The Life and Times of Queen Victoria; vol. 4 of 4Wilson, Robert
History
The Life and Times of Queen Victoria; vol. 4 of 4
Wilson, Robert
Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901; Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, 1819-1901
Events justified the accuracy of Mr. Hayward’s information, for it was
the fatal error of Lord Beaconsfield’s policy that it assumed there was
no genuine accord among the Powers, and that they were neither able nor
willing to prevent Russia from seizing Turkish territory in Europe.
Indeed, Mr. Hayward seems to have been the only observer of public
affairs who clearly understood why they were drifting in the direction
indicated by the table-talk of the embassies. In a letter to Lady
Waldegrave (7th October, 1876) he says, “the power of public opinion
is a remarkable feature of the Eastern Question. Russia is so strongly
impelled by it that the Government would be endangered by holding back.
Austria is impelled by the Magyar to oppose the construction of any new
Slav State. The Porte is afraid of exasperating its Mahometan subjects
by what might be deemed unworthy concessions. The English Government
is completely controlled by public opinion.” And again in a letter to
Mr. Gladstone he says, “One of the strongest features of the situation
is, that the popular voice or national will is bettering or impelling
diplomacy and statesmanship in Russia, Austria, England, and Turkey, and
[Illustration: THE TOWER OF GALATA, CONSTANTINOPLE.]
fortunately so as concerns England. Whatever England is doing in
the right direction is owing to the popular impulse for which you
are mainly responsible, and which will redound to your lasting
honour.”[113] At the same time, there was a point at which Mr.
Gladstone and the nation parted company. He thought that if England
admitted that she ought to see that the Bulgarians were protected from
oppression, she ought to force Turkey to give effectual guarantees
for their protection. If she did not, Russia would step in as their
champion, and establish a claim to exclusive influence over European
Turkey, which it was not politic to give her even a pretext for
exercising. The great majority of Englishmen, however, held (1), that
it was not their business to waste their taxes in winning freedom for
the Bulgarians; (2), that they sufficiently discharged their duty
to them when they paralysed Turkey by withdrawing British support
from her; and (3), that the futile results of the Crimean War proved
that Austria and Germany, from their geographical position, were the
only Powers who could be safely trusted to effectively check Russian
aggression in Eastern Europe. The masses, as distinguished from the
aristocratic and academic classes, here proved themselves wiser than
their leaders, on whom they forced a policy of non-intervention, which
practically meant benevolent neutrality to the oppressed provinces of
Turkey. The manner in which the Treaty of San Stefano was transformed
into the Treaty of Berlin, every concession extorted from Russia being
obviously exacted in Austro-German interests, more than justified the
somewhat cynical anticipations of the British people.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account