Palmerston stayed publicly silent on the Syrian war during 1832, hiding his later hostility

Evidence

Although John Barker, the British Consul-General during the Syrian campaign, “was always opposed” to the Pasha’s policy towards the Sultan, the “British Cabinet did not declare its policy, and Mr. Barker did not receive from home any instructions favorable to Meh’med Ali’s projects.” Mehmed Ali knew that the messages he was receiving from Barker were the Consul’s own personal opinions and Palmerston, the British Foreign Secretary, who was later adamant in upholding the principle of preserving the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, was completely silent on the issue of his struggle with the Sultan. “There is not a single word either to Constantinople and Alexandria or to the British ambassadors at Paris, Vienna, and St. Petersburg; hardly any observation can be noticed during 1832 on despatches coming from these centers and touching on the subject of the Syrian war.” The hostility that Palmerston felt towards Mehmed Ali developed later and, as will be shown in chapter 7 below, had other causes. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 254

Categorization

• QUESTION: What were the ‘other causes’ of Palmerston’s later hostility toward Mehmed Ali, developed after 1832?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 254
• XREF: connects to: British policy in 1832 was silence rather than hostility toward Mehmed Ali; Egypt’s refugee dispute with Acre was only a pretext for the Syrian invasion.