Cassell's History of England, Vol. 6 (of 8): From the Death of Sir Robert Peel to the Illness of the Prince of Wales — John Shaqi
Cassell's History of England, Vol. 6 (of 8): From the Death of Sir Robert Peel to the Illness of the Prince of WalesAnonymous
History
Cassell's History of England, Vol. 6 (of 8): From the Death of Sir Robert Peel to the Illness of the Prince of Wales
Anonymous
Great Britain -- History
The real policy of the Czar was steadily developing itself. It was on
the 4th of February, 1853, that Count Nesselrode informed Sir Hamilton
Seymour of the intention of the Czar to send Prince Menschikoff to
Constantinople, and at the same time gave assurances that the Prince
would be provided with instructions of a conciliatory nature; and that
"although bred to arms," the negotiator was "animated by intentions the
most pacific." A few days later Count Nesselrode again declared that the
Prince's instructions, though "necessarily vague," were moderate; and
he volunteered the further information that there would be no question
of attempting to regain from the Latins any privileges which they might
have acquired since the year before. Subsequent events showed what this
studied moderation and vagueness were intended to cover, and how the
Czar was aiming at larger game than the privileges conferred by the
acquisition of keys and the affixing of stars at the Holy Places. At the
same time, the Russian Government, preparing for a grand _coup_, resolved
not to prosecute further the direct negotiation with France opened at St.
Petersburg, but to transact the business in hand at Constantinople. For
the great conflict, the scope of which none but the Russians foresaw, all
the Governments prepared.
England, at the end of February, directed Lord Stratford de Redcliffe
to proceed to Constantinople by way of Paris and Vienna. The Earl of
Clarendon had succeeded Lord John Russell at the Foreign Office, although
the latter still remained in the Ministry. It was Lord Clarendon's duty to
draw up the instructions to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; they were broad
and wise; they left the diplomatist a large discretion; they entrusted to
him the power of ordering Admiral Dundas to hold his fleet in readiness;
but at this stage of the dispute, the Ambassador was not to direct the
admiral to approach the Dardanelles without positive instructions from
her Majesty's Government. Although Austria had interfered between the
Porte and Montenegro, she had told the British Government that she would
not depart from her conservative policy in the East; and although France
had thrust the Porte into so deep a peril, she had in the opening of
1853 officially stated that she regarded her interests in the East as
identical with those of England, and it was everywhere given out that the
two Western Powers were acting in concert. To carry out her objects in
the East, France sent, as successor to M. de Lavalette, M. de la Cour, a
mild diplomatist, who had none of the fiery qualities of his predecessor,
and who was not likely to quarrel with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. The
British Government believed it could neutralise, by moral influence,
the evils springing from the action of France and Russia, and thus, by
imposing moderation on both, stave off a catastrophe involving all. But at
this juncture, as Russia grew more menacing, France grew more moderate:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account