Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:20:07.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V. Anglo-Russian Relations 1815–40

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

C. W. Crawley
C. W. Crawley
Affiliation:
Fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge
Get access

Extract

Russia in 1815 appeared with England as the saviour of Europe from Napoleon's despotism; the Tsar Alexander I, both by his moderation towards the French nation and by the generosity of his promises to the Poles, earned the respect of all good Europeans. In England especially the Whig party, true to the traditions of 1790 and of opposition to Pitt's warlike threats, was always ready to admire the Tsar and to co-operate with Russia. Twenty years later dislike and fear of Russia was in the minds of most Englishmen, and the responsible utterances of party leaders ranged from extreme reserve to unconcealed hostility. It is curious that some of the most hostile voices were now among the Whigs, while the tone of Conservative leaders was more cautious, and the only friends of Russia were to be found in Lord Durham and Richard Cobden, both men of Radical leanings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , 1929 , pp. 47 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 47 note 1 Lady G. Cecil, Lord Salisbury, II. 159.

page 48 note 1 G. M. Trevelyan, Earl Grey, 221 (Nov. 1821); 355 (Jan. 1833). Reid, Durham, II. 59. LI. Sandars, Melbourne Papers, 456 (13 Nov. 1838). Guedalla, Palmerston, 208 (1838). Aspinall, Brougham, 161 (1827); 248–9 (June 1838 and Jan. 1839).

page 49 note 1 Cobden, Russia, ch. 2 (1836). Hansard, XXXI. 614 (19 Feb.), and 1258 (20 April 1836).

page 50 note 1 Webster, Castlereagh, 66–8, 90–2; (on George IV), 8, 43. Ellenborough, Political Diary, 1828–30, 25 Sept., 10 Oct. 1828.

page 50 note 2 Heytesbury to Aberdeen, 29 June 1829. F.O. 65/180.

page 50 note 3 Greville's Diary, 21 Jan. 1829. W. to Aberdeen 11 Sept. 1829, Despatches (N.S.), VI. 151.

page 50 note 4 Berichte aus London, 31 Aug., 12 Sept. Corresp. of Grey and Ps, Lieven, Sept. 14, 16, 20, 1829.

page 51 note 1 W. to Aberdeen, 4 Oct. 1829, Despatches, VI. 192 (on Turkey); 2 Nov. 1828, V. 199 (on Greece); to Ellenborough, 9, 22 Oct. 1828, V. 117, 251 (on Persia). Schiemann, Geschichte Russlands, III. 279.

page 51 note 2 Palmerston's Journal, March to May 1828, shows Peel in favour of giving complete independence but the minimum of money to Greece; Bulwer, I. 229–52. Ellenborough's Diary, 13 Feb., 29 April 1828. Cf. Parker, Peel, III. 261, 276, 542–3.

page 51 note 3 Ellenborough's Diary, e.g. 28 May, 13 Aug. 1829.

page 52 note 1 Lord Stanmore, Aberdeen, 70–2.

page 52 note 2 Ab. to Gordon, 10 Nov. 1829 and 26 Feb. 1830. F.O. 78/179 and 188. Gordon to Ab., 11 Nov., 15 Dec. 1829, and 7 Jan. 1830. F.O. 78/181 and 189.

page 52 note 3 Schiemann, Geschichte Russlands, IV. 48, 268.

page 53 note 1 Canning and his Friends, 218, 22 Jan. 1824. Cf. Sir J. Bowring, Autobiographical Recollections, 231–8, notes of an interview with Canning, 16 Jan. 1824.

page 53 note 2 Canning's Instructions to Strangford, 14 Oct. 1825. F.O. 65/149. Ps. Lieven's Letters (to her brother), 104, 10 Aug. 1827. Stratford Canning to Adm. Codrington, 19 Aug., 1 Sept. 1827, Lane-Poole's Life of Stratford Canning, I. 449.

page 54 note 1 For a moment, during the “interregnum,” Dudley seems to have contemplated extreme measures—“pecuniary aid to the Greeks, a blockade of the Dardanelles, and ultimately the invasion of the Turkish dominions by a Russian army.… The tenour of the last accounts from Constantinople makes it probable that the Allied powers will soon be placed in a state of war with the Ottoman Empire.” To Stuart, 7 Dec. 1827. F.O. France 362. But the Cabinet would never have agreed to such measures. On the effect of Navarino upon the Russian campaign, cf. H. v.Moltke,Der Russisch-Türkische Feldzug, 1828–9, Part I, Conclusion.

page 55 note 1 Palmerston's Journal, 2, 4 April. Ellenborough's Diary, 4 April, 11 May 1828.

page 55 note 2 Ps. Lieven's Letters, 20 Nov. 1830. Diary (ed. Temperley), 163 ff.

page 55 note 3 Berichte, 253, 4, 27 June 1831.

page 55 note 4 Stratford Canning to Palmerston, 9 Aug. 1832. F.O. 78/211.

page 55 note 5 John Mavroyéni, Turkish chargé d'affaires at Vienna, followed by Namik Pacha. There is an account of this mission in Les Mavroyéni, by Blancard, Th., II (Paris 1909).Google Scholar

page 55 note 6 Stratford Canning to Palmerston, 19 Dec. 1832 (dated from Paris on his way home). F.O. 78/211. Extracts are printed in the Comb. Hist, of Foreign Policy, II. 638, but the marginal notes are not described. The despatch is endorsed, “Returned by the King, Jan. 12 [?] /33.”

page 56 note 1 Col. Light to Palmerston, 6 Jan. 1833. F.O. 78/233.

page 57 note 1 For the substance of these arguments, see a Memoir by Sir H. Ellis, a former Minister to Persia (1814) and to China (1816) and at this time a member of the Board of Control, 9 Jan. 1833. David Urquhart had some share in the discussion—see an account of his interview with the King, dated 12 Jan., and a paper on commerce with Turkey, 12 Feb. 1833. All in F.O. 78/233. S. Canning's despatch, 19 Dec. 1832, has been quoted; enclosed with it came the reports of Capt. Chesney on the prospects of steamnavigation on the Euphrates. Below, p. 69.

page 58 note 1 Bulwer, Palmerston (1870), II. 179 ff., 3 Mar., 21 April, 27 June 1834; ibid. 287, 22 Sept. 1838; 298, 1 Sept. 1839.

page 58 note 2 Hansard, XXXI. 614 ff., 1258 ff. (1836). To Ponsonby 8 Dec. 1835, F.O. 78/251. To Urquhart, 10 Mar. 1836, ib. 279.

page 58 note 3 To Bulwer, 24 Sept. 1839, op. cit. II. 301. Cf. J. R. Hall, England and the Orleans Monarchy (1909); F. S. Rodkey, The Turco-Egyptian Question 1832–41, ch. 4 (Univ. of Illinois, Studies, XI. 3, 1923). MS Abstract and Narrative 1832–41, pp. 262, 295, in F.O. 78/472. Schiemann, III. 400; IV. 182.

page 59 note 1 Lane-Poole, I. 346, 30 July 1821; 307, Sept. 1821. Instructions to Stratford Canning, 12 Oct. 1825, F.O. 78/133; in Greece, Jan. 1826, Lane-Poole, I. 390; after the Treaty, ibid. I. 449. Ellenborough's Diary, 1 Sept. 1828 (his difference with the Duke).

page 60 note 1 Gordon's Reports in F.O. 78/180–1. Schiemann, II. ch. 10. Moltke, op. cit. Part II, Conclusion.

page 61 note 1 Ponsonby's Reports, F.O. 78. See too The Correspondence of Lord Ponsonby and D. Urquhart 1833–6 [1891] in B.M. 8027. e. 43. The quotation is from a letter dated 8 Sept. 1834. Cf. a letter of J. B. Fraser, 2 July 1835 in F.O. 78/270. General Instruction, F.O. to Admiralty 27 Jan. 1834, F.O. 78/250. Secret Instruction, F.O. to Adm. Sir J. Rowley, 31 Jan. 1834, copy enclosed in Palmerston's to Ponsonby 10 Mar. 1834. F.O. 78/234. Cancelled by Wellington's to Ponsonby 16 Mar. 1835, F.O. 78/251. Renewed, Admiralty to Sir J. Rowley, 31 May 1836, and Admiralty to Adm. Sir R. Stopford, 25 June, 20 July, 30 Oct., 4 Nov. 1839; 9 May 1840. All in Ad. II. 1695–6 (Secret Out-Letters). After Nov. 1840, the next entry in this book relating to Turkey is the authority to pass the Dardanelles, at the Sultan's request made through the ambassador, dated 8 Oct. 1849. (This was Palmerston's coup in favour of the Hungarian refugees.)

page 62 note 1 E.g. Ellenborough's Diary, 29 Oct. 1829.

page 62 note 2 Described in Urquhart's Spirit of the East, I. 22–31.

page 63 note 1 See p. 57, note 1, above.

page 63 note 2 Nessebrode, Letters et Papiers, VII. 171. Durham to Palmerston, 21 Jan., 11 Aug. 1836. F.O. 65/223, 225. Sir H. Taylor said that the papers had been offered to Palmerston three years earlier, but since he had taken no notice, Urquhart's intention to publish now was approved at Court. Correspondence of Ponsonby and Urquhart, 4 Sept. 1835.

page 63 note 3 Urquhart to Wellington, 5 Feb. 1835, and his “Observations…” 16 Dec. 1835. F.O. 78/266. His conversation in Paris, 28 Jan., 8 Mar. 1836. F.O. 78/279. Cf. Correspondence, etc. Urquhart to Sir H. Taylor, 26 Dec. 1835. “A grand hit if Palmerston would send me up the Dardanelles in a line-of-battle ship!”

page 64 note 1 On the Vixen affair, Portfolio, V, VI; Schiemann, III. 290; Reid's Durham, ch. 19; Durham's Reports in F.O. 65/227. Two Englishmen were said to be distributing the Portfolio among the Circassians as a “manifesto of the King of England.” It is to be noted that, in the official protest against the Treaty of Adrianople, England had not raised the point about Circassian independence. Aberdeen to Heytesbury, 31 Oct. 1829, F.O. 78/18.

On Urquhart generally, see the Life by G. Robinson (1920); on his conduct at Constantinople, a curious account by J. B. Fraser dated 27 June 1837, in F.O. 78/309.

page 65 note 1 Bulwer, Palmerston (1870), II. 257 ff. He there speaks as if he originated the whole idea. On the other side, J. McNeill's Progress of Russia.

page 65 note 2 Urquhart's visit described in a letter, 14 Mar. 1835, in F.O. 78/269. Cf. Portfolio (New Series 1843), I. 62, 185, 562; III. 341. Temperley, Hist. Servia, 222–8, Schiemann, III. 294–6, IV. 31–4.

page 66 note 1 Sir H. Rawlinson, England and Russia in the East (1875), pp. 52–3, quoted in the Memoir of Sir J. McNeill by his grand-daughter (1910).

page 66 note 2 The Progress and Present Position of Russia in the East (1834), p. vi, and edn. 1838, 3rd edn. (with supplement) 1854.

page 66 note 3 E.g. those of Capt. Adolphus Slade, R.N., later (1849–66) administrative head of the Turkish navy. Records of journeys (1833). Turkey, Greece and Malta (1837). Travels (1840). As a writer, entertaining but desultory, and untrustworthy for facts not observed by himself.

page 66 note 4 England, Ireland and America (1835). Russia (1836).

page 67 note 1 McNeill, Progress, etc. ch. 6. Cobden, Political Writings (ed. 1886), p. 142, puts it at half a million pounds, “a contemptible amount.”

page 67 note 2 A. Burnes, Travels into Bokhara (1834), II. 422 ff.

page 67 note 3 On the relations of England and Russia in Persia, and on the attitude of the Foreign Office, Board of Control and Governors to Persian affairs, 1800–15, I have had the privilege of reading an unpublished dissertation by Mr G. J. Yorke, of Trinity College, Cambridge. He concludes that during this period the Shah obtained two million pounds and some military assistance without committing himself to any one of his European suitors.

page 68 note 1 The Great Game in Asia, 1800–44, Raleigh Lecture, 1926 (Proc. Br. Acad. XII). Even Wellington wrote after Adrianople, “The occupation of territories in Asia can be understood…connected with schemes of ambition in Asia which Russia may reasonably entertain.” Despatches (N.S.) VI. 217, 10 Oct. 1829.

page 68 note 2 The most important references are: Kinneir, J. M., Journey through Asia Minor, etc. (1818) 512 ff.Google Scholar; Fraser, J. B., Khorassan (1825), 185Google Scholar, 233 ff.; Blackzvood's, Sept. 1827; Conolly, A., Journey to the North of India (1834), II. 299 ff.Google Scholar; Burnes, A., Travels into Bokhara (1834), II, 375Google Scholar ff.; de Lacy Evans, The Designs of Russia (1828), writes about the Oxus, but without much knowledge; McNeill, Progress, etc. (1836), is concerned rather with Persia. For Ellenborough's views at the Board of Control in 1829, see Wellington's Despatches, V. 117; VI. 100, 229, 251, 327; and Ellenborough's Diary, 22 Aug., 3 Sept., 19, 30 Oct. 1829.

page 68 note 3 G. T. Vigne, Narrative…Afghanistan (1840), ch. 12.

page 68 note 4 Holdich, Sir T., The Gates of India (1910), 500 ff.Google Scholar

page 69 note 1 H. L. Hoskins, British Routes to India (1928) deals very fully with the technical progress and does not neglect the political questions. This summary owes much to its 500 pages.

page 69 note 2 Wellington's Despatches, VI. 330, 21 Dec. 1829. Memorandum on different routes.

page 71 note 1 This summary account of a large question is enough perhaps to answer Lord Morley's contemptuous footnote in the Life of Cobden, II. 150 (quoted too by Martin, Triumph of Lord Palmerston): “Even the modern Road-to- India argument for the defence of Turkey had not then [1854] been invented.” The mistake is repeated by Dawson, W. H., R. Cobden and Foreign Policy (1926), 214Google Scholar: “At that time [1844] England had no immediate interest in either Asia Minor or Egypt.…The highway to India was on the broad ocean.”

page 71 note 2 Capt. Drinkwater's Report, Oct. 1835, to Durham in F.O. 65/227 (Oct. 1836).

page 72 note 1 Capt. Crawford's Report to Durham, July 1836, F.O. 65/225. Schiemann, II. 183, 196 (1820'8); III. 280 (1830'3); IV. 335 (1854). Schiemann quotes Crawford as saying that the Russian fleet was superior to ours and “only 8 days from our shores.” This appears to be from, a later published opinion. The Russians were of course superior inside the Baltic.

page 72 note 2 Hansard, XXXI. 1224 ff., 4 Mar. 1836. Navy List, 1836–9. Ll. Sandars, Melbourne Papers, 456 (Nov. 1838). Torrens, Memoirs of Melbourne, II. 281 (Mar. 1839).

page 73 note 1 Durham to Palmerston, 8 July 1836, enclosing complete tabular returns of the army on 1 May, F.O. 65/225; correcting his estimate of 3 Mar. 1836, described as “Report on the State of Russia” in Reid, Durham, II. 28 ff. Schiemann, III. 36, 86. Durham to Palmerston, 3 Mar. 1836 (budgets of 1833, 1835), F.O. 65/223. Cobden's pamphlet, What next…and next? (1856) gives a verysimilar budget for 1838. Schiemann, III. 407.