Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:55:23.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. Lord Clarendon and the Cretan Question, 1868–9

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Maureen M. Robson
Maureen M. Robson
Affiliation:
Bedford College, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Conference of Paris, which met early in 1869 to settle the dispute between Turkey and Greece over the Cretan question, appears in retrospect as one of many abortive attempts to resolve an insoluble situation. The Cretan rebellion, stemming from religious and ethnic conflicts endemic in those parts of the Turkish empire which embraced Christian communities, invites modern parallels; while the attitudes of the spectators were governed not only by the immediate needs of their external policies, but by principles often based on ideological considerations. Panhellenism and panslavism came into conflict with the traditional desire to support Turkey. Liberal sympathy with the insurgents precipitated legal problems identical with those created by the American Civil War. Yet, apart from the intrinsic interest of any aspect of the Eastern question, and the importance of any issue which influenced the development of international law, the conference has a significance of its own as an attempt to apply the process of mediation. This requires explanation, since at first sight there is little to distinguish the conference from previous workings of the concert of Europe. During the peace conference at the close of the Crimean War the plenipotentiaries made an informal recommendation that ‘states between which any serious misunderstanding may arise should, before appealing to arms, have recourse as far as circumstances might allow to the good offices of a friendly power’. The conference of 1869 put into practice1 for the first time this Protocol no. 23 of the Treaty of Paris of 1856.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1960 , pp. 38 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

1 Protocol no. 23, Protocols of Conferences held at Paris, 14 April 1856. [2073], p. 109. Hfouse of] Cfommons] (1856) A[ccounts] and Pfapers], LXI, 147

2 Maureen, Robson, ‘Liberals and “Vital Interests”: the Debate on International Arbitration, 1815–72’, Bulletin of Institute of Historical Research, xxxii (1959), 49.Google Scholar

3 Miller, W., The Ottoman Empire and its Successors, 1801–1927 (3rd edn., Cambridge, 1934), 307; Consul Dickson to Clarendon, 9 June 1866, enclosing petition from the late Cretan Greek assembly to the Sultan ([3771], pp. 5–8. H.C. (1867) A. and P., LXXIV, 133–6).Google Scholar

4 Stanley to Cowley, privfate], 13 March 1867 (F.O. 519/182, cit. K., Bourne, ‘Great Britain and the Cretan Revolt’, Slavonic and East European Review, xxxv ( 1956–7), 84).Google Scholar

5 Stanley to Cowley, n March 1867 (F.O. 27/1652).

6 The provisions of this statute are summarized in Miller, op. cit. 314–15.

7 Deligeorges to Erskine, 14 Aug. 1866 ([3771], pp. 27–32. H.C. (1867), LXXIV, 155–60).

8 Stanley to Lyons, 4 and 6 Sept. 1866 ([3771], pp. 37–8. H.C. (1867), LXXIV, 165–6).

9 Erskine to Stanley, 14 Oct. 1868 (F.O. 32/387).

10 Erskine to Stanley, 7 Nov. 1868 (F.O. 32/387).

11 Erskine claimed that the expedition numbered 1000 men, whereas Baron Baude, the French minister in Athens, put it at no more than 100 (Driault, E. and Lhéritier, M.), Histoire diplomatique de la Grèce de 1821 jusqu'à nos jours (5 vols., Paris, 1925—6), III, 261; Elliot to Hammond, priv., 9 Dec. 1868 (Hammond MSS., Public Record Office, F.O. 391/21).Google Scholar

12 Erskine to Clarendon, 20 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 32/387).

13 Erskine to Clarendon, 12 Dec. 1868 ([4116], p. 21. H.C. ( 1868–9), LXIV, 775).

14 Elliot to Stanley, 21 Nov. 1868 (F.O. 78/2023).

15 Elliot to Erskine, 25 Nov. 1868 (F.O. 78/2023).

16 Elliot to Stanley, 29 Nov. 1868 (F.O. 78/2023).

17 Elliot to Stanley, 1 and 5 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 78/2023).

18 Clarendon to Erskine, priv., 24 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., Bodleian Library, dep. c. 475. I am indebted to the Earl of Clarendon for permission to make use of the papers of the 4th earl).

19 Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 15 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 146).

20 Moustier, to La Tour, 7 Jan. 1867 ([Les] OriginesDiplomatiques [de la Guerre de 1870–1], XIV (1924), 51–3); Stanley to Fane, 8 Jan. 1867 (F.O. 27/1651).Google Scholar

21 Cowley to Stanley, 19 April 1867 ([ 3965–11], p. 67. H.C. ( 1867–8), LXXIII, 178)

22 Stanley to Cowley, 15 May 1867 ([ 3965–11], p. 90. H.C. ( 1867–8), LXXIII, 201). Cowley to Stanley, 17 May 1867 (Ibid.. p. 93. H.C. ( 1867–8), LXXIII, 204).

23 Sumner, B. H., ‘Ignatyev at Constantinople’, Slavonic and East European Review, XI (1932–3), 346–8.Google Scholar

24 Onou, A., ‘Memoirs of Count Ignatyev’, Slavonic and East European Review, x (1931–2), 387–8.Google Scholar

25 Sumner, loc. cit. 349.

26 In furthering his intrigues Ignatyev's deceitfulness knew no bounds. He falsely told Elliot after the presentation of the Turkish ultimatum that France still supported autonomy for Crete (Elliot to Hammond, priv., 15 Dec. 1868 (Hammond MSS., F.O. 391/21)); and to bolster Greek resistance to Turkey assured her that the ultimatum would never be delivered. The publication of the Greek blue book showed how disastrously close had been the relationship between Ignatyev and the Greek foreign secretary. ‘It shows up our Russian friend in a way that has made him gnash his teeth. Delyanni's despatch shows how thoroughly the two have been one, and how the General, almost within a few hours of the rupture of relations being declared, continued his assurances that there was no danger of such a thing occurring. At the time that he was boasting to us of the efforts he was making to persuade the Greeks to listen to reason, he seems to have been deluding the Greek Minister here into a false security to encourage a resistance against the Turkish demands.’ (Elliot to Hammond, priv., 13 Jan. 1869 (Ibid..).) This policy, independently carried out by Ignatyev, was at times a serious embarrassment to the Russian government (Buchanan to Clarendon, confidential], 27 Jan., 2, 3 and 9 Feb. 1869 (F.O. 65/767))

27 Buchanan to Clarendon, conf., 16 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 65/752).

28 Erskine to Clarendon, 16 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 32/387).

29 Ibid..

30 Erskine to Clarendon, telegram, 16 Dec. 1868 (Ibid..). When Ignatyev heard that Admiral Hobart, a British seaman in Turkish pay, was about to be despatched to intercept the expedition of Petropoulakes, he did everything in his power to stop him. Some years previously Hobart had been involved in a Russian mining speculation and had lost all his money. As soon as he was under orders to sail for Crete a lawyer was instructed by the Russian embassy to apply for his arrest for debt. Hobart, however, left before action could be taken against him (Elliot to Hammond, priv., 9 Dec. 1868 (Hammond MSS., F.O. 391/21)).

31 Consul Lloyd to Erskine, 17 Dec. 1868 ([4116], p. 62. H.C. ( 1868–9), LXIV, 816); Erskine to Clarendon, 8 Jan. 1868 (Ibid.. p. 89. H.C. ( 1868–9), LXIV, 843).

32 Erskine to Clarendon, 19 Dec. 1868 ([4116], p. 43. H.C. ( 1868–9), Lxrv, 797). Erskine to Clarendon, 24 Dec. 1868 (Ibid.. p. 65. H.C. ( 1868–9), LXIV, 819).

33 Elliot to Stanley, 1 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 78/2023).

34 Elliot to Clarendon, 22 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 78/2025).

35 Elliot to Clarendon, 4 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 78/2072); Elliot to Hammond, priv., 6 Jan. 1869 (Hammond MSS., F.O. 391/21). ‘The part that I did not suggest in the measure now adopted is that in which it is declared that the Rayahs who had taken Greek protection and adhere to it shall never be allowed to return, except under their original Turkish nationality. I doubt whether it will be possible to carry this out, but probably a large number of the fictitious Hellenes will drop their new allegiance when they find it the reverse of profitable. The abuse in the granting of Greek passports had become quite intolerable, and I hope very soon to be able to send an authentic list of the numbers issued at the consulate at Constantinople, and a return of the grist that it brings to their mill. I am assured that it is between £4000 and £5000 p.a.’.

36 Beustto Metternich, 1 Jan. 1867(Origines Diplomatiques, XIV, 5–11). Seeabove, p. 43, n. 20.

37 Onou, loc. cit. 388.

38 Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 20 and 21 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 146).

39 Lyons to Stanley, 8 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 27/1711).

40 Clarendon to Buchanan, 18 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 65/746).

41 Buchanan to Clarendon, 19 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 65/752).

42 Count Stackelberg stated that the proposal was made originally by Russia, who, when the time came, handed over the responsibility to Prussia (Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 14 Feb. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 146)). ‘I suppose no one has ever doubted it’, added Lyons, despite the fact that Clarendon himself seemed uncertain on the point, and had actually formed a contrary impression from a telegram sent by Loftus (Clarendon to Lyons, 28 Dec. 1868. F.O. 27/1699).

43 Lyons to Clarendon, 20 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 27/1710).

44 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 19 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 148).

45 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 21 Dec. 1868 (Ibid..).

46 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 22 Dec. 1868 (Ibid..).

47 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 23 Dec. 1868 (Ibid..).

48 Lyons to Clarendon, priv. and conf., 22 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 146).

49 Clarendon to Lyons, 30 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 27/1699). The Russian origin of this compromise was omitted in the blue book as a result of a tacit understanding between La Valette and Stackelberg, who had first suggested the voix consultative. ‘There is one point, a strong one for him [La Valette], which notwithstanding some provocation from Stackelberg, he has, from gentlemanlike feeling always abstained from bringing forward, and which he desires no allusion to be made to. It is the fact that the original suggestion of the voix consultative was made by Stackelberg himself to him, first in conversation, and afterwards in a letter reciting his conversation’ (Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 12 Feb. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 146)).

50 Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 2 Feb. 1869 (Ibid..).

51 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 28 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 148).

52 Clarendon to Gladstone, priv., 16 Jan. 1896 (Gladstone MSS., British Museum, Add. MSS. 44133).

53 Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 10 Jan. 1869 (Ibid..).

54 Lyons to Clarendon, 15 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 27/1745).

55 Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 14 Feb. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 146); La Tour to Clarendon, 2 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 27/1778).

56 Protocol no. 1, Protocols of Conference held at Paris, 9 Jan. 1869. [4116], p. no. H.C. ( 1868–9) A. and P., LXIV, 864.

57 Protocol no. 7, Protocols of Conference held at Paris, 18 Feb. 1869. [4116], p. 218. H.C. ( 1868–9) A. and P., LXIV, 972.

58 Lyons to Clarendon, priv., 22 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 146).

59 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 23 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 148).

60 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 27 Dec. 1868 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 148).

61 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 29 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 27/1699).

62 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 15 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 27/1739).

63 Lyons to Clarendon, conf., 19 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 27/1746).

64 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 15 and 19 Jan. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 148).

65 Elliot to Clarendon, 30 Dec. 1868 (F.O. 78/2025).

66 Protocol no. 3, Protocols of Conference held at Paris, 14 Jan. 1869. [4116], p. 155. H.C. ( 1868–9) A. and P., LXIV, 909.

67 Clarendon to Lyons, 5 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 27/1739).

68 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 2 and 5 Jan. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 148).

69 Adams to Russell, 20 May 1865 (F.O. 115/435).

70 Clarendon to Lyons, secret and conf., 5 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 27/1739).

71 Clarendon to Lyons, priv., 5 Jan. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 148)..

72 Lyons to Clarendon, 20 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 27/1746).

73 Annex to Protocol no. 6, Protocols of Conference held at Paris, 20 Jan. 1869. [4116], p. 180; H.C. ( 1868–9) A. and P., LXIV, 934.

74 Although the theory and practice of the eighteenth century agreed that it was the duty of neutrals to remain impartial the impartiality demanded was not at all strict. Throughout the greater part of the century a state was considered not to violate neutrality by furnishing a belligerent with such assistance as had been previously promised by treaty. In the last fifty years, however, there was some progress towards the maintenance of an effective neutrality, as in both theory and practice the inconsistency of these laxities became apparent (Oppenheimer, L. (ed. Lauterpacht, H.), International Law, 7th edn. (1952), ii, 626–7).Google Scholar

75 La Valette to Deligiannes, 20 Jan. 1869 ([4116], p. 182; H.C. ( 1868–9), LXIV, 936).

76 Erskine to Clarendon, 30 Jan. 1869 (F.O. 32/394).

77 Erskine to Clarendon, 3 Feb. 1869 (F.O. 32/394).

78 Erskine to Clarendon, 4 Feb. 1869 (F.O. 32/394).

79 Erskine to Clarendon, 6 Feb. 1869 (F.O. 32/394).

80 Erskine to Clarendon, priv., 8 Feb. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 484).

81 Erskine to Clarendon, priv., 10 Feb. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 484).

82 Clarendon to Erskine, priv., 18 Feb. 1869 (Clarendon MSS., dep. c. 475).

83 Erskine to Clarendon, 8 Feb. 1869 (F.O. 32/394).