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
finer specimens of treacherous diplomacy can be found than those which are
furnished by the authentic records of the correspondence between the Czar
and the British Government in the first five months of 1853.
The anger and violence of the Emperor Nicholas at his defeat were
augmented by the fact that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was the British
Envoy at the Porte. In spite of the evidence pouring in upon him from
day to day, the Czar would believe that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe,
overawing the Ministers, and coercing the Sultan, had alone been the
cause of the rejection of the treaty. The Czar writhed at the thought.
Count Nesselrode--and in reading his words we read, no doubt, the words
of Nicholas--imputes the failure of Menschikoff to the vehemence of, "the
Queen's Ambassador." Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was accused of displaying
an "incurable mistrust, a vehement activity." Russia was aware of the
efforts he employed with the Sultan and the Council, and how deaf he had
proved to the prayers of Reschid Pasha. No; the rupture had been brought
about by "passion," by "a blind obstinacy," by forcing the Porte "to
brave" Russia by "distrust as unfounded as it was offensive." In short,
the Czar believed, or affected to believe, that he had suffered a moral
defeat at the hands of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; and that he would not
endure.
Lord Clarendon's catalogue of Count Nesselrode's worthless promises was
crossed on its way to St. Petersburg by a despatch from that Minister to
Baron Brunnow, quite as insolent as any Prince Menschikoff had addressed
to the Porte. In the most haughty style of the Russian Foreign Office
Britain was warned not to drive the Porte, by a policy of mistrust, to
the verge of an abyss in which the moderation of the Emperor had alone
prevented her from being swallowed up. This heated language, this avowal
that the Czar regarded himself as the destiny of Turkey, did not open
the eyes of Lord Aberdeen, did not enable him to see that the Czar was
resolved, cost what it would, to have his will obeyed. Nor did the
ultimatum addressed to Reschid Pasha, insolent and peremptory as it was,
reveal to Lord Aberdeen the true state of the case. Declaring that the
Czar had been always friendly and generous and moderate, and that by
opposing his intentions, by showing distrust without cause, by giving
refusals without excuse, a serious offence had been committed against "a
sincere ally and well-disposed neighbour," Count Nesselrode had the tact
to appeal, not only to the wisdom, but to the "patriotism" of the Turkish
Minister, and almost ordered him to surrender without delay, under penalty
of seeing a portion of the dominions of his master taken, and held as a
"material guarantee." Such was the character of the "last effort" made by
this moderate, this conciliatory, this generous potentate, this "sincere
ally and well-disposed neighbour," to extort from a weak Power the essence
of sovereignty over twelve millions of subjects.
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