Title: The War with Russia - Its Origin and Cause
Author: Langford, John Alfred
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The War with Russia - Its Origin and Cause" ***


Transcribed from the 1855 R. Theobald edition by David Price,
ccx074@pglaf.org

                   [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-Févrièr 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’armée 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’armée 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 manœuvre 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 à dire qu’il s’y fait ce très-sérieux
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.)

In order that no mistake may be made respecting the object of Prince
MENCHIKOFF’S mission, I quote from the note of M. DORIA to Colonel ROSE,
dated April 1, 1853, the following passage:—

    “Prince MENCHIKOFF had verbally expressed the Emperor’s wish to enter
    into a secret treaty with Turkey, _putting a fleet and_ 400,000 _men
    at her disposal_, _if she ever needed aid against any Western Power
    whatever_.  That Russia further secretly demanded an addition to the
    treaty of Kainardji, whereby the Greek Church should be placed
    _entirely under Russian protection_, _without reference to Turkey_,
    which was to be the equivalent for the proffered aid above
    mentioned.”—(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 112.)

While these interferences with the rights of the Ottoman Porte were
systematically pursued at Constantinople, Russia was busily employed in
the same insidious course in Servia.  Lord CLARENDON informs Lord
STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, April 18, 1853, that—

    “the Prince of Servia has dismissed M. GARASCHANIN from his service,
    on the _peremptory demand of Prince Menchikoff_, and that the Russian
    Consul at Belgrade has subsequently, in threatening terms, required
    the removal of several other official persons.  This interference
    with the internal government of the Province has excited much
    discontent among the Servian people; and your Excellency is
    instructed to state to Prince MENCHIKOFF, that in the opinion of Her
    Majesty’s Government, a perseverance in this course will be
    productive of mischievous results.”—(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 122.)

Can any sane man doubt the object of all this interference, the purpose
of all these threatenings, and the aim of all this diplomatic bullying
and intrigue?  The original causes assigned by Russia for such
interference had been removed; and, as Colonel ROSE told Prince
MENCHIKOFF, “the recall of M. de LAVALETTE and the retirement of FUAD
EFFENDI must be considered a satisfactory reparation; that Montenegro had
been evacuated; that, in short, none of the causes alleged by Russia as
causes for a hostile attitude existed any longer.”—(vol. i., p. 122.)

By May 6, 1853, the subject of the Holy Places was settled, both to the
satisfaction of M. de la COUR and Prince MENCHIKOFF; when, having
received fresh instructions from Russia, Prince MENCHIKOFF sent a
decisive communication to the Porte; concerning which Sir STRATFORD DE
REDCLIFFE says,—

    “it must appear the more alarming to the Porte, as it has followed
    close upon his Excellency’s receipt of the _firmans and official note
    which but yesterday terminated with his assent the question of the
    Holy Places_.  That communication is, moreover, peremptory in fixing
    a very brief delay for the Porte’s definitive reply; and it comprises
    the Russian _note verbale_ of the 19th ultimo in its more formal
    expression of Russia’s demands.  It insists in certain unexplained
    additions to the settlement of the Jerusalem question, but little
    palatable to France; and although in some degree moderated in
    comparison with its original extent, requires, under the name of
    ‘guarantee,’ a concession, the dangerous character of which will not
    escape your Lordship’s observation.”—(Vol. i., p. 164.)  Prince
    MENCHIKOFF’S words are, “the Ambassador begs his Excellency, RIFAAT
    PASHA, to be good enough to let him have that answer by Tuesday next,
    May 10.  He cannot consider a longer delay in any other light than as
    a want of respect towards his Government, _which would_ impose upon
    him the most painful duty.”—(Vol. i., p. 167.)

We have now reached a point of the present discussion at which we may
pause, and sum up the result.  It appears from the passages quoted from
the various despatches of different ambassadors, that though the French
were the first introducers of the question of the Holy Places, the
quarrel, so far as they were concerned, was now satisfactorily and
amicably settled.  That they might have been to blame in the first
instance, scarcely affects the after development of the plans and
projects of Russia.  M. de la COUR was satisfied, Prince MENCHIKOFF was,
or said he was, satisfied, the French Government authorised M. de la COUR
“to state that, with regard to the question of the Holy Places,” she was
“satisfied.  The present arrangement is the arrangement made by M. de
LAVALETTE, and France has consequently nothing to say against it.  M. de
la COUR is enjoined neither to protest nor to make reserves.”—(_Blue
Book_, vol. i, p. 175.)  Yet this very moment of apparently amicable
arrangement is chosen by Russia to make other claims, and to demand other
privileges; then it was that Russia sent in her _ultimatum_, and sought
to exercise the power of a virtual sovereign over 11,000,000 of Turkish
subjects, the vast majority of whom dread nothing more than the exercise
of such authority, and who have shown, during the present contest, how
earnest they are in repelling the assumptions of the Emperor of Russia.
In Servia “the great majority are patriotic and desirous to exclude all
extraneous intervention in their affairs.  They are content with their
present position and connexion with Turkey, which strengthens without
annoying them.” {11a}  So it is with the other Provinces over which
Russia seeks to spread the terrible power of her protection.  Her
protection is degradation, debasement, and oppression.  She has no
scruples, for she worships a policy.  Whatever may help to develope that
policy, be it lying, intrigue, rebellion, spoliation, violation of
Treaties, or even murder and assassination, are resorted to.  Nothing
intimidates her—nothing turns her aside.  Rebuffed now, she bides her
time, and then makes another attempt, to be succeeded by another, and
another, and another, if necessary for the accomplishment of her object.
She talks of her good faith at the same moment she is violating some
solemnly-sworn contract; she invokes the person and aid of Almighty God
in all her undertakings, though of the blackest and basest kind.  It has
been well said that the “kind of faith with which she has acted is shown
in the revolts she has instigated and sustained in so many Turkish
Provinces while she was at peace with the Sultan and professing the
warmest friendship.  The _good faith_ of Russia is that which she
exhibits in not less than twenty-one schools of Bulgaria, where the
Russians from Kiew—the Mecca of the Muscovites—teach the children who are
all Turkish subjects, hatred of the Sultan as a part of their religious
instruction, and submission to the Czar as necessary to their eternal
salvation.” {11b}  Such is her protection—such has it ever been; and by
this insidious conduct she is every year adding or preparing for future
additions to her ill-gotten possessions.  But we are told that “the seat
of war is 3,000 miles away from us.  We had not been attacked—not even
insulted in any way;” {11c} and therefore we ought to have had nothing to
do with the quarrel.  No matter that existing Treaties between ourselves
and Turkey declare that we ought to interfere; no matter that the future
safety and honour of Europe—probably of England herself—depended upon the
course we took in this question; no matter that right, justice, and truth
were on the side of Turkey; and wrong, insolence, and unwarrantable
aggression on the part of Russia; “the seat of war is 3,000 miles away
from us” and—we had nothing to do with the quarrel.  Happily the
Government and the people took a different view of the subject, and
opposed the great enemy.

Prince MENCHIKOFF left Constantinople May 23rd, 1853.  Mr. BRIGHT has the
following curious passage: “But for the English Minister at
Constantinople and the Cabinet at home, the dispute would have settled
itself, and the last note of Prince MENCHIKOFF would have been accepted;
and no human being can point out any material difference between that
note and the Vienna note afterwards agreed upon and recommended by the
Governments of England, France, Austria, and Prussia.  But our Government
would not allow the dispute to be settled.”  It would be difficult to
select any passage in the whole range of English literature, of a similar
length, containing so many sophisms as this.  The note of Prince
MENCHIKOFF was so identical with the Vienna note, that the Porte rejected
both.  And instead of the English Ambassador preventing the amicable
arrangement of the question, he, acting under instructions from home,
exerted every means, short of cowardice and dishonour, to preserve the
peace.  Passage upon passage could be selected from the Blue Book, from
despatches of Lord PALMERSTON, of the Earl of MALMESBURY, of Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, of the Earl of CLARENDON, from the letters of Colonel ROSE and
Lord STRATFORD de REDCLIFFE, illustrative of this statement; and, because
the Sultan was advised not to accede to a demand which would have
destroyed his authority over 11,000,000 of his subjects, England is
charged with not allowing the dispute to be settled; and because the
Vienna note only reiterated MENCHIKOFF’S _ultimatum_, this attempt to
produce peace met the same fate as the others; still it is England that
prevented the settlement of the dispute.  For we are told that “Prince
MENCHIKOFF, in his note dated the 21st of May, which has caused a
profound impression throughout Europe, has proclaimed that religious
objects alone have not been aimed at by him.”—(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p.
268.)  Russia now pursued her usual course.  She issued a Manifesto, June
26, 1853;—a copy of this Manifesto was published in the “St. Petersburgh
Journal,”—and this Manifesto differed essentially from the Manifesto
issued to the Russian people.  “Considerable sensation,” says Sir G. H.
SEYMOUR, “has been occasioned among the Foreign Missions at St.
Petersburgh, by the great differences observable in the Russian manifesto
as published in its original state, that is, as addressed to the Russian
people, and in the official French translation destined for more general
circulation in the ‘St. Petersburgh Journal.’”

The most striking word in the original was “perfidiousness,” as applied
to the Sultan, an epithet which the Government translator appears to have
been desired to omit.

I need not observe, that the suppression is calculated to give an
erroneous general impression of the force of that appeal which the
Emperor’s Government has judged it necessary to make to the
prejudices—for, in this instance, I will not say opinions—of the Russian
people.—(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 340.)  This manifesto contained this
passage:—“Having exhausted all persuasion and, with them, every means of
obtaining pacific satisfaction of our just demands, _we have found it
needful to advance our armies into the Danubian Principalities_, _in
order to show the Ottoman Porte to what its obstinacy may lead_.”
{12}—(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 323.)  Of course, this never meant war—of
course, these acts were the legitimate consequences of the Emperor’s
continued assertion of his desire for peace, and his intentions of
preserving the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.  This pacific course was
only for the purpose of possessing a “material guarantee,” and was not a
_casus belli_.  The Western Powers were foolish enough so to consider it;
and Turkey was persuaded not to declare war when it occurred, because the
very power which Mr. BRIGHT says was the cause why the quarrel could not
be amicably settled, had not yet given up the hope of her ability to
procure peace.  The Russians crossed the Pruth, issued their manifesto
which was in the stereotype style of all the manifestos which, under
similar circumstances, she has issued during the last sixty years—issued
to deceive Europe, and not as indices of her conduct.  This is the
manifesto:—

    “Inhabitants of Moldavia and Wallachia!  His Majesty the Emperor of
    Russia, my august master has commanded me to occupy your territory
    with the corps d’armée, of which he has been pleased to confide to me
    the command.

    “We arrive among you neither with plans of conquest nor with the
    intention of modifying the institutions by which you are governed, or
    the political situation guaranteed to you by solemn Treaties.

    “The provisional occupation of the Principalities which I am directed
    to carry out, has no other object than that of immediate and
    effectual protection in the unlooked-for and ruinous circumstances
    under which the Ottoman Government, disregarding the numerous proofs
    of a sincere alliance which the Imperial Court, since the conclusion
    of the treaty of Adrianople, has never ceased to give it, responds to
    our most just proposals by refusals, to our most disinterested advice
    by the most offensive distrust.

    “In his longanimity, in his constant desire to maintain peace in the
    East as well as in Europe, the Emperor will avoid engaging in an
    offensive war against Turkey, so long as his dignity and the
    interests of his Empire will permit him to do so.

    “On the very day that he shall obtain the reparation which is due to
    him, and the guarantee which he is entitled to require for the
    future, his troops will withdraw within the frontiers of Russia.

    “Inhabitants of Moldavia and Wallachia!  I equally execute an order
    of His Imperial Majesty, by declaring to you that the presence of his
    troops in your country will not impose upon you either fresh charges
    or contributions; that the supplies of provisions will be paid for by
    our military chests at a suitable time, and at a rate fixed
    beforehand in concert with your Governments.

    “Look upon what awaits you without disquietude; betake yourselves in
    security to your agricultural labours and to your commercial
    speculations; obey the laws which govern you, and the constituted
    authorities.  By the faithful discharge of these duties you will
    acquire the best title to the generous solicitude and powerful
    protection of His Majesty the Emperor.”—(_Blue Book_, vol. i., pp.
    348–9)

This is the usual course of Russian invasions.  She burglariously takes
possession of territory, and tells the people that if they will be quiet
and obedient, they shall receive the “generous solicitude” of the
imperial robber.  All her proclamations are similar to this in word,
identical in purpose, and observed with the same supreme indifference.
For the reader’s information I will quote a passage from the proclamation
published in 1808, upon the invasion of Finland; it will be seen that it
is written in the same spirit, and was carried out with the same
fidelity:—“It is with the greatest regret that his Majesty the Emperor of
Russia, &c., sees himself forced to send into your country the troops
under my order. * * These motives, as well as the regard which his
Imperial Majesty owes to the safety of his own states, oblige him to
place your country _under his protection_, and to take possession of it,
in order to procure by these means _a sufficient guarantee_ in case his
Swedish Majesty should persevere in his resolution not to accept the
equitable conditions of peace that have been proposed to him. * * It is
his Imperial Majesty’s pleasure that all the affairs of the country
should have their ordinary course in conformity with your laws and
customs, which will remain in force so long as his Imperial Majesty’s
troops shall be obliged to occupy the country.  The civil and military
functionaries are confirmed in their respective employments; always
excepting those who may use their authority to mislead the people, and
induce them to take measures contrary to their interests.  All that is
necessary for the maintenance and food of the troops shall be paid in
ready money on the spot.  All provisions shall be paid for according to
an amicable agreement between our commissaries and those of the country.”
A passage from the letter of the King of Sweden will show how these
promises are kept.  He says, “Honour and humanity require me to make
strong representations against the innumerable horrors and the vexations
which the Russian troops have permitted themselves in Swedish Finland.
The blood of the innocent victims calls for vengeance upon those who
authorised such cruelties. * * * Can it be a crime in my Finnish subjects
not to have wished to let themselves be seduced by promises which are as
fallacious as the principles on which they are founded are erroneous!  Is
it worthy of a Sovereign to make it in them a crime?  I conjure your
Imperial Majesty to put an end to the calamities and the horrors of a war
which ought to call down on your person and your empire the malediction
of Divine Providence.” {14}  We know that Finnish protection ended in
Incorporation, and, but for the glorious bravery of the Turks at
Oltenitza, Citate, and Silistria, and the interference of the Allies,
such would, without doubt, have been the fate of the Principalities.  The
same tactics were employed; similar oppressions exercised; identical
courses pursued.  Russia ordered the taxes to be paid to her general;
required obedience from the Hospadas and service from the people; forbade
their communicating with the Sultan, their lawful ruler.  This general
order will shew what kind of protection she exercised: “Ordered 1st.
That all men from the age of eighteen to forty years, married or
unmarried, and whatever their profession may be, are required by the
generals, colonels, and commanders of corps to do service for the Russian
army.  2.  That horses, waggons, oxen, and other beasts of burden, may be
required for the same service.  And, 3.  That all boats, barks, or floats
now on the Danube, are seized for the present moment for the service of
the Russian army.  This decree is applicable to all Wallachian subjects.
Those who attempt to evade its execution shall _be tried by court
martial_.”  Such is Russian protection.

We now reach the period of the famous Vienna note, which, says Mr.
BRIGHT, “Russia accepted at once—accepted it, I believe, by telegraph,
even before the precise words of it had been received in St. Petersburgh.
Everybody thought the question now settled.  A Cabinet Minister told me
we should never hear another word about it; ‘the whole thing is at an
end,’ he said, and so it appeared for a moment.  But the Turk refused the
note which had been drawn up by his own arbitrators, and which Russia had
accepted.”  No one will be surprised at the Turk rejecting this note,
when he reads the original words of the note and compares them with the
suggested amendments of the Ottoman Government:



Words of the Original Note.


If the Emperors of Russia have at all times evinced their active
solicitude for _the maintenance of the immunities and privileges of the
orthodox Greek Church in the Ottoman Empire_, _the Sultans have never
refused again to confirm them_ by solemn acts testifying their ancient
and constant benevolence towards their Christian subjects.

His Majesty the Sultan will remain faithful _to the letter and to the
spirit of the Treaties of Kainardji and Adrianople_, _relative to the
protection of the Christian religion_, * * * and moreover in a spirit of
exalted equity, to cause the Greek rite to share in the advantages
_granted to the other Christian rites by Convention or special
arrangement_.



Amended Note.


If the Emperors of Russia have at all times evinced their active
solicitude for _the religion and orthodox Greek Church_, _the Sultans
have never ceased to provide for the maintenance of the privileges and
immunities which at different times they have spontaneously granted to
that religion and to that Church in the Ottoman Empire_, _and to confirm
them_.

His Majesty the Sultan will remain faithful _to the stipulations of the
Treaty of Kainardji_, _confirmed by that of Adrianople relative to the
protection by the Sublime Porte of the Christian religion_, _and he is
moreover charged to make known_, * * * and moreover in a spirit of
exalted equity, to cause the Greek rite to share in the advantages
_granted_, _or which might be granted_, _to the other Christian
Communities_, _Ottoman subjects_.

                                * * * * *

The intellect which cannot see the difference—the essential difference—of
these words must, in some way or other, be very far from being healthy.
The three great Powers acknowledged the justice of the alterations, and
M. DROUYN DE LHUYS, though he “regrets the introduction of any
modifications into the Vienna note, certainly considers them to be for
the better.”—(_Blue Book_, vol. ii., p. 85.)  These modifications the
Emperor of Russia refused to accept; and though France and England, still
desirous of peace, advised the Turks not to declare war against Russia,
is it surprising that she did?  The wonder is that she suffered her hands
to be tied so long, considering that the enemy was in her territories and
exercising all the powers of military government over her subjects.
Because Turkey refused the first note, and Russia the amended one, Mr.
BRIGHT has the audacity to tell us that “the Turks should have been
prevented from going to war, _or should have been allowed to go to war on
their own risk_.”  In no fit of temporary excitement did the Turks adopt
this last resort of nations.  She summoned a council of her wisest, her
gravest, and her best, and then, after mature deliberation, issued the
declaration of war.  “The decisions were unanimous.  The meeting
consisted of more than a hundred persons.”—(_Blue Book_, vol. ii., p.
130.)

Such is the history of that contest which is at present waging between
England, France, Turkey, and Russia.  I have endeavoured to state the
whole question without prejudice or passion.  Believing thoroughly in the
justice of the war, I have sought to master all its bearings, and so to
state the result that reason should be the only adjudicator appealed to.
I have expressed few opinions of my own, preferring to quote from
official documents, so that the reader might have the authoritative
documents in his possession, and be thus enabled to compare them with the
garbled extracts which have been made from these very interesting Blue
Books on the Holy Places.  The whole development of the question reveals
Russia at her old game; a game she has unceasingly played since the time
of Peter I.; a game by which she has more than doubled her original
empire; a game which has brought to her unholy rule Poland, Finland, the
Crimea, Georgia, Bessarabia, and so many other provinces which she has
filched from her neighbours.  “For one hundred and sixty years Russia has
steadily kept in view the objects of ambition in the East first
contemplated by Peter I., and bequeathed by him to his successors.  These
were, to raise Russia upon the ruins of Turkey—to obtain exclusive
possession of the Caspian and Black Sea, with the Bosphorus and the
Dardanelles—to extend her dominions beyond the Caucasus—to domineer in
Persia with a view to open the road to India; and history perhaps
furnishes no other example of equal pertinacity in prosecuting, _per fas
et nefas_, a predetermined course of aggrandisement.  Her crown has
frequently been transferred, by open violence or secret crime, from one
head or one family to another, but each successive sovereign, with hardly
an exception, has made some progress towards the attainment of these
objects, and she continues to prosecute them with unabated avidity.”
{16a}  Yet, with these facts before his eyes, and strengthening himself
with a quotation from Lord PALMERSTON, who says just what suits his
purpose at the moment, Mr. BRIGHT declares that “The danger of the
Russian power was a phantom.”  Any one might suppose from such statements
that men read history with their understandings warped by some strange
hallucination which prevented them from profitting by its lessons.
Russian power of aggression a phantom!  Why her whole modern history is
one continued record of aggressions committed on foreign states, and she
is now as desirous as ever of increasing her dominions.  The late Emperor
was scarcely cold before his son, ALEXANDER II., asked “Providence which
has selected us for so high a calling to be our guide and protector, that
we may maintain Russia on the highest standard of power and glory, and in
our person accomplish the incessant wishes and aims of Peter, of
Catherine, of Alexander, and of our father.”  One of these incessant
wishes and aims is the possession of Constantinople, the Bosphorous, and
the Dardanelles.

To show the nature of the Russian policy and her unvarying method of
carrying it out, I select a few instances of her aggressions.  A goodly
volume might be filled with such violations of all rights, natural and
divine:—From Sweden she gained Finland in 1809; the lion’s share of
Poland fell to her after the three fatal partitions of 1772, 1793, and
1795, and Warsaw was added in 1815; from Persia she wrung Georgia, in
1814; and Turkey lost the Crimea in 1784, and Bessarabia in 1812.  I now
give an abstract of the extent of her acquisitions, which proves that
within the last sixty-four years she has acquired territories equal in
extent and importance to the whole empire she had in Europe before that
time.  From Sweden she has stolen more than what now remains of that
kingdom; what she won from Poland nearly equals the whole Austrian
empire; from Turkey in Europe, her gain is greater than the Prussian
dominions, exclusive of the Rhenish Provinces; and from Turkey in Asia it
is nearly equal to the whole of the smaller states of Germany.  Persia
has been plundered of dominions equal to England; and from Tartary she
has filched possessions not inferior to that of Turkey in Europe, Greece,
Italy, and Spain. {16b}  Surely this is a sufficient evidence of her
aggressive policy, and also sufficient to show that her power is not a
mere phantom.

Mr. BRIGHT can never have read Russian history, or he would scarcely have
penned the sentence that we are at war for “the maintenance of the most
immoral and filthy of all despotisms over one of the fairest portions of
the earth which it has desolated, and over a population it has degraded,
but has not been able to destroy.”  Bad as Turkish despotism has been, it
must pale its ineffectual fires before that of Russia; the horrors
committed by Peter and Catherine, the religious persecutions of Nicholas,
the fate of the Minsk nuns, the massacre of thousands of unopposing and
helpless victims which everywhere defiles her annals.  Of her horrible
crimes, too hideous to be named; of her serf population, of her degraded
priesthood guilty of every enormity of which human nature is capable, I
need not here enlarge.  From the days when Peter had his own son
assassinated, butchered his people, massacred the Strelitzes, and at a
banquet which he gave to the Prussian Ambassador, Prinz, had twenty of
these unfortunate men brought into the room and there beheaded; and as
each head fell he quaffed a bumper, desiring his guest to do the same;
from the days when her Generals POTEMKIN and SUVAROFF, at the command of
Catherine, slaughtered in the Crimea “thirty thousand Tartars of either
sex and every age, in cold blood,” down to the Sinope horrors of last
year, her policy, her spirit, her objects and aims have undergone no
change.  And it is sad quibbling to say, as it has recently been said by
an advocate of the Peace Society, that the Secret Correspondence contains
not a single word threatening, or intimating a threat, of active
aggression on the part of Russia against the “sick man.”  Russia never
_talks_ of active aggression, but always of peace, and is always
aggrandising.  Her course is well drawn by her own historian KARAMSIN,
and he says, “The object and character of our military policy has
invariably been, _to seek to be at peace with everybody_, _and to make
conquests without war_; _always keeping ourselves on the defensive_,
_placing no faith on the friendship of those whose interests do not
accord with our own_, _and losing no opportunity of injuring_, _without
ostensibly breaking our treaties with them_.”  Such is the moral code of
a nation whose apologists are not a few in free and moral England!

The Emperor tells Europe, and Mr. BRIGHT supports him, that “England and
France have sided with the enemies of Christianity against Russia
combating for the Orthodox Faith.”  Now if the Turks have justice on
their side, and I trust sufficient evidence has been advanced to prove
they have, how can we be at war against Christianity in supporting them?
Is not justice the very basis of all religion?  It is the basis and only
true ground-work of mercy itself, without which it is mere idleness to
talk of religion.  But the Czar and Mr. BRIGHT have availed themselves of
the simply fact that the Russians _profess_ Christianity, and that the
Turks are Mahommedans, to inform the world that we are fighting the
battle of the infidel against the faithful.  We will not pause here to
show what a Christianity this is which the Emperor proclaims as the only
one orthodox faith, and for the propagation and establishment of which
Russia has been selected by Divine Providence.  It is not a religious war
at all.  It is simply a political war.  But even if it were a religious
war—by taking whose side in this quarrel should we be best helping the
cause of religion?  “Well,” says a member of the Prussian Senate, “the
_wrong_ that Russia was doing was not made _right_ by the religious
grounds that she put forward as a pretence for her policy.  It was true
the question had a religious bearing; the whole earth was eventually to
be converted to Christianity; but this providential future development of
the world will not authorise any one secular power to constitute itself
the executioner of the Divine will, and it could not be in conformity
therewith when a great power sought to crush a weaker by a breach of
treaty and force of arms.”  The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, whose religious
character none will doubt, and whose devotion to the cause of Religious
Freedom has won for him a high place in the annals of England, has met
this question in its true bearing.  In his masterly speech in the House
of Lords on the Turkish difficulty he said, “As to the alliance with
Turkey, there is a wide difference between an alliance with any power,
heathen though it may be, to maintain the cause of justice and order
against the aggressions of professing Christians, and an alliance of
which the result would be the development and aggrandisement of that
power.  Justice, Order, and Right are such things in the eyes of God that
they must be respected * * It could be shown that, with the Turks, there
were facilities for the promotion of civilization and the improvement of
mankind, which were denied to the Christians within the territory of
Russia, and which would be still more denied them if the Emperor were
enabled to extend his dominions over the East.  There are more than forty
towns and villages in Turkey in which there are distinct congregations of
Protestant seceders from the Greek Church. * * During the last twenty
years the diffusion of the Bible in Turkey had been almost incredible;
whereas not even a single copy had been printed in Russia—the language of
the people since 1823, and the circulation of it is forbidden under the
severest penalties.  With a population of 2,000,000 of Jews in his
dominions, the Emperor will not permit a single copy of the Scriptures in
Hebrew to pass the frontiers.”  The Earl of SHAFTESBURY also read the
following Imperial Firman, which shows the liberality of the Sultan in
strong contrast to the persecuting spirit of the Czar:—

    “FIRMAN.—To my Vizier, Mahmoud Pasha, Prefect of Police in
    Constantinople.  When this sublime and august mandate reaches you,
    let it be known that hitherto those of my Christian subjects who have
    embraced the Protestant faith have suffered much inconvenience and
    distress.  But, in necessary accordance with my Imperial compassion,
    which is the support of all, and which is manifested to all classes
    of my subjects, it is contrary to my Imperial pleasure that any one
    class of them should be exposed to suffering.  As, therefore, by
    reason of their faith, the above-mentioned are already a separate
    community, it is my Royal compassionate will that, for facilitating
    the conducting of their affairs, and that they may obtain ease, and
    quiet, and safety, a faithful and trustworthy person from among
    themselves, and by their own selection, shall be appointed, with the
    title of _Agent for the Protestants_, and that he should be in
    relations with the Prefecture of the Police.  You will not permit
    anything to be required of them in the name of fee, or other
    pretence, for marriage licences or registration.  You will see to it,
    that, like the other communities of the empire, in all their affairs,
    such as procuring cemeteries and places of worship, they should have
    every facility and every needful assistance.  You will not permit
    that any of the other communities shall in any way interfere with
    their edifices, or with their worldly matters or concerns, or, in
    short, with any of their affairs, either secular or religious, that
    thus they may be free to exercise the usages of their faith.  And it
    is enjoined upon you not to allow them to be molested an iota in
    these particulars, or in any others; and that all attention and
    perseverance be put in requisition to maintain them in quiet and
    security.  And, in case of necessity, they shall be free to make
    representations regarding their affairs, through their agent, to the
    Sublime Porte.”

“In this,” continued the Earl, “I believe is to be found the whole secret
of the movement on the part of the Emperor of Russia.  He saw that it
would give to these Greek Christians a status, a recognized independence,
and emancipated them from the influence of Russia; he saw that the
circulation of the Scriptures was giving rise to those aspirations after
liberty, which religious freedom must inevitably be followed by, and his
own dominions were contiguous to those in which this religious freedom
was tolerated.”

The true nature of Russia’s religious movement is well pointed out by
Lord STRATFORD de REDCLIFFE.  He is giving the Earl of CLARENDON a
summary of the state of the question when he arrived at Constantinople,
and of the difficulties which lie in the way of its settlement.  As
respects arriving at an amicable adjustment of the differences he says,
“The prospect in this direction would be more promising if Russia were to
shew signs of being disposed to act on Christian rather than on sectarian
principles.  But it appears that the protection which her Government wish
to exercise with so little control or limitation, is of a strictly
exclusive character; and it has reached me, from more quarters than one,
that, among the motives for increasing their influence in this country,
is the desire of repressing Protestantism wherever it appears.”—(_Blue
Book_, vol. i., p. 29.)

England, France, and Turkey have striven to divest this quarrel of any
character of Islamism versus Christianity, and to rest it on the broad
basis of justice and right.  The Emperor has sought to make it a second
crusade, and has used every influence in his power as head of the Church
to excite the fanaticism, sectarian zeal, and religious bigotry of his
people.  In doing so he has shown himself capable of calling into action
the most terrible of all weapons, so that therewith he can achieve his
end.  It was little to have been expected that a member of the most
peaceful and tolerant of Christian communities should have aided him in
this dreadful and iniquitous course.  It is one more fatal illustration
of how far men will allow themselves to be carried when once they abandon
the strict path of reason, and allow feeling and prejudice to warp their
otherwise sound judgment.

Before I leave this question of the “secret correspondence,” I will quote
a passage from Sir G. H. SEYMOUR, which I commend to the most careful
consideration of those who think that Russia was desirous of keeping on
terms of amity and justice with the Porte.  The words are,—“The sovereign
who insists with much pertinacity upon the impending fall of a
neighbouring state, must have settled in his own mind that the hour, if
not _of_ its dissolution, yet _for_ its dissolution, is at hand.”  To my
mind, it is clear in what manner NICHOLAS had made up his mind respecting
this dissolution; and it was no fault of his if the hour is not at hand.

A few words more.  One course pursued by the Peace Society is very
strange.  While apologising for and defending Russia, most of its public
speakers and lecturers denounce France and Austria.  I shall not defend
either of these Powers.  Those who oppose Russia on the same grounds
which I do, will be slow to do _that_.  But how can these men, opposing
the present war, reconcile it to their consciences to seek to embroil us
with two other powers?  Is it that they only deprecate war when waged
against a favourite despot, and are reckless as to fanning the flames
when others are concerned?  Whatever may be their reasons, it is still a
strange problem—one which these gentlemen may find some difficulty in
solving.  Now that we are at war, let us hope that we shall not again
sheath the sword until we have secured peace on such a firm and secure
basis that it shall not be in the power of future squabblers about a key,
a stone, or a cupola, on the one hand—nor of aggrandising and
unscrupulous ambition on the other—to overthrow the peace of nations, to
threaten the existence and liberties of weaker states, to interrupt the
commerce of the world, and to retard the civilization of the race.  For
many years Russia has been the incubus of Europe.  She has laid her cold
grasp upon all its aspirations, and sent out her serried legions to
quench in blood the budding life and reviving freedom of many states.
Her name has been a terror—her presence a curse; her instruments are
fraud, rapine, and destruction; her rule is based upon ignorance,
superstition and slavery; and, brutal herself, she knows of only one
system of governing men—a system which depends on chains, the knout,
Siberia, and death!  The man who lauds such a system is hardly fit to
speak the tongue which Shakspere spoke; and, as he is so much of a
Russian subject, it is a pity that his citizenship is not complete, and
that he were a dweller beneath her mild rule—a sojourner beneath her
clement skies.  For him our forefathers have lived, fought, and achieved
freedom in vain.

    “Who would not blush, if such a man there be?
    Who would not weep, if Atticus were he?”

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

             J. A. LANGFORD, PRINTER, ANN-STREET, BIRMINGHAM.



FOOTNOTES.


{9}  The Progress and Present Position of Russia in the East: an
Historical Summary, Preface, p. vi.

{11a}  Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, p. 153.

{11b}  Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, p. 159.

{11c}  Letter of JOHN BRIGHT, Esq., M.P.

{12}  “Now the Principalities have been invaded, not only without any
pretence of right, but by the most flagrant violations of all the
principles of right, by the armies of Russia.  The revenues of the
Principalities have been seized, all the private _materiel_ of those
countries sequestered, and the inhabitants compelled to join the Russian
armies and to make war on their own Sovereign.”—_Lord Lyndhurst_, _in the
House of Lords_, _March_ 20, 1855.  Even weak, vacillating, and
Russia-allied Prussia was forced to admit that “a great wrong had been
committed.”

{14}  Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary, pp. 148–49.

{16a}  The Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary.
Preface, pp. v. and vi.

{16b}  The above abstract is made from Mr. ARROWSMITH’S valuable map,
accompanying the pamphlet, “The Progress of Russia in the East; an
Historical Summary.”





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The War with Russia - Its Origin and Cause" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.