314

Stratford de Redcliffe and Turkey

[1853

England, which originally had been no party to the dispute, had become a principal to the quarrel. The change in her position was at once accentuated by her proceedings. For, in consequence of Prince Menshikoff's withdrawal, Russia at the end of May threatened to send her armies to cross the Pruth and occupy the Danubian Principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia), and the Western Powers retaliated by ordering their fleets to the mouth of the Dardanelles.

Diplomacy, however, did not relax its efforts to prevent a rupture. Austria, interested in the free navigation of the Danube, and alarmed at the prospect of the occupation of the Principalities commanding its banks, added her efforts to those of the Western Allies to compose the dispute. Through her influence the negotiation was transferred to Vienna, and the representatives of the Great Powers in that city adopted in July a Note, originally prepared in France, which they agreed to present both at St Petersburg and at Constantinople. On August 3 the Russian Government accepted this proposal, and the diplomatists believed that peace was ensured. Before the end of the month, however, the Porte intimated that it could only adopt the note if certain amendments were introduced into it. Officially, there is no doubt that Lord Stratford urged the Porte to accept the decision of the Great Powers. fortunately, there is equally no doubt that he took no pains to conceal his opposition to their policy. Even his apologists declare that "it is not to be believed that he could hide his real thoughts from the Turkish Minister"; and the universal judgment of historians is that the Sultan's Ministers, in demanding the alteration of the note, carried out the private views and disregarded the official language of Lord Stratford.

Un

For the moment it seemed that Turkey by her conduct had deprived the Western Powers of every pretence for continuing to her their support. She had refused, while Russia had accepted, the terms on which Austria, France, England, and Prussia had concluded that the dispute should be settled. The British Cabinet, however, with some inconsistency, decided on submitting the Turkish modifications of the note to St Petersburg. They were naturally rejected by the Tsar, and the Russian Minister drew up a memorandum detailing the reasons for their rejection. This memorandum found its way into a Prussian newspaper. On its publication the diplomatists of Europe were startled to find that the Russian Government attached a meaning to the note, different from that which its authors had intended to express. This revelation had the effect of breaking up the concert of the four mediating Powers. For, while Austria and Prussia still endeavoured to secure the Porte's acceptance of the note, France and England forbore from doing so. Reassured by the attitude of the Western Powers, at the beginning of October, 1853, the Sultan, with Lord Stratford's approval or at his suggestion, called upon Russia to evacuate the Principalities within fifteen days, and added that a refusal would be considered as tantamount to a declaration

1853]

Effect of the "massacre

of Sinope

315

of war. In pursuance of this threat, the Turkish army under Omar Pasha actually crossed the Danube; and, though Russia announced her intention of remaining on the defensive during the winter, both in Europe and Asia, engagements occasionally took place between the hostile armies. A state of war had now actually arisen; yet diplomacy at Vienna was still renewing its efforts to preserve or restore peace; and, in the beginning of December, a new Note was drawn up in which the Ministers of the Four Powers undertook to mediate between the combatants. Whatever hope existed that this new intervention might avert hostilities was destroyed by an event which, strangely enough, no one had foreseen. On November 30 a Turkish squadron, on its way from the Bosphorus to Batoum, was attacked at Sinope by a Russian fleet, and virtually destroyed.

The news of the "massacre at Sinope reached- London and Paris towards the middle of December, 1853. It was received in both countries with the same feelings of strong indignation. Opinion in neither capital stopped to enquire whether the attack had been caused by the hostile action of the Western Powers, or whether it could be justified by historical precedent. Yet it is apparently certain that the "massacre was Russia's answer to the decision of the Western Powers in the previous September to order their fleets to pass the Dardanelles; for the Tsar naturally desired to strike a blow at the Turkish navy before the reinforcements, which had arrived at Constantinople, could intervene in its favour. The action of the Russian Government, moreover, was not unprecedented; but provoked or unprovoked, justified or unjustified, the action was eminently unwise. The chances of peace were almost destroyed by the news of it; and, in Great Britain, the war party in the country and in the Cabinet became almost irresistible.

For, unhappily, throughout the long diplomatic struggle, there were two parties in the British Cabinet. Both of them were sincerely desirous of peace; but their methods for maintaining peace were absolutely opposed. Lord Aberdeen and his immediate friends believed in the good faith of the Emperor Nicholas and had little confidence in Turkey. Lord Palmerston, on the contrary, had no faith in Russia, but a strong belief in the possible regeneration of the Turkish Empire. Lord Aberdeen thought that peace could be preserved by endeavouring to meet what was reasonable in the demands of Russia. Lord Palmerston thought, on the contrary, that peace was to be secured by convincing Russia that, if war broke out, she would have to deal with other Powers besides Turkey. If Lord Aberdeen had stood alone, he might have averted war by conciliation. If Lord Palmerston had stood alone, he might have averted war by action. But Lord Palmerston's action robbed Lord Aberdeen's conciliation of its grace; and Lord Aberdeen's conciliation took the strength out of Lord Palmerston's action. The contrary counsels, which to some extent paralysed the Cabinet, gave Lord

316

Divisions in the British Cabinet

[1853-4

Stratford his opportunity. Lord Stratford, like Lord Palmerston, believed in the possible regeneration of Turkey; and he was determined to resent Russian intervention in her affairs.

While the war party in the Cabinet were supporting Lord Stratford, Lord Aberdeen's contrary efforts were weakened by Lord John Russell's attitude. Lord John was not prepared to go so far as Lord Palmerston, but he was dissatisfied with the drift which was carrying the country into war. He thought that Lord Aberdeen was not exercising a sufficient control over affairs, and that the time had come for the Prime Minister to carry out his promise of retirement. But, while it was easy for Lord Aberdeen to promise retirement in January, it was much more difficult for him to fulfil his purpose when negotiations were in progress on whose issue peace and war depended. Thus, as 1853 drew to a close, Lord Aberdeen was still labouring for peace; Lord Palmerston was making ready for battle; and Lord John Russell was contemplating retirement from the Ministry. He was finally induced to reconsider his opinion on the assurance that Parliamentary Reform, which, in his eyes, was only second in importance to European peace, should be seriously proposed in the succeeding session. But this concession, which secured a continuance of Lord John's services, produced a new crisis. Lord Palmerston, who disliked Reform at home as much as he was opposed to autocracy on the Continent, resigned office. The Cabinet was nearly broken up in consequence of his resignation, which he was ultimately persuaded to withdraw. But he returned to power with the authority attaching to a man whose presence has been found to be indispensable.

Notwithstanding the excitement which followed the "massacre" at Sinope, and though, at the instance of France, the French and British fleets were instructed to enter the Euxine, and "invite "all Russian ships of war to return to Sevastopol, diplomacy made its last effort to avert the impending calamity. At the end of December, 1853, Lord Stratford prevailed on the Sultan to accept a new Note, which the representatives of the Four Powers at Vienna had drawn up. In the beginning of January, 1854, it was forwarded to St Petersburg for the Tsar's acceptance. By an unfortunate coincidence, it reached St Petersburg at the moment when the news came that the British and French fleets were "inviting" the Russian vessels to return to port. Nicholas refused, in the circumstances, to answer the new proposal; and, in the beginning of February, the Russian Ministers were withdrawn from Paris and London, the British and French Ministers from St Petersburg. War did not actually break out with the suspension of diplomacy. The first object of war was obviously to clear the Russian armies out of the Principalities, which they had occupied since the failure of Menshikoff's mission. And in this object Austria had a more direct interest than either of the Western Powers. On February 22, she offered to join France and England in requiring the evacuation of the Principalities by a fixed date.

1854] France and England declare war against Russia 317

But the indignation of the British public at the Sinope "massacre" was so great, and its impatience was so marked, that the Ministry were unable to resist the demand for war. Without waiting for a formal arrangement with Austria, the Western Powers addressed an ultimatum to Russia; and, on the Tsar refusing to reply to it, declared war.

The opening months of the War were marked by a Turkish success and a British failure. The Turkish armies under Omar Pasha, encouraged by the presence of the forces which France and England were collecting at Varna, and by the menacing attitude of Austria, were enabled to secure the evacuation of the Principalities by Russia. On the other hand, the British fleet dispatched to the Baltic under the command of Sir Charles Napier did nothing quite worthy of its own reputation or the expectations of the public. The failure was unfortunate, for otherwise the evacuation of the Principalities might have led to a resumption of negotiations. The public, however, in England and the army in France were by this time longing for military success, and desired to inflict a serious blow on Russia by destroying the great arsenal at Sevastopol, which they regarded as a standing menace to the Turkish empire. Thus in September, it was decided that the Allied armies should be moved from Varna and landed in the Crimea. Under the command of Marshal Saint-Arnaud, an officer who had seen service in Algeria, and of Lord Raglan, a veteran who had served on Wellington's staff in the Peninsula, they landed in the Crimea on September 14, 1854. On the 20th, they encountered the Russian army under Prince Menshikoff, drawn up on some wooded heights above the Alma, a little river which flows into the Euxine to the north of Sevastopol. The Allies had to cross the stream and scale the heights on which the Russians stood. The battle resulted in a victory which was purchased at a serious loss. The victors, out of a force of some 60,000 men, had some 3300 killed and wounded; and the larger proportion of this loss fell on the English. The enemy, with a smaller force engaged, left 1800 dead bodies on the field; their wounded exceeded 3000. If the Allied armies had followed up their success, it is possible that they might have entered the north side of Sevastopol with the flying enemy. But the troops were tired out with the protracted struggle; and, instead of pursuing the enemy, they remained on the scene of their victory. The delay enabled Prince Menshikoff to carry out two momentous decisions. Convinced that the north side of Sevastopol could not survive the combined assault of the Allied fleets and armies, he blockaded the harbour by sinking the Russian fleet at its entrance; and, practically leaving the town and fortress to be protected by the crews of the sunken ships, he withdrew his own army to the north-east, holding it in a position to watch the Allies, and at the same time secure its line of communications with Russia. The sinking of the Russian fleet convinced Marshal SaintArnaud that the north side of the town could not be attacked. A task

318

Blockade of Sevastopol

[1854

which would have been easy to fleet and army combined, seemed difficult or impossible to the army alone. With Lord Raglan's concurrence, therefore, it was decided to march round Sevastopol and assail it, where probably assault was least expected, from the south. This strange movement commenced on the 25th, and was completed on the 27th of September. The line of march of the Allies cut the line of retreat of Prince Menshikoff. The English who formed the van actually encountered the Russian rearguard. Yet the Intelligence Departments of the two armies had received such defective information that neither of them suspected the movements in which their enemies were engaged.

The conditions, in which the expedition had been undertaken, required that the flank march should be followed by an immediate assault. The British Cabinet, when deciding on the invasion of the Crimea, had relied upon some secret information that Sevastopol, though strongly fortified on the sea front, was incapable of defence against an attack by land. So confident was the Cabinet of the accuracy of this information that it made no adequate preparations for a winter campaign. So convinced were the leaders of the army that the town would fall, that three out of the four Generals of Division directed their men to leave their knapsacks behind them. Three-fourths of the troops thus arrived before the town with no tents and no change of clothing. The want of equipment was the more serious because the troops, which had been suffering at Varna from cholera, had brought with them the seeds of that disease; and cholera is especially fatal, if an army is chained to a particular position. If, then, the leaders of the army had seriously examined the situation in all its bearings, they would probably have concluded that, if they were not prepared to carry Sevastopol by assault, they ought not to have been in the Crimea at all; and that the loss of life attending an attack would in any case be inferior to that arising from the ravages of disease. These considerations, however, do not seem to have occurred either to Lord Raglan or to General Canrobert, who had succeeded SaintArnaud in the command of the French army. Acting on the advice of their engineers, they decided that it was wise to shake the place by bombardment, before attacking it with infantry; and, before commencing the attack, they were consequently compelled to wait till October 17, the earliest day when they were able to concentrate on the front the guns and ammunition required for the bombardment.

The decision gave the Russians their opportunity; for, while no man of firstrate military capacity held any important position either in the British or in the French army, one man of genius came forward in the Russian ranks to animate the defence. Colonel Todleben, a Russian officer of Engineers, was aware that the town must have fallen if the Allies had attacked at once. The three weeks' delay enabled him to throw up a series of earthworks, which were destined to detain the Allied armies for the best part of a year. When the bombardment at last took place,