Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T03:15:57.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stratford, the Cabinet and the Outbreak of the Crimean War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. L. Herkless
J. L. Herkless
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Eastern Question is a hardy perennial in historical research and writing. Years, indeed generations, of study seem to leave basic issues unresolved. One of the most persistent of those issues is the role of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, the British ambassador at Constantinople, in the outbreak of the Crimean War. Temperley may have been exaggerating when he said it had long been a popular belief that Stratford ‘was the human agency which caused the Crimean War’ – a belief he spent some time in efforts to dispel – but that Stratford was less than helpful in the pursuit of a peaceful solution to the 1853 crisis was certainly a widely held belief at the time and has proved an enduring one. As late as 1966, M. S. Anderson, dealing with the question of Stratford's ‘guilt’, once more could only conclude: ‘Whether Stratford de Redcliffe, as has often been alleged, privately urged the Turkish ministers to reject the [Vienna] Note while publicly advising them to accept it, is uncertain.’ The Vienna Note was the settlement of the Russo-Turkish conflict proposed jointly by the Governments of England, France, Austria and Prussia and accepted in toto by the Tsar. There was, however, no lack of certainty in the minds of the British foreign secretary at the time, Lord Clarendon, and the first lord of the admiralty, Sir James Graham, that Stratford had been an agent provocateur. On 3 September Greville wrote: ‘Clarendon thinks that Stratford has encouraged the resistance of the Divan to the proposals [at Vienna] and that he might have persuaded the Turks to accept the terms if he had chosen to do so…’

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1975 , pp. 497 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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 Temperley, H., ‘Stratford de Redcliffe and the Origins of the Crimean War’, part I, English Historical Review (hereafter E.H.R.), XLVIII, 192 (10 1933), 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Anderson, M. S., The Eastern Question 1774–1923 (London, 1966), p. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Strachey, Lytton and Fulford, Roger (eds.), The Greville Memoirs, vi (London, 1938), 444.Google Scholar

4 Ibid. p. 447.

5 Sir Maxwell, Herbert, The Life and Letters of the Fourth Earl of Clarendon, 11 (London, 1913), 13Google Scholar, Clarendon to Henry Reeve, 6 June 1853.

6 Ibid. ii, 12.

7 See Gooch, Brison D., ‘A Century of Historiography on the Origins of the Crimean War‘, American Historical Review, LXII, I (10 1956), 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Zaionchkovskii, A. M., Vostochnaia Voina 1853–56g. v Sviazi s Sovremennoi ei Politichesltpi Obstanovkoi (The Eastern War, 1853–56 and the Political Situation at that Time) (St Petersburg, 1908–13) (hereafter Zä).Google ScholarGoriainov, S. M., Le Bosphore et les Dardanelles (Paris, 1910).Google Scholar The older Russian work is an official publication Etude diplomatique sur la guerre de Crimée (1852 à 1856) (St Petersburg, 1878), usually attributed to Alexander Jomini, though its authorship could probably be the subject of scholarly investigation itself.

9 The Invasion of the Crimea, esp. vol. 1 (London, 1863).Google Scholar I shall not repeat the well-known story about Kinglake and Napoleon's mistress.

10 Lane-Poole, S., The Life of Stratford Canning, Viscount Stratford de Redctiffe (London, 1888).Google Scholar Temperley complains that Lane-Poole did not use Clarendon's and Aberdeen's correspon dence with Stratford, . E.H.R., XLVIII, 192, pp. 601–2.Google Scholar

11 Maxwell, , op. cit., 11, 12.Google Scholar

12 See esp. England and the Near East, The Crimea (London, 1936).Google Scholar

13 Maxwell, , op. cit., II, IGoogle Scholar, Aberdeen to Russell, 15 Feb. 1853.

14 F.O. 195/396, Russell to Stratford, 25 Feb. 1853.

15 Maxwell, , op. cit., II, 15Google Scholar, Aberdeen to Clarendon, 7 June 1853.

16 Ibid. p. 17.

17 Ibid.

18 F.O. 146/489, Cowley to Clarendon, 29 Aug. 1853.

19 Maxwell, , op. cit., II, 18Google Scholar, Clarendon to Russell, 25 Aug. 1853.

20 F.O. 352/36, Clarendon to Stratford, 26 Aug. 1853.

21 Strachey, and Fulford, (eds.), op. cit. VII (28 08 1853), 82.Google Scholar

22 Pte. Aber. MSS, la. 223, Aberdeen to Clarendon, 20 Aug. 1853. What instructions Aberdeen has in mind I am unable to determine.

23 Martin, Kingsley, The Triumph of Lord Palmerston: A Study of Public Opinion in England Before the Crimean War (revised ed., London, 1963).Google Scholar

24 Strachey, and Fulford, (eds.), op. cit., VII (27 08 1853), 30–1Google Scholar, observing the reaction after Palmerston's attack on Cobden in the House.

25 See above, footnote 18.

26 Sir Laughton, John (ed.), The Correspondence of Henry Reeve (London, 1898), p. 309Google Scholar, Clarendon to Reeve, 9 Sept. 1853.

27 Maxwell, , op. cit., II, 20Google Scholar, Clarendon to Lewis, G. C., 12 Sept. 1853.Google Scholar Sir Lewis, George Cornewall was at the time editor of the Edinburgh Review.Google Scholar Until Russell's downfall in February 1852 he had been financial secretary to the Treasury. He was both Russell's and Clarendon's dose acquaintance.

28 Benson, Christopher and Esher, Viscount (eds.), The Letters of Queen Victoria (Ist series), vol. 11 (London, 1907)Google Scholar, Aberdeen to Queen Victoria, 26 Nov. 1853 and Queen Victoria to Aber deen, 27 Nov. 1853. Pte. Aber. MSS, Aberdeen to Queen Victoria, 28 Nov. 1853.

29 Maxwell, , op. cit., II, 32–3Google Scholar, Clarendon, to Clarendon, Lady, 22 Nov. 1853.Google Scholar

30 I have always found interesting the way Lord Cowley speaks of ‘my embassy at Paris’ in much the same way Aberdeen might have spoken of ‘my government at Whitehall’. Both were regarded by their heads as executive instruments of the sovereign (person and parliament), the embassy not clearly subordinate to the government. See Cowley, Lord (Henry Richard Charles Wellesley), The Paris Embassy During the Second Empire (ed. Wellesley, F. A.) (London, 1928).Google Scholar

31 Accounts and Papers [1854], LXXI [1699]Google Scholar, Eastern Papers, II (hereafter E.P. II), no. 108, Clarendon to Cowley, 23 Sept. 1853.Google Scholar

32 See The Crimea, footnote 534, p. 475Google Scholar, ‘Aberdeen, Clarendon and the instruction to the fleet of 23 September’.

33 Ptc. Clar. MSS, Aberdeen to Clarendon, 23 Sept. 1853.

34 The Edinburgh Review (04 1863), p. 326.Google Scholar Strictly speaking the article was by Reeve, but for Clarendon's intimate connexion with it, see Maxwell, , op. cit. II, 277 ft.Google Scholar

35 F.O. 195/402, Clarendon to Seymour, no. 222, 30 Sept. 1853.

36 See Accounts and Papers [1854], LXXI [1968]Google Scholar, Eastern Papers, I (hereafter E.P. 1), no. 179, enclo. 1.Google Scholar

37 Zä. I, no. 119, 398, Agyropoulo (the dragoman) to Menshikov, 29 Mar. 1853.

38 E.P. I, no. 160, enclo.

39 Zä. 1, no. 115, 392, from Menshikov, 24 Mar. 1853.

40 F.O. 78/931, from Stratford, no. 12, n Apr. 1853.

41 See F.O. 78/932, from Stratford, no. 70, 28 May 1853, enclosing the report of Captain William Slade of 12 May.

42 F.O. 195/406, enclosing ‘A Paper on the Demands Put Forward by Russia ‘. Communicated 21 Apr. 1853.

43 E.P. 1, no. 134, enclo. I.

44 Zä. 1, no. 125, p. 405, from Menshikov, 26 Apr. 1853. Colloquial Russian somewhat freely translated.

45 Ibid. no. 105, p. 372, and no. 108, pp. 377–8, from Nesselrode, , 28 Jan. 1853.Google Scholar

46 Netherlands Rijks Archief (hereafter N.R.A.), from Mollerus, no. 46, 16 May 1853.

47 Enclosure from Pisani of 11 May 1853 in F.O. 78/932, from Stratford, no. 45, 14 May 1853. This is a third-hand report from Stratford's dragoman, Stephen Pisani, via the grand vizier, Mehemet Ali, who was not known for his honesty. Probably Menshikov's remarks were not so sensational. But Menshikov's declaration of his intentions to secure a secret alliance, made a month before, more or less confirms rhe res gestae. See Zä. 1, no. 121, Menshikov to Nesselrode, 10 Apr. 1853.

48 E.P. 1, no. 179, enclo. I.

49 Zä. I, 121, p. 399, Menshikov to Nesselrode, , 10 Apr. 1853.Google Scholar

50 F.O. 78/932, from Stratford, no. 45, 14 May 1853.

51 F.O. 195/396, Russell to Stratford, 25 Feb. 1853. The instructions were signed by Russell although Clarendon became foreign secretary very shortly afterwards.

52 F.O. 195/396, Russell to Stratford, 25 Feb. 1853.

53 F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 7 May 1853.

54 Strachey, and Fulford, (eds.), op. cit. vi, 415.Google Scholar

55 Ibid. p. 416.

56 F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 18 Apr. 1853.

57 See Temperley, , E.H.R. XLVIII, 192, p. 613 ff. for a detailed account of Reschid's ‘plot’.Google Scholar

58 Ibid. Also The Crimea, p. 331.

59 Clarendon thought Menshikov had lied, F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Strat ford, 18 June 1853 and 8 July 1853. Nesselrode agreed with Seymour that the accusations against Stratford were untrue, F.O. 195/399, from Seymour, no. 292, 16 June 1853. Menshikov does not blame Stratford for the failure of negotiations and treats Resrhid's story with scepticism. Zä I, no. 142, from Menshikov, 21 May 1853.

60 But see Stanmore, Lord (Sir Arthur Gordon), Life of Aberdeen (3rd ed., London, 1905), p. 236Google Scholar, and Pte. Aber. MSS, fo. 357, Brunnow to Aberdeen, 16 May 1853.

61 N.R.A., from Mollerus, no. 47, 19 May 1853.

62 Lane-Poole, , op. cit., II, 260Google Scholar, Stratford to Lady Stratford, 27 Apr. 1853.

63 Temperley, , E.H.R. XLVIII, 192, p. 611 ff. See also reference cited by Temperley, F.O. 352/64, Pte. Strat. MSS, ‘Reflections on Prince Menshikov's Last Note to Reschid Pasha’.Google Scholar

64 Maxwell, , op. cit., II, 40Google Scholar, Aberdeen, to Clarendon, , 12 Feb. 1854.Google Scholar

65 Kinglake, , op. cit., I, 307.Google Scholar

66 See above, p. 497.

67 See below, pp. 513–14.

68 Pte. Clar. MSS, Russell to Clarendon, 28 and 29 May 1853.

69 Ibid. Aberdeen to Clarendon, 30 May 1853.

70 F.O. 78/932, from Stratford, no. 53, 19 May 1853.

71 E.P. 1, no. 194, 31 May 1853.

72 Ibid. nos. 198–9, 2 June 1853.

73 See esp. Martin, Kingsleyop. cit., pp. 105–6.Google Scholar

74 F.O. 352–36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 8 June 1853.

75 Ashley, Evelyn, Life and Correspondence oj Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, II (London, 1879), 274, Palmerston to Aberdeen, 4 July 1853.Google Scholar

76 Pte. Clar. MSS, Aberdeen to Clarendon, 5 June 1853.

77 Ibid. Clarendon to Aberdeen, 9 June 1853.

78 Strachey, and Fulford, (eds.), op. cit. vi, 430.Google Scholar See also Pte. Russell MSS, G.D. 22/11 Aber deen to Russell, 21 June 1853. Several modern writers on diplomacy seem to regard the expression casus belli as meaning ‘cause of war’. Perhaps usage has now given it that meaning. But in the context of the classically educated nineteenth century we must render it more literally as ‘occasion or occurrence of war’. Palmerston was saying only that Russia had committed an act of war, not that the invasion of the Principalities was necessarily a cause for England to go to war. England's response might be less than a reply in kind, which was not, indeed, what Palmerston was urging.

79 Pte. Clar. MSS, Palmerston to Clarendon, 19 June 1853.

80 Ibid. 28 June 1853.

81 Strachey, and Fulford, (eds.), op. cit. vi, 431.Google Scholar

82 Pte. Clar. MSS, Clarendon to Aberdeen, 10 Nov. 1853.

83 F.O. 78/933, from Stratford, no. 115, 20 June 1853.

84 F.O. 352/64, Pte. Strat. MSS, undated statement assigned by Temperley to the week of 4 July.

85 Lane-Poole, , op. cit. II, 282Google Scholar, Stratford to Lady Stratford, 9 July 1853.

86 The Crimea, p. 336.Google Scholar See F.O. 78/932, from Stratford, no. 53, 19 May 1853 and Clarendon's reply F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, I June 1853.

87 F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Report of Captain T. A. Blakely, 23 Apr. 1853.

88 Cf. Goriainov, pp. 92–5.

89 Accounts and Papers, loc. cit. [1699]Google Scholar, E.P. IIGoogle Scholar, no. 11, from Stratford, 16 July 1853.

80 Lane-Poole, , op. cit. II, 286.Google Scholar

91 F.O. 78/932, from Stratford, no. 57, 22 May 1853.

92 Lane-Poole, , op. cit II, 286.Google Scholar

93 See above, pp. 503–4.

94 This was the estimate of two journalists who were in Stamboul at the time, Humphry Sand with and Austen Layard. Brit. Mus. Add. MS 38982 and Pte. Layard MSS, fo. 47, Sandwith to Layard, 23 July 1853. Layard was Stratford's close associate. It is interesting to observe that Sandwith was dismissed from The Times because Delane thought he represented the Eastern Question ‘more from the Turkish than from the English point of view’.

95 The Crimea, p. 341.Google Scholar

96 Benson, and Esher, (eds.), op. cit., vol. 11Google Scholar, Aberdeen to Queen Victoria, 26 Nov. 1853 and Queen Victoria to Aberdeen 27 Nov. 1853. Pte. Aber. MSS, Aberdeen to Queen Victoria, 28 Nov. 1853.

97 Pte. Clar. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 20 May 1853.

98 Zä I, nos. 105–9, 28 Jan. 1853.

99 F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 24 July 1853.

100 E.P. II, no. 31, enclo. 10.

101 Maxwell, , op. cit. II, 15.Google Scholar

102 Strachey, and Fulford, (eds.), op. cit. vi, 449.Google Scholar

103 F.O. 78/937, from Stratford, no. 220, 14 Aug. 1853.

104 F.O. 146/489, from Cowley, no. 640, 29 Aug. 1853.

105 See above, pp. 497–8.

106 Maxwell, , op. cit. II, 24.Google Scholar

107 E.P. II, no. 117, Clarendon to Seymour, 5 Oct. 1853.

108 Maxwell, , op. cit. II, 25–6, Clarendon to Seymour, 5 Oct. 1853.Google Scholar

109 E.P. 11, no. 117, Clarendon to Seymour, 30 Sept. 1853. For a discussion of the Treaty of Kainardji and its various interpretations see Temperley, , The Crimea, footnote 445, p. 467.Google Scholar

110 Maxwell, , op. cit. II, 25–6Google Scholar, Clarendon, to Seymour, , 5 Oct. 1853.Google Scholar

111 The Crimea, p. 350.Google Scholar

112 Pte. Clar. MSS, Palmerston to Clarendon, 12 Sept. 1853. The reference is to Thomas Gray's fragmentary poem The Alliance of Education and Government (c. 1748), 1.51.

113 Pte. Clar. MSS, Russell to Clarendon, 22 Sept. 1853.

114 Strachey, and Fulford, (eds.), op. cit. vi, 450.Google Scholar

115 Maxwell, , op. cit. II, 26Google Scholar, Clarendon, to Lewis, G. C., 9 Oct. 1853.Google Scholar

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid. Lady Clarendon's Journal, 14 Oct. 1853.

118 The Edinburgh Review (04 1863), p. 326.Google Scholar

119 Pte. Clar. MSS, Sidney Herbert (secretary of war) ro Clarendon, 8 Oct. 1853.

120 F.O. 195/402, Clarendon to Seymour, no. 222, 30 Sept. 1853. Reproduced in Temperley, Harold and Penson, Lillian M., Foundations of British Foreign Policy, from Pitt (1792) to Salisbury (1902) (reprinted, London, 1966), pp. 146–51.Google Scholar See also E.P. II and Temperley, and Penson, , A Century of Diplomatic Bluebooks (Cambridge, 1938), no. 460a.Google Scholar

121 Foundations of British Foreign Policy, p. 151.Google Scholar

122 See above, p. 516.

123 F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 8 Oct. 1853.

124 Ibid.

125 Pte. Clar. MSS, Aberdeen to Clarendon, 5 Oct. 1853.

126 Maxwell, , op. cit. II, 30Google Scholar, Clarendon, to Clarendon, Lady, 3 Oct. 1853.Google Scholar

127 Pte. Clar. MSS, Russell to Clarendon, 4 Oct. 1853.

128 Ibid. Palmerston to Clarendon, 3 Oct. 1853.

129 Pte. Aber. MSS, Aberdeen to Count Rudolf von Colloredo, 8 Oct. 1853.

130 Lane-Poole, , op. cit. II, 312.Google Scholar

131 F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Palmerston to Stratford, 30 Oct. 1853.

132 Pte. Clar. MSS, Herbert to Clarendon, 8 Oct. 1853.

133 See Sir Walpole, Spencer, ‘Great Britain and the Crimean War (1852–6)’, The Cambridge Modern History, vol. xiGoogle Scholar, The Growth of Nationalities, ch. xi (Cambridge, 1909).Google Scholar

134 Pte. Clar. MSS, Clarendon to Herbert, 5 Oct. 1853; Herbert to Clarendon, 6 Oct. 1853.

135 Lane-Poole, , op. cit. II, 316.Google Scholar

136 See above, p. 517.

137 Pte. Clar. MSS, Stratford to Clarendon, 4 Oct. 1853.

138 F.O. 352/36, Pte. Strat. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 8 Oct. 1853.

139 F.O. 78/939, Stratford to Clarendon, pte., 4 Oct. 1853.

140 F.O. 78/941, from Stratford, no. 393, 18 Dec. 1853.

141 The Official Gazette (printed in English), Constantinople, 22 Dec. 1853.

142 Ibid.

143 Pte. Clar. MSS, Stratford to Clarendon, 23 Dec. 1853.

144 N.R.A. from Mollerus, no. I, 5 Jan. 1854.

145 Pte. Clar. MSS, Clarendon to Stratford, 20 Oct. 1853.

146 Ibid. Cowley to Clarendon, 17 Oct. 1853.