Part 1

credit

Transcribed from the 1855 R. Theobald edition by David Price, [email protected]

[Picture: Public domain book cover]

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA;

Its Origin and Cause:

A REPLY TO THE LETTER OF J. BRIGHT, ESQ., M.P.

* * * * *

BY JOHN ALFRED LANGFORD.

* * * * *

LONDON: R. THEOBALD, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1855.

* * * * *

BIRMINGHAM: PRINTED BY J. A. LANGFORD, ANN-STREET.

* * * * *

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.

AMID the din of arms and the fierce contest of battle, the less harmful, but, perhaps, not the less potent war of opinion, the clash of controversy, the dissemination of "views," are as busy at their work as in the piping times of peace. As might have been anticipated, the terrible struggle in which we are engaged has absorbed every other feeling; and whether men agree or disagree respecting the cause, the necessity, and the justness of the war, all are zealous and earnest in advocacy or opposition. A vast majority of the nation believe in the justness of England's position--believe that she exhausted every means, and even went beyond the strict line of national respect, in seeking to stay the hand of him who, in sanctimonious phrase, was ever ringing changes on the theme of peace, and yet proved himself so eager to "cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war"--believe that no other course was open to her--believe that if she wished to preserve her own dearly-won liberties, she must stoutly oppose any further encroachments on the rights and liberties of Turkey. A vast majority of the nation were, and still are, firmly convinced of this, and have most emphatically declared the firmness of that conviction by the enthusiasm of their support and the wonderful liberality of their purses. Yet, notwithstanding the clearness with which our course was marked out for us--notwithstanding the steady and continuous aggression of Russia, now by secret fraud and now by open force, since the time of Peter I. to the present day--there is a party in England, and there are a number of Englishmen, who, taking pre-conceived views to their study of the question, profess to find in the Blue Books--in the documents issued by the Governments of the great nations, England, France, Turkey, and Russia--sufficient reason to condemn the policy which England has adopted, and to declare the war dishonourable, unjust, and disgraceful. Among the party taking this view are men of wealth and influence, and no pains or expense is spared in propagating their opinions. Lecturers are busy going from town to town disseminating partial and _ex parte_ statements of the cause of the war; and letters and speeches, to which are added carefully collected extracts from the Blue Books, are printed and gratuitously distributed by thousands in order to indoctrinate the people with falsely-called peace principles. The purpose of the present tract is to examine the pretensions of this party, to test its statements, to complete the quotations which have been so partially made, and by presenting a _full_ statement of facts, to enable the people to judge for themselves of the worth of that advocacy and the justice of that cause which has to resort to such expedients for its support and defence.

Mr. BRIGHT, in his Letter to Mr. ABSALOM WATKIN, says that "we are not only at war with Russia, but with all the Christian population of the Turkish Empire;" and Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON, in his Lecture on the War, corroborated this statement by the curiously bold assertion, that the "Greek Christians, who formed the mass of the population of Turkey in Europe, were of a common faith, common hope, and acknowledge a common headship with those of Russia." Now, what are the facts? The Greek Church in Turkey considers the Russian Greek Church as schismatical and heretical, and refuse, and have ever refused, to acknowledge the Patriarchship of the Emperor of Russia. Of the 11,000,000 members of the Greek Church who are the subjects of the Sultan, there are in the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia about 4,000,000; these, with the exception of some 50,000 Hungarian Catholics, are of the Greek, but not of the Russo-Greek, Church. Servia has also 1,000,000 of the same persuasion, and equally averse to the Russian Czar-Patriarch; Servia has also for a long time past been striving to shake off the influence of Russia, and to unite herself more closely with her rightful ruler, the Sultan. Besides these, there are 2,400,000 Eutychian Armenians, of which 40,000 belong to the Latin Church, and also more than 1,000,000 are Roman Catholics and United Greeks. _None of these recognise the Patriarchship of the Emperor of Russia_.

In order that the feeling of the Greek Church in Turkey respecting this matter may be fully understood, I quote the following passage from an address delivered by the Archimandrate Suagoaud to the Roumains, (Moldo-Wallachians) in Paris, so late as January, 1853. The occasion was this: the Roumains had asked permission from the French Government to build a chapel in Paris, and the application was received with the very pertinent question, (supposing them to be of the same Church as the Peace Society do,) "Why do you not worship in the Russian Chapel already erected in Paris?" Here is the answer: "When we expressed a desire to found a Chapel of our own rite, we were told that a Russian Chapel already existed in Paris, and we were asked why the Roumains do not frequent it. What! Roumains to frequent a Russian place of worship! Is it then forgotten that they can never enter its walls, and that the Wallachians who die in Paris, forbid, at their very last hour, that their bodies should be borne to a Muscovite Chapel, and declare that the presence of a Russian priest would be an insult to their tomb. Whence comes this irreconcilable hatred? That hatred is perpetuated by the difference of language. The Russian tongue is Sclavonic; ours is Latin. Is there, in fact, a single Roumain who understands the language of the Muscovite? That hatred is just; for is not Russia our mortal enemy? Has she not closed up our schools and debarred us from all instruction, in order to sink our people into the depths of barbarism, and to reduce them the more easily to servitude? On that hatred I pronounce a blessing; for the Russian Church is a schism the Roumains reject; because the Russian Church has separated from the great Eastern Church; because the Russian Church does not recognise as its head the Patriarch of Constantinople; because it does not receive the Holy Unction of Byzantium; because it has constituted itself into a Synod of which the Czar is the despot; and because that Synod, in obedience to his orders, has changed its worship, has fabricated an unction which it terms holy, has suppressed or changed the fast days and the Lents as established by our bishops; because it has canonised Sclavonians who are apocryphal saints, such as Vladimir, Olgo, and so many others whose names are unknown to us; because the rite of Confession, which was instituted to ameliorate and save the penitent, has become, by the servility of the Muscovite clergy, an instrument for spies for the benefit of the Czar; in fine, because the Synod has violated the law, and that its reforms are arbitrary, and are made to further the objects of despotism. These acts of impiety being so notorious, and these truths so known, who shall now maintain that the Russian Church is not schismatic? Our Councils reject it, our canons forbid us to recognise it, our Church disowns it; and all who hold to the faith and whom she recognises for her children, are bound to respect her decision, and to consider the Russian rite a schismatic rite. Such are the motives which prevent the Roumains from attending the Russian Chapel in Paris."--(Quoted in _Blackwood's Magazine_, March, 1853.)

But even if they were of the same faith, the same hope, and acknowledged the same common headship as the Russian Greek Church, upon what right does Russia found her protectorate over these subjects of the Ottoman empire? The following are the three articles in the treaty of Kainardji which relate to the Turkish Greek subjects:--

"Article VII.--_The Porte_ promises to protect the Christian religion and its churches; and the Ministers of Russia shall be allowed to make representations in favour of the new church of which mention is made in the 14th article.

"Article VIII.--The subjects of the Russian empire shall be permitted to visit the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Places; and no duty or contribution shall be exacted from them either at Jerusalem or elsewhere.

"Article XIV.--The Court of Russia is permitted, besides the chapel built in the Minister's house, to build in the quarter of Galata, in the street named Bey Oglou, a public church of the Greek rite, which shall always be under the protection of the Russian Minister, and secure from all vexation and exaction."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 51.)

Now this treaty states, as plainly as words can do, that _the Porte_ is to protect the Christian religion and its churches, and that the protection of Russia is limited to the chapel to be built in the quarter of Galata, in the street named Bey Oglou: yet upon this treaty Russia claims her right to interfere, to occupy the Principalities for the purpose of obtaining material guarantees; and the Peace Society agrees to her claim and palliates, where it cannot justify, her acts.

Again, Mr. BRIGHT writes, "I have said nothing of the fact that all these troubles have sprung out of the demands made by France upon the Turkish Government, and urged in language more insulting than any which has been shown to have been used by Prince Menschikoff."--(_Letter_, pp. 13-14.) MR. THOMPSON, who appears to have made this letter the text for his various lucubrations, reiterates the same charge. Let us carefully examine this part of the subject. The claim of the French rests upon the treaty of 1740, which "vindicates the right of the Latins to an exclusive occupation of all the sanctuaries which they possessed at that time. The conferences lately opened here, have resulted in a clear establishment of that right as applied to the holy buildings--ten, I believe, in number--most of which are now possessed jointly by the two communions, and some exclusively by the Greeks. M. de LAVALETTE, _instead of pushing his right to an extreme_, _took upon himself the responsibility of declaring his readiness to extend the principles of joint possession to the whole number_. * * He (M. de LAVALETTE) has acted with moderation throughout; he has been careful not to commit his Government--he has made no written communication except his opening note and such documents as were necessary for establishing the joint commission of enquiry--and he is anxious to act with moderation to the last; but at the same time he thinks it impossible to submit with honour to the present plan of proceeding; his Government, having embarked in the question, cannot, with any degree of credit or consistency, stop short under the dictation of Russia; the national party in France, the Catholic party there and elsewhere, will press for the full assertion of right under treaty--and, as for himself, he will retire rather than be made the instrument, as he conceives he would be, in the supposed case of his country's humiliation; nay more, if it depended upon him, he would not hesitate to make use of the great naval force now possessed by France in the Mediterranean, and by blockading the Dardanelles, bring the question in debate forthwith to a satisfactory issue."--(_Sir Stratford Canning to Viscount Palmerston_, _Nov._ 4, 1851; _Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 19.)

Those demands were supported by the plenipotentiaries of all the Catholic Powers. England looked on without any personal interest in the question itself; the Porte was anxious and unsettled, for Russia, through M. de TITOFF, was loud in her demands for the _status quo_, and threatened to leave Constantinople if it were disturbed. But this _status quo_ meant Russia's interpretation of it--meant, Russia being fully accepted as the Protector of the Greeks, which, as we saw, she strongly claimed from the Hainardji Treaty; the _status quo_ which France desired was simply the restoration of rights which had been allowed to fall in abeyance by the Latins, and had, in some measure, been acquired by the Greeks.

I do not state here how very trifling to us appear the causes which led to those demands, because we cannot appreciate all this pother being made about the possession of a key or two, the building of a cupola, and the putting up of a silver star; but to the Latins such questions are of great importance; and politically they served as indices to measure the influence which the French and Russians exercised in the East. I pass on to the official documents narrating the development of this quarrel. Colonel ROSE, writing to the Earl of MALMESBURY, Nov. 20, 1852, says,--

"A graver cause of difference than the great door of the Church of Bethlehem has appeared, and taken precedence of it.

"The Porte, under the influence of French and Russian menaces, conceded to the French Embassy the note of the 9th February, and the Firman of the Mi-Fevrier to the Greeks.

"The Russian Government considers the Firman the Charter of Rights of the Greek Church. The President and M. de LAVALETTE consider it an affront to France, because it describes her claims, grounded on the Treaty of 1740, as "haksig," unjust, and establishes a _status quo_ which wholly invalidates that Treaty. M. de LAVALETTE tells me that the Porte promised to M. SABATIER that it should not be read at Jerusalem.

"M. D'OZEROFF tells the Porte that the Firman must be read at Jerusalem; he declares that if it be not read, according to usage, in the Medgliss at Jerusalem, before the Pasha, Cadi, Members of the Council, Patriarchs of the different sects, it will be valueless and a dead letter, and that, consequently, faith will have been broken with Russia."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 46.)

This irritable state of things assumed a more amicable aspect by December 4, 1852: writing at that date, Colonel ROSE says,--

"M. de LAVALETTE now says that nothing can be more pleasant and amiable (plus doux et plus aimable) than he is with the Porte. I humbly and respectfully demand my right. (Je demande humblement et respecteusement mon droit). M. d'OZEROFF also says, that although he admitted that last year there had been a declaration that the Russian Legation would, under certain circumstances, leave Constantinople, yet, that he could not bring to his recollection having talked of the Legation leaving it on account of present causes of differences with the Porte."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., pp. 49-50.)

While the question of the Holy Places was thus winding its weary way along, the Emperor of Russia was ordering troops to the frontiers of the Danubian Provinces. On the 4th of January, 1853, Sir G. H. SEYMOUR writes to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that "orders have been dispatched to the 5th corps d'armee to advance to the frontiers of the Danubian Provinces, _without waiting for their reserves_; and the 4th corps, under the command of General Count DANNENBERG, and now stationed in Volhynia, will be ordered to hold itself in readiness to march if necessary. Each of these corps consists of twenty-four regiments, and, as your Lordship is aware, each Russian regiment is composed of three battalions (each of about 1000 men), of which one battalion forms the reserve. General LUDER'S corps d'armee accordingly, being now 48,000 strong, will receive a reinforcement of 24,000 men soon after its arrival at its destination, and supposing the 4th corps to follow, the whole force will amount at least, according to official returns, to 144,000 men."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 56)

January 28, 1853, Colonel ROSE says, "Both the French and Russian Representatives exhibit now most laudable moderation in the matter of the Holy Places."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 79.)

And now new events occur in this strange drama. The three great Powers--England, France, and Russia--remove their ambassadors and appoint new ones. England sent Viscount STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, France, M. de la COUR, and Russia, the notorious Prince MENCHIKOFF. The first act of the Russian officer was an insult to the Porte--an insult committed with intention, and at once indicating both the character of the mission and of the man appointed to execute it. Colonel ROSE writes to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, March 3, 1853, "A painful sensation was caused here by the following incident, which occurred yesterday:--Prince MENCHIKOFF paid his official visit to the Grand Vizier, at the Porte, but purposely omitted to pay it to FUAD EFFENDI, who was ready to receive him."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 85.)

In another despatch, dated March 7, 1853, are these passages:--

"Circumstances connected with the mission of Prince MENCHIKOFF have gradually come to light, and cause grave apprehension for the independence, if not the destiny, of Turkey. * * Unfortunately, Prince MENCHIKOFF'S first public act evinced _entire disregard_, _on his part_, _of the Sultan's dignity and rights_, _which_, _combined with the hostile attitude of __Russia_, _created the impression that coercion_, _rather than conciliatory negotiation_, _would distinguish his Excellency's mission_."

And, further on, speaking of the affront offered to FUAD EFFENDI, he says,--

"The affront was the more galling, because great preparations had been made for the purpose of receiving the Russian Ambassador with marked honours, and a great concourse of people, particularly Greeks, had assembled for the purpose of witnessing the ceremony. The incident made a great and most painful sensation. The Grand Vizier expressed to me his indignation at the premeditated affront which had been offered to his Sovereign, and the Sultan's irritation was excessive. M. BENEDETTI and myself at once saw all the bearing and intention of the affront. Prince MENCHIKOFF _wished_, _at his first start_, _to create an intimidating or commanding influence_--_to show that any man_, _even a Cabinet Minister_, _who had offended Russia_, _would be humiliated and punished_, _even in the midst of the Sultan's Court_, _and without previous communication to His Majesty_. _Prince Menchikoff wished to take the cleverest man out of the Ministry_, _humiliate it_, _upset it_, _and establish in its place a Ministry favourable to his views_. _If this manoeuvre had succeeded_, _a second treaty_, _like that of Unkier Skelessi_, _or something worse_, _would probably have been the result_."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., pp. 86-7).

Such was the commencement of the mission of that man whose moderation Englishmen have been found prejudiced enough to praise. Nor can there be a doubt respecting the intention of Russia. While her Ambassador was insulting the Porte before the eyes of the assembled people, active preparations were being made to concentrate troops on the Danubian Provinces. Our Vice-Consul, CHARLES CUNNINGHAM, writing from Galatz, February 25, 1853, nearly two months before Prince MENCHIKOFF arrived at Constantinople, says, "For some months past, there have been rumours that a large Russian force has been collected in Bessarabia, and even that these Provinces were to be occupied. From the information I have obtained, I consider it certain that the inhabitants of Bessarabia, in the districts around Ismail and Reni, have orders to prepare quarters for 60,000 troops."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 90). The French Consul at Jassy confirms this statement. He says: "All persons and letters coming from Bessarabia concur in saying that very serious preparations for war are there making--(s' accordent a dire qu'il s'y fait ce tres-serieux preparatifs de guerre). Vast supplies of biscuit are already prepared, and the troops have received orders to hold themselves in readiness to march at the first signal."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 92.) Yet amidst all this warlike preparation Russia still continued to talk of her "pacific intentions"--of her "desire to preserve the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire"--of her "deep respect and friendly feelings towards His Majesty the Sultan." She manifested the truth of her words by sending an ambassador to insult, and concentrating troops to overawe, her dear friend, the Sultan, whose rights, more than her own, she hypocritically declared to be the great purpose at which she aimed.

This concentration of troops on the frontier, connected with the conduct of Prince MENCHIKOFF at the Capital, naturally aroused the suspicion and called for the watchfulness of the other Powers. As Sir G. H. SEYMOUR said to the Russian Chancellor, "if the presence of a Russian army on the borders of the Principalities is likely to arouse the apprehension of foreign Governments, what effects is it calculated to produce upon the Porte?"--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 58.) That effect was well calculated by Russia. She hoped to produce fear, disaffection, disturbance and bloodshed, in the midst of which she might come in as a protector, carry on her old and well-learnt tactics, and end in appropriating to her own colossal territories--the greater part acquired by fraud or war. It was her old plan. The world has been the almost indifferent spectator of her custom for more than sixty years. She now began in Turkey, as she began in Poland, in Finland, in Courland, in Georgia, in Bessarabia, and in every other country which her insatiable greed and ambition desired. Her process "has almost been reduced to a regular formula. It invariably commences with disorganization, by means of corruption and secret agency, pushed to the extent of disorder and civil contention. Next in order comes military occupation, to restore tranquility; and _in every instance the result has been_ PROTECTION, _followed by_ INCORPORATION." {9} But I anticipate.

The plot thickens as it proceeds. From a communication of M. PISANI'S to Colonel ROSE, March 19, 1853, it appears that he "got information from good authority that this moderate behaviour on the part of the Russian Ambassador is calculated to induce the Porte to assent to the conclusion of a _secret compact_."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 107.) Again, Colonel ROSE says, March 25, 1853, "The Grand Vizier informs me, also, that, in the projected treaty, there is a clause which could be interpreted into protection, by Russia, of the Turkish Greek Church."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., pp. 107-8.) Yet we are told by the Peace Party that Russia asked for and demanded nothing but the preservation of the _status quo_; and, as we saw by the articles of the Treaty of Kainardji, such protection formed no part of the _status quo_.

During all these strange proceedings, and amid all these cross purposes, Prince MENCHIKOFF, true to his Russian policy, was silent as to the main object of his mission. He even "tried to exact a promise from RIFAAT PASHA, _before he makes known to him the nature of his mission and of his demands_, _that the Porte shall make a formal promise that she will not reveal them to the British or French Representatives_. RIFAAT PASHA declined, and Prince MENCHIKOFF declared that if the object of his mission was not promptly settled, _he must leave Constantinople_; but he modified this declaration by saying that he did not mean thereby to imply that his retirement would be the signal for war."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 109.)