kanun-u Esasî’nin ilanı da mümkünse Türkiye’yi kâmilen mahvetmek veya bir
daha kalkamayacak bir hale getirmek içün Türkiye’ye taarruz etmek hususundaki
kararını ta’cil etmemiş olsa idi, Rusya hükümeti ihtimal ki bu harbi bir müddet daha
te’hir edebilirdi.
Keza şunu da itiraf ederim ki, bu Kanun-u Esasî hadd-i zâtında Avrupa
nizâmât-ı kadîmesi derecesinde bir metanet nüfuza haiz olmadığı gibi olamazda.
Fakat bu fıkdan-ı nüfuzu Avrupa pek kolay ikmal edebilir! Babıâli ekseriya haksız
birçok müdahalât ile sarsmış olan Avrupa şarkda vukuu muhtemel olan kâffe-i
terakkiyâtı hülasa eden bu Kanun-u Esasî’nin tatbiki içün bir nezâret-i fa’alâne icra
etmek hususunda bunu pek güzel bir fırsat ittihaz edebilir.
Bu nezaret-i müştereke, keza Rusya’nın şarkındaki nüfuzunu tecrid etmege
de medar olur ki, bu nüfuz şimdiye kadar sırf Rusya’nın menâfiine ve Avrupa
menâfiinin zararına olarak icra edilmişdir.
Hülasa, Türkiye’de ıslahat-ı cedide tatbik etmek ecnâs-ı muhtelifeyi
yekdigerine mezc etmek ve bu imtizâcdan da hangi cins ve mezhebe mensub olursa
124
olsun ahâlinin terakkiyât-ı tedriciyesi istihsal edilmek istenilirse, Türkiye
meşrutiyetle idare olunmalıdır.
Felaketlerimize yegâne çare, dâhili ve harici düşmanlarımıza karşı nâfi bir
suretde mübareze içün istimal eyleyecegimiz yegâne vasıta budur.
Takib eyledigimiz tarik-i terakkiyi sed eden müşkilâtdan bazılarını anlatıb da
bize âsâr-ı samimiyet ibraz etmeyenleri hakkımızda daha az şiddet ve daha ziyade bir
adaletle hareket etmeleri lazım gelecegine ikna eder ve aynı zamanda da
dostlarımıza, hakkımızdaki fikr-i muhlisatkâranelerini teyid ederek itimadlarının
mahalline gayri masrûf olmadığını isbâta muvaffak olursam, şu satırları yazmakdaki
maksadım tamamıyla hâsıl olmuş demekdir.
Londra, Mayıs 1878, Midhat
125
Appendix VII: The Extension of the Telegraph Lines2
Telgraf Yapılması Lazım gelen Mahaller:
Balçık, Pazarcık, Hezargrad, Cuma-i Atik, Lofça, Nigbolu, Rahova, Köstendil,

Samakov, Dubniçe, İvraca, Gabrova, Tutrakan, İvraniye, Osmanpazarı.
Atûfetlü Efendim Hazretleri
Tuna Vilayeti dahilinde onbeş mevkiden ibaret olan bazı kasabat-ı cesime ve
mühimmiye müceddeden bir telgraf hattı temdidi lazım gelmiş ve mükteza direklerle
telgrafhanelerin tedarik ve inşasına tüccar ve ahali tarafından izhar taleb muvafakat
olunmuş idügünden yalnız Avrupa’dan celb olunacak makine ve edevat sairenin
esmanı olan 62.000 Frankın hazine-i celileden tesviyesi istizan kılınmış olduğuna
binaenaleyh nezerat-i celilesiyle dahi bi’l muhabere Meclis-i Vala’dan kaleme alınan
mazbata leffen arz takdim kılındı mealinden müsteban olduğu vechile saye-i
mamuriyetvane hazret-i şehinşahide vilayet-i mezkurenin mamuriyet ve ... tezayud
eyledikçe ihtiyacat-ı ahaliyi tesmil eyleyecek bu misüllü asarın vücuda getirilmesi
hususunda hükümet-i seniyyenin muavenet ve müsaade göstermesi lazımeden
olmasıyla beraber iş bu edevat masarifi temettüat-ı atiye ile dahi temin
olunacağından ve bu yolda vuku bulacak sarfiyatın en ziyadesini tesviye tüccar ve
ahalinin arz-ı taahhüd eyledikleri anlaşıldığından salifül zikr 62.000 Frankın hazine-i
celileden izasıyla hutut-u mebhusenin temdidi keyfiyetinin Maliye Nezareti
celilesiyle telgraf idaresine havalesi ve direklerin rikziyle merkezlerin tehiyyat-ı
maddesi dahi vilayet-i mezkure valisi devletlü Paşa hazretlerine işarı tezekkür
olunmuş olmağla ol babda her ne vechile emr-ü ferman hazret-i padişahi şeref sünuh
u sudur buyurulur ise ana göre hareket olunacağı beyaniyle tezkire-i senaveri terkim
kılındı efendim.
Maruz-ı çaker-i keminleridir ki
2
A record of the Supreme Council: I.MVL. 24647.
126
Reside-i dest-i tazim olan işbu tezkire-i samiye Asafaneleriyle mazbata-i merkume
manzur-u ali hazret-i Padişahi buyurulmuş ve mezkur mikdar frankın tezekkür ve
istizan olduğu vechile izasıyla hutu-u mebhusenin temdid-i keyfiyetinin nezaret-i
müşarunileyhe ve telgraf idaresine havalesi direklerin rikziyle merkezlerin tehiyyat-ı
maddesi dahi vali müşarunileyhe işarına müteallik buyurulan emr-i irade-i seniyye
hazret-i mülükdara mantuk-ı münifinden olarak mazbata-i mezkure yine savb-ı sami-
i sadaretpenahilerine iade kılınmış olmağla ol babda emr-ü ferman hazret-i veliyyül
emrindir.
127

Tanzimat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanzimat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanzimat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TANZIMAT IN THE BALKANS:

MIDHAT PASHA’S GOVERNORSHIP IN THE DANUBE PROVINCE

THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Approval of the Institute of the Economics and Social Sciences

TANZIMAT IN THE BALKANS:

This study aims at analyzing Midhat Pasha’s governorship in the Danube

Ottoman governor symbolizing the Tanzimat ideology and modernization in the

the main source and bases of this thesis.

Bu çalışma Midhat Paşa’nın 1864 ve 1868 yılları arasındaki Tuna Vilayeti

valiliğini iki temel boyutta incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır: Tanzimat ideolojisini ve

Rusya’nın Panislavist politikalarıyla yükselen Bulgar ihtilal hareketleri. Bundan

dolayı, bu çalışma hem Midhat Paşa’nın bu pilot bölgedeki imparatorluk içerisindeki

mücadelesi üzerine odaklanmaktadır. İstanbul’daki Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi’nde

Anahtar Sözcükler: Tanzimat, Balkanlar, Midhat Paşa, Tuna Vilayeti, Reformlar,

everything I learned from him. I am also grateful to my professors, Halil İnalcık,

valuable comments as jury members.

I am also grateful to Prof. Bekir Koç, Seyit Ali Kahraman, H. Dündar

supported and encouraged me with great sacrifices all throughout my life.

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iii

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER II: THE BALKANS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ...................... 7

II.2 The National Awakening of Bulgarians in the Nineteenth Century .......... 10

Governorship of the Nish Province ........................................................................ 15

II.4 Midhat Pasha’s Governorship in Nish, 1861-1864 ................................... 20

CHAPTER III: LAND AND POPULATION ........................................................... 27

III.1 The Land and Its Geographic Characteristics............................................ 27

the Empire .............................................................................................................. 28

III.3 The Ethnic and Religious Structure ........................................................... 31

CHAPTER IV: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DANUBE PROVINCE AND

THE REFORMS ........................................................................................................ 34

IV.1 The Establishment of the Danube Province (Tuna Vilayeti) ..................... 34

IV.3 The Administrative Structure .................................................................... 41

IV.3.2 Electoral System ..................................................................................... 49

IV.4 The Economic Reforms ............................................................................ 52

IV.4.1 The Agricultural Credit Cooperatives Bank (Menafi Sandıkları or

Memleket Sandıkları) ......................................................................................... 58

IV.5 The Improvement of Transportation......................................................... 62

IV.6 The Extension of Telegraph Lines............................................................. 68

IV.7 Educational Reforms ................................................................................. 72

IV.9 The Revolutionary Movements: Eşkiyas, Çetes and Komitas .................. 88

IV.10 Police Stations (Karakols) ......................................................................... 91

IV.11 The Question of the Tatar and Circassian Refugees.................................. 93

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 96

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 107

Appendix I: The District Centers of the Danube Province (1864)....................... 107

and 1868 ............................................................................................................... 109

Appendix V: Overall Population Figures............................................................. 111

Appendix VI: Türkiye’nin Mazisi ve İstikbali ..................................................... 112

Appendix VII: The Extension of the Telegraph Lines ......................................... 126

Table IV. 1: The Administrative Staff of the Danube Province....…………….…...42

Table IV. 2: The First Appointed Officials………………………..………………..43

Table IV. 3: The Governors of the Districts, 1864-68………………….…………..44

Table IV. 4: The Profit of the Rusçuk-Varna Railroad…………………………..…67

The reform edict known as the Tanzimat-ı Hayriye (Auspicious re-ordering),

prepared and promulgated by Mustafa Reşid Pasha on November 3, 1839, initiated a

grades of offices in the Ottoman bureaucracy, he was given important