IV Greek Independence
The Holy Alliance—The Greek insurrection—Interference of the Three Powers—Battle of Navarino—Treaty of Adrianople—The policy of Nicholas I.; Treaty of Unkiar Ikelessi—Turkey only saved by English and French aid—Palmerston succeeds to Canning’s policy.
Alexander I., Emperor of Russia; Francis, Emperor of Austria; and William I., King of Prussia, formed what was known as the Holy Alliance, the first-named being the chief instigator.
Its aim was to promote peace and goodwill among European nations, based upon Christianity, although it seemed quite liable to be abused for the benefit of absolute monarchy, as in the case of Spain. Nearly all the European Powers joined it, England49 being the only one who declined. England’s argument was that “such interference is inconsistent with the fundamental laws of Great Britain. It must lead to a system of continual interference incompatible with European interests and the independence of nations.”50 However, we are forced to admit and acknowledge that the present system of Europe is conducted on the same lines, slightly modified, as the Holy Alliance.
At the end of the eighteenth century the songs of the poet Rhegus and the revolutionary influence of France (1789) stirred up the Greeks to feelings of hatred against the Porte.
In 1821 the Danubian Provinces (Roumania), under the leadership of Hypisilands, rose in rebellion, trusting to receiving assistance from Alexander I., the instigator of the Holy Alliance. But their hopes were shattered, and Turkey soon crushed the revolt. This was the only case in which Russia did not interfere with Turkey in the Danubian question.
A little reflection, however, will show the cause of the Russian non-interference in this case. Alexander’s power and influence were declining, and Russia was filled internally with discontent. Secret societies flourished everywhere, and the Czar dreaded a revolution in his own country if he gave help to the Danubian Provinces, which would be approving a rebellion against a legitimate sovereign.
The Greek rising in the Morea was answered by a counter Turkish massacre of Greeks in most of the principal cities of Turkey, and Gregory, the head of the Greek Church at Constantinople, was executed. This caused great indignation in the Russias and war appeared imminent, but owing to the mediation of England and Austria it was averted.
There is no doubt that Russia felt that it was to her advantage to assist a revolutionary movement, in order that she might secure as much influence in Turkey as possible. But Austrian interest in the Balkans was of vital importance. Her policy was naturally to oppose Russia in her desires, in order to keep the Turkish honour unstained and use her as a bulwark against Russia.
However, great enthusiasm was aroused, not only in England, but also in Germany and Switzerland.
Lord Byron died,51 and Shelley wrote for the Greek cause. Lord Cochrane and Sir Richard Church fought, while the German poet, Müller, and the Swiss Eynard, warmly upheld the cause of the oppressed Greeks.
Notwithstanding this help, the Greeks were far from fortunate, and the Sultan, with the help of the Egyptians, captured Athens. But their brave defence of Missolonghi aroused the sympathies of the European Powers.
Nicholas I. (1825–1855)
On the death of Alexander I. the Holy Alliance vanished (1825), and Nicholas I. ascended the throne (1825–1855). Now the Greeks appealed to England for help, and Canning52 saw that it was the best policy for England to assist Greece in order to control the ambitious plans of Russia. Accordingly he sent the Duke of Wellington as the English representative, and a protocol was signed at St. Petersburg by which Greece was to remain tributary to the Sultan, but to be independent as regards commercial relations. This protocol developed into the Treaty of London, between England, France, and Russia, by which the three Powers bound themselves to act as mediators in the Eastern question. The mediation of the Powers was rejected by the Porte, but accepted by the Greeks. The result was that the Turko-Egyptian fleet was totally destroyed at the Battle of Navarino by the allies, and the Sultan retreated from the Morea. Canning’s death in 1827 gave England an opportunity of retiring from active participation in the alliance, especially as she regarded the Battle of Navarino as an “untoward event,” so Russia and Turkey were left alone in conflict.
This, in my opinion, was a half-hearted policy on the part of England, although the Cabinet at that time could do no other, because their tenets would not allow them to help a revolutionary people against a country governed by a legitimate sovereignty.
Now had the long-wished-for opportunity arrived for Russia to carry into effect on Turkey her long-cherished designs. Diebitch, a Russian general, crossed the Balkans, and soon captured Adrianople; while Paskevitch took Kars and Erzeroom in Asia.
These successes resulted in the Treaty of Adrianople (1829), between Russia and Turkey. By the treaty53 Russia gave back almost all her conquests to Turkey, only retaining the ports of Anapa and Poti, on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, and the Protectorate powers of the Czar over the Danubian Principalities were confirmed and extended. In return Turkey acquiesced in all the provisions of the London Conference.
This made Greece practically an independent state.
Nicholas pursued the policy of Alexander I. with regard to the Asiatic boundaries, and successfully carried on a war with Persia from 1826 to 1828 which was terminated by the Treaty of Turkmantchai (1828), Russia receiving the provinces of Erivan and Nakhitcheven. This was the period of the expansion of Russia, and the first appearance of Russia as a real rival of Great Britain.
Reviewing the general policy of Nicholas the reader cannot help being struck with the skilful manner and clever system by which the Czar carried out his plans.
Before his reign the Russian attacks were all made particularly in the south-west and south-east direction, viz., the Danubian territory, and Armenia; but on his accession he began to attack from a more southerly direction even than Turkey, viz., Greece, whom he assisted in rebellion against her Turkish oppressors. From 1826–1828 he attacked in a south-easterly quarter, viz., Armenia and Persia, at the same time occupying Adrianople and threatening Constantinople. Finally, to complete his plans, he struck a fatal blow at the heart of Turkey, viz., its capital, Constantinople, in 1833, with the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, by which Turkey was practically made a vassal of Russia.
This treaty exercised a great influence upon foreign powers. For Russia by it would have obtained actual possession not only of the Black Sea but also of its only entrance, the Dardanelles, which thus would have become a fortified Russian outpost.
Turkey now was in a very precarious state. She was almost past the aid of any earthly powers. But luckily two doctors stepped into the breach, namely, England and France, and, after a course of treatment, the following protocol was indited by the Pentarchy of Powers: “That ships of war have at all times been prohibited from entering the Channel of Constantinople, viz., by the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Black Sea.”
Reshid Pacha had performed for Turkey great internal reforms, but, unfortunately, he was exiled through a Court intrigue. This proved a great blow to Turkish politics.
Thus Turkey began to decline again; and, as John Bright said in an able speech at Manchester (1854), “Turkey is a decaying nation;” and Cobden on the same occasion said, “Turkey is a decaying country, and the Turks cannot be permanently maintained as a ruling Power in Europe.” The Czar himself said that “a sick man is dying,” referring to Turkey, in his remarkable conversation with Sir Hamilton Seymour on January 28, 1853.
When Turkey appeared at her last gasp she had been saved by England and France. Now, for the second time, the same Powers rescued her from annihilation.
England a short time previously had been in a feeble state owing to her severe war with Napoleon the Great. This had exhausted her financially to a great extent.54
However, Huskisson’s commercial policy (1823), Wellingtons Catholic Emancipation (1829), Russell’s great Reform Bill (1832), and the Repeal of the Corn Laws by Sir Robert Peel (1846), had exercised a refreshing influence upon her general prosperity.
Here Lord Palmerston, a disciple55 of Canning, appeared on the scene to play his part in “the European concert.”