網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

63

CHAPTER IV.

THE QUADRILATERAL ALLIANCE.

1831-1841.

Lord Palmerston and the Porte-Ibrahim Pasha's advance on Constantinople-Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi—Anti-Russian policy of Lord Palmerston-The first Afghan war-Burnes's despatchesCollapse of the Turkish Empire-Divergence of views between England and France-The Quadrilateral Alliance-Lord Palmerston's difficulties-His bold course of action-His estimate of the situation-Louis Philippe gives way-The fall of Acre-Lord Palmerston's treatment of Guizot-Settlement of the Syrian question-Lord Palmerston's marriage.

THOUGH Lord Palmerston, when Minister at War, had viewed the Greek struggle for independence with ardent approval, and though his aphorism concerning the Turks—“ What energy can be expected from a people with no heels to their shoes ?"-has passed into a proverb, he was never a believer in the hopeless degeneracy of the Ottoman Porte. "All that we hear every day of the week," he once wrote to Sir Henry Bulwer, "about the decay of the Turkish Empire, and its being a dead body or a sapless trunk, and so forth, is pure and unadulterated nonsense. If we can procure for it ten years of peace under the joint protection of the five Powers, and if those years are profitably employed in

reorganizing the internal system of the Empire, there is no reason whatever why it should not become again a respectable Power." This opinion, even if not permanently tenable, was probably that of the majority of Englishmen at the time of the formation of Lord Grey's ministry, when the Sultan Mahmoud was making real, if somewhat rough and ready, attempts to introduce reforms into his dominions. Palmerston further thought that the downfall of the Porte would be far more likely to occur through external violence than through internal combustion. For the moment, however, the final blow seemed likely to come from one who was nominally its subject. For in 1831 Mahomet Ali, the crafty Albanian who had risen from the position of tobacco-seller to that of the Pasha of Egypt, sent his adopted son Ibrahim against Acre, the fortress which had defied Napoleon; its fall in the following May placed all Syria at his mercy. The surrender of Damascus and Antioch followed; the line of the Taurus was crossed in July; in October the brilliant Ibrahim scattered to the winds at Konieh the last of the Turkish armies, and there was nothing to prevent his casting out his shoe over Constantinople.

The peril of the Porte was undoubtedly extreme, and Palmerston was anxious that an affirmative response should be made to the Sultan's appeals for assistance, which reached England about the time of the battle of Konieh. The Cabinet, however, overruled his opinion, and he must have felt considerably annoyed when it fell to him to defend English non-intervention in the House of Commons, on the ground that our naval operations on the Dutch coast and elsewhere were so extensive, that it would have been impossible to send to the Mediterranean such a squadron as would have served

the purpose of the Porte, and at the same time have comported with the naval dignity of England. His appeal rejected, though with regret, by England, and with less ceremony by France, where public sympathy was wholly with the Pasha, Mahmoud, in his despair, applied to his ancient enemy, Nicholas of Russia. The response was prompt; a Russian army was despatched to the mouth of the Bosphorus, Ibrahim retired before it, and Constantinople was saved. But the price was heavy; by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, signed by the representatives of the two Powers, on the 8th of July 1833, the Forte bound itself, in return for a promise from Russia of military and naval assistance whenever required, to come to an "unreserved understanding' with that Power "upon all matters which concern their respective tranquillity and safety," that is, to allow Nicholas to interfere when he pleased in Turkish affairs. A secret article further engaged the Porte "to close the strait of the Dardanelles, that is to say, not to allow any foreign vessels of war to enter therein under any pretext whatsoever." In short, the treaty made Mahmoud the vassal of Nicholas, and the Black Sea a Russian lake.

[ocr errors]

The natural result of this master-stroke of Russian diplomacy, the terms of which were known throughout Europe within six weeks, was that Palmerston, with the full approval of his eccentric sovereign, and the applause of the Radicals in Parliament, was during the remainder of the reign of William IV. decidedly antiRussian in his policy. He joined with the French Government in a vigorous protest against the treaty, but it was, of course, mere waste-paper. The destruction of the liberties of Poland in the previous year; the conclusion in the following year of a new treaty with the

XX

Porte, by which Russia acquired fresh territory in Asia; the mandate issued by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, for the occupation of the little republic of Cracow, the last remnant of independent Poland, by Austrian troops; the presence of Russian agents at the court of the Shah of Persia; the Russian intrigues for the ruin of Colonel Chesney's expedition to open up the Euphrates route to India-all these facts taken together seemed to point to a systematic attempt on the part of Nicholas to aggrandize his dominions, and that at the expense of England. "Russia," wrote Palmerston to his brother, "is pursuing a system of universal aggression on all sides, partly from the personal character of the Emperor, partly from the permanent system of her government.' In the House of Commons, O'Connell, Mr. Attwood, and other Radicals, hurled abuse at the Czar, and the British fleet was sent to cruise in the neighbourhood of the Dardanelles; but though the two countries were on the verge of a quarrel, no actual outbreak took place.

[ocr errors]

If Palmerston shrank from war with Russia from motives of prudence, Nicholas refrained from direct hostilities with England because he found others to fight his battles for him. The mission of Russian agents to Teheran and Cabul was the means employed, not for the last time, to lure England into operations beyond the Indus, and to drain her of wealth and strength without hazarding a single Cossack or a single rouble. Excuses may be advanced for the first Afghan war, as for every war. The Persian attack on Herat was undoubtedly of the most formidable nature, and was only averted by chance in the person of Eldred Pottinger, and Melbourne's cabinet were of opinion that "decisive measures" in Afghanistan were necessary to counterbalance Russian preponderance in Persia. Lord

Heytesbury, the Governor-General of India, who was known to be an admirer of Nicholas, was accordingly recalled; and Lord Auckland sent out with instructions to inaugurate a forward policy. Translated into action, the forward policy resolved itself into Burnes's mission to Cabul, which was checkmated by the counter mission of the Russian Vicovitch, and next into the expedition to Cabul with the object of deposing Dost Mahommed, who had proved an able ruler, and crowning in his stead the incompetent refugee, Shah Soojah. Endeavours have been made to fix the blame for this mad leap in the dark upon Palmerston; Lord Auckland, it has been said, was his Governor-general, but though there is strong presumption, documentary proof is wanting. Certainly Lord Palmerston was the man of action in the Melbourne Cabinet, and at this time was full of distrust of Russia. On the other hand, it may be noticed that though he strongly approved of the expedition, he did not, even when its prospects were most favourable, assume any direct responsibility for it. In a letter to Lord Melbourne, he said:

Auckland seems to have taken a just view of the importance of making Afghanistan a British and not a Russian dependency, since the autocrat has determined that it shall not be left to itself. If we succeed in taking the Afghans under our protection, and in garrisoning (if necessary) Herat, we shall regain our ascendancy in Persia, and get our commercial treaty with that Power. But British ascendancy in Persia gives security on the eastward to Turkey, and tends to make the Sultan more independent, and to place the Dardanelles more securely out of the grasp of Nicholas. Again, our baffling on so large a scale the intrigues and attempts of Russia cannot fail to add greatly to the moral weight and political influence of England, and to help us in many European questions, while it must also tend to give us strength and authority at home.

This is the language of the supporter, rather than of the creator, of a line of action, but it must be owned

« 上一頁繼續 »