Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:28:31.228Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Aspiring Buffer State: Anglo-Persian Relations in the Third Coalition, 1804–1807

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Edward Ingram
Edward Ingram
Affiliation:
Simon Frascr University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Weak states can control strong states, provided the weak can persuade the strong to admit, that they are vitally interested in their integrity and independence. In the late nineteentli century everybody understood the influence of the Ottoman Empire upon British policy, and the influence of Austria-Hungary upon Imperial German policy in the near east. In the heyday of the Great Powers of Europe it was not expected tliat orientals should aspire to similar influence: their futures would be decided by Europeans. Until the work of Robinson and Gallagher revealed the extent to which the khedive of Egypt controlled Lord Cromer, the history of late nineteenth century imperialism was written from this assumption.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1973 , pp. 509 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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 Galbraith, to Kennedy, John F., 7 05 1962, Bombay, Ambassador's Journal: A Personal Account of the Kennedy Years (New York: New American Library, 1970), pp. 331–2.Google Scholar

2 Robinson, R., Gallagher, J. and Denny, A., Africa and the Victorians (London, 1961).Google Scholar

3 For a recent example, see Ramazani, R. K., The Foreign Policy of Iran, 1500–1914 (Charlottesville, 1966), pp. 44–7.Google Scholar

4 These treaties are printed in Hurewitz, J. C., Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East (Princeton, 1956), 1, 84, 96.Google Scholar

5 Curzon, G. N., Persia and the Persian Question (London, 1892), n, 605.Google Scholar

6 For the history of the Caucasus during the eighteenth century, see Lockhart, L., The Fall of the Sajavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia (Cambridge, 1958)Google Scholar; and Lang, D. M., The Last Years of the Georgian Monarchy (New York, 1957).Google Scholar

7 A recent example is Rodger, A. B., The War of the Second Coalition (Oxford, 1964), p. 128Google Scholar; who is relying upon Rose, J. Holland, ‘The Political Reactions of Bonaparte's Eastern Expedition’, English Historical Review, XLIV (1929), 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 The Despatches, Minutes, and Correspondence of the Marquis Wellesley, K.G., During his Administration in India, Martin, M. (ed.) (London, 1836–1837), 1, 286, v, 82; also Wellesley MSS, B.M. Add. MSS 13792, fo. 105.Google Scholar

9 Dundas, to chairman of East India Company, 3 Mar. 1796, I.O. G/29/21Google Scholar; see also ambassador in Constantinople to Dundas, private, 2 Feb. 1800, W.O. 1/344, P. 155.Google Scholar

10 Warren, to Hawkesbury, , 30 July, 30 Aug. 1804, F.O. 65/55Google Scholar; Straton, to Hawkesbury, , 1 July 1804, F.O. 78/47.Google Scholar

11 Warren, to Hawkesbury, , 16 Dec. 1803, F.O. 65/53; same to same, 21 Jan. 1804, F.O. 65/54.Google Scholar

12 Jones, to Willis, , 2 Apr. 1804, India Office Library, Microfilm MSS 742.Google Scholar

13 Elgin, to Jones, , 18 Dec. 1802, National Library of Wales, Kentchurch Court MSS 7918.Google Scholar

14 Manesty, to Wellesley, , 2 Feb., 26 Feb. 1804,1.O. G/29/24, nos. 2, 3.Google Scholar

15 Manesty, to Wellesley, , 5 July 1804Google Scholar, ibid. no. 11; the shah's letters travelled backwards and forwards with Manesty and did not reach London until Jan. 1808.

16 Secretary, to supreme government to secretary to East India Company, 9 July 1804, I.O. G/29/24, no. 13Google Scholar; Wellesley, to governor, of Bombay, private, 11 July 1804, Wellesley MSS, Add. MSS 13693, fo. 128.Google Scholar

17 Manesty, to Wellesley, , 6 July, 18 July 1804, I.O. G/29/24, nos. 12, 14.Google Scholar

18 Manesty, to Castlereagh, , 23 09. 1804, The Memoranda and Correspondence of Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh, third marquis of Londonderry (ed.) (London, 1848–1854), v, 342.Google Scholar

19 This treaty is printed in Hurewitz, I, 68.Google Scholar

20 Malcolm, to Jones, , 28 Oct. 1800, Kentchurch Court MSS 6421; also resident at Bushire to governor of Bombay, 10 Apr. 1802, I.O. Bombay SPP/381/34, p. 3968.Google Scholar

21 Manesty, to Castlereagh, , with enclosures, 15 Jan. 1805, Castlereagh, v, 345, 348, 352.Google Scholar

22 This proposal is printed in Driault, E., La Politique Orientde de Napoéon: Sbéastiani et Gardane (Paris, 1904), p. 172.Google Scholar

23 See Castlereagh, v, 162Google Scholar; Melville MSS, Add. MSS 41767, fo. 311; and Manesty, to Addington, , 18 Apr. 1804, I.O. G/29/24.Google Scholar

24 Jones, to Castlereagh, , 12 Jan. 1805, Boultibrooke MSS, National Library of Wales, MS 4905.E.Google Scholar

25 Manesty, to Wellesley, , 13 Dec. 1804Google Scholar, Catlereagh, v, 345.Google Scholar

26 Jones, to Bozurg, Mirza, 10 Aug. 1805, F.O. 60/1.Google Scholar

27 Bozurg, Mirza to Jones, , received 12 Oct. 1805, F.O. 60/1.Google Scholar

28 For a detailed description of French policy in Turkey, and Persia, in 1805Google Scholar, see Puryear, V., Napoleon and the Dardanelles (Berkeley, 1951), pp. 41–60.Google Scholar

29 For Bonaparte's instructions to Romieu and Jaubert, see Correspondance de Napoéon ler, Publić par Ordre de l'Empéeur Napoéon III (Paris, 1858–1870), x, 295, 342, 362.Google Scholar

30 The best account of the campaigns in the Caucasus is to be found in the letters and memoirs of Count Vorontsov, Michael, printed in Arkhiv Kniazia Vorontsova, Bartenev, P. I. (ed.) (Moscow, 1870–1895), xxxiv, xxxvi–viiGoogle Scholar; see also ‘Mémoires de Jean Ouoskherdjan’, in von Klaproth, H. J., Mémoires Relatifs à l'Asie (Paris, 1824–1828), 11.Google Scholar

31 Khan, Reza Kouli to Jones, , received 28 Oct. 1805Google Scholar, and Record of a Conversation, 24 Nov. 1805, F.O. 60/1.Google Scholar

32 Jones, to Castlereagh, , 24 Nov. 1805, I.O. Secret Letters (Various)/6.Google Scholar

33 Jones, to Willis, , 31 Dec. 1805, N.L.W. MS 4905.E.Google Scholar

34 Arbuthnot, to Mulgrave, , 18 Sept., 16 Nov. 1805, F.O. 78/46.Google Scholar

35 Malcolm, to governor-general, 8 June 1808, I.O. Bengal SPP/206, 15 Aug. 1808, no. 10.Google Scholar

36 Jones, to chairman of East India Company, 2 Feb., 4 Feb. 1806, I.O. Secret Letters (Various)/6.Google Scholar

37 Jones, to Willis, , 6 Jan. 1806, N.L.W. MS 4905.E.Google Scholar

38 Jones, to Willis, , 4 May 1804, I.O.L. Microfilm MSS 742.Google Scholar

39 See Inglis, to Jones, , 10 Sept. 1803Google Scholar, Castlereagh, v, 172Google Scholar; chairman of East India Company to Pasha, of Baghdad, 30 June 1803Google Scholar, I.O. Board's Drafts/2; and Howick, to Fox, 21 Nov. 1806, W.O. 6/56, insisting that the British expedition to Egypt was being sent ‘not for the conquest of Egypt, but merely for the capture of Alexandria, for the purpose of preventing the French from regaining a footing’.Google Scholar

40 Mulgrave, to Harrowby, , 27 Oct. 1805Google Scholar, Select Despatches Relating to the Formation of the Third Coalition against France, 1804–1805, Rose, J. Holland (ed.) (Camden Society: London, 1904), p. 207.Google Scholar

41 Secret committee to chairman of board, 27 Mar. 1823, I.O. PS/Miscellanies/2, p. no.

42 Baddeley, J. F., The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus (London, 1908), pp. 68–71.Google Scholar For Russian reactions to the developments in the Caucasus in 1805–6, see Arkhiv Vorontsova, xiv, 10, lxxxii, 17Google Scholar; Sbornik Imperatorskoe Russkoe lstoricheskoe Obschestvo (St Petersburg), LXXXII, 17, 45Google Scholar; and Mikhailovich, Nicholas, Le Comte Paul Stroganov (St Petersburg, 1905), no. 176.Google Scholar

43 Puryear, p. 120; for an account of Jaubert's embassy, see Comte Jaubert, P. A. E. P., Voyage en Arménie et en Perse, Fait dans les Années 1805 et 1806 (Paris, 1821).Google Scholar

44 Shah, of Persia, to Khan, Aga Nebee [May–June 1806], F.O. 60/1.Google Scholar

45 Wellesley, to flag officer in command, East Indies, 29 Aug. 1798, Wellesley, I, 248; flag officer in command, East Indies, to secretary to admiralty, 2 Dec. 1798, Adm. 1/169, fo. 247.Google Scholar

46 Governor-general in council to secret committee, 20 Aug. 1806, I.O. Secret Letters from Bengal/I/9, p. 267; memorandum by Barlow, , 9 Oct. 1806, I.O. F/4/205, no. 4606, p. 187.Google Scholar

47 Duncan, to Wellesley, , 27 Feb. 1806, Wellesley MSS, Add. MSS 13702, fo. 32.Google Scholar

48 Record of a conversation between Duncan, and Khan, Aga Nebee, 8 Feb. 1806, I.O. F/4/205, no. 4604, p. 107.Google Scholar

49 Secretary to supreme government to Khan, Aga Nebee, 10 Jan. 1807, F.O. 60/1Google Scholar; governor-general in council to court of directors, 14 Jan. 1807, I.O. Political Letters from Bengal/2. It has always been assumed that Malcolm's treaty was never ratified: see SirKaye, J. W., The Life and Correspondence of Major-General Sir John Malcolm (London, 1856), I, 143–4Google Scholar; SirRawlinson, H. C., England and Russia in the East (London, 1875), p. 10Google Scholar; Curzon, , p. 553Google Scholar; and Roberts, P. E., India under Wellesley (London, 1929), pp. 146–7.Google Scholar

50 Governor-general in council to court of directors, 31 July 1807, I.O. Political Letters from Bengal/2.

51 Fox, to Gower, Leveson, 29 Apr. 1806, F.O. 65/62.Google Scholar

52 Stuart, to Howick, , 17 Jan. 1807Google Scholar, F.O. 65/67; for an account of the policy of Budberg, see Grimsted, P. K., The Foreign Ministers of Alexander I: Political Attitudes and the Conduct of Russian Diplomacy, 1801–1825 (Berkeley, 1969), pp. 151–64.Google Scholar

53 Stuart, to Fox, , 7 Sept. 1806, F.O. 65/63; same to same, 30 Sept., 2 Oct., 12 Oct. 1806, F.O. 65/64.Google Scholar

54 Adair, to Fox, , 9 Aug., 13 Aug. 1806, F.O. 7/80Google Scholar; Adair, to Windham, , 7 Sept. 1806, Windham MSS, Add. MSS 37884, fo. 125.Google Scholar

55 Arbuthnot, to Gower, Leveson, 10 Aug., 23 Sept. 1805, Granville MSS, P.R.O. 30/29/12(9), nos. 17, 21.Google Scholar

56 Howick, to Arbuthnot, , 20 Nov. 1806, F.O. 78/53.Google Scholar

57 Arbuthnot, to Gower, Leveson, 12 Apr. 1806, Granville MSS, P.R.O. 30/29/12(9), no. 26.Google Scholar

58 Stuart, to Howick, , 1 Dec. 1806, F.O. 65/65.Google Scholar

59 Howick, to Stuart, , private, 14 Nov. 1806, Stuart de Rothsay MSS, F.O. 342/5, fo. 191.Google Scholar

60 Howick, to Arbuthnot, , 13 Jan. 1807, F.O. 78/55.Google Scholar

61 Arbuthnot, to Fox, , 27 June 1806, F.O. 78/50.Google Scholar

62 Jones, to Barker, , 1 July 1806, N.L.W. MS 4905.E.Google Scholar

63 Reflexions upon the state of affairs in Persia by MrJones, , 26 June 1806, F.O. 78/50; this is the version revised and abbreviated bv Arbuthnot.Google Scholar

64 Arbuthnot, to Spencer, , 30 Oct. 1806, F.O. 78/52.Google Scholar

65 Vaughan, to Jones, , 8 Sept. 1806, Kentchurch Court MSS 8414.Google Scholar

66 Gower, Leveson to Fox, , 14 Apr. 1806, F.O. 65/62.Google Scholar

67 Memorandum by Stuart, , 23 June 1806, Granville MSS, P.R.O. 30/29/13(4), no. 68.Google Scholar

68 Stuart, to Howick, , 11 Nov. 1806, F.O. 65/65.Google Scholar

69 App. no. 6 to memorandum by Jones, , 7 Jan. 1807, F.O. 60/1.Google Scholar

70 Jones, to Hine, , 7 Jan. 1807, Kentchurch Court MSS 8408.Google Scholar

71 Memorandum by Jones, , 7 Jan. 1807, F.O. 60/t.Google Scholar

72 Stuart, to Howick, , 14 Jan. 1807, F.O. 65/67.Google Scholar

73 Howick, to Douglas, , 20 Feb., 29 Feb. 1807, F.O. 181/6.Google Scholar

74 Minto, to Grenville, , 10 Oct. 1807, National Library of Scotland, Minto MSS M.159.Google Scholar

75 Canning, to Rose, , 9 Aug. 1806, Rose MSS, Add. MSS 42773, fo. 119.Google Scholar

76 Douglas, to Howick, , 19 Mar. 1807Google Scholar, F.O. 65/68; SirAdair, Robert, Mission to Vienna in 1806 (London, 1884), p. 213.Google Scholar

77 Stuart, to Howick, , 17 Jan. 1807, F.O. 65/67.Google Scholar

78 Canning, to Gower, Leveson, 16 May 1807, F.O. 65/69.Google Scholar

79 Adair, , p. 212.Google Scholar

80 Canning, to Pembroke, , 15 May, 16 May 1807, F.O. 7/83.Google Scholar

81 Douglas, to Howick, , 3 Apr. 1807, F.O. 65/68.Google Scholar

82 Wellesley, to Canning, , 10 June 1807, Leeds Public Library, Canning MSS 34.Google Scholar

83 Heads of instructions suggested by SirJones, H. for the Persian Mission, Apr. 1807, Canning MSS 149.A.Google Scholar

84 Inglis, to Jones, , May 1807, Kentchurch Court MSS 5572–3.Google Scholar

85 Canning, to Gower, Leveson, June 1807, F.O. 65/69 [not sent].Google Scholar

86 Secret committee to governor-general in council, 1 June 1807, I.O. Board's Drafts/3.

87 Dundas, to Canning, , 6 June 1807, Canning MSS 99.A.Google Scholar

88 Dundas, to chairman of East India Company, 30 June 1807, I.O. Board's Drafts/30, p. 219.Google Scholar

89 For Castlereagh's fear that the British connexion with Persia might cause complications at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, see Castlereagh, to Bathurst, , no. 47, 24 Nov. 1818Google Scholar, F.O. 181/17, and Castlereagh, to Cathcart, , no. 3, secret, 2 Feb. 1819Google Scholar, ibid.

90 Graham, G. S., Great Britain in the Indian Ocean (Oxford, 1967), p. 3.Google Scholar

91 ‘To create and preserve the Russian alliance was for many years the principal object of our military policy and diplomacy … the most important single factor of British grand strategy’: Mackesy, P., The War in the Mediterranean, 1803–1810 (London, 1957), p. ix.Google Scholar