Its Origin and Cause:
A REPLY TO THE LETTER OF J. BRIGHT, ESQ., M.P.
BY JOHN ALFRED LANGFORD.
LONDON: R. THEOBALD, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1855.
BIRMINGHAM: PRINTED BY J. A. LANGFORD, ANN-STREET.
THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.
Amid the din of arms and the fierce contest of battle, the less harmful, but, perhaps, not the less potent war of opinion, the clash of controversy, the dissemination of “views,” are as busy at their work as in the piping times of peace. As might have been anticipated, the terrible struggle in which we are engaged has absorbed every other feeling; and whether men agree or disagree respecting the cause, the necessity, and the justness of the war, all are zealous and earnest in advocacy or opposition. A vast majority of the nation believe in the justness of England’s position—believe that she exhausted every means, and even went beyond the strict line of national respect, in seeking to stay the hand of him who, in sanctimonious phrase, was ever ringing changes on the theme of peace, and yet proved himself so eager to “cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war”—believe that no other course was open to her—believe that if she wished to preserve her own dearly-won liberties, she must stoutly oppose any further encroachments on the rights and liberties of Turkey. A vast majority of the nation were, and still are, firmly convinced of this, and have most emphatically declared the firmness of that conviction by the enthusiasm of their support and the wonderful liberality of their purses. Yet, notwithstanding the clearness with which our course was marked out for us—notwithstanding the steady and continuous aggression of Russia, now by secret fraud and now by open force, since the time of Peter I. to the present day—there is a party in England, and there are a number of Englishmen, who, taking pre-conceived views to their study of the question, profess to find in the Blue Books—in the documents issued by the Governments of the great nations, England, France, Turkey, and Russia—sufficient reason to condemn the policy which England has adopted, and to declare the war dishonourable, unjust, and disgraceful. Among the party taking this view are men of wealth and influence, and no pains or expense is spared in propagating their opinions. Lecturers are busy going from town to town disseminating partial and ex parte statements of the cause of the war; and letters and speeches, to which are added carefully collected extracts from the Blue Books, are printed and gratuitously distributed by thousands in order to indoctrinate the people with falsely-called peace principles. The purpose of the present tract is to examine the pretensions of this party, to test its statements, to complete the quotations which have been so partially made, and by presenting a full statement of facts, to enable the people to judge for themselves of the worth of that advocacy and the justice of that cause which has to resort to such expedients for its support and defence.
Mr. Bright, in his Letter to Mr. Absalom Watkin, says that “we are not only at war with Russia, but with all the Christian population of the Turkish Empire;” and Mr. George Thompson, in his Lecture on the War, corroborated this statement by the curiously bold assertion, that the “Greek Christians, who formed the mass of the population of Turkey in Europe, were of a common faith, common hope, and acknowledge a common headship with those of Russia.” Now, what are the facts? The Greek Church in Turkey considers the Russian Greek Church as schismatical and heretical, and refuse, and have ever refused, to acknowledge the Patriarchship of the Emperor of Russia. Of the 11,000,000 members of the Greek Church who are the subjects of the Sultan, there are in the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia about 4,000,000; these, with the exception of some 50,000 Hungarian Catholics, are of the Greek, but not of the Russo-Greek, Church. Servia has also 1,000,000 of the same persuasion, and equally averse to the Russian Czar-Patriarch; Servia has also for a long time past been striving to shake off the influence of Russia, and to unite herself more closely with her rightful ruler, the Sultan. Besides these, there are 2,400,000 Eutychian Armenians, of which 40,000 belong to the Latin Church, and also more than 1,000,000 are Roman Catholics and United Greeks. None of these recognise the Patriarchship of the Emperor of Russia.
In order that the feeling of the Greek Church in Turkey respecting this matter may be fully understood, I quote the following passage from an address delivered by the Archimandrate Suagoaud to the Roumains, (Moldo-Wallachians) in Paris, so late as January, 1853. The occasion was this: the Roumains had asked permission from the French Government to build a chapel in Paris, and the application was received with the very pertinent question, (supposing them to be of the same Church as the Peace Society do,) “Why do you not worship in the Russian Chapel already erected in Paris?” Here is the answer: “When we expressed a desire to found a Chapel of our own rite, we were told that a Russian Chapel already existed in Paris, and we were asked why the Roumains do not frequent it. What! Roumains to frequent a Russian place of worship! Is it then forgotten that they can never enter its walls, and that the Wallachians who die in Paris, forbid, at their very last hour, that their bodies should be borne to a Muscovite Chapel, and declare that the presence of a Russian priest would be an insult to their tomb. Whence comes this irreconcilable hatred? That hatred is perpetuated by the difference of language. The Russian tongue is Sclavonic; ours is Latin. Is there, in fact, a single Roumain who understands the language of the Muscovite? That hatred is just; for is not Russia our mortal enemy? Has she not closed up our schools and debarred us from all instruction, in order to sink our people into the depths of barbarism, and to reduce them the more easily to servitude? On that hatred I pronounce a blessing; for the Russian Church is a schism the Roumains reject; because the Russian Church has separated from the great Eastern Church; because the Russian Church does not recognise as its head the Patriarch of Constantinople; because it does not receive the Holy Unction of Byzantium; because it has constituted itself into a Synod of which the Czar is the despot; and because that Synod, in obedience to his orders, has changed its worship, has fabricated an unction which it terms holy, has suppressed or changed the fast days and the Lents as established by our bishops; because it has canonised Sclavonians who are apocryphal saints, such as Vladimir, Olgo, and so many others whose names are unknown to us; because the rite of Confession, which was instituted to ameliorate and save the penitent, has become, by the servility of the Muscovite clergy, an instrument for spies for the benefit of the Czar; in fine, because the Synod has violated the law, and that its reforms are arbitrary, and are made to further the objects of despotism. These acts of impiety being so notorious, and these truths so known, who shall now maintain that the Russian Church is not schismatic? Our Councils reject it, our canons forbid us to recognise it, our Church disowns it; and all who hold to the faith and whom she recognises for her children, are bound to respect her decision, and to consider the Russian rite a schismatic rite. Such are the motives which prevent the Roumains from attending the Russian Chapel in Paris.”—(Quoted in Blackwood’s Magazine, March, 1853.)
But even if they were of the same faith, the same hope, and acknowledged the same common headship as the Russian Greek Church, upon what right does Russia found her protectorate over these subjects of the Ottoman empire? The following are the three articles in the treaty of Kainardji which relate to the Turkish Greek subjects:—
“Article VII.— The Porte promises to protect the Christian religion and its churches; and the Ministers of Russia shall be allowed to make representations in favour of the new church of which mention is made in the 14th article.
“Article VIII.—The subjects of the Russian empire shall be permitted to visit the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Places; and no duty or contribution shall be exacted from them either at Jerusalem or elsewhere.
“Article XIV.—The Court of Russia is permitted, besides the chapel built in the Minister’s house, to build in the quarter of Galata, in the street named Bey Oglou, a public church of the Greek rite, which shall always be under the protection of the Russian Minister, and secure from all vexation and exaction.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 51.)
Now this treaty states, as plainly as words can do, that the Porte is to protect the Christian religion and its churches, and that the protection of Russia is limited to the chapel to be built in the quarter of Galata, in the street named Bey Oglou: yet upon this treaty Russia claims her right to interfere, to occupy the Principalities for the purpose of obtaining material guarantees; and the Peace Society agrees to her claim and palliates, where it cannot justify, her acts.
Again, Mr. Bright writes, “I have said nothing of the fact that all these troubles have sprung out of the demands made by France upon the Turkish Government, and urged in language more insulting than any which has been shown to have been used by Prince Menschikoff.”—( Letter, pp. 13–14.) Mr. Thompson, who appears to have made this letter the text for his various lucubrations, reiterates the same charge. Let us carefully examine this part of the subject. The claim of the French rests upon the treaty of 1740, which “vindicates the right of the Latins to an exclusive occupation of all the sanctuaries which they possessed at that time. The conferences lately opened here, have resulted in a clear establishment of that right as applied to the holy buildings—ten, I believe, in number—most of which are now possessed jointly by the two communions, and some exclusively by the Greeks. M. de Lavalette, instead of pushing his right to an extreme, took upon himself the responsibility of declaring his readiness to extend the principles of joint possession to the whole number. * * He (M. de Lavalette ) has acted with moderation throughout; he has been careful not to commit his Government—he has made no written communication except his opening note and such documents as were necessary for establishing the joint commission of enquiry—and he is anxious to act with moderation to the last; but at the same time he thinks it impossible to submit with honour to the present plan of proceeding; his Government, having embarked in the question, cannot, with any degree of credit or consistency, stop short under the dictation of Russia; the national party in France, the Catholic party there and elsewhere, will press for the full assertion of right under treaty—and, as for himself, he will retire rather than be made the instrument, as he conceives he would be, in the supposed case of his country’s humiliation; nay more, if it depended upon him, he would not hesitate to make use of the great naval force now possessed by France in the Mediterranean, and by blockading the Dardanelles, bring the question in debate forthwith to a satisfactory issue.”—( Sir Stratford Canning to Viscount Palmerston, Nov. 4, 1851; Blue Book, vol. i., p. 19.)
Those demands were supported by the plenipotentiaries of all the Catholic Powers. England looked on without any personal interest in the question itself; the Porte was anxious and unsettled, for Russia, through M. de Titoff, was loud in her demands for the status quo, and threatened to leave Constantinople if it were disturbed. But this status quo meant Russia’s interpretation of it—meant, Russia being fully accepted as the Protector of the Greeks, which, as we saw, she strongly claimed from the Hainardji Treaty; the status quo which France desired was simply the restoration of rights which had been allowed to fall in abeyance by the Latins, and had, in some measure, been acquired by the Greeks.
I do not state here how very trifling to us appear the causes which led to those demands, because we cannot appreciate all this pother being made about the possession of a key or two, the building of a cupola, and the putting up of a silver star; but to the Latins such questions are of great importance; and politically they served as indices to measure the influence which the French and Russians exercised in the East. I pass on to the official documents narrating the development of this quarrel. Colonel Rose, writing to the Earl of Malmesbury, Nov. 20, 1852, says,—
“A graver cause of difference than the great door of the Church of Bethlehem has appeared, and taken precedence of it. “The Porte, under the influence of French and Russian menaces, conceded to the French Embassy the note of the 9th February, and the Firman of the Mi-Févrièr to the Greeks. “The Russian Government considers the Firman the Charter of Rights of the Greek Church. The President and M. de Lavalette consider it an affront to France, because it describes her claims, grounded on the Treaty of 1740, as “haksig,” unjust, and establishes a status quo which wholly invalidates that Treaty. M. de Lavalette tells me that the Porte promised to M. Sabatier that it should not be read at Jerusalem. “M. D’Ozeroff tells the Porte that the Firman must be read at Jerusalem; he declares that if it be not read, according to usage, in the Medgliss at Jerusalem, before the Pasha, Cadi, Members of the Council, Patriarchs of the different sects, it will be valueless and a dead letter, and that, consequently, faith will have been broken with Russia.”—( Blue Book , vol. i., p. 46.)
This irritable state of things assumed a more amicable aspect by December 4, 1852: writing at that date, Colonel Rose says,—
“M. de Lavalette now says that nothing can be more pleasant and amiable (plus doux et plus aimable) than he is with the Porte. I humbly and respectfully demand my right. (Je demande humblement et respecteusement mon droit). M. d’ Ozeroff also says, that although he admitted that last year there had been a declaration that the Russian Legation would, under certain circumstances, leave Constantinople, yet, that he could not bring to his recollection having talked of the Legation leaving it on account of present causes of differences with the Porte.”—( Blue Book , vol. i., pp. 49–50.)
While the question of the Holy Places was thus winding its weary way along, the Emperor of Russia was ordering troops to the frontiers of the Danubian Provinces. On the 4th of January, 1853, Sir G. H. Seymour writes to Lord John Russell, that “orders have been dispatched to the 5th corps d’armée to advance to the frontiers of the Danubian Provinces, without waiting for their reserves; and the 4th corps, under the command of General Count Dannenberg, and now stationed in Volhynia, will be ordered to hold itself in readiness to march if necessary. Each of these corps consists of twenty-four regiments, and, as your Lordship is aware, each Russian regiment is composed of three battalions (each of about 1000 men), of which one battalion forms the reserve. General Luder’s corps d’armée accordingly, being now 48,000 strong, will receive a reinforcement of 24,000 men soon after its arrival at its destination, and supposing the 4th corps to follow, the whole force will amount at least, according to official returns, to 144,000 men.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 56)
January 28, 1853, Colonel Rose says, “Both the French and Russian Representatives exhibit now most laudable moderation in the matter of the Holy Places.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 79.)
And now new events occur in this strange drama. The three great Powers—England, France, and Russia—remove their ambassadors and appoint new ones. England sent Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe, France, M. de la Cour, and Russia, the notorious Prince Menchikoff. The first act of the Russian officer was an insult to the Porte—an insult committed with intention, and at once indicating both the character of the mission and of the man appointed to execute it. Colonel Rose writes to Lord John Russell, March 3, 1853, “A painful sensation was caused here by the following incident, which occurred yesterday:—Prince Menchikoff paid his official visit to the Grand Vizier, at the Porte, but purposely omitted to pay it to Fuad Effendi, who was ready to receive him.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 85.)
In another despatch, dated March 7, 1853, are these passages:—
“Circumstances connected with the mission of Prince Menchikoff have gradually come to light, and cause grave apprehension for the independence, if not the destiny, of Turkey. * * Unfortunately, Prince Menchikoff’s first public act evinced entire disregard , on his part , of the Sultan’s dignity and rights , which , combined with the hostile attitude of Russia , created the impression that coercion , rather than conciliatory negotiation , would distinguish his Excellency’s mission .”
And, further on, speaking of the affront offered to Fuad Effendi, he says,—
“The affront was the more galling, because great preparations had been made for the purpose of receiving the Russian Ambassador with marked honours, and a great concourse of people, particularly Greeks, had assembled for the purpose of witnessing the ceremony. The incident made a great and most painful sensation. The Grand Vizier expressed to me his indignation at the premeditated affront which had been offered to his Sovereign, and the Sultan’s irritation was excessive. M. Benedetti and myself at once saw all the bearing and intention of the affront. Prince Menchikoff wished , at his first start , to create an intimidating or commanding influence — to show that any man , even a Cabinet Minister , who had offended Russia , would be humiliated and punished , even in the midst of the Sultan’s Court , and without previous communication to His Majesty . Prince Menchikoff wished to take the cleverest man out of the Ministry , humiliate it , upset it , and establish in its place a Ministry favourable to his views . If this manœuvre had succeeded , a second treaty , like that of Unkier Skelessi , or something worse , would probably have been the result .”—( Blue Book , vol. i., pp. 86–7).
Such was the commencement of the mission of that man whose moderation Englishmen have been found prejudiced enough to praise. Nor can there be a doubt respecting the intention of Russia. While her Ambassador was insulting the Porte before the eyes of the assembled people, active preparations were being made to concentrate troops on the Danubian Provinces. Our Vice-Consul, Charles Cunningham, writing from Galatz, February 25, 1853, nearly two months before Prince Menchikoff arrived at Constantinople, says, “For some months past, there have been rumours that a large Russian force has been collected in Bessarabia, and even that these Provinces were to be occupied. From the information I have obtained, I consider it certain that the inhabitants of Bessarabia, in the districts around Ismail and Reni, have orders to prepare quarters for 60,000 troops.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 90). The French Consul at Jassy confirms this statement. He says: “All persons and letters coming from Bessarabia concur in saying that very serious preparations for war are there making—(s’ accordent à dire qu’il s’y fait ce très-sérieux preparatifs de guerre). Vast supplies of biscuit are already prepared, and the troops have received orders to hold themselves in readiness to march at the first signal.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 92.) Yet amidst all this warlike preparation Russia still continued to talk of her “pacific intentions”—of her “desire to preserve the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire”—of her “deep respect and friendly feelings towards His Majesty the Sultan.” She manifested the truth of her words by sending an ambassador to insult, and concentrating troops to overawe, her dear friend, the Sultan, whose rights, more than her own, she hypocritically declared to be the great purpose at which she aimed.
This concentration of troops on the frontier, connected with the conduct of Prince Menchikoff at the Capital, naturally aroused the suspicion and called for the watchfulness of the other Powers. As Sir G. H. Seymour said to the Russian Chancellor, “if the presence of a Russian army on the borders of the Principalities is likely to arouse the apprehension of foreign Governments, what effects is it calculated to produce upon the Porte?”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 58.) That effect was well calculated by Russia. She hoped to produce fear, disaffection, disturbance and bloodshed, in the midst of which she might come in as a protector, carry on her old and well-learnt tactics, and end in appropriating to her own colossal territories—the greater part acquired by fraud or war. It was her old plan. The world has been the almost indifferent spectator of her custom for more than sixty years. She now began in Turkey, as she began in Poland, in Finland, in Courland, in Georgia, in Bessarabia, and in every other country which her insatiable greed and ambition desired. Her process “has almost been reduced to a regular formula. It invariably commences with disorganization, by means of corruption and secret agency, pushed to the extent of disorder and civil contention. Next in order comes military occupation, to restore tranquility; and in every instance the result has been Protection, followed by Incorporation.”[9] But I anticipate.
The plot thickens as it proceeds. From a communication of M. Pisani’s to Colonel Rose, March 19, 1853, it appears that he “got information from good authority that this moderate behaviour on the part of the Russian Ambassador is calculated to induce the Porte to assent to the conclusion of a secret compact.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 107.) Again, Colonel Rose says, March 25, 1853, “The Grand Vizier informs me, also, that, in the projected treaty, there is a clause which could be interpreted into protection, by Russia, of the Turkish Greek Church.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., pp. 107–8.) Yet we are told by the Peace Party that Russia asked for and demanded nothing but the preservation of the status quo; and, as we saw by the articles of the Treaty of Kainardji, such protection formed no part of the status quo.
During all these strange proceedings, and amid all these cross purposes, Prince Menchikoff, true to his Russian policy, was silent as to the main object of his mission. He even “tried to exact a promise from Rifaat Pasha, before he makes known to him the nature of his mission and of his demands, that the Porte shall make a formal promise that she will not reveal them to the British or French Representatives. Rifaat Pasha declined, and Prince Menchikoff declared that if the object of his mission was not promptly settled, he must leave Constantinople; but he modified this declaration by saying that he did not mean thereby to imply that his retirement would be the signal for war.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 109.)
In order that no mistake may be made respecting the object of Prince Menchikoff’s mission, I quote from the note of M. Doria to Colonel Rose, dated April 1, 1853, the following passage:—
“Prince Menchikoff had verbally expressed the Emperor’s wish to enter into a secret treaty with Turkey, putting a fleet and 400,000 men at her disposal , if she ever needed aid against any Western Power whatever . That Russia further secretly demanded an addition to the treaty of Kainardji, whereby the Greek Church should be placed entirely under Russian protection , without reference to Turkey , which was to be the equivalent for the proffered aid above mentioned.”—( Blue Book , vol. i., p. 112.)
While these interferences with the rights of the Ottoman Porte were systematically pursued at Constantinople, Russia was busily employed in the same insidious course in Servia. Lord Clarendon informs Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, April 18, 1853, that—
“the Prince of Servia has dismissed M. Garaschanin from his service, on the peremptory demand of Prince Menchikoff , and that the Russian Consul at Belgrade has subsequently, in threatening terms, required the removal of several other official persons. This interference with the internal government of the Province has excited much discontent among the Servian people; and your Excellency is instructed to state to Prince Menchikoff , that in the opinion of Her Majesty’s Government, a perseverance in this course will be productive of mischievous results.”—( Blue Book , vol. i., p. 122.)
Can any sane man doubt the object of all this interference, the purpose of all these threatenings, and the aim of all this diplomatic bullying and intrigue? The original causes assigned by Russia for such interference had been removed; and, as Colonel Rose told Prince Menchikoff, “the recall of M. de Lavalette and the retirement of Fuad Effendi must be considered a satisfactory reparation; that Montenegro had been evacuated; that, in short, none of the causes alleged by Russia as causes for a hostile attitude existed any longer.”—(vol. i., p. 122.)
By May 6, 1853, the subject of the Holy Places was settled, both to the satisfaction of M. de la Cour and Prince Menchikoff; when, having received fresh instructions from Russia, Prince Menchikoff sent a decisive communication to the Porte; concerning which Sir Stratford de Redcliffe says,—
“it must appear the more alarming to the Porte, as it has followed close upon his Excellency’s receipt of the firmans and official note which but yesterday terminated with his assent the question of the Holy Places . That communication is, moreover, peremptory in fixing a very brief delay for the Porte’s definitive reply; and it comprises the Russian note verbale of the 19th ultimo in its more formal expression of Russia’s demands. It insists in certain unexplained additions to the settlement of the Jerusalem question, but little palatable to France; and although in some degree moderated in comparison with its original extent, requires, under the name of ‘guarantee,’ a concession, the dangerous character of which will not escape your Lordship’s observation.”—(Vol. i., p. 164.) Prince Menchikoff’s words are, “the Ambassador begs his Excellency, Rifaat Pasha , to be good enough to let him have that answer by Tuesday next, May 10. He cannot consider a longer delay in any other light than as a want of respect towards his Government, which would impose upon him the most painful duty.”—(Vol. i., p. 167.)
We have now reached a point of the present discussion at which we may pause, and sum up the result. It appears from the passages quoted from the various despatches of different ambassadors, that though the French were the first introducers of the question of the Holy Places, the quarrel, so far as they were concerned, was now satisfactorily and amicably settled. That they might have been to blame in the first instance, scarcely affects the after development of the plans and projects of Russia. M. de la Cour was satisfied, Prince Menchikoff was, or said he was, satisfied, the French Government authorised M. de la Cour “to state that, with regard to the question of the Holy Places,” she was “satisfied. The present arrangement is the arrangement made by M. de Lavalette, and France has consequently nothing to say against it. M. de la Cour is enjoined neither to protest nor to make reserves.”—( Blue Book, vol. i, p. 175.) Yet this very moment of apparently amicable arrangement is chosen by Russia to make other claims, and to demand other privileges; then it was that Russia sent in her ultimatum, and sought to exercise the power of a virtual sovereign over 11,000,000 of Turkish subjects, the vast majority of whom dread nothing more than the exercise of such authority, and who have shown, during the present contest, how earnest they are in repelling the assumptions of the Emperor of Russia. In Servia “the great majority are patriotic and desirous to exclude all extraneous intervention in their affairs. They are content with their present position and connexion with Turkey, which strengthens without annoying them.”[11a] So it is with the other Provinces over which Russia seeks to spread the terrible power of her protection. Her protection is degradation, debasement, and oppression. She has no scruples, for she worships a policy. Whatever may help to develope that policy, be it lying, intrigue, rebellion, spoliation, violation of Treaties, or even murder and assassination, are resorted to. Nothing intimidates her—nothing turns her aside. Rebuffed now, she bides her time, and then makes another attempt, to be succeeded by another, and another, and another, if necessary for the accomplishment of her object. She talks of her good faith at the same moment she is violating some solemnly-sworn contract; she invokes the person and aid of Almighty God in all her undertakings, though of the blackest and basest kind. It has been well said that the “kind of faith with which she has acted is shown in the revolts she has instigated and sustained in so many Turkish Provinces while she was at peace with the Sultan and professing the warmest friendship. The good faith of Russia is that which she exhibits in not less than twenty-one schools of Bulgaria, where the Russians from Kiew—the Mecca of the Muscovites—teach the children who are all Turkish subjects, hatred of the Sultan as a part of their religious instruction, and submission to the Czar as necessary to their eternal salvation.”[11b] Such is her protection—such has it ever been; and by this insidious conduct she is every year adding or preparing for future additions to her ill-gotten possessions. But we are told that “the seat of war is 3,000 miles away from us. We had not been attacked—not even insulted in any way;”[11c] and therefore we ought to have had nothing to do with the quarrel. No matter that existing Treaties between ourselves and Turkey declare that we ought to interfere; no matter that the future safety and honour of Europe—probably of England herself—depended upon the course we took in this question; no matter that right, justice, and truth were on the side of Turkey; and wrong, insolence, and unwarrantable aggression on the part of Russia; “the seat of war is 3,000 miles away from us” and—we had nothing to do with the quarrel. Happily the Government and the people took a different view of the subject, and opposed the great enemy.
Prince Menchikoff left Constantinople May 23rd, 1853. Mr. Bright has the following curious passage: “But for the English Minister at Constantinople and the Cabinet at home, the dispute would have settled itself, and the last note of Prince Menchikoff would have been accepted; and no human being can point out any material difference between that note and the Vienna note afterwards agreed upon and recommended by the Governments of England, France, Austria, and Prussia. But our Government would not allow the dispute to be settled.” It would be difficult to select any passage in the whole range of English literature, of a similar length, containing so many sophisms as this. The note of Prince Menchikoff was so identical with the Vienna note, that the Porte rejected both. And instead of the English Ambassador preventing the amicable arrangement of the question, he, acting under instructions from home, exerted every means, short of cowardice and dishonour, to preserve the peace. Passage upon passage could be selected from the Blue Book, from despatches of Lord Palmerston, of the Earl of Malmesbury, of Lord John Russell, of the Earl of Clarendon, from the letters of Colonel Rose and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, illustrative of this statement; and, because the Sultan was advised not to accede to a demand which would have destroyed his authority over 11,000,000 of his subjects, England is charged with not allowing the dispute to be settled; and because the Vienna note only reiterated Menchikoff’s ultimatum, this attempt to produce peace met the same fate as the others; still it is England that prevented the settlement of the dispute. For we are told that “Prince Menchikoff, in his note dated the 21st of May, which has caused a profound impression throughout Europe, has proclaimed that religious objects alone have not been aimed at by him.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 268.) Russia now pursued her usual course. She issued a Manifesto, June 26, 1853;—a copy of this Manifesto was published in the “St. Petersburgh Journal,”—and this Manifesto differed essentially from the Manifesto issued to the Russian people. “Considerable sensation,” says Sir G. H. Seymour, “has been occasioned among the Foreign Missions at St. Petersburgh, by the great differences observable in the Russian manifesto as published in its original state, that is, as addressed to the Russian people, and in the official French translation destined for more general circulation in the ‘St. Petersburgh Journal.’”
The most striking word in the original was “perfidiousness,” as applied to the Sultan, an epithet which the Government translator appears to have been desired to omit.
I need not observe, that the suppression is calculated to give an erroneous general impression of the force of that appeal which the Emperor’s Government has judged it necessary to make to the prejudices—for, in this instance, I will not say opinions—of the Russian people.—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 340.) This manifesto contained this passage:—“Having exhausted all persuasion and, with them, every means of obtaining pacific satisfaction of our just demands, we have found it needful to advance our armies into the Danubian Principalities, in order to show the Ottoman Porte to what its obstinacy may lead.”[12] —( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 323.) Of course, this never meant war—of course, these acts were the legitimate consequences of the Emperor’s continued assertion of his desire for peace, and his intentions of preserving the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. This pacific course was only for the purpose of possessing a “material guarantee,” and was not a casus belli. The Western Powers were foolish enough so to consider it; and Turkey was persuaded not to declare war when it occurred, because the very power which Mr. Bright says was the cause why the quarrel could not be amicably settled, had not yet given up the hope of her ability to procure peace. The Russians crossed the Pruth, issued their manifesto which was in the stereotype style of all the manifestos which, under similar circumstances, she has issued during the last sixty years—issued to deceive Europe, and not as indices of her conduct. This is the manifesto:—
“Inhabitants of Moldavia and Wallachia! His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, my august master has commanded me to occupy your territory with the corps d’armée, of which he has been pleased to confide to me the command. “We arrive among you neither with plans of conquest nor with the intention of modifying the institutions by which you are governed, or the political situation guaranteed to you by solemn Treaties. “The provisional occupation of the Principalities which I am directed to carry out, has no other object than that of immediate and effectual protection in the unlooked-for and ruinous circumstances under which the Ottoman Government, disregarding the numerous proofs of a sincere alliance which the Imperial Court, since the conclusion of the treaty of Adrianople, has never ceased to give it, responds to our most just proposals by refusals, to our most disinterested advice by the most offensive distrust. “In his longanimity, in his constant desire to maintain peace in the East as well as in Europe, the Emperor will avoid engaging in an offensive war against Turkey, so long as his dignity and the interests of his Empire will permit him to do so. “On the very day that he shall obtain the reparation which is due to him, and the guarantee which he is entitled to require for the future, his troops will withdraw within the frontiers of Russia. “Inhabitants of Moldavia and Wallachia! I equally execute an order of His Imperial Majesty, by declaring to you that the presence of his troops in your country will not impose upon you either fresh charges or contributions; that the supplies of provisions will be paid for by our military chests at a suitable time, and at a rate fixed beforehand in concert with your Governments. “Look upon what awaits you without disquietude; betake yourselves in security to your agricultural labours and to your commercial speculations; obey the laws which govern you, and the constituted authorities. By the faithful discharge of these duties you will acquire the best title to the generous solicitude and powerful protection of His Majesty the Emperor.”—( Blue Book , vol. i., pp. 348–9)
This is the usual course of Russian invasions. She burglariously takes possession of territory, and tells the people that if they will be quiet and obedient, they shall receive the “generous solicitude” of the imperial robber. All her proclamations are similar to this in word, identical in purpose, and observed with the same supreme indifference. For the reader’s information I will quote a passage from the proclamation published in 1808, upon the invasion of Finland; it will be seen that it is written in the same spirit, and was carried out with the same fidelity:—“It is with the greatest regret that his Majesty the Emperor of Russia, &c., sees himself forced to send into your country the troops under my order. * * These motives, as well as the regard which his Imperial Majesty owes to the safety of his own states, oblige him to place your country under his protection, and to take possession of it, in order to procure by these means a sufficient guarantee in case his Swedish Majesty should persevere in his resolution not to accept the equitable conditions of peace that have been proposed to him. * * It is his Imperial Majesty’s pleasure that all the affairs of the country should have their ordinary course in conformity with your laws and customs, which will remain in force so long as his Imperial Majesty’s troops shall be obliged to occupy the country. The civil and military functionaries are confirmed in their respective employments; always excepting those who may use their authority to mislead the people, and induce them to take measures contrary to their interests. All that is necessary for the maintenance and food of the troops shall be paid in ready money on the spot. All provisions shall be paid for according to an amicable agreement between our commissaries and those of the country.” A passage from the letter of the King of Sweden will show how these promises are kept. He says, “Honour and humanity require me to make strong representations against the innumerable horrors and the vexations which the Russian troops have permitted themselves in Swedish Finland. The blood of the innocent victims calls for vengeance upon those who authorised such cruelties. * * * Can it be a crime in my Finnish subjects not to have wished to let themselves be seduced by promises which are as fallacious as the principles on which they are founded are erroneous! Is it worthy of a Sovereign to make it in them a crime? I conjure your Imperial Majesty to put an end to the calamities and the horrors of a war which ought to call down on your person and your empire the malediction of Divine Providence.”[14] We know that Finnish protection ended in Incorporation, and, but for the glorious bravery of the Turks at Oltenitza, Citate, and Silistria, and the interference of the Allies, such would, without doubt, have been the fate of the Principalities. The same tactics were employed; similar oppressions exercised; identical courses pursued. Russia ordered the taxes to be paid to her general; required obedience from the Hospadas and service from the people; forbade their communicating with the Sultan, their lawful ruler. This general order will shew what kind of protection she exercised: “Ordered 1st. That all men from the age of eighteen to forty years, married or unmarried, and whatever their profession may be, are required by the generals, colonels, and commanders of corps to do service for the Russian army. 2. That horses, waggons, oxen, and other beasts of burden, may be required for the same service. And, 3. That all boats, barks, or floats now on the Danube, are seized for the present moment for the service of the Russian army. This decree is applicable to all Wallachian subjects. Those who attempt to evade its execution shall be tried by court martial.” Such is Russian protection.
We now reach the period of the famous Vienna note, which, says Mr. Bright, “Russia accepted at once—accepted it, I believe, by telegraph, even before the precise words of it had been received in St. Petersburgh. Everybody thought the question now settled. A Cabinet Minister told me we should never hear another word about it; ‘the whole thing is at an end,’ he said, and so it appeared for a moment. But the Turk refused the note which had been drawn up by his own arbitrators, and which Russia had accepted.” No one will be surprised at the Turk rejecting this note, when he reads the original words of the note and compares them with the suggested amendments of the Ottoman Government:
Words of the Original Note.
If the Emperors of Russia have at all times evinced their active solicitude for the maintenance of the immunities and privileges of the orthodox Greek Church in the Ottoman Empire, the Sultans have never refused again to confirm them by solemn acts testifying their ancient and constant benevolence towards their Christian subjects.
His Majesty the Sultan will remain faithful to the letter and to the spirit of the Treaties of Kainardji and Adrianople, relative to the protection of the Christian religion, * * * and moreover in a spirit of exalted equity, to cause the Greek rite to share in the advantages granted to the other Christian rites by Convention or special arrangement.
Amended Note.
If the Emperors of Russia have at all times evinced their active solicitude for the religion and orthodox Greek Church, the Sultans have never ceased to provide for the maintenance of the privileges and immunities which at different times they have spontaneously granted to that religion and to that Church in the Ottoman Empire, and to confirm them.
His Majesty the Sultan will remain faithful to the stipulations of the Treaty of Kainardji, confirmed by that of Adrianople relative to the protection by the Sublime Porte of the Christian religion, and he is moreover charged to make known, * * * and moreover in a spirit of exalted equity, to cause the Greek rite to share in the advantages granted, or which might be granted, to the other Christian Communities, Ottoman subjects.
The intellect which cannot see the difference—the essential difference—of these words must, in some way or other, be very far from being healthy. The three great Powers acknowledged the justice of the alterations, and M. Drouyn de Lhuys, though he “regrets the introduction of any modifications into the Vienna note, certainly considers them to be for the better.”—( Blue Book, vol. ii., p. 85.) These modifications the Emperor of Russia refused to accept; and though France and England, still desirous of peace, advised the Turks not to declare war against Russia, is it surprising that she did? The wonder is that she suffered her hands to be tied so long, considering that the enemy was in her territories and exercising all the powers of military government over her subjects. Because Turkey refused the first note, and Russia the amended one, Mr. Bright has the audacity to tell us that “the Turks should have been prevented from going to war, or should have been allowed to go to war on their own risk.” In no fit of temporary excitement did the Turks adopt this last resort of nations. She summoned a council of her wisest, her gravest, and her best, and then, after mature deliberation, issued the declaration of war. “The decisions were unanimous. The meeting consisted of more than a hundred persons.”—( Blue Book, vol. ii., p. 130.)
Such is the history of that contest which is at present waging between England, France, Turkey, and Russia. I have endeavoured to state the whole question without prejudice or passion. Believing thoroughly in the justice of the war, I have sought to master all its bearings, and so to state the result that reason should be the only adjudicator appealed to. I have expressed few opinions of my own, preferring to quote from official documents, so that the reader might have the authoritative documents in his possession, and be thus enabled to compare them with the garbled extracts which have been made from these very interesting Blue Books on the Holy Places. The whole development of the question reveals Russia at her old game; a game she has unceasingly played since the time of Peter I.; a game by which she has more than doubled her original empire; a game which has brought to her unholy rule Poland, Finland, the Crimea, Georgia, Bessarabia, and so many other provinces which she has filched from her neighbours. “For one hundred and sixty years Russia has steadily kept in view the objects of ambition in the East first contemplated by Peter I., and bequeathed by him to his successors. These were, to raise Russia upon the ruins of Turkey—to obtain exclusive possession of the Caspian and Black Sea, with the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles—to extend her dominions beyond the Caucasus—to domineer in Persia with a view to open the road to India; and history perhaps furnishes no other example of equal pertinacity in prosecuting, per fas et nefas, a predetermined course of aggrandisement. Her crown has frequently been transferred, by open violence or secret crime, from one head or one family to another, but each successive sovereign, with hardly an exception, has made some progress towards the attainment of these objects, and she continues to prosecute them with unabated avidity.”[16a] Yet, with these facts before his eyes, and strengthening himself with a quotation from Lord Palmerston, who says just what suits his purpose at the moment, Mr. Bright declares that “The danger of the Russian power was a phantom.” Any one might suppose from such statements that men read history with their understandings warped by some strange hallucination which prevented them from profitting by its lessons. Russian power of aggression a phantom! Why her whole modern history is one continued record of aggressions committed on foreign states, and she is now as desirous as ever of increasing her dominions. The late Emperor was scarcely cold before his son, Alexander II., asked “Providence which has selected us for so high a calling to be our guide and protector, that we may maintain Russia on the highest standard of power and glory, and in our person accomplish the incessant wishes and aims of Peter, of Catherine, of Alexander, and of our father.” One of these incessant wishes and aims is the possession of Constantinople, the Bosphorous, and the Dardanelles.
To show the nature of the Russian policy and her unvarying method of carrying it out, I select a few instances of her aggressions. A goodly volume might be filled with such violations of all rights, natural and divine:—From Sweden she gained Finland in 1809; the lion’s share of Poland fell to her after the three fatal partitions of 1772, 1793, and 1795, and Warsaw was added in 1815; from Persia she wrung Georgia, in 1814; and Turkey lost the Crimea in 1784, and Bessarabia in 1812. I now give an abstract of the extent of her acquisitions, which proves that within the last sixty-four years she has acquired territories equal in extent and importance to the whole empire she had in Europe before that time. From Sweden she has stolen more than what now remains of that kingdom; what she won from Poland nearly equals the whole Austrian empire; from Turkey in Europe, her gain is greater than the Prussian dominions, exclusive of the Rhenish Provinces; and from Turkey in Asia it is nearly equal to the whole of the smaller states of Germany. Persia has been plundered of dominions equal to England; and from Tartary she has filched possessions not inferior to that of Turkey in Europe, Greece, Italy, and Spain.[16b] Surely this is a sufficient evidence of her aggressive policy, and also sufficient to show that her power is not a mere phantom.
Mr. Bright can never have read Russian history, or he would scarcely have penned the sentence that we are at war for “the maintenance of the most immoral and filthy of all despotisms over one of the fairest portions of the earth which it has desolated, and over a population it has degraded, but has not been able to destroy.” Bad as Turkish despotism has been, it must pale its ineffectual fires before that of Russia; the horrors committed by Peter and Catherine, the religious persecutions of Nicholas, the fate of the Minsk nuns, the massacre of thousands of unopposing and helpless victims which everywhere defiles her annals. Of her horrible crimes, too hideous to be named; of her serf population, of her degraded priesthood guilty of every enormity of which human nature is capable, I need not here enlarge. From the days when Peter had his own son assassinated, butchered his people, massacred the Strelitzes, and at a banquet which he gave to the Prussian Ambassador, Prinz, had twenty of these unfortunate men brought into the room and there beheaded; and as each head fell he quaffed a bumper, desiring his guest to do the same; from the days when her Generals Potemkin and Suvaroff, at the command of Catherine, slaughtered in the Crimea “thirty thousand Tartars of either sex and every age, in cold blood,” down to the Sinope horrors of last year, her policy, her spirit, her objects and aims have undergone no change. And it is sad quibbling to say, as it has recently been said by an advocate of the Peace Society, that the Secret Correspondence contains not a single word threatening, or intimating a threat, of active aggression on the part of Russia against the “sick man.” Russia never talks of active aggression, but always of peace, and is always aggrandising. Her course is well drawn by her own historian Karamsin, and he says, “The object and character of our military policy has invariably been, to seek to be at peace with everybody, and to make conquests without war; always keeping ourselves on the defensive, placing no faith on the friendship of those whose interests do not accord with our own, and losing no opportunity of injuring, without ostensibly breaking our treaties with them.” Such is the moral code of a nation whose apologists are not a few in free and moral England!
The Emperor tells Europe, and Mr. Bright supports him, that “England and France have sided with the enemies of Christianity against Russia combating for the Orthodox Faith.” Now if the Turks have justice on their side, and I trust sufficient evidence has been advanced to prove they have, how can we be at war against Christianity in supporting them? Is not justice the very basis of all religion? It is the basis and only true ground-work of mercy itself, without which it is mere idleness to talk of religion. But the Czar and Mr. Bright have availed themselves of the simply fact that the Russians profess Christianity, and that the Turks are Mahommedans, to inform the world that we are fighting the battle of the infidel against the faithful. We will not pause here to show what a Christianity this is which the Emperor proclaims as the only one orthodox faith, and for the propagation and establishment of which Russia has been selected by Divine Providence. It is not a religious war at all. It is simply a political war. But even if it were a religious war—by taking whose side in this quarrel should we be best helping the cause of religion? “Well,” says a member of the Prussian Senate, “the wrong that Russia was doing was not made right by the religious grounds that she put forward as a pretence for her policy. It was true the question had a religious bearing; the whole earth was eventually to be converted to Christianity; but this providential future development of the world will not authorise any one secular power to constitute itself the executioner of the Divine will, and it could not be in conformity therewith when a great power sought to crush a weaker by a breach of treaty and force of arms.” The Earl of Shaftesbury, whose religious character none will doubt, and whose devotion to the cause of Religious Freedom has won for him a high place in the annals of England, has met this question in its true bearing. In his masterly speech in the House of Lords on the Turkish difficulty he said, “As to the alliance with Turkey, there is a wide difference between an alliance with any power, heathen though it may be, to maintain the cause of justice and order against the aggressions of professing Christians, and an alliance of which the result would be the development and aggrandisement of that power. Justice, Order, and Right are such things in the eyes of God that they must be respected * * It could be shown that, with the Turks, there were facilities for the promotion of civilization and the improvement of mankind, which were denied to the Christians within the territory of Russia, and which would be still more denied them if the Emperor were enabled to extend his dominions over the East. There are more than forty towns and villages in Turkey in which there are distinct congregations of Protestant seceders from the Greek Church. * * During the last twenty years the diffusion of the Bible in Turkey had been almost incredible; whereas not even a single copy had been printed in Russia—the language of the people since 1823, and the circulation of it is forbidden under the severest penalties. With a population of 2,000,000 of Jews in his dominions, the Emperor will not permit a single copy of the Scriptures in Hebrew to pass the frontiers.” The Earl of Shaftesbury also read the following Imperial Firman, which shows the liberality of the Sultan in strong contrast to the persecuting spirit of the Czar:—
“ Firman .—To my Vizier, Mahmoud Pasha, Prefect of Police in Constantinople. When this sublime and august mandate reaches you, let it be known that hitherto those of my Christian subjects who have embraced the Protestant faith have suffered much inconvenience and distress. But, in necessary accordance with my Imperial compassion, which is the support of all, and which is manifested to all classes of my subjects, it is contrary to my Imperial pleasure that any one class of them should be exposed to suffering. As, therefore, by reason of their faith, the above-mentioned are already a separate community, it is my Royal compassionate will that, for facilitating the conducting of their affairs, and that they may obtain ease, and quiet, and safety, a faithful and trustworthy person from among themselves, and by their own selection, shall be appointed, with the title of Agent for the Protestants , and that he should be in relations with the Prefecture of the Police. You will not permit anything to be required of them in the name of fee, or other pretence, for marriage licences or registration. You will see to it, that, like the other communities of the empire, in all their affairs, such as procuring cemeteries and places of worship, they should have every facility and every needful assistance. You will not permit that any of the other communities shall in any way interfere with their edifices, or with their worldly matters or concerns, or, in short, with any of their affairs, either secular or religious, that thus they may be free to exercise the usages of their faith. And it is enjoined upon you not to allow them to be molested an iota in these particulars, or in any others; and that all attention and perseverance be put in requisition to maintain them in quiet and security. And, in case of necessity, they shall be free to make representations regarding their affairs, through their agent, to the Sublime Porte.”
“In this,” continued the Earl, “I believe is to be found the whole secret of the movement on the part of the Emperor of Russia. He saw that it would give to these Greek Christians a status, a recognized independence, and emancipated them from the influence of Russia; he saw that the circulation of the Scriptures was giving rise to those aspirations after liberty, which religious freedom must inevitably be followed by, and his own dominions were contiguous to those in which this religious freedom was tolerated.”
The true nature of Russia’s religious movement is well pointed out by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. He is giving the Earl of Clarendon a summary of the state of the question when he arrived at Constantinople, and of the difficulties which lie in the way of its settlement. As respects arriving at an amicable adjustment of the differences he says, “The prospect in this direction would be more promising if Russia were to shew signs of being disposed to act on Christian rather than on sectarian principles. But it appears that the protection which her Government wish to exercise with so little control or limitation, is of a strictly exclusive character; and it has reached me, from more quarters than one, that, among the motives for increasing their influence in this country, is the desire of repressing Protestantism wherever it appears.”—( Blue Book, vol. i., p. 29.)
England, France, and Turkey have striven to divest this quarrel of any character of Islamism versus Christianity, and to rest it on the broad basis of justice and right. The Emperor has sought to make it a second crusade, and has used every influence in his power as head of the Church to excite the fanaticism, sectarian zeal, and religious bigotry of his people. In doing so he has shown himself capable of calling into action the most terrible of all weapons, so that therewith he can achieve his end. It was little to have been expected that a member of the most peaceful and tolerant of Christian communities should have aided him in this dreadful and iniquitous course. It is one more fatal illustration of how far men will allow themselves to be carried when once they abandon the strict path of reason, and allow feeling and prejudice to warp their otherwise sound judgment.
Before I leave this question of the “secret correspondence,” I will quote a passage from Sir G. H. Seymour, which I commend to the most careful consideration of those who think that Russia was desirous of keeping on terms of amity and justice with the Porte. The words are,—“The sovereign who insists with much pertinacity upon the impending fall of a neighbouring state, must have settled in his own mind that the hour, if not of its dissolution, yet for its dissolution, is at hand.” To my mind, it is clear in what manner Nicholas had made up his mind respecting this dissolution; and it was no fault of his if the hour is not at hand.
A few words more. One course pursued by the Peace Society is very strange. While apologising for and defending Russia, most of its public speakers and lecturers denounce France and Austria. I shall not defend either of these Powers. Those who oppose Russia on the same grounds which I do, will be slow to do that. But how can these men, opposing the present war, reconcile it to their consciences to seek to embroil us with two other powers? Is it that they only deprecate war when waged against a favourite despot, and are reckless as to fanning the flames when others are concerned? Whatever may be their reasons, it is still a strange problem—one which these gentlemen may find some difficulty in solving. Now that we are at war, let us hope that we shall not again sheath the sword until we have secured peace on such a firm and secure basis that it shall not be in the power of future squabblers about a key, a stone, or a cupola, on the one hand—nor of aggrandising and unscrupulous ambition on the other—to overthrow the peace of nations, to threaten the existence and liberties of weaker states, to interrupt the commerce of the world, and to retard the civilization of the race. For many years Russia has been the incubus of Europe. She has laid her cold grasp upon all its aspirations, and sent out her serried legions to quench in blood the budding life and reviving freedom of many states. Her name has been a terror—her presence a curse; her instruments are fraud, rapine, and destruction; her rule is based upon ignorance, superstition and slavery; and, brutal herself, she knows of only one system of governing men—a system which depends on chains, the knout, Siberia, and death! The man who lauds such a system is hardly fit to speak the tongue which Shakspere spoke; and, as he is so much of a Russian subject, it is a pity that his citizenship is not complete, and that he were a dweller beneath her mild rule—a sojourner beneath her clement skies. For him our forefathers have lived, fought, and achieved freedom in vain.
“Who would not blush, if such a man there be? Who would not weep, if Atticus were he?”
J. A. LANGFORD, PRINTER, ANN-STREET, BIRMINGHAM.
FOOTNOTES.
[9] The Progress and Present Position of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, Preface, p. vi.
[11a] Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, p. 153.
[11b] Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, p. 159.
[11c] Letter of John Bright, Esq., M.P.
[12] “Now the Principalities have been invaded, not only without any pretence of right, but by the most flagrant violations of all the principles of right, by the armies of Russia. The revenues of the Principalities have been seized, all the private materiel of those countries sequestered, and the inhabitants compelled to join the Russian armies and to make war on their own Sovereign.”— Lord Lyndhurst, in the House of Lords, March 20, 1855. Even weak, vacillating, and Russia-allied Prussia was forced to admit that “a great wrong had been committed.”
[14] Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, pp. 148–49.
[16a] The Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary. Preface, pp. v. and vi.
[16b] The above abstract is made from Mr. Arrowsmith’s valuable map, accompanying the pamphlet, “The Progress of Russia in the East; an Historical Summary.”