No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
“Ce clergyman laïque, obstiné et maladroit”, so Bismarck spoke of Salisbury to the French Ambassador in 1879, contrasting him with Beaconsfield, whom he thought a man of broader outlook; and we have Salisbury's testimony to Bismarck's “extraordinary penetration”. Yet, among the many difficulties that hamper an attempt to analyse the policy of Salisbury, perhaps the greatest is that there are few subjects on which he was consistent. He made almost a principle of inconsistency. “This country”, he said, “which is popularly governed, and cannot therefore be counted on to act on any uniform or consistent system of policy….” This was in April 1878 at the beginning of his first term at the Foreign Office. As so often happens circumstances strengthened his belief. His early tenures of the Foreign Secretaryship were short, and divided by a Liberal administration whose actions materially affected British policy. The whole period was crowded by movements abroad and at home which compelled adjustments of ideas. Twice, at any rate, he had not a free hand, in 1878–80 and again in 1886, for in the first case he had to reckon with Disraeli and in the other with a divided Cabinet.
2 D[ocuments] D[iplomatiques] F[rançais, 1871–1914], 1re Sér. II, 413. Saint-Vallier to Waddington, 5 January 1879.
3 [Lady Gwendolen] Cecil, Life [of Robert Marquis of Salisbury], IV, 375. Salisbury to Dufferin, 12 August 1890.
4 B[ritish] M[useum] Add[itional] MSS., 39137. Salisbury to Layard, 18 April 1878.
5 Cecil, Life, IV, 85–6.
6 Cp. Gooch and Temperley, [British Documents on the Origins of the War, 1898–1914], IX (1), 321, 774–5.
7 B.M. Add. MSS. 39137. Salisbury to Layard, 16 June 1878. Cp. my article on “The Foreign Policy of Lord Salisbury, 1878–1880” in Studies in Anglo-French History, edited by A. Coville and H. Temperley.
8 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, IV, 2727. Protocol No. 18 of 11 July 1878. Salisbury's explanation of this hitherto obscure part of his policy is given in his “Memorandum for the Cabinet”. F.O. 78/2911. Dwight E. Lee, Great Britain and the Cyprus Convention policy of 1878, pp. 93–6, should be studied in this connexion. It was not available when the article was written.
9 The Layard MSS. in the British Museum are an invaluable supplement to the official papers in the Public Record Office for this period.
10 E.g. for the year 1887, Gooch and Temperley, VIII, 1–18, 374–5.
11 Extracts from the archives of the Russian Embassy in London have been printed by Professor R. W. Seton-Watson in the Slavonic Review, under the title “Unprinted Documents” and used by him extensively in his Disraeli, Gladstone and the Eastern Question. There is a further selection in A. Meyendorff, Correspondance diplomatique de M. de Staal, 2 vols. The Vienna archives have been used by several writers on this period, but the only relevant published selection is in A. F. Pribram, The Secret Treaties of Austria-Hungary (English translation, Harvard University Press, 2 vols.). Extensive publication begins only in 1908.
12 The volumes hitherto published extend to the year 1892.
13 Cp. especially G. E. Buckle, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, VII, and Letters of Queen Victoria; Lord Newton, Lord Lyons; H. S. Edwards, Sir William White…Ambassador at Constantinople; Sir H. Drummond Wolff, Rambling Recollections; Lord Cromer, Modern Egypt; Winston Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill; Lord Crewe, Lord Rosebery; J. L. Garvin, The Life of Joseph Chamberlain.
14 Cecil, Life, III, 203 ff.
15 Cecil, Life, II, 95.
16 Lord Tenterden was Permanent Under-Secretary 1873–82, Sir Julian Pauncefote 1882–9, Sir Philip Currie 1889–93, and Lord Sanderson 1894–1906. The Sanderson papers have now been attached to other collections of documents in the Foreign Office.
17 “Lord Salisbury had established a new system in his office. He constituted what was known in it as the ‘secret department’, composed of his private secretary and other gentlemen who were employed in his private room and specially attached to his person. This system, which inferred a want of confidence in the gentlemen connected with the office and even of the Under Secretary of State…gave rise to very serious mischief and to great inconvenience. After Lord Salisbury quitted office it was abandoned.” B.M. Add. MSS. 38937, 84–5 ff.
18 The papers of 1887 are now included in the series of Original Treaties, classified as General No. 1 (F.O. 93/1/1 in the Public Record Office numbering). Bismarck's letter of 22 November and Salisbury's promise that it should be kept secret are in G[rosse] P[olitik], IV, 367–8, 376–80.
19 Gooch and Temperley, II, 60. Cp. Sir Eyre Crowe's statement, Gooch and Temperley, III, 409, 423.
20 There is evidence of this in the Sanderson papers.
21 Cp. Cecil, Life, IV, 115.
22 F.O. 78/3758. White to Salisbury, telegram No. 218 of 25 November 1885.
23 A. Meyendorff, Correspondence diplomatique de M. de Staal, 1, 278. Staal to Giers, 30 November/12 December 1885.
24 Cecil, Life, II, 323–4.
25 E.g. Salisbury's despatch No. 781 A to Sir J. Walsham of 28 September 1885, printed in A[ccounts] & P[apers], 1886, LXXV (C. 4612), 55. The following was omitted: “I added that we were opposed to the deposition of Prince Alexander, as we thought his successor would probably be more Russian in his tendencies.” F.O. 27/2727. Cp. Waddington's report of the conversation, D.D.F. 1re Sér. VI, 94–5, where the Russian factor is clearly indicated. Cp. also White's telegram No. 129 of 25 September 1885, printed, in extender, in A. & P. 1886, LXXV (C. 4612), 42. The last sentence reads: “Since yesterday the whole question has evidently assumed a more pacific aspect.” In the original it continued, “but it will no doubt tend to increase Russian influence…which is to be regretted”, and a paragraph followed referring to Prince Alexander's independence “of Russian dictation”. F.O. 78/3753.
26 E.g. extract form was used for Sir E. Malet's telegram No. 74 of 22 September 1885, D[espatched] 5.55 p.m., R[eceived] 7.39 p.m., A. & P. 1886, LXXV (C. 4612), 30. This contained in the original Bismarck's first suggestion that ships should be sent to the Piraeus. F.O. 64/1081. It was used again for Salisbury's telegram No. 59 to Sir A. Paget of 5 October, D. 6.45 p.m., A. & P. 1886, LXXV (C. 4612), 104, in which Salisbury referred to the original suggestion and his refusal. F.O. 7/1082. Salisbury's reply to Malet, telegram No. 90 of 23 September, D. 6 p.m., was omitted altogether. F.O. 64/1081.
27 E.g. Salisbury's telegrams with reference to the Conference at Constantinople. F.O. 78/3757. They are drafted in Salisbury's hand.
28 F.O. 64/1081. Salisbury to Malet, telegram No. 116 of 5 October 1885, D. 6.45 p.m.
29 F.O. 78/3757. Salisbury to White, telegram No. 103 of 30 September 1885, D. 7.55 p.m. This telegram ended with the sentence: “If you are asked to join the reunion of Ambassadors, you have full authority to do so.” That sentence alone was paraphrased, A. & P. 1886, LXXV (C. 4612), 78.
30 Cp. D.D.F., 1re Sér. VI, 106, note 1. There is no trace in the British archives of the reasons reported by M. de Courcel on 25 September. D.D.F. 1re Sér. VI, 90.
31 F.O. 78/3757. Salisbury to White, telegram No. 101 of 28 September 1885, D. 7 p.m.
32 F.O. 78/3863. Sir E. Malet to Sir J. Pauncefote, 31 October 1885. Special precautions of secrecy were taken throughout in connection with Germany, and it is to be noted that it was with reference to Anglo-German relations that Sir Eyre Crowe commented on the deficiency of the Foreign Office archives. Gooch and Temperley, III, 409. My own view is that it is true on this subject but not on others.
33 E.H.R. XLVI, April 1931. Cp. also Sir J. Headlam Morley, Studies in Diplomatic History, 194 note, and 200. The despatch is No. 675. It was originally dated 24 May, but it was not sent until 30 May, owing to a minute by Salisbury, “It should be dated to-day but need not go by this messenger.” F.O. 78/2768. The first draft is wholly in Salisbury's hand. There is a revised draft dated 30 May. The amendments were however purely verbal and only one was sent to Layard (in despatch No. 676 of 30 May) for insertion in his text of the despatch. F.O. 195/1168 (Embassy Archives). The despatch was printed in A. & P. 1878, LXXXII (C. 2057), 3–4, under date 30 May.
34 Cp. Salisbury's comment in a private letter to Layard of 7 August 1878, B.M. Add. MSS. 39137, that an omission had been made “because the despatch may possibly be published”. The despatch is No. 928 of 8 August. The original drafts are in F.O. 78/2770; the final despatch in F.O. 195/1170, and the printed version in A. & P. 1878–9, LXXIX (C. 2202), 11–14.
35 The despatch is No. 403 A of 2 November 1885; original drafts in F.O. 78/3747; final text in F.O. 195/1496; printed version in A. & P. 1886, LXXV (C. 4612), 221–3. In this case and in those mentioned in the two preceding footnotes the printed version is identical with the final text.
36 Cecil, Life, IV, 132.
37 Cp. Medlicott, W. N., “Lord Salisbury and Turkey”, History, October 1927.Google Scholar The article is based mainly on German and Austro-Hungarian sources, as the Foreign Office archives were not available at the time. Mr Medlicott misses in consequence the “protection” element in Salisbury's policy.
38 Gooch and Temperley, VIII, 13.
39 Cp. especially G.P. x, 10–13. There is reason to suppose, however, that the German record went further than Salisbury had intended. Later arguments put forward by Germany and Austria-Hungary based on these records were denied. A parallel is suggested to Salisbury's conversations on Tunis at Berlin, cp. D.D.F.. 1re Sér. II, 361–3, 366–7, 369–73; Lord Newton, Lord Lyons, II, 154–6, 158–9; Cecil, Life, II, 334–5. It is clear in this case that the substance of the French records was accurate, although their wording was more specific than Salisbury was prepared to accept.
40 Gooch and Temperley, 1, 8.
41 Mr Medlicott places this phrase in its right setting in his article in History, October 1927.
42 Layard's Memoirs, B.M. Add. MSS. 38938, 80 f.
43 The best account of these negotiations is in Gauld, W. A., “The Anglo-Austrian Agreement of 1878”, E.H.R. XLI, January 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 F.O. 78/2769. Salisbury to Layard, telegram (unnumbered) of 19 July 1878.
45 The actual phrase occurs in Salisbury's letter to Layard of 9 May 1878. Cecil, Life, II, 267. The idea underlies all his letters of this time.
46 Cp. my article on “The Foreign Policy of Lord Salisbury, 1878–80” in Studies in Anglo-French History, edited by A. Coville and H. Temperley.
47 H. S. Edwards, Sir William White, pp. 230–1. Morier to White, 19 November 1885.
48 B.M. Add. MSS. 39137. Layard to Salisbury, private telegram of 17 June 1878.
49 The correspondence on this subject is in F.O. 78/3758. Cp. especially White's telegram No. 81 of 25 April 1885, D. 5.50 p.m., R. 8 p.m. Great Britain was then completely isolated.
50 Although the meeting had been reported at the time it was not until the end of September 1885 that Sir Ralph Paget suspected its bearing on Bulgarian affairs. Cp. his despatch No. 267, D. 24 September, R. 26 September 1885. F.O. 7/1079.
51 D.D.F. 1re Sér. VI, 113–14.
52 F.O. 78/3793. Assim Pasha to Musurus Pasha, 10 August 1885, communicated to Salisbury 13 August.
53 F.O. 78/3755. White to Salisbury, despatch No. 543, D. 26 November, R. 2 December 1885.
54 This is shown clearly in Granville's despatch No. 71 of 10 June 1880 to Goschen (Layard's successor at Constantinople). F.O. 78/3074. It contains the statement: “The acquisition of Cyprus is in their view of no advantage to the country either in a military or political sense.” Against this in the margin is a pencil note: “I do not the least agree in this. V.R.I.” Minutes by Granville show that a telegram was sent to Goschen that the Queen approved the despatch. Cp. Letters of Queen Victoria, 2nd Ser. III, 111–13.
55 F.O. 78/3075. Granville to Goschen, despatch No. 159 of 30 June 1880.
56 Granville rejected, in his despatch to Goschen No. 550 of 6 October 1880 (F.O. 78/3077), the view of the consuls that European supervision was needed to make reforms effective. Cp. Goschen's despatch No. 314, D. 31 August, R. 7 September 1880, F.O. 78/3093, and the views of Baker Pasha, enclosure in Layard's despatch No. 547, D. 26 May, R. 8 June 1880. F.O. 78/3086. This again was a direct reversal of Salisbury's policy.
57 Cp. Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson's statement: “The power of the Consuls to do good depends largely on the extent to which English influence prevails at Stambul.” Memorandum of 16 June 1880, enclosure in Goschen's despatch No. 70, D. 22 June, R. 29 June 1880. F.O. 78/3088. It is only fair to state that Goschen was as definite as Layard in supporting the views of the consuls.
58 Cecil, Life, III, 259.
59 Cecil, Life, IV, 78.
60 The text is in A. F. Pribram, Secret Treaties of Austria-Hungary (English translation, Harvard University Press), I, 124–33. Cp. Gooch and Temperley, VIII, 8–17; Cecil, Life, IV, 63–79; G.P. IV, 335–95. Unpublished Austro-Hungarian sources were used by W. N. Medlicott in “The Mediterranean Agreements”, Slavonic Review June 1926, but not the British.
61 Cp. G.P. IV, 335–7, 366–74, 381–4.
62 Cecil, Life, IV, 78. The agreement had a posthumous importance through discussions of a possible revival in 1896, 1897 and 1902–3.
63 Dated 24 October 1885, A. & P. 1886, LXXIV (C. 4604), 41–3, and 22 May 1887, A. & P. 1887, XCII (C. 5050), 538–45.
64 F.O. 78/3746. Salisbury to White, despatch No. 238 of 30 June 1885. The complaint was repeated at Constantinople a few days later. F.O. 78/3758. White to Salisbury, telegram No. 99, D. 9 July, R. 10 July 1885.
65 B.M. Add. MSS. 39137. Salisbury to Layard, 16 May 1878.
66 Cecil, Life, III 237.
67 Cecil, Life, IV, 42.
68 Cp. D.D.F. 1re Sér. VI, 544, 546.
69 Gooch and Temperley, VIII, 13.
70 Gooch and Temperley, IX (1), 775–6. The full text of this despatch contains a hint of another factor which was undoubtedly of importance—the conclusion of the Franco-Russian Alliance.
71 [Lord] Cromer, [Modern Egypt], II, 76.
72 Cromer, II, 117.
73 Gooch and Temperley, I, 207–9.
74 Cecil, Life, III, 230.
75 This is suggested forcibly by a reading of Sir Harry Johnston, The Story of My Life.
76 The best account is still Carton de Wiart, E., Les grandes compagnies coloniales anglaises du XIXe Siècle (Paris 1899).Google Scholar
77 Cecil, Life, IV, 254.
78 G.P. IV, 165–73.
79 G.P. VIII, 3. E. T. S. Dugdale, German Diplomatic Documents, II, 25–6.
80 Gooch and Temperley, 1, 44–87, passim.
81 F.O. 78/3757. Salisbury to White, telegram No. 85 A of 22 September 1885.
82 G.P. IV, 132–3.
83 Cecil, Life, IV, 375.
84 Cecil, Life, III, 230.
85 Part. Deb. 3rd Ser. CCIV, 1367.
86 Letters of Queen Victoria, 3rd Ser. I, 268.
87 Gooch and Temperley, VIII, 374–5.
88 F.O. 64/1075. Salisbury to Malet, despatch No. 453 of 16 October 1885.
89 F.O. 78/3757. Salisbury to White, telegram No. 193 of 11 November 1885, D. 5.30 p.m.
90 Vide Gooch and Temperley, II, 68.
91 The voluminous reports of Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson, Baker Pasha, and others show that this was fully recognised by the British agents in Asia Minor.
92 Cp. B.M. Add. MSS. 39131. Layard to Salisbury, 22 May 1878.
93 Cromer, II, 374.
94 Gooch and Temperley, II, 79–80.