_THE EASTERN QUESTION._
I.
FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND DURING THE SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND
EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.
_The Spanish Empire, its power, and its decline—Commercial rivalry of
England and Holland—The ascendency of France; threatened by the
Grand Alliance—The Spanish succession and the Bourbon
league—England’s connection with the war of the Austrian
succession—The Seven Year’ War—Revival of the Anglo-Bourbon struggle
in the American and Napoleonic wars._
Charles V. of Spain in the height of his power reigned over almost the
whole of Western Europe. Besides being King of Spain he was Archduke of
Austria, Duke of Burgundy, and Lord of Spanish-America. “The Emperor,”
said Sir William Cecil, “is aiming at the sovereignty of Europe which
cannot be obtained without the suppression of the reformed religion, and
unless he crushes the English nation he cannot crush the Reformation.”
Perceiving this important fact, Charles directed his attention to
England, and offered the hand of his son Philip to Mary of England who
was anxious to bring back the Catholic Faith into England.
Their marriage took place in 1554, and proved a great help towards
re-establishing the Papal supremacy in England, besides making Spain and
England strong political allies.
Charles V. abdicated in 1555 and spent the rest of his life in seclusion
at San Yusti, and the great part of his dominions, viz., the Colonies,
Italy, and the Netherlands descended to his son, Philip II., who was by
his marriage with Mary nominal King of England.
On the childless death of Mary the English crown descended to Elizabeth
in 1558. Philip thereupon offered marriage to her, but the virgin queen
wisely declined. England was by this refusal emancipated from Papal
interference and the tyrannies of Philip, and Elizabeth resolved to
carry out her religious and political views independently. Her
doctrinal[28] reform and foreign policy naturally made Spain her bitter
enemy.
In the Netherlands Philip’s general conduct raised the inhabitants to
revolt, and under the leadership of the Prince of Orange they soon
obtained a strong position, and eventually, in 1648, after a long and
protracted struggle, their independence was recognized.
Thus the two great sea powers of Philip’s age were both common enemies
against the arrogance of Spain and were consequently united.
In France a similar religious struggle, fierce and bitter, was raging.
Civil war was rampant and atrocities numerous, the massacre on St.
Bartholomew’s Day being a notable example. In 1585 the Catholic party
formed the “League,” whose main objects were the annihilation of the
reformed party, and the elevation of the Guises to the French throne
through an alliance with Philip II. of Spain. Its manifesto stated that
French subjects were not bound to recognize a prince who was not a
Catholic. The death of Henri III. made the situation worse, for two
candidates for the French throne appeared,—Henry of Navarre, who was
supported by the Huguenots and the Cardinal of Bourbon, whom the
Leaguers followed, while Philip II. laid claim to the throne on behalf
of his daughter by his third marriage with Elizabeth of Valois, sister
of Henri III. Hence, after the accession of the House of Bourbon, a
coalition of England, Holland, and France was formed against Philip II.
of Spain, and from 1600 to 1660 the European coalition was England,
Holland, and France, _versus_ the Spanish Empire.
In the meantime Spain had acquired Portugal in 1580, by which both
countries became one state, and Philip II. sovereign of the whole
oceanic world. Portugal for sixty years remained a dependency of Spain,
and then the Spanish Empire had attained to vast and unwieldy
dimensions. She could no longer defend her colonies from foreign
invasion and plunder. The Dutch established themselves wherever they
pleased, and plundered and occupied most of the Portuguese possessions.
It has been truly said that the Colonial Empire of Holland was founded
at the expense first of Portugal, and ultimately of Spain.[29]
England at this time was rapidly rising into the front rank of European
nations. In 1588 the “Invincible Armada” appeared in the English Channel
and was annihilated and disgraced. This was the introduction to that
English colonial greatness on which the sun never sets.
Then came the beginning of the fall of the Spanish Empire. In 1640
Cardinal Richelieu, the ablest French statesman, provoked Portugal to
rebel, his object being the aggrandizement of his own country abroad.
The revolt proved successful under John of Braganza, and again Portugal
posed as a nation. This proved a deadly blow to Spanish power, and
Cromwell finally crushed her power by his invincible foreign policy. He
seized Jamaica while Charles II. acquired Bombay.
This gradual decay of Spain had a corresponding inspiriting effect on
England and Holland. Both became commercial and colonial rivals one with
another. Ashley Cooper said, “Holland is our great rival in the ocean
and in the New World. Let us destroy her though she be a Protestant
Power; let us destroy her with the help of a Catholic Power.”[30]
The great naval victories of England and the Navigation Acts, 1651,
1663, and 1672,[31] crushed the Dutch carrying trade and navy, and
England now began to assume the supremacy of the whole oceanic world
which has from that time never departed from her.
However, France gradually filled the breach left by Holland and Spain,
and became a great naval rival of England. The strength of all the
nations round her had been considerably weakened by the Thirty Years’
War, while her commercial and manufacturing progress soon made her one
of the strongest European Powers.
From 1660 to 1672 may be regarded as the period of the great national
rise of France. Louis XIV. laid claim to Belgium and Burgundy in 1665 on
the death of Philip IV. of Spain, and in order to enforce his claim his
army entered Flanders and Burgundy, but owing to the pressure of the
Triple Alliance[32] the unfavourable Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle was
concluded.
However, later on Louis broke the Triple Alliance and secured the
valuable assistance of England and Spain, and with the assistance of the
former nation he made a concerted attack upon Holland. France had now
reached the topmost rung of the ladder between 1678 and 1688.
About this period the struggle against absolute monarchy was nearly
concluded in England, and was further strengthened in 1689 by the
Declaration of Rights. The English crown was offered to William of
Orange and Mary and accepted by them. Already this personal union had
caused an alliance to be formed between England and Holland, at that
time the two great Protestant Powers of Europe, against France the great
Roman Catholic upholder.
If France had remained quiet during the above-mentioned internal
discord, England would have been unable to form the “Grand Alliance.”
Thus Louis committed a great error in assuming an offensive attitude
against the two Protestant Powers. This caused a coalition to be formed
against him of England, Holland, Spain, and Austria.
This new system in Europe existed from 1688 to 1700. Then new
complications arose, for Charles II., King of Spain, died childless, and
the extinction of the Spanish House of Hapsburg seemed to be near at
hand. The question of a Spanish successor now occupied the minds of the
European cabinets after the Peace of Ryswick.
There were three claimants: Louis XIV., Leopold I., and the Electoral
Prince of Bavaria. The dominions of the Spanish sovereign were still
extensive, viz., Spain itself, the Milan territory, Italy, the
Netherlands, and Spanish-America. To unite the Spanish monarchy with
that of France or Austria, would destroy the European balance of power.
Consequently a general council with regard to the succession took place,
and the First Partition Treaty was drawn up. Charles II. of Spain,
however, made a will, appointing Louis’ grandson, Philip of Anjou, as
his successor, so Louis XIV. determined to uphold the will rather than
the treaty.
In 1701 the Duke of Anjou was peacefully proclaimed king as Philip V.
Louis XIV. on hearing this boasted that “Il n’y a plus de Pyrenees.”
This Bourbon succession in Spain changed the European system, and
henceforth we have England, Holland, and Austria, as opposed to France
and Spain.
The Duke of Marlborough, who combined the qualities of a general,
diplomatist, and minister skilfully together, was the leader of the
Second Grand Alliance against the Houses of Bourbon.
The inability of France to defend the Spanish Empire, followed by the
War of the Spanish Succession, paved the way for the Peace of Utrecht
(1713). By this treaty the Bourbons lost Italy and the Low Countries,
but retained the throne of Spain, thus still leaving that country open
to the influence of France. Hence the permanent alliance of France and
Spain was formed in the eighteenth century.
Meanwhile Holland had fallen into decay through internal exhaustion
caused by her struggle against foreign enemies; thus England had taken
her place as the great maritime and colonial power. Thus we see the
struggle between England and France (supported by Spain) for the oceanic
world in the eighteenth century.
By the Utrecht Treaty, France ceded to England Newfoundland, Arcadia,
and Hudson’s Bay territory, while Spain also ceded Gibraltar, the
Minorca Island, and the Asiento, the occupation of the two former making
another bitter enemy to England.
Spain had already a hatred of English trade with her colonies in
America, so that only a single English ship was conceded by the Treaty
of Utrecht, giving thereby only a limited right of trade in South
America to England. But this was evaded by a vast system of smuggling
which arose and proved a constant source of dispute between England and
Spanish revenue officers and rendered peace almost impossible.
In 1733 the first secret _pacte de famille_ had been concluded between
France and Spain for the ruin of English maritime trade. The American
coast was keenly watched, and the result was “The Jenkins’ Ear War,”
1739.
Charles VI., having no son, established an order of succession by the
Pragmatic Sanction, signed by nearly all the European Powers, by which
his daughter, Maria Theresa, was to succeed to all the hereditary
dominions of Hapsburg. But on his death two claimants appeared on the
scene—the Elector of Bavaria and Philip V. of Spain.
Walpole did his best to form a Grand Alliance between Hanover and
Prussia, also between England, Holland, and Austria. However,
Frederick’s claim to Silesia being refused by Austria, the French and
Prussian armies crossed the Rhine, 1741. Thus France began the War of
the Austrian Succession. In 1743 the Battle of Dettingen was fought
between England and France, the former fighting on behalf of Maria
Theresa, and as yet feeling her way carefully before she was brought
into direct conflict with the latter Power.
After the Treaty of Worms the question at issue was changed to that of
naval supremacy, and the War of the Austrian Succession fell into the
background.
In 1744, after an attempted invasion of England on behalf of the
Pretender, France declared war against both England and Austria. This
was bad policy, for if she had fought against one enemy at a time she
would have stood a far better chance of crushing England’s power.
Professor Seeley says, “If we compare together those seven wars between
1688 and 1815, we shall be struck with the fact that most of them were
double wars, and that there is one aspect between France and England,
another between France and Germany.... It is France,” says he, “that
suffers by it.”[33]
England and Holland firmly allied with one another, and German troops
were subsidized by England.
Against this alliance the second secret _pacte de famille_ was founded.
Battles were fought on all sides, by land and sea, both in Europe and
America. In spite of French successes at Fontenoy and Laufeldt, she was
severely defeated both on the sea and in America. Louisburg fell, Cape
Breton Island was captured, and many other losses sustained. At length
the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle brought a nominal peace into the oceanic
world, in 1748.
In 1756 this nominal peace came to an end, and the Seven Years’ War[34]
was fought out, both in the Old and New Worlds; Pitt the elder then
appeared as a great actor on England’s side, and used his great talents
to crush down the French Colonial Empire, and to obtain for his country
the sole mastery of the oceanic world.
He was essentially a war Minister: “The war was vigorously carried on
throughout 1758 in every part of the globe where French could be found,
and in 1759 Pitt’s energy and his tact in choosing men everywhere were
rewarded by the extraordinary success by land and sea.”[35]
The glorious death of Wolfe on the Heights of Abraham was followed by
the surrender of Montreal and the brilliant victory of Plassey in India
by Clive over the French. Pitt assured his countrymen that “they should
not be losers” (in giving pecuniary assistance to Frederick the Great)
“and that he would conquer America for them in Germany.”
This proved true. In 1762 the fall of the French Colonial Empire
occurred, and England obtained Canada and India.
This wonderful statesman[36] undoubtedly made England the first country
in the world.
_Three Wars of Revenge._
“A height of prosperity and glory unknown to any former age,”[37] was
reached in England during the administration of Chatham. Now the tide of
fortune began to run against England.
The passing of the famous Stamp Act, and many other “repeated injuries
and usurpations,”[38] made the relations between England and the
American Colonies virtually hostile. At last the Colonies revolted, and
it gave Spain and France the long-wished-for opportunity of taking
revenge upon England. France and Spain formed the third _pacte de
famille_, and assisted the insurgent Colonies, and the independence of
the United States was acknowledged in 1783.
In 1789 the French Revolution broke out, and the first effect felt in
England was the breaking-up of the Whig party.
In 1792 Austria and Prussia invaded France in order to put down the
Republicans in that country. In retaliation France determined to declare
war against all countries governed by kings, which principle she
established by the “Decree of November 19th,” and in 1793 she declared
war against England and Holland.
The younger Pitt had now come to the front. He was an economist and
advocated a peace policy. In the spring of 1792 he reduced the navy and
confidently looked forward to at least fifteen years of peace. There is
no doubt that if France had remained quiet his hopes would have proved
correct, and that the west bank of the Rhine would now be under French
rule.
But France was eager to revenge past injuries put upon her by England;
and, as if in answer to her desires, the second Alexander the Great
appeared in Napoleon, and began “alarming the Old World with his
dazzling schemes of aggrandizement.”
Against England his whole energies were directed. “Let us be masters,”
said he, “of the Channel for six hours and we are masters of the
world.”[39] In 1798, he captured Malta, occupied Egypt, and undertook a
campaign in Syria, as a furtherance to his desires of obtaining India,
at the same time retaining his ideas with regard to England. Malta to
Egypt, Egypt to India, India to England.
In 1802 a momentary universal peace occurred. But Napoleon could not
rest, his ambition spurred him on. His anger was again kindled by the
English retention of Malta, after his defeat in Egypt, and he saw if
Malta was wrested from him his lofty schemes would be undermined. In
1803 he again declared war against England and Holland. He arrested all
the English residents in France between the ages of sixteen and sixty
and kept them confined.
The younger Pitt was just the statesman fit to cope with him, and
frustrate his aims. He aimed at a European coalition,[40] by which all
threatening dangers from the overwhelming greatness of one nation might
be averted.
On October 21, 1805, the glorious victory at Trafalgar, the outcome and
consummation of Nelson’s inspiring command, “England expects every man
to do his duty,” broke the naval power of France. And yet this was
followed by the capitulation of Ulm, the defeat at Austerlitz, and the
subsequent Treaty of Presburg, which broke up the coalition of England,
Russia, and Austria, and seriously affected Pitt’s health thereby.
Truly, “Austerlitz killed Pitt.”[41]
At once Napoleon proceeded to turn the whole forces he had on the
Continent against England, especially after the Peace of Tilsit, (1807).
He first attacked England with the “Continental System,” _i.e._, he
prohibited all direct and indirect European trade with the British
Isles. This he confirmed by the Decrees of Berlin (1806) and Milan
(1807).
In 1812 he invaded Russia and entered the famous city with the cry of
“Moscow! Moscow!” Even at that moment, however, his real aim of attack
was England, across the Channel.
England was ever uppermost in his thoughts. “He conquers Germany, but
why? Because Austria and Russia, subsidized by England, march against
him while he is brooding at Boulogne over the conquest of England. When
Prussia was conquered, what was his first thought? That now he has a new
weapon against England, since he can impose the Continental System upon
all Europe. Why does he occupy Spain and Portugal? It is because they
are maritime countries, with fleets and colonies that may be used
against England.”[42]
Napoleon was driven out of Moscow by fire, and his return march turned
literally into a defeat, while his plan of a direct attack in England,
through Belgium, three years after, was frustrated at Waterloo.
Thus the scene of the great Napoleonic drama in English history closed
on June 18, 1815.
II.
FOREIGN POLICY OF RUSSIA DURING THE REIGNS OF PETER THE GREAT, CATHERINE
II., AND ALEXANDER I.
_Peter the Great, and establishment of Russian power on the
Baltic—Consequent collision with the Northern States and the
Maritime Powers—Catherine II. and Poland—First partition—Russia
reaches the Black Sea—Russo-Austrian alliance against Turkey opposed
by Pitt—Second and third partitions of Poland—Rise of
Prussia—Alexander I. and the conquest of Turkey—Treaty of
Tilsit—Peace of Bucharest—Congress of Vienna—French influence in the
East destroyed._
_Peter the Great_ (1689–1725).
The Russian territory now extends over one-seventh of the globe, and
Alexander III. rules over more than 100,000,000 souls. Russia is a
powerful political rival not only of England alone, but of all the
European Powers.[43]
However, on Peter the Great’s accession to the throne, his country
covered an area of only 265,000 square miles, and no harbours were to be
found either on the Baltic or the Black Sea. This was felt to be a
serious obstacle for a rising Power. Peter himself said, in the preface
to the “Maritime Regulations”: “For some years I had the fill of my
desires on Lake Pereyaslavl, but finally it got too narrow for me. I
then went to the Kubensky Lake, but that was too shallow. I then decided
to _see the open sea_ and began often to beg the permission of my mother
to go to Archangel.”[44] His first and great object was to establish
harbours on the Baltic or the Black Sea.
The Turks were the preliminary object of his attack. The first campaign
against Azof (1695) proved a failure, but a new campaign was started
again in 1696, and the Czar’s “bravery and his genius” were rewarded
with a great victory over Azof. Here begins the modern history of
Russia.
[Illustration:
THE EXPANSION OF RUSSIA IN EUROPE.]
Immediately after the capture of Azof Peter determined to carry out his
design of creating a large fleet on the Black Sea. For the purpose, “no
sooner had the festivities in Moscow ended than, at a general council of
the boyars, it was decided to send 3,000 families of peasants and 3,000
streltsi and soldiers to populate the empty town of Azof and firmly to
establish the Russian power at the mouth of the Don. At a second council
Peter stated the absolute necessity for a large fleet, and apparently
with such convincing arguments, that the assembly decided that one
should be built. Both civilians and clergy were called upon for
sacrifices.”[45]
Peter also sent fifty men of the highest families in Russia to Italy,
Holland, and England, to study the art of ship-building. Peter himself
visited Holland and England that he might learn ship-building. “One
thing, however, he could not learn there, and that was the construction
of galleys and galliots, such as were used in the Mediterranean, and
would be serviceable in the Bosphorus and on the coast of the Crimea.
For this he desired to go to Venice.”[46] This clearly shows us that
Peter had conceived the idea of establishing a strong navy on the Black
Sea.
The revolt of the streltsi recalled him home; however, he found no
difficulty in suppressing the insurrection.
After this, he sent an envoy to the Ottoman Empire to obtain permission
for the Russian fleet to enter the Black Sea, to which the Porte
replied: “The Black Sea and all its coasts are ruled by the Sultan
alone. They have never been in the possession of any other Power, and
since the Turks have gained sovereignty over this sea, from time
immemorial no foreign ship has ever sailed its water, nor ever will sail
them.”
Meanwhile Charles XII., King of Sweden, began to assume an attitude of
hostility to Peter, and the Battle of Narva was fought, where Peter was
miserably defeated. After this war, Charles made Russia the great object
of his attack instead of Poland. He said, “I will treat with the Czar at
Moscow.” Peter replied, “My brother Charles wishes to play the part of
Alexander, but he will not find me Darius.” The Battle of Pultawa (1709)
soon decided Peter’s superiority, and the Peace of Nystadt (1721) added
the Baltic provinces and a number of islands in the Baltic to Russia.
In 1703 “a great window for Russia to look out at Europe”—so Count
Algaratti called St. Petersburg—was made by Peter on the marshes of the
Neva. This step firmly established Russian power on the Baltic.
But to establish Russian power on the Baltic at all was as great a
mistake as ever has been committed by so shrewd a statesman as Peter the
Great. The predominance of Russia in the Baltic with her strong navy
threatened the interest of the commerce and carrying-trade of the
English and Dutch. Hence it was natural enough that England and Holland,
two great maritime powers, should have joined to protect their interest
in the Baltic as well as the integrity of Sweden against Russian
aggression. In the case of the Northern War, England had formed an
alliance with Sweden and sent her fleet to the Baltic under command of
Admiral Norris to prevent the Russian sway on those waters.
Had Peter thought less of the importance of the Baltic, and concentrated
his energies on obtaining a sure foothold in the Crimea, Constantinople
would now be a Russian southern capital.
_Catherine II._ (1762–1796).
The Seven Years’ War had been brought to a finish when Catherine II.
ascended the Russian throne. The next great European complication was
brought about by the affairs of Poland.
On the death of Augustus III., Stanislaus Poniatowski was elected King
of Poland, and at the request of Prussia and Russia the dissenters,
adherents of the Greek Church and the Protestants, received all civil
rights.
In opposition to this a Confederation of Bar was formed in 1768, with
the object of dethroning the King. Catherine now began to interfere with
Poland on behalf of the Greek Christians, and supported the King with
her Russian army. This interference made her practically mistress of
Poland. Turkey, an ally of the Confederacy, being alarmed at the growing
Russian influence and being urged on by France, declared war upon Russia
in order to resist the progress of Catherine in Poland; but this proved
disastrous, as she was miserably defeated, both on land and sea, and
brought to the verge of ruin. This Russian success alarmed Western
Europe, and especially the two neighbouring Christian Powers, Prussia
and Austria, each of whom had a special interest in the existence of
Poland and Turkey. Catherine would not make peace without acquiring
territory as a compensation for her exertions and outlay, while Prussia
and Austria would not allow her to do this unless they acquired a
certain amount of territory themselves. Hence the First Partition of
Poland took place, by which the three Powers secured equal
aggrandizement, Russia receiving the eastern part of Lithuania as her
share.
In 1774 the Treaty of Kutschouk Kainardji was concluded with Turkey, by
which the independence of the Mongol Tartars in the Crimea was
acknowledged by the Sultan; Russia obtained the right of protection over
all the Christian subjects of the Porte within a certain limit, and also
the right of free navigation in all Turkish waters for trading vessels.
This treaty firmly planted Russia on the northern coasts of the Black
Sea.
In 1783 the Crimea was incorporated with Russia, and in 1787 Catherine
visited the southern part of Russia as far as Kherson, on the Black Sea.
Joseph II. of Austria, on hearing of her approach to his dominions,
hastened to meet her, and together they journeyed through the Crimea,
the Czarina unfolding to the Emperor both her own plans and those of
Potemkin, her favourite, viz., to expel all the Turks from Europe,
re-establish the old Empire of Greece, and place her younger grandson
Constantine on the throne of Constantinople. Joseph fell in with her
view, and it was hinted that something like a Western Empire should be
also constituted and placed under the Austrian sway. In this way a
division of the Ottoman Empire was contemplated between the two
countries. This soon aroused the suspicions of Turkey, and war was again
declared. But now it was two against one, and the fate of Turkey again
seemed sealed.
William Pitt was the first statesman who directly opposed Russia and
tendered assistance to Turkey against Russian encroaching power. His
foreign policy of opposition to Russia has been followed more or less by
generations of English Ministers. The Triple Alliance of England,
Prussia, and Holland was formed by Pitt against the “Colossus of the
North,” in order to preserve the balance of power in Europe, and the
death of Joseph. II., saved Turkey again. Pitt, by means of this
Alliance, demanded that a peace be made between Russia and Turkey on the
_status quo ante bellum_, and threatened to maintain his demand by arms.
The English people, however, cared very little about a Russian invasion
of Turkey, while Catherine disregarded Pitt’s threats.
Soon after a peace between Russia and Turkey was concluded at Jassy, by
which Turkey ceded Oczakow and the land between the Dnieper, Bug, and
Dniester, containing several good harbours, and notably Odessa; the
protectorate of Russia over Tiflis and Kartalinia was also recognized.
By the above-mentioned acquisitions she felt certain that very soon
Constantinople would be in her hands. However, a nearer, and, in her
opinion, a more important matter engaged her attention. In 1792 the new
Constitution of Poland was drawn up by Ignaz Potocki, converting the
Elective Monarchy into an hereditary one, the House of Saxony supplying
a dynasty of kings. The Confederacy of Jargowitz, which was formed in
opposition to this new Constitution, called in the help of Russia.
This now seemed to be a grand opportunity for Russia to finally annex
Poland, because the deaths of Frederick the Great (1786) and Joseph
(1790), and the French Revolution, which occupied the attention of all
Western Europe, set the Czarina free from her most watchful rivals. A
Russian army invaded Poland, and the new Constitution was repealed.
Prussian troops also entered Poland under the pretence of suppressing
Jacobinism, and Russia again found herself frustrated, and concluded a
Second Partition (1793) with Prussia, by which she received Lithuania,
Volhynin, and Podolia.
In 1795 the Polish nation rebelled, under the leadership of Xoscruscko,
and this led to a Third Partition between Russia, Prussia, and Austria,
and the former Power added 181,000 square miles, with 6,000,000
inhabitants, together with Curland, to her already vast dominions.
By this last Partition a road of aggression was open towards Sweden on
the north-west, and towards Turkey on the south.
Many combined circumstances led Russia to assume an aggressive policy
towards Turkey specially. Sweden, or rather Finland, was not of
sufficient importance as a prey to the “northern bear”—a warmer climate
was also wanted. Catherine had already discovered the mistaken policy of
Peter the Great, who had spent all his energy in getting the strongholds
of the Baltic in opposition to Charles XII. of Sweden. Russian sway on
the Baltic meant a direct opposition from two great sea Powers, viz.,
England and Holland, whose interests would suffer thereby. A striking
proof of the opposition was seen in the case of the Northern War.
The Partition of Poland produced another stray Power in the Baltic, to
wit, Prussia.
Previous to the Partition of Poland, Prussia Proper and her dominions,
Brandenberg and Silesia, were separated, Poland being between them. The
First Partition joined the Prussian kingdom to the main body of the
Monarchy; by the Second and Third Partitions Prussia obtained the then
South Prussia and East Prussia, thereby uniting all into one compact
body.
Thus unconsciously a powerful Russian enemy was being formed in the
Baltic. Thus Russia had three great enemies—England, Holland, and
Prussia, joined by Sweden and Denmark, on the Baltic.
Catherine had already obtained a firm footing on the Black Sea coast,
and was confident of her ability to occupy Constantinople and make it a
Russian southern capital; the French Revolution attracting the attention
of Western Europe, the Ottoman Empire was left at the mercy of Russia.
Again a Russian occupation would give a fine prospect of extending
Russian authority into Danubian territory, Central Asia, and Asia Minor.
So we may conclude that Catherine’s annexation of Poland was only a step
towards attaining her great aim, and gave her time to mature her plans.
At this juncture Catherine died, and was succeeded by Paul (1796). He
reversed his mother’s policy by concluding an alliance with Turkey
against Napoleon, seeing that the latter’s policy was to destroy the
Turkish Empire for the benefit of France. He changed his policy later,
however, after his unsuccessful campaign in Holland, and threw himself
into Napoleon’s arms by establishing an armed neutrality in the north
against England.
_Alexander I._ (1801–1825).
Catherine died (1796), but her plan did not perish with her. Alexander
I. proved a faithful expounder of the late Czarina’s schemes.
His strong-handed policy was chiefly directed against Armenia and the
Persian frontier, although the Danubian territory, Poland and Finland,
did not escape his watchful eyes. Mingrelia and Imeretia were conquered
in 1803, Shiroan in 1805–1806.
At last Alexander’s policy took a definite form at the Treaty of Tilsit
(1807), for by the first provision “Russia was to take possession of
Turkey in Europe, and push on her conquests in Asia as she thought
proper.” This secret treaty, which was made with Napoleon I., caused
great uneasiness in England, and a coolness sprang up between the two
Powers (1807–1812), although England had adhered to an Anglo-Russian
Alliance during Chatham’s administration, and Alexander joined the
coalition of 1805.
In 1809 Russia gained Finland, with the whole of East Bothnia and part
of West Bothnia, as far as the River Tornea, by the Treaty of
Friedrichsham. The Peace of Bucharest (1812) was the result of England’s
mediation, by which Russia added Bessarabia, and the Pruth was made the
boundary between Russia and Turkey, while Russia gave up Moldavia and
Wallachia, which at that time were occupied by her.
The quarrel between Russia and France concerning the “Continental
System”[47] brought about a French invasion of Russia by 678,000 men
(1812). But Russia coped successfully with her powerful foe.
The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) met to restore the balance of power
and regulate the European relations, and also established the “Pentarchy
of the Great Powers.” Eight nations signed the Act of the Congress of
Vienna, by which Russia was, generally speaking, the greatest gainer,
for she received the greater part of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
At the Congress of Vienna, Castlereagh (the English representative)
evidently had in view three aims—(1) to prevent any revival of the
Continental System; (2) to protect English communication with India; and
(3) to maintain her supremacy in the Mediterranean. For the first aim,
England obtained Heligoland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands was
formed, and “the surrender of Java was made to the Dutch by way of
increasing the wealth and power of that kingdom, and so helping to
re-establish the due counterpoise to French power which nature has given
to the possession of the Low Countries”; for the second aim, England
also obtained the possession of Cape Colony (from the Dutch) and the
Mauritius (from France) to render safe the road to India; and for the
third aim, England retained Malta, and also the seven Ionian islands
were brought under English protection.
The Battle of Waterloo stamped out Napoleon’s[48] ambitious schemes.
French power and influence in Eastern Europe vanished with Napoleon, and
from that time France has not fully recovered, and is therefore unable
to settle the Eastern Question for her benefit. The Napoleonic plan of
occupying Constantinople has been stolen by Russia.
III.
THE NEW EUROPEAN SYSTEM.
_The concert of the Great Powers; its aims—It does not protect small
states from its own members_, e.g., _Polish Revolution—How far can
it solve the Turkish question?_
Napoleon the Great fell at the Battle of Waterloo, 1815. The “concert of
the Great Powers,” the primary object of which is to avoid the
recurrence of universal war in Europe, was first established at the
Congress of Vienna in the same year. This new European System is,
however, only applicable to the case of a small Power or Powers, but not
to the Great Powers themselves. For instance, in the Schleswig-Holstein,
as well as the Franco-Prussian War, none of the other Great Powers could
interfere, and matters were entirely left to themselves.
[Illustration:
EASTERN EUROPE & WESTERN ASIA.]
But in the case of a lesser state or states becoming breaker of the
peace, the Great Powers have never hesitated to step in and settle the
difference according to their mutual agreement. We see good instance of
it in the Independence of Belgium.
The “concert of the Great Powers” is actually a second phase of the Holy
Alliance, and the new system has usually its object the protection of a
smaller state against the larger. Greek Independence was a singular
example of the new system. The revolt of Greece was entirely suppressed
by the Sultan, and there was no hope of freeing themselves from the
Turkish yoke. Though hardly justifiable, the Great Powers at last
interfered, and made Greece an independent state. The Independence of
Italy was another example.
Thus we see that under the new system now prevalent in Europe, a smaller
state _at least_ attains her end.
Let us examine the Polish Revolution against Russia. The Poles said, Let
us revolt. We shall undoubtedly be beaten by Russia; but we don’t mind
that at all, because we shall _at last_ attain our own end through the
interference of the Great Powers. There was every reason for the event
turning out as they had calculated. Louis Napoleon was the first
European sovereign who interfered in the Polish Revolution, and he
invited England to join him. England, however, declined, owing to the
difficulties of the situation. France, from her isolation, failed in her
desires, and Louis Napoleon lost his European confidence. Truly the fall
of the French Empire began from that date.
This Polish Revolution disclosed another characteristic of the new
European System. In the event of either country concerned being one of
the Great Powers, the system is of no effect at all. The late dispute
between England and Portugal comes under this heading.
One more interesting question needs investigation. How far this new
European System is applicable to the question of Turkey, a country which
may be placed among the first-class Powers, and where Christian
inhabitants are in an inferior position to the Turkish Mahomedans. This
is what I have to discuss in the following five chapters.
IV.
GREEK INDEPENDENCE.
_The Holy Alliance—The Greek insurrection—Interference of the Three
Powers—Battle of Navarino—Treaty of Adrianople—The policy of
Nicholas I.; Treaty of Unkiar Ikelessi—Turkey only saved by English
and French aid—Palmerston succeeds to Canning’s policy._
Alexander I., Emperor of Russia; Francis, Emperor of Austria; and
William I., King of Prussia, formed what was known as the Holy Alliance,
the first-named being the chief instigator.
Its aim was to promote peace and goodwill among European nations, based
upon Christianity, although it seemed quite liable to be abused for the
benefit of absolute monarchy, as in the case of Spain. Nearly all the
European Powers joined it, England[49] being the only one who declined.
England’s argument was that “such interference is inconsistent with the
fundamental laws of Great Britain. It must lead to a system of continual
interference incompatible with European interests and the independence
of nations.”[50] However, we are forced to admit and acknowledge that
the present system of Europe is conducted on the same lines, slightly
modified, as the Holy Alliance.
At the end of the eighteenth century the songs of the poet Rhegus and
the revolutionary influence of France (1789) stirred up the Greeks to
feelings of hatred against the Porte.
In 1821 the Danubian Provinces (Roumania), under the leadership of
Hypisilands, rose in rebellion, trusting to receiving assistance from
Alexander I., the instigator of the Holy Alliance. But their hopes were
shattered, and Turkey soon crushed the revolt. This was the only case in
which Russia did not interfere with Turkey in the Danubian question.
A little reflection, however, will show the cause of the Russian
non-interference in this case. Alexander’s power and influence were
declining, and Russia was filled internally with discontent. Secret
societies flourished everywhere, and the Czar dreaded a revolution in
his own country if he gave help to the Danubian Provinces, which would
be approving a rebellion against a legitimate sovereign.
The Greek rising in the Morea was answered by a counter Turkish massacre
of Greeks in most of the principal cities of Turkey, and Gregory, the
head of the Greek Church at Constantinople, was executed. This caused
great indignation in the Russias and war appeared imminent, but owing to
the mediation of England and Austria it was averted.
There is no doubt that Russia felt that it was to her advantage to
assist a revolutionary movement, in order that she might secure as much
influence in Turkey as possible. But Austrian interest in the Balkans
was of vital importance. Her policy was naturally to oppose Russia in
her desires, in order to keep the Turkish honour unstained and use her
as a bulwark against Russia.
However, great enthusiasm was aroused, not only in England, but also in
Germany and Switzerland.
Lord Byron died,[51] and Shelley wrote for the Greek cause. Lord
Cochrane and Sir Richard Church fought, while the German poet, Müller,
and the Swiss Eynard, warmly upheld the cause of the oppressed Greeks.
Notwithstanding this help, the Greeks were far from fortunate, and the
Sultan, with the help of the Egyptians, captured Athens. But their brave
defence of Missolonghi aroused the sympathies of the European Powers.
_Nicholas I._ (1825–1855).
On the death of Alexander I. the Holy Alliance vanished (1825), and
Nicholas I. ascended the throne (1825–1855). Now the Greeks appealed to
England for help, and Canning[52] saw that it was the best policy for
England to assist Greece in order to control the ambitious plans of
Russia. Accordingly he sent the Duke of Wellington as the English
representative, and a protocol was signed at St. Petersburg by which
Greece was to remain tributary to the Sultan, but to be independent as
regards commercial relations. This protocol developed into the Treaty of
London, between England, France, and Russia, by which the three Powers
bound themselves to act as mediators in the Eastern question. The
mediation of the Powers was rejected by the Porte, but accepted by the
Greeks. The result was that the Turko-Egyptian fleet was totally
destroyed at the Battle of Navarino by the allies, and the Sultan
retreated from the Morea. Canning’s death in 1827 gave England an
opportunity of retiring from active participation in the alliance,
especially as she regarded the Battle of Navarino as an “untoward
event,” so Russia and Turkey were left alone in conflict.
This, in my opinion, was a half-hearted policy on the part of England,
although the Cabinet at that time could do no other, because their
tenets would not allow them to help a revolutionary people against a
country governed by a legitimate sovereignty.
Now had the long-wished-for opportunity arrived for Russia to carry into
effect on Turkey her long-cherished designs. Diebitch, a Russian
general, crossed the Balkans, and soon captured Adrianople; while
Paskevitch took Kars and Erzeroom in Asia.
These successes resulted in the Treaty of Adrianople (1829), between
Russia and Turkey. By the treaty[53] Russia gave back almost all her
conquests to Turkey, only retaining the ports of Anapa and Poti, on the
eastern coast of the Black Sea, and the Protectorate powers of the Czar
over the Danubian Principalities were confirmed and extended. In return
Turkey acquiesced in all the provisions of the London Conference.
This made Greece practically an independent state.
Nicholas pursued the policy of Alexander I. with regard to the Asiatic
boundaries, and successfully carried on a war with Persia from 1826 to
1828 which was terminated by the Treaty of Turkmantchai (1828), Russia
receiving the provinces of Erivan and Nakhitcheven. This was the period
of the expansion of Russia, and the first appearance of Russia as a real
rival of Great Britain.
Reviewing the general policy of Nicholas the reader cannot help being
struck with the skilful manner and clever system by which the Czar
carried out his plans.
Before his reign the Russian attacks were all made particularly in the
south-west and south-east direction, viz., the Danubian territory, and
Armenia; but on his accession he began to attack from a more southerly
direction even than Turkey, viz., Greece, whom he assisted in rebellion
against her Turkish oppressors. From 1826–1828 he attacked in a
south-easterly quarter, viz., Armenia and Persia, at the same time
occupying Adrianople and threatening Constantinople. Finally, to
complete his plans, he struck a fatal blow at the heart of Turkey, viz.,
its capital, Constantinople, in 1833, with the Treaty of Unkiar
Skelessi, by which Turkey was practically made a vassal of Russia.
This treaty exercised a great influence upon foreign powers. For Russia
by it would have obtained actual possession not only of the Black Sea
but also of its only entrance, the Dardanelles, which thus would have
become a fortified Russian outpost.
Turkey now was in a very precarious state. She was almost past the aid
of any earthly powers. But luckily two doctors stepped into the breach,
namely, England and France, and, after a course of treatment, the
following protocol was indited by the Pentarchy of Powers: “That ships
of war have at all times been prohibited from entering the Channel of
Constantinople, viz., by the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Black
Sea.”
Reshid Pacha had performed for Turkey great internal reforms, but,
unfortunately, he was exiled through a Court intrigue. This proved a
great blow to Turkish politics.
Thus Turkey began to decline again; and, as John Bright said in an able
speech at Manchester (1854), “Turkey is a decaying nation;” and Cobden
on the same occasion said, “Turkey is a decaying country, and the Turks
cannot be permanently maintained as a ruling Power in Europe.” The Czar
himself said that “a sick man is dying,” referring to Turkey, in his
remarkable conversation with Sir Hamilton Seymour on January 28, 1853.
When Turkey appeared at her last gasp she had been saved by England and
France. Now, for the second time, the same Powers rescued her from
annihilation.
England a short time previously had been in a feeble state owing to her
severe war with Napoleon the Great. This had exhausted her financially
to a great extent.[54]
However, Huskisson’s commercial policy (1823), Wellingtons Catholic
Emancipation (1829), Russell’s great Reform Bill (1832), and the Repeal
of the Corn Laws by Sir Robert Peel (1846), had exercised a refreshing
influence upon her general prosperity.
Here Lord Palmerston, a disciple[55] of Canning, appeared on the scene
to play his part in “the European concert.”
V.
THE CRIMEAN WAR.
_Nicholas I. alienates France from England by the Egyptian
question—Mehemet Ali and Palmerston’s convention against
him—Nicholas I. in England—The Protectorate of the Holy Land; breach
between Russia and France—Proposed partition of Turkey—War of Russia
and Turkey—The Vienna Note—Intervention of France and England to
save Turkey—Treaty of Paris; Russia foiled—Correspondence between
Palmerston and Aberdeen as to the declaration of war—National
feeling of England secures the former’s triumph—French motives in
joining in the war._
Although Turkey was unable to withstand Russia alone, yet, with the help
of England and France, she was able to prevent the Russian inroad, on
the south.
Nicholas, ever crafty, now turned his attention to fostering the minor
disputes which still existed between England and France.
Being envious of the English naval supremacy in the Mediterranean,
France resumed her traditional policy of obtaining influence in Egypt,
in order to be able to have a stronghold there against English power,
and succeeded in making Egypt a faithful ally.
England, on the other hand, clung to the alliance with Turkey, and
assisted the Sultan in quelling the rebellion of Mehemet Ali.
Thus we see there existed a difference between the two Powers,
notwithstanding that Russia was a common rival of both.
Nicholas used this difference as a tool to weaken the allies against his
own country.
In 1839 Mehemet Ali, with the silent approval of Russia, determined to
become an independent monarch.
Thiers, a minister of Louis Phillipe, in helping Mehemet Ali, the
viceroy of Egypt, had fallen into a Russian trap, although he believed
and hoped that he was following the traditional policy of Napoleon the
Great. This proved, however, a mistaken policy; for it was the general
European feeling that if war resulted the Egyptians would be victorious,
Constantinople would be in danger; the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi would
come into force, the Russians would rush to help the Porte, while the
Anglo-French fleets would be barred from the Dardanelles.
Lord Palmerston saw that the united action of the five Great Powers
might settle the Eastern Question and destroy the influence of Russia,
which seemed to be too arbitrarily strong. His idea was that a
Conference should be held by the five Great Powers, and this was
approved of by all.
There was no doubt that the Conference was not as unanimous as could be
wished, and certainly England did not agree with France on several
points.
At length Palmerston made a convention with three of the Powers for an
armed interference in the Eastern Question. France was left alone. And
Palmerston determined to pursue the above-mentioned policy.
Admiral Stopford captured Beyrout, and Sir Charles Napier bombarded
Acre. The fall of the fortress of Acre—which was thought to be
impregnable—before the English fleet, terminated the war, and Mehemet
Ali became only an hereditary ruler over Egypt under the over-lord of
the Porte.
The breach between England and France having become serious, Russia
having obtained her desires stationed her fleet at Sebastopol, where it
remained quiescent during the English bombardment of Acre.
Thus, although Lord Palmerston succeeded in crushing the French
Minister’s scheme, yet he fell into the snare laid for him by Russia,
viz., of bringing about a diplomatic disagreement between England and
France.
But Russia did not gain by the transaction, for she in her turn lost her
single-handed power over Turkey, which was given into the hands of the
Five Powers.
Lord Palmerston offered the following condition to the Turkish
Government. “England having, in conjunction with other Christian Powers,
succeeded in restoring Syria to the Sultan, she is entitled to expect
that the Sultan, in return for such assistance, should secure his
Christian subjects from oppression.”[56]
At last the Syrian affairs were settled, but still England was always
dreading a French attack both on Egypt and Syria.
In 1844 the Emperor Nicholas paid his famous visit to England. What was
his object in coming to England at such a period? The only idea that I
can put forward is, that he wanted to see to what extent the
Anglo-French disagreement[57] with regard to Syrian affairs had reached;
also to widen them as much as possible in order to make it impossible to
form an Anglo-French alliance against him, and thus leave him a free
hand in the settlement of the Eastern Question when the fall of Turkey
should take place.
Nicholas was at once informed, after his arrival, by the British Prime
Minister, “that no foreign influence in Egypt would be allowed by the
British Government, who desired to keep the way open to India.” He at
once perceived that the English were fearful of the French historic
Napoleonic plans; and he at once used this fear to his advantage.
He first proposed a partition of Turkey, knowing that the English
Government would not dare to agree to it, because it would hurt the
national feeling of England. Soon after the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution
was over the Holy Alliance was concluded between several European
Courts, and the moral feelings in the western states of Europe were to
defend the weak against the strong, and to resist unjust aggression.
These feelings were clearly shown during the Russian oppression of
Poland (1837), and in the Independence of Greece (1821–1829).
In England these feelings had manifested themselves, and any English
Government which should venture to shock them would have been certainly
upset. Therefore, a proposed partition of Turkey by Russia was received
by the English Government with decided disfavour.
Then the Czar proposed that the guardianship of the Holy Land should be
entrusted to Russia. This was his great aim, and was his principal
object.
England found herself in a dilemma. What was she to do? She had already
refused the Czar’s first proposal, and she felt obliged to accept the
second. “The three representatives of the Conservative party, namely,
the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Aberdeen, met the Czar
and signed a secret memorandum, promising to exert their personal
influence on behalf of the Greeks as opposed to the Latin Church at
Jerusalem, and so practically to forward Russian claims to the
guardianship of the Holy Places, as opposed to those of France, who was
to be ignored in the matter. This memorandum, to a certain extent
favouring Russia’s claim to a protectorate of the Greek Church, was
never placed in the Foreign Office archives, but was forwarded in
succession from one English Foreign Secretary to another, until, as we
shall show, poor Lord Aberdeen (Wellington and Peel being dead) was
called on for his pound of flesh in 1853.”[58]
Thus Nicholas attained the end he had in view, and left England, well
pleased with the brilliant reception he had met with. “The Greek and the
Catholic Church,” Lord Palmerston had written to Canning, 1849, “are
merely other names for Russian and French influence.”
France at once perceived that the Czar’s visit to England was connected
with some secret arrangement to the prejudice of French interests, and
felt highly indignant.
France did not lose any time, and commenced plans to overturn Russian
influence in the Holy Land. Russia resented this, thinking that France
would be her only enemy. The Holy Land dispute soon became general.
The Turkish compromise did not please Russia and France. “Suddenly, the
French ambassador at Constantinople, M. de Lavalette, was instructed to
demand that the grants[59] to the Latin Church should be strictly
executed in the Holy Land.”[60]
In 1852 Lord Aberdeen was made the British Prime Minister, and “the
Emperor Nicholas heard the tidings of Lord Aberdeen’s elevation to a
premiership with a delight he did not suppress.”[61]
Nicholas thought that now an alliance between England and France was
impossible,[62] and at the same time, seeing that Prussia and Austria
were neutral, determined to obtain “the key of the Black Sea.”[63]
However, he wanted to ascertain whether England would keep her secret
engagement to come to a separate understanding with him. He again
proposed a partition of Turkey, on January 28, 1853, at the same time
making use of the curious expression to Sir Hamilton Seymour that “a
sick man is dying,” and that his (the sick man’s) property should be
divided according to agreement between England and Russia. Nicholas’
idea was (_a_) that Servia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, and the other
principalities of the Danube, should become independent states under
Russian protection, and (_b_) that he would “have no objection to
offer,” to the occupation of Egypt and Candia by England “in the event
of a distribution of the Ottoman Succession upon the fall of the
Empire,” (_c_) that Constantinople should never be held by the English
or French, or any other great nation, and Greece should not strengthen
herself “so as to become a powerful state,” and (_e_) that Russia should
occupy Constantinople provisionally, not “as a proprietor, of course,
but as a trustee.”
“In answer to these overtures,” Kinglake says, “the Government of the
Queen disclaimed all notion of aiming at the possession of either
Constantinople or any other of the Sultan’s possessions, and accepted
the assurances to the like effect which were given by the Czar. It
combated the opinion that the extinction of the Ottoman Empire was near
at hand, and deprecated the discussions based on that supposition as
tending directly to produce the very result against which they were
meant to provide.”[64]
Then the Czar sent Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople, and entrusted
to him the two following missions: viz., (_a_) to set forth a Russian
claim on the Holy Places, and (_b_) that all orthodox Christians, who
were subjects of Turkey, should be placed under the immediate
protectorate of Russia.
The above second mission was planned by Russia owing to her deep
sympathy with the Sclavonic races, who had adhered to the same religion
although they were still under Turkish rule. But this bond was rapidly
getting weaker, and the Christian inhabitants were determined to throw
off, if possible, the Mahomedan yoke.
But the second demand of Russia, to my mind, was an unjust claim,
because it would have considerably affected the independence or dignity
of the Sultan.[65]
The English Ambassador in Turkey, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, a great
opponent of Russia, advised the Porte to stand firm and resist to the
utmost the second demand.[66] He and Lord Clarendon (the English Foreign
Secretary), however, tried to persuade the Porte to agree to the first
demand, but the Porte, with decided firmness, declined to accept this
advice.
This was followed, on May 21, 1853, by the departure of Prince
Menschikoff from Constantinople, with the threat that “he had come in
his great coat, but would return in his uniform.” Russia then crossed
the Pruth on July 2nd, and occupied the Danubian Principalities as a
preliminary to her demands. On the same day of the Russian invasion the
representatives of the Great Powers assembled at Vienna. This Congress
drew up what is known as the “Vienna Note.” Russia acceded to the terms
contained in the Note, but the Porte refused, and offered certain
amendments. The Powers after a time accepted them, and forwarded them to
Russia, who, however, rejected them.[67] The Conference then dissolved.
In October, 1853, the Porte declared war on Russia; and the destruction
of the Turkish fleet at Sinope sealed the Russian acquiescence to the
declaration.
England and France allied themselves with Turkey against Russia, and
declared war on March 28, 1854.
The siege of Sebastopol lasted for nearly a year, and its fall was
followed by the Congress of Paris.[68] The plenipotentiaries of France,
England, Russia, Turkey, Sardinia, Austria, and at last Prussia,
assembled at Paris (February, 1856), and the “Treaty of Paris” was
signed, by which the following matters were settled:—
1. The Great Powers “declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate
in the advantages of the public law and system (concert) of Europe.
Their Majesties engage, each on his part, to respect the independence
and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; guarantee in common
the strict observance of that engagement; and will, in consequence,
consider any act tending to its violation, as a question of general
interest” (Art. VII.).
2. “The Black Sea is neutralized; its waters and its ports thrown open
to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and in perpetuity
interdicted to the flag of war, either of the Powers possessing its
coasts, or of any other Power” (Art. XI.), and, “The Black Sea being
neutralized according to the terms of Article XI., the maintenance or
establishment upon its coast of military maritime arsenals becomes alike
unnecessary and purposeless; in consequence, His Majesty the Emperor of
all the Russias, and His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, engage not to
establish or to maintain upon that coast any military maritime arsenal”
(Art. XIII.).
The docks and fortifications at Sebastopol were destroyed by the Western
Powers; but it was allowed that Russia and the Porte should keep up “the
number of light vessels necessary for the service of the coast” (Art.
XIV.), and merchant ships of all kinds were allowed freely to enter it.
3. All control over the mouth of the Danube was taken from Russia and
entrusted to the authority of the Riverain Commission (Art. XVII.). “A
Commission shall be established, and shall be composed of delegates of
Austria, Bavaria, the Sublime Porte, and Würtemburg (one for each of
those Powers), to whom shall be added commissioners from the three
Danubian Principalities, whose nomination shall have been approved by
the Porte. This Commission, which shall be permanent: (1) Shall prepare
regulations of navigation and river police; (2) Shall remove the
impediments, of whatever nature they may be, which still prevent the
application to the Danube of the arrangements of the Treaty of Vienna;
(3) Shall order and cause to be executed the necessary works throughout
the whole course of the river; (4) Shall, after the dissolution of the
European Commission, see to maintaining the mouths of the Danube and the
neighbouring parts of the sea in a navigable state” (Art. XVII.).
4. A portion of Bessarabia on the left bank of the Danube was ceded by
Russia in order to make the Turkish defence against Russia more easy,
and more fully to secure the freedom of the navigation of the Danube
(Art. XX.).
There is no doubt Russia was beaten by the combined alliance against
her. She had entirely overreached herself and miscalculated the temper
of the other Powers. She had thought that an Anglo-French alliance was
impossible, and that Prussia and Austria would have remained neutral.
Prussia indeed did maintain a neutrality at the commencement of the war,
and the King of Prussia himself said, “I am resolved to maintain a
position of complete neutrality, and to this I add with proud elevation
that my people and myself are of one mind. They require absolute
neutrality from me.”
Austria, however, only maintained a conditional neutrality. The Austrian
Emperor, in replying to the Russian Ambassador, Count Orloff, said,
“Then must Austria be equally free to act as her interest and dignity
may direct,” if Russia was to cross the Danube, or seek to occupy fresh
territory, or not evacuate the Principalities when the war was over.
Later on both Prussia and Austria formed a defensive alliance against
Russia, and with the consent of the Porte, the Principalities were
provisionally occupied by Austria.
In England Lord Aberdeen did his utmost to bring about a peace between
Russia and Turkey, but it was a hopeless task. Lord Palmerston, on the
other hand, described the aggressive policy of Russia as follows:—
“The policy and practice of the Russian Government has always been to
push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want
of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go, but always to
stop and retire when it was met with decided resistance, and then to
wait for the next favourable opportunity to make another spring on its
intended victim. In furtherance of this policy, the Russian Government
has always had two strings to its bow—moderate language and
disinterested professions at Petersburg and at London; active aggression
by its agents on the scene of operations. If the aggressions succeed
locally, the St. Petersburg Government adopts them as a _fait accompli_
which it did not intend, but cannot, in honour, recede from. If the
local agents fail, they are disavowed and recalled, and the language
previously held is appealed to as a proof that the agents have
overstepped their instructions. This was exemplified, in the treaty of
Unkiar-Skelessi, and in the exploits of Simonivitch and Vikovitch in
Persia.”[69] And Lord Palmerston wrote as follows to Lord Aberdeen (July
4, 1853), when the combined fleets of England and France were at Besika
Bay:—“In the meantime, however, I hope you will allow the squadrons to
be ordered to go up to the Bosphorus as soon as it is known at
Constantinople that the Russians have entered the Principalities, and to
be further at liberty to go into the Black Sea, if necessary or useful
for the protection of Turkish territory. The advantages of such a course
seem to be—
“First. That it would encourage and assist the Turks in those defensive
arrangements and organizations which the present crisis may give the
Turkish Government facilities for making, and the benefit of which, in
strengthening Turkey against attack, will continue after the crisis is
over.
“Secondly. It would essentially tend to prevent any further inroad on
Turkish territory in Europe or in Asia, and it is manifest that any such
further inroad would much increase the difficulties of a settlement.
“Thirdly. It would act as a wholesome check upon the Emperor and his
advisers, and would stimulate Austria and Prussia to increased exertions
to bring the Russian Government to reason.
“Fourthly. It would relieve England and France from the disagreeable,
and not very creditable, position of waiting without venturing to enter
the back door as friends, while the Russians have taken forcible
possession of the front hall as enemies.
“If these orders are to be given, I would suggest that it is very
important that they should be given without delay, so that we may be
able, when these matters are discussed this week in Parliament, to say
that such orders have been sent off. Of course they would at the same
time be communicated to the Russian Government.”
But the Premier did not agree with Palmerston’s views.
The combined fleets, at the request of the Sultan, passed up to
Constantinople (October 7, 1853). Palmerston then made two propositions
to the Cabinet:—
“First. That instructions should be sent to Constantinople that, in the
event of war having been declared, the two squadrons should enter the
Black Sea, and should send word to the Russian admiral at Sebastopol
that, in the existing state of things, any Russian ship of war found
cruising in the Black Sea would be detained, and be given over to the
Turkish Government.
“Secondly. That England and France should propose to the Sultan to
conclude a convention to the effect that, whereas war has unfortunately
broken out between Russia and Turkey, in consequence of differences
created by unjust demands made upon Turkey by Russia, and by
unwarrantable invasion of the Turkish territory by a Russian army; and
whereas it is deemed by England and France to be an object of general
European interest, and of special importance to them that the political
independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire should
be maintained inviolate against Russian aggression, the two Powers
engage to furnish to the Sultan such naval assistance as may be
necessary in existing circumstances for the defence of his empire; and
they moreover engage to permit any of their respective subjects who may
be willing to do so, to enter the military or naval service of the
Sultan. In return, the Sultan is to engage that he will consult with
England and France as to the terms and conditions of the new treaty
which is to determine, on the conclusion of hostilities, the future
relations of Russia and Turkey.”
But Lord Aberdeen in reply said:—
“I cannot say that I think the present state of the Russo-Turkish
question would authorize such a proceeding on our part as that which you
intend to propose.”
On November 1, 1853, Palmerston again said in concluding another letter
to Lord Aberdeen:—
“It seems to me, then, that our course is plain, simple, and straight.
That we must help Turkey out of her difficulties by negotiation, if
possible; and that if negotiation fails, we must, by force of arms,
carry her safely through her dangers.”
After the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope, Palmerston wrote
to Aberdeen as follows:—
“Will you allow me this opportunity of repeating in writing what I have
more than once said verbally, on the state of things between Russia and
Turkey? It appears to me that we have two objects in view: the one to
put an end to the present war between these two Powers; the other to
prevent, as far as diplomatic arrangements can do so, a recurrence of
similar differences, and renewed dangers to the peace of Europe.
“Now it seems to me that, unless Turkey shall be laid prostrate at the
feet of Russia by the disasters of the war—an event which England and
France could not without dishonour permit—no peace can be concluded
between the contending parties unless the Emperor consents to evacuate
the Principalities, to abandon his demands, and to renounce some of the
embarrassing stipulations of former treaties upon which he has founded
the pretensions which have been the cause of existing difficulties.
“To bring the Emperor to agree to this, it is necessary to exert a
considerable pressure upon him; and the quarter in which that pressure
can at present be most easily brought to bear is the Black Sea and the
countries bordering upon it. In the Black Sea, the combined English,
French, and Turkish squadrons are indisputably superior to the Russian
fleet, and are able to give the law to that fleet. What I would strongly
recommend, therefore, is that which I proposed some months ago to the
Cabinet, namely, that the Russian Government and the Russian admiral at
Sebastopol should be informed that so long as Russian troops occupy the
Principalities, or hold a position in any other part of the Turkish
territory, no Russian ships of war can be allowed to show themselves out
of port in the Black Sea.
“You will say that this would be an active hostility towards Russia; but
so is the declaration already made, that no Russian ships shall be
permitted to make any landing or attack on any part of the Turkish
territory. The only difference between the two declarations is that the
one already made is incomplete and insufficient for its purpose, and
that the one which I propose would be complete and sufficient. If the
Russian fleet were shut up in Sebastopol, it is probable that the Turks
would be able to make in Asia an impression that would tend to
facilitate the conclusion of peace.
“With regard to the conditions of peace, it seems to me that the only
arrangement which could afford to Europe a fair security against future
dangers arising out of the encroachments of Russia on Turkey, and the
attempts of the Russian Government to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Turkish Empire, would be that arrangement which I have often
suggested, namely, that the treaty to be concluded between Russia and
Turkey should be an ordinary treaty of peace and friendship, of
boundaries, commerce, and mutual protection of the subjects of the one
party within the territories of the other; and that all the stipulations
which might be required for the privileges of the Principalities and of
Servia, and for the protection of the Christian religion and its
churches and the Ottoman dominions by the Sultan and the five Powers. By
such a treaty, Russia would be prevented from dealing single-handed with
Turkey in regard to those matters on which she has, from time to time,
endeavoured to fasten a quarrel on the Sultan.”
Lord Aberdeen’s reply was:—
“I confess I am not prepared to adopt the mode which you think most
likely to restore peace.”
Lord Palmerston tendered his resignation on receiving this reply, but
withdrew it ten days after when the Cabinet adopted his views.
On June 16, 1854, Lord Palmerston wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, then
Minister of War—“Our only chance of bringing Russia to terms is by
_offensive_ and not by defensive operations. We and the French ought to
go to the Crimea and take Sebastopol. If this blow were accompanied by
successful operations in Georgia and Circassia, we might have a Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year.”
Thus we see that the English policy during the Crimean crisis changed
from peace tactics to defensive operations, and was subsequently turned
into an offensive line of action which terminated in a brilliant triumph
for England.
But how was Lord Palmerston able to carry out his war policy so
vigorously? The answer is a very simple one. He was backed and urged on
by the nation at large, who were incensed at the insolence of Russia.
Thus he was able to pursue his plans, being encouraged and supported by
a people who were well able to carry out what they resolved upon.
Kinglake said he (Lord Palmerston) “was gifted with the instinct which
enables a man to read the heart of a nation.”
His judgment was rightly pronounced, for Palmerston saw the feelings of
his national constituents and steered his course well and skilfully.[70]
What, then, was the national feeling of England at that time?
“In the present instance,” said the Prince Consort, “their (the English)
feeling is something of this sort: The Emperor of Russia is a tyrant,
the enemy of all liberty on the Continent, and the oppressor of Poland.”
From these royal remarks, I do not think I shall be far wrong in saying
that the growing tendency of the English people towards liberalism since
the Reform Bill of 1832, and the teaching of William Wilberforce, had
led them to consider Russia not only as a national enemy but as a
general opponent of the rights of humanity and civilization. No wonder
that a war became a necessity after this public manifestation.
At the end of the last chapter I stated that England had rapidly
increased, in wealth and prosperity since the Repeal of the Corn Laws.
Gladstone, in the House of Commons, stated that such was the vigour and
elasticity of the English trade, that even after the disadvantage of a
bad harvest, and under the pressure of war, the imports from day to day,
and almost from hour to hour, were increasing, and that the very last
papers laid on the table showed within the last three months of the year
that there was an increase of £250,000 in the national exports.[71]
This, then, was one of the reasons which enabled England to carry on
this war so successfully.
Let us turn our attention for a short time to France, which at this
period was undergoing considerable internal agitation. Republicanism was
now abolished and Monarchy reigned in its stead in the hands of Napoleon
III. (1852). There seemed every prospect of the French Monarchy being
firmly re-established.
The French Emperor was very desirous of starting a European War for the
purpose of securing his seat on the throne, and also for the
aggrandizement of his country abroad.[72] The interests of his country,
both religious and political, were opposed to those of Russia with
regard to the Holy Places, while both England and France had a common
interest in keeping the Ottoman Empire from Russia. This latter interest
acted as a means of union between the two Powers, both of whom were
ready at any moment to attack Russia, and the publication of the Czar’s
memorable conversation with Sir H. Seymour still further cemented that
union.
The result we have already seen. Russia was humiliated.
VI.
THE BLACK SEA CONFERENCE.
_French influence destroyed by the Franco-Prussian War—Russia annuls
the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris—Condition of Europe
prevents their enforcement by the Powers—London Conference; Russia
secures the Black Sea; England’s mistake—Alsace and Lorraine destroy
the balance of power._
Russia had convinced herself that the separation of England from France
was not a sufficient guarantee to hinder the possibility of the alliance
of the two Powers against her, because a common interest would unite
them immediately. Russia now determined to crush down one of the two
Powers, independently of the other, and was only waiting for an
opportunity to do so.
In 1870 the Franco-Prussian War broke out through the question of the
Spanish Succession. England maintained a strict neutrality, and this now
seemed a glorious opportunity for Russia to carry out her long-cherished
designs. She supported Prussia _morally_, in this way hoping to crush
France, and then only England would be left to attack. The result proved
favourable; France was defeated by Prussia, and this was followed by the
fall of the Monarchy, and the proclamation of the Republic (September
14, 1870).
Russia now looked around, and at a glance saw the favourable position
she occupied, and her strength. Austria had been weakened by the war
with Prussia in 1866, Spain and Italy were convulsed with revolutions,
Turkey was naturally weak; Prussia had suffered somewhat in 1866 with
Austria, and with France in 1870. France herself had undoubtedly
received a crushing blow, while England was worried over the Alabama
claims with America.
Thus we see the balance of power was considerably shaken by the
Franco-Prussian War, while an alliance among the Western states seemed
impossible.
In 1870 Western Europe was startled by Prince Gortchakoff’s declaration
that the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris, 1856, were null and
void. “He declared it would no longer be submitted to by his Imperial
master.”[73]
England naturally felt very indignant, but was practically helpless, as
she was unable to get any ally from among the Western Powers, and she
felt unable to cope singly with Russia. The Government were perplexed,
and the Premier, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, sent Lord Odo Russell to the
German Chancellor to ask his advice on the subject, and to inform him
that “the question was of such a nature that England, with or without
allies, would have to go to war with Russia.”
Prince Bismarck, who was afraid of a Franco-Russian alliance, and wished
to conciliate the Russian Emperor, recommended that a conference should
be held in St. Petersburg. The English Government objected to this, so a
Conference was held in London where the following provisions were agreed
to:—
“Article I. Articles XI., XIII., and XIV., of the Treaty of Paris, 1856,
are abrogated.
“Article II. The principle of the closing of the Straits of the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus is maintained, with power to his Imperial
Majesty the Sultan to open the said Straits in time of peace to the
vessels of war of friendly and allied Powers, in case the Sublime Porte
should judge it necessary in order to secure the execution of the
stipulations of the Treaty of Paris.
“Article III. The Black Sea remains, as heretofore, open to the
mercantile marine of all nations.
“Article IV. The Commission managing the navigation of the Danube “is
maintained in its present composition” for a further period of twelve
years.
“Article VIII. The high contracting parties renew and confirm all the
stipulations of 1856, which are not annulled or modified by the present
treaty.”
This treaty resulted in what Russia wished, viz., the opening of the
Black Sea to Russian war ships—a right which she had held previous to
the Crimean War.
Mr. Disraeli (afterwards Lord Beaconsfield) vigorously attacked the
Gladstonian policy by saying that “the neutral character of the Black
Sea is the essence of the Treaty of Paris, and that that, in fact, was
the question for which we had struggled and made great sacrifice and
endured these sufferings which never can be forgotten,” and the “point
upon which the negotiations for peace (at Vienna, 1855) was broken off
was the neutral character of the Black Sea.”[74]
In answer to this attack Mr. Gladstone replied, “I do not speak from
direct communication with Lord Clarendon, but I have been told since his
death that he never attached a value to that neutralization. Again I do
not speak from direct communication, but I have been told that Lord
Palmerston always looked upon the neutralization as an arrangement which
might be maintained and held together for a limited number of years, but
which, from its character, it was impossible to maintain as a permanent
condition for a great settlement of Europe.”
However, Russia had regained what she had lost at the close of the
Crimean War by skilful diplomacy. She now was perfectly at liberty to
keep her fleet in the Black Sea, and to refortify Sebastopol and Keotch
to such an extent as to render them impregnable.
She felt gratified at the result of the Franco-Prussian War, and on
hearing that Prussia had annexed Alsace and Lorraine. General Ignatieff,
the Russian Ambassador at Constantinople, hastened to the German
Ambassador, Count Karserling, and said, “Permit me to congratulate you,
and _thank you_; for you it is a prodigious mistake, but on Russia you
have conferred the greatest possible boon.” At the time of the
annexation of the two French provinces, Germany thought that they would
prove of the greatest value to the German Empire, but this idea proved a
mistake, and since then Russia has used, and still uses them, as a pivot
on which the Eastern Question turns.
Frederick III.’s idea of selling back Alsace and Lorraine would no doubt
prove a great benefit, not only to the German nation, but also to the
maintenance of the balance of power in Europe.
Yet, though Bismarck defeated Napoleon III. in a sanguinary war, Prince
Gortschakoff had beaten all the signitary powers at the Treaty of Paris
by one stroke of the pen, and the greatest gainer, in the
Franco-Prussian War was not Germany but Russia. Verily, indeed, is it
once more proved that the Pen is mightier than the Sword.
VII.
THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR OF 1878.
_Bulgarian atrocities—The Andrassy Note; England destroys its
effect—The Berlin Memorandum; England opposes it—Russia prepares for
a Turkish war—Conference of Constantinople—New Turkish
Constitution—Russo-Turkish War—Treaty of San Stefano—Intervention of
the Powers—The Berlin Congress—Final treaty of peace._
The Slavs migrated to the Balkan Peninsula as early as 450 A.D., and
Bosnia remained the only Slavonic part of the Turkish Empire where a
native nobility owned the land and a peasantry tilled it for them.
Having been defeated by the Turks, the nobility became Mahommedans to
save their patrimony, while the peasantry, having nothing to lose,
remained Christians; but the tyranny of their nobility at length obliged
the Turks to put an end to the Feudal System in Bosnia (1850–1851).
In August, 1875, Herzegovina (the southwestern district of Bosnia)
revolted against the Sultan, being aided by a strong natural position
and receiving the assistance of both Servia and Montenegro.
While this revolt was going on the Bulgarians also rose in rebellion
against the Sultan (1876), but were put down by the Turkish Government,
although not without shameful cruelties and outrages being committed by
the Turkish troops and militia, which caused great indignation
throughout Europe,[75] and specially so in Russia. This, therefore, gave
the latter country a good opportunity of claiming to be a general
protector of the Christians in Turkey.
The Austro-Hungarian Minister, Count Andrassy, on behalf of Austria,
Germany, and Russia, drew up a Note in which five[76] chief concessions
were insisted upon from the Porte as necessary for the pacification of
the revolted provinces.
Lord Derby, on behalf of the English Government, signed[77] it, but
added that the integrity[78] of the Ottoman Empire was to be respected.
Here the Czar caught a key-note of the English policy, and he played on
it afterwards to his own advantage.
The Porte accepted the conditions of the Note, but the rebels did not
trust the Turkish promises, so the insurrections continued.
The Czar then, with Gortschakoff, met Bismarck and Andrassy at Berlin,
and, together, they drew up the “Berlin Memorandum,”[79] in which the
three Powers asked the Sultan to grant an armistice for two months in
order that the demands of the insurgents might receive a fair
consideration. Italy and France added their voices, but England
refused[80] to sign the Memorandum and sent a powerful squadron to
Besika Bay, expecting that the Sultan would refuse the Memorandum
because it would endanger the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. This
“Berlin Memorandum” displays the skilful way in which Russia, under the
clever guidance of the Czar and his Minister Gortschakoff, carried on
negotiation. She was only seeking a _pretence_[81] for a single-handed
war policy with Turkey, and in order to do this she proposed measures at
Berlin which she knew would prove objectionable to England. Germany, who
dreaded a special alliance between France and Russia, was obliged to
agree to these measures, thus becoming a tool of Russia, who wanted to
make England first deviate from the Treaties of Paris and London, and,
if possible, to break down the balance of power in Europe which she
herself had already done by her withdrawal from the Black Sea clauses in
the Treaty of Paris. England fell into the snare together with the other
Powers. She objected to the Berlin Memorandum, refused to sign, and sent
a fleet to Besika Bay in support of her objection. This was just what
Russia desired.
A new Sultan now ascended the throne, and Russian influence declined
while that of England increased.
In July, 1876, Prince Milan of Servia, and Prince Mikita of Montenegro,
declared war against Turkey, having open assistance from Russia. The
rebels, however, were subjugated by the Turks.
In November, 1876, Alexander II. of Russia, made a public declaration
that “if Turkey did not give due guarantees for the better government of
her Christian subjects he would force them to do so, either in concert
with his allies or by independent action.”
The European Powers, in consequence of this proclamation, proposed a
Conference at Constantinople to settle the matter. The Czar, seeing that
the Conference was inevitable, agreed to it. The representatives met,
and, as was to be expected, asked nearly the same conditions as had been
contained in the “Andrassy Note.”
The promulgation of a new Constitution for the Ottoman Empire was the
result of the Conference, much to the disappointment of Russia, who did
not expect that any such result would be arrived at. Thus, in order to
stop any further reforms or concessions being made by Turkey, she
succeeded in removing from power the author of the new Constitution,
viz., Midhat Pasha, who was an important personage in Turkish politics.
The following little story shows the skilful way in which the Turkish
Minister was removed from power by the agency of Russia:—
“During the Conference, the day after the Turks had proclaimed their new
Constitution, General Ignatieff met Sir W. White.
“‘Have you read the Constitution?’ asked Ignatieff. ‘No,’ said the
Englishman; ‘what does it matter? It is not serious.’ ‘But,’ said
Ignatieff, ‘you must really read one Article;’ and so saying he pointed
out the Article which set forth that all provisions to the contrary
notwithstanding the Sultan was to retain an absolute right to banish
from the capital any person whose presence might seem objectionable to
him. ‘Mark my words,’ said Ignatieff, ‘the first man to be exiled under
that clause will be Midhat Pasha, the author of the Constitution.’
“The prediction was fulfilled to the letter. Meeting Ignatieff some time
after, Sir W. White recalled the prophecy and its fulfilment. ‘Oh! yes,’
said the general, carelessly; ‘I arranged that.’ ‘But you had left
Constantinople before Midhat’s exile.’ ‘Certainly, but I arranged it
just before I left.’ ‘How?’ ‘It was very simple; the weather was stormy
in the Black Sea, and I could not leave for some days after the
departure of my colleague. I went on board my steamer and anchored
exactly opposite the Sultan’s palace. I did not go and bid him farewell,
but waited. In a day or two, as I anticipated, there came an
_aide-de-camp_ from the Sultan to express his regret and surprise that
I, whom he had known better than any of the Ambassadors, should be
departing without paying him a farewell visit. I replied that, of
course, I should have been delighted to have paid my respects to His
Majesty, but that it was no longer necessary. I had paid my farewell
visit to Midhat Pasha, as, under the Constitution, it was to him, not
the Sultan, that such an act of respect was due. Almost immediately
after arriving in Russia I heard of the exile of Midhat. My parting shot
had secured his downfall.’”[82]
The Conference failed, and Russia declared war against Turkey, for now
she had obtained what she had been striving for during the diplomatic
transactions, viz., a pretence for a single-handed policy with regard to
Turkey, and, secondly, she had obtained sufficient time for making all
necessary war preparations. Now, although she had already got back what
she had lost in the Crimean War (through the Franco-Prussian War), yet
she was determined to obtain what she had intended to take at the
Crimean War, viz., Constantinople.
A large Russian army crossed the Pruth (April, 1877), and encamped
before Constantinople. In Asia Kars was captured. This led to the Treaty
of San Stefano.
By this treaty the Ottoman Empire in Europe was completely abrogated. It
recognized the independence of Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania;
Bulgaria was created, and its boundaries now extended to the Black and
Ægean Seas, embracing several valuable harbours. Although the latter
country still remained tributary to Turkey, yet Russia had the
appointment of a Christian prince in her hands. It has now to have a
separate administration, to be supervised by Russian commissioners, and
was also to be garrisoned by Russian troops.
In Bosnia, Crete, Thessaly, and Epirus a certain amount of reform was to
be introduced by the Porte under the supervision of Russia. It was also
enacted that the part of Bessarabia taken from Russia in 1856 should be
ceded back to her, to which Lord Palmerston attached great value,
“because,” he said, “it is not of local, but of European interest.”
Kars, Batoum, and other adjoining districts in Asia were added to
Russia, by which cession she undoubtedly held the strongholds of
Armenia. Turkey had to pay Russia three hundred million roubles.
The results of this treaty may be described as follows: It was nothing
less than (1) “To take all the European dominions of the Ottoman Empire
from the Porte and put them under the administration of Russia;” (2) “to
make the Black Sea as much a Russian lake as the Caspian;” (3) to give
Russia a firm hold of the Mediterranean, and thereby imperil the naval
supremacy of England in that quarter.
Naturally, England could not accept the Treaty of San Stefano without
some alterations. Lord Derby resigned on the refusal of his demand that
the treaty should be laid before Parliament, and Lord Salisbury sent out
a vigorous circular which showed the injustice towards other races of a
large Bulgaria establishing Slav supremacy in the Balkan Peninsula under
Russian influence; also the loss of the ports of Bourgas and Batoum by
the Turks would give Russia command of the Black Sea trade, while the
cession of Kars to her would also influence Turkey’s Asiatic
possessions. This would also affect the English interests in the Persian
Gulf, the Levant, and the Suez Canal, which were in the Ottoman keeping,
and therefore was a matter of extreme solicitude for England. She would
be willing, however, to join in general stipulations made by the joint
Powers, but would not submit to Prince Gortschakoffs commands. Again, an
unpaid pecuniary debt owing to Russia by Turkey would give the former
dangerous power.
The following words occur in the first despatch of the English
Government to Russia:—
“The course on which the Russian Government has entered involves graver
and more serious consideration. It is in contravention of the
stipulation of the Treaty of Paris (March 30, 1856), by which Russia and
the other signatory Powers engaged, each on its own part, to respect the
independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. At the
close of the Conference of London of 1871, the above plenipotentiary, in
common with those of the other Powers, signed a declaration affirming it
to be an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can
liberate itself from the engagement of a treaty, nor modify the
stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting parties
by means of an amicable arrangement. In taking action against Turkey on
his own part, and having recourse to arms without further consultation
with his allies, the Emperor of Russia has separated himself from the
European concert hitherto maintained, and has at the same time departed
from the rule to which he himself had solemnly recorded his
consent.”[83]
The English Government addressed a second despatch to Russia, stating
that the English Government is “of opinion that any treaty concluded by
the Governments of Russia and the Porte affecting the treaties of 1856
and 1871 must be a European treaty, and would not be valid without the
assent of the Powers who were parties to those treaties.”
The Russian Minister’s (Gortschakoff’s) reply was received at last: “We
repeat the assurance that we do not intend to settle by ourselves
European questions having reference to the peace which is to be made.”
Then the English Government sent another despatch to Russia and the
other foreign Courts, and it was communicated through an English
Ambassador at St. Petersburg that the Russian Emperor “stated
categorically that questions bearing on European interests will be
concerted with European Powers, and he had given Her Majesty’s
Government clear and positive assurance to this effect.”
At length Austria, with the full appreciation of Russia, invited England
to a Conference at Berlin for the object of establishing “an European
agreement as to the modifications which it might become necessary to
introduce in existing treaties in order to make them harmonize with the
present situation.”
The English Government, however, stipulated beforehand “that it would be
desirable to have it understood in the first place that all questions
dealt with in the San Stefano Treaty between Russia and Turkey” should
be fully considered in the Congress, and “that no alteration in the
condition of things previously established by treaty should be
acknowledged as valid until it has received the consent of the Powers.”
Russia replied that “the preliminary treaty of peace between Russia and
Turkey will be textually committed to the Great Powers before the
meeting of the Congress, and that in the Congress itself each Power will
have full liberty of assent and of its free action” (“_la pleine liberté
de ses appréciations et de son action_”).
This was a diplomatic triumph for England, and the treaty was formally
submitted to the Congress. But there were certain facts which must not
escape our notice, for just before the publication of the Treaty of San
Stefano the excitement in England had attained its zenith. Russia,
perceiving this, and hearing that England was quite ready to take up
arms against her, took the utmost precautions not to injure English
interests; so a Russian occupation of Constantinople, or any other
circumstance which might excite the enmity of England, were omitted in
the San Stefano Treaty.
When this became known in England the excitement abated somewhat; and,
seeing this, Russia consented to submit the treaty to the Congress.
The Congress was opened at Berlin, under the presidency of the German
Chancellor, Bismarck; and Beaconsfield firmly stood his ground at the
Congress, previously calling out the reserve forces and summoning seven
thousand Indian troops to Malta. Austria began to arm. Russia now could
not be obstinate.
The following conditions were fixed and drawn up by the Congress:—
_Bulgaria._
Article I. Bulgaria is constituted an autonomous and tributary
principality under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan; it
will have a Christian Government and a national militia.
Article III. The Prince of Bulgaria shall be freely elected by the
population and confirmed by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the
Powers. No member of the reigning dynasties of the Great European Powers
may be elected Prince of Bulgaria.
In case of a vacancy in the princely dignity, the election of the new
prince shall take place under the same conditions and with the same
forms.
_Eastern Roumelia._
Article XIII. A province is formed south of the Balkans which will take
the name of “Eastern Roumelia,” and will remain under the direct
political and military authority of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan,
under conditions of administrative autonomy. It shall have a Christian
Governor-general.
Article XVII. The Governor-general of Eastern Roumelia shall be
nominated by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers, for a
term of five years.
_Crete, &c._
Article XXIII. The Sublime Porte undertakes to scrupulously apply to the
island of Crete the Organic Law of 1868, with such modifications as may
be considered equitable.
Similar laws adapted to local requirements, excepting as regards the
exemption from taxation granted to Crete, shall also be introduced into
the other parts of Turkey in Europe for which no special organization
has been provided by the present treaty.
_Bosnia and Herzegovina._
Article XXV. The provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied
and administered by Austria-Hungary.
_Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania._
Article XXVI. The independence of Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania is
recognized by the Sublime Porte, and by all the high contracting
parties, subject to the conditions set forth in the following:—
In Montenegro the difference of religious creeds and confessions shall
not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or
incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil and political
rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honours, or the
exercise of the various professions and industries in any locality
whatsoever.
The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be
assured to all persons belonging to Montenegro, as well as to
foreigners; and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical
organization of the different communions or to their relations with
their spiritual chiefs.
Article XLV. The principality of Roumania restores to His Majesty the
Emperor of Russia that portion of Bessarabian territory detached from
Russia by the Treaty of Paris of 1856.
_Cessions in Asia._
Article LVIII. The Sublime Porte cedes to the Russian Empire in Asia the
territories of Ardahan, Kars, and Batoum, together with the latter port.
Article XIX. His Majesty the Emperor declares that it is his intention
to constitute Batoum a free port, essentially commercial.
Article LX. The valley of Alaxhkerd and the town of Bayazid, ceded to
Russia, are restored to Turkey.
The Sublime Porte cedes to Persia the town and territory of Khotou for
its delimitation of the frontiers of Turkey and of Persia.[84]
_The Anglo-Turkish Convention._
Article I. Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, or any of them, shall be retained by
Russia, and if any attempt shall be made at any future time by Russia to
take possession of any further territories of His Imperial Majesty the
Sultan in Asia, as fixed by the Definitive Treaty of Peace, England
engages to join His Imperial Majesty the Sultan in defending them by
force of arms.
In order to enable England to make necessary provision for executing her
engagement, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan further consents to assign
the island of Cyprus to be occupied and administrated by England.
Beaconsfield having thus attained “peace with honour” for England,
returned, and in a speech[85] in the House, said, “They are not
movements of war, they are operations of peace and civilization; we have
no reason to fear war. Her Majesty has fleets and armies which are
second to none.”
VIII.
REMARKS UPON THE TREATY OF BERLIN.
_The position of affairs—The Salisbury-Schouvaloft Memorandum and its
disastrous effect on the negotiations at Berlin—Russia’s
gain—England and Austria the guardians of Turkey—Austria’s vigorous
and straightforward Balkan policy—Thwarted in Servia but triumphant
in Bulgaria—Relations of Greece to Austria—Solution of the Crete
question—Neutrality of Belgium threatened—Importance of
Constantinople to Russia; the Anglo-Turkish Convention—England’s
feeble policy in Asia Minor—The question of Egypt—A new route to
India by railway from the Mediterranean to Persian Gulf—England’s
relation to Constantinople._
Let us now review and make a few remarks on the Treaty of Berlin.
Firstly, the whole treaty seems to me to be virtually a repetition[86]
and revision of the conditions of the European concert in the Eastern
question.
Prince Bismarck’s opinion was that the Treaty of San Stefano meant to
alter “the state of things as fixed by former European Conventions,”
consequently the Berlin Congress followed for “the free discussion of
the Cabinets’ signatories of the treaties of 1856 and 1871.”
The Treaties of Paris and London being still in force, and owing to the
rise of a new nationality and the redistribution of territory, these
treaties were altered and amended by the Congress.
Before we criticize the Treaty of Berlin we ought to bear two things in
our mind. (1) At the Conference of Paris, 1856, England, France, and
Turkey were victorious, while Russia was conquered. (2) At the Berlin
Congress, 1878, Russia was victorious over Turkey, while England and
France were neutral.
In both meetings it was asserted and claimed that the Powers
collectively had the right of settling the Eastern Question as against
Russia’s single-handed interference, England leading the van with fair
words but selfish interests.
On Russia concluding the San Stefano Treaty with Turkey, England said
that, according to the conditions of the Treaty of Paris, the Great
Powers of Europe “engaged each on its own part to respect the
independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire,” and consequently
Turkish affairs produced a general interest throughout Europe.
Russia had committed a serious breach of “the law of nations” by a
treaty single-handed with Turkey. When the European Congress at Berlin
was consented to by Russia, England said that the Treaty of San Stefano
was not valid without the consent of the signatory Powers of the
Treaties of Paris and London. She also demanded from Russia that, “in
the Congress itself, each Power should have full liberty of assent and
free action.” These demands seemed perfectly reasonable. However,
England, before the Berlin meeting, contracted a secret agreement with
Russia, in which the modifications asked for by England in the Treaty of
San Stefano were specified. This agreement did not leave out the
bringing in of other changes by mutual consent, but, if these failed,
tended to be a mutual engagement by the ambassadors of Russia and Great
Britain as to their general behaviour and conduct at the Congress. This
secret agreement between the two Powers practically blocked the full
liberty of the other Powers and the full amount of good they might
otherwise have done. England had been one of the first to attack Russia
for committing a breach of the Treaties of Paris and London; yet she
overlooked the fact that she herself had morally broken the same
treaties by her secret negotiation with Russia, the other Powers not
being at the time cognizant of the fact.
Once more Russia, by the Black Sea Conference, had gained full freedom
on the Black Sea, now she had regained the part of Bessarabia which she
had lost during the Crimean War, the principal object of which was to
drive Russia from the banks of the Danube. The above-mentioned territory
was ceded to Russia through the influence of Lord Salisbury, who had
secretly promised Schouvaloff, the Russian ambassador, that he would
support the Russian demand with regard to that land.
By the Berlin Treaty England and Austria were invested with a special
responsibility for protecting the integrity of the Ottoman Empire
against Russian aggression—England in Asia Minor, and Austria in the
Balkans.
If Russia attacked through Asia Minor the English interests would be
imperilled; and by the disappearance of the Balkan States, then Austria
would be open to Russian immediate attacks—a consummation which would be
little desired by that Power.
This responsibility has undoubtedly from that time engrossed the
attention of Austria and Hungary. She has had to encounter several
difficulties. Bessarabia was no longer a Turkish province, and had been
ceded to Russia by the Salisbury-Schouvaloff memorandum. Also there, was
no possibility of the Balkan States being confederated owing to the
different races, language, and feelings of the nationality.
In September, 1879, Bismarck visited Vienna and concluded an
Austro-German defensive alliance against the alliance of France and
Russia. Bismarck, however, described the German policy in the following
terse manner: “Fight by all means, if you feel yourself strong enough to
beat Russia single-handed. France and Germany will see all fair, and you
can hardly expect anybody effectually to help you.”
Notwithstanding these rather unfavourable circumstances, and her
financial difficulties as well, still the policy of Austria is at the
present time carried on straightforwardly and vigorously, and the duty
with which she charged herself at the Berlin Treaty is ably done, and is
well backed up by the five million Magyars who inhabit Hungary and the
adjoining provinces. This nation had been cruelly put under Austria by
Russia (1848–49), and consequently their hatred against Russia was
deeply rooted.
At present, therefore, Russia’s schemes with regard to Constantinople
have been frustrated, and Austria holds the lead in the Balkan Peninsula
race.
Austria was asked to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, in order to secure
peace and order there. She did so, and, notwithstanding an armed
resistance, entered and fulfilled her promise. She is now strengthening
her hold on these states by stationary garrisons of soldiers in
different parts, and also Jesuits, who exercise a moral influence over
the people. The affairs of Servia have also deeply occupied the
attention of the Austrian Government. She captured King Milan, and used
him as a tool for her own purposes. Russia, however, desired to get hold
of Servia through the ex-queen.
Intrigues at the Servian Court were numerous, and at last the miserable
divorce of the king and queen leaked out. The present young king
ascended the throne. This was a blow to the Austrian influence.
Bulgaria had been declared an independent country by the Berlin Treaty.
On this state the question of supremacy between Russia and Austria in
the Balkans hangs to a great degree. In 1855 Bulgaria and Eastern
Roumelia were united into a single state. This revolution occasioned
very great displeasure in Russia, and under her influence Prince
Alexander was kidnapped and compelled to abdicate, and Prince Ferdinand
of Coburg was elected as the ruling prince.
Although of German extraction, he is an Austrian by allegiance, and a
Roman Catholic. He was originally an officer in the Hungarian army.
There seems to me no doubt that his election was illegal, because, in
the first place, by the Berlin Treaty the ruling prince must belong to
the Greek Church.
Prince Ferdinand was quite ready to submit his claim for decision to the
Great Powers, and abide by the result. All the Powers except England and
Austria declared that he had no claim to the crown, but the two had
their own way, and he ascended the Bulgarian throne—another repulse and
blow to Russian influence. Prince Alexander meanwhile was given a post
in the Austro-Hungarian army. Only recently, to show the friendly spirit
that exists between Austria and Bulgaria, a loan has been concluded and
advanced by the former to the latter.
Undoubtedly Austria committed a slight mistake in her policy with regard
to Greece. She had arrogantly displayed her fleet and strength at
Salonika, which no doubt was a source of irritation to Greece. Her best
policy would have been kindness and consideration, not forcible means,
for the prosperity of Austria was to a certain extent dependent on her
treatment of neighbouring countries, and, together with the Great Powers
she was to a certain extent dependent upon Greece’s action. The latter,
therefore, was a necessary bulwark against Russian encroachments, and
was thus of primary importance to England, France, and Italy. If,
therefore, the Turks were driven from Europe, Greece would occupy the
place of Turkey with regard to Russia, and would be the only obstacle to
Russian Mediterranean advance. “I would never permit,” said the Czar
Nicholas, “such an extension of Greece as would render her a powerful
state.” Truly Greece might well be called the Belgium of the
Mediterranean!
By the Berlin Treaty the Porte was advised to cede Thessaly and Epirus
to Greece. This was done, and as the Greeks were noted for being good
traders and sailors, great progress and improvement was made in their
newly acquired territory.
It is difficult to see the reason why the Berlin Congress did not advise
the Porte to cede Crete to Greece. If the island was left alone it would
be harmless, and exercise no influence on the naval supremacy of the
Mediterranean.
However, an occupation of Crete by a European Power would to a great
extent change the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean, destroy
European tranquillity and peace, the Levant would be in the hands of the
Cretan occupiers. Again, its position would completely command the Ægean
Sea, and if properly fortified might be rendered almost impregnable. Its
natural wealth, population, and general productiveness afford ample
resources both in times of war and peace; in fact, it might be very well
termed the Second Gate to the Black Sea.
Therefore it seems to me the best policy to let this important island
remain in a neutral state by an agreement between the Great Powers, and
the sooner it is agreed to the better it would be for the peace of
Europe generally.
In my opinion it would have been better to have placed it under Grecian
rule for the following reasons:—
(1) Because Greece herself was a neutral nation. (2) They were a
commercial people, and peaceful, which would have a beneficial effect
upon the island. (3) More than half of the Cretan population are of
Grecian extraction.