The Failure to Restrain Russia: Canning, Nesselrode, and the Greek Question, 1825–1827

The International History Review

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 1990, Pages 688-720

  Cowles, Loyal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67949092029     PISSN: 07075332     EISSN: 19496540     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07075332.1990.9640564     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. The text of the treaty is printed in Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, Despatches, Correspondence, and Memoranda of Field Marshal Arthur Duke of Wellington, K.G. (London, 1867–71), iv. 69. On the instructions to the admirals, see C.M. Woodhouse, Battle of Navarino (London, 1965), pp. 43–8, 51–3.
2. Harold Temperley, Foreign Policy of Canning, 1899-1837: England, the Neo-Holy Alliance, and the New World (London, 1925), pp. 335–336, 349, 396.
3. R.W. Seton-Watson, Britain in Europe, 1793–1914 (Cambridge, 1937), p. 102; Douglas Dakin: Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821–1833 (Berkeley, 1973), p. 151, 175, and British Intelligence of Events in Greece, 1894-1897; A Documentary Collection (Athens, 1959), p. 7. More recent variations on essentially the same themes are in P.J.V. Rolo, George Canning: Three Biographical Studies (London, 1965), pp. 209, 245, 260-3; and Wendy Hinde, George Canning (New York, 1973), p. 458.
4. Temperley, Foreign Policy, pp. 350, 392, 396.
5. Dakin, Greek Struggle, pp. 151–3, 155, 175–6, 178, 181, 183, and Dakin, British Intelligence, pp. 7–8.
6. Steven Schwartzberg: The Lion and the Phoenix-British Policy toward the Greek Question”, 1831-1832, Middle Eastern Studies, 24 (1988), 140–1, 153–4, 161, and The Lion and the Phoenix-IF, Middle Eastern Studies, 24 (1988), 193,304.
7. Allan Cunningham, ‘Philhellenes, Canning and Greek Independence’, Middle Eastern Studies, xiv (1978), 171–2, 174–7.
8. Paul W. Schroeder, Mettemichs Diplomacy at Its Zenith, 1830–1833 (Austin, 1962), pp. 60–73, a1 8-29- 8 Barbara Jelavich, A Century of Russian Foreign Policy, 1814–1914 (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 56.
9. Schroeder, ‘Containment Nineteenth-Century Style: How Russia Was Restrained’, South Atlantic Quarterly, 32 (1983), 23–24.
10. Schroeder, MettemicWs Diplomacy, pp. 174, 185–91.
11. Schroeder ‘Containment’, pp. 7, 9. See also, Jelavich, Century, p. 55.
12. Edward Ingram, The Beginning of the Great Game in Asia, 1828–1834 (Oxford, 1979), p. 11
13. C.K. Webster, Foreign Policy of Costlereagh, 1815-1822: Britain and the European Alliance (London, 1934), pp. 375–8, and Schroeder, Metternichs Diplomacy, p. 175–176.
14. Russia’s mission had been withdrawn in 1821.
15. Cunningham, ‘PhilheUenes’, p. 172. See also Dakin, Greek Struggle, pp. 173–5.
16. See, for example, correspondence concerning the king’s opposition to Canning’s re-entry into the cabinet, in Charles Duke Yonge, Life and Administration of Robert Banks, Second Earl of Liverpool, K.G. (London, 1868), iii. 194-5,199-203. See also Letters of King George IV, 1819–1830, ed. A. Aspinall (Cambridge, 1938), 3. 73–75.
17. Augustus Granville Stapleton, Political Life of the Right Honourable George Canning: From his Acceptance of the Seals of the Foreign Department, in September, 1899, to the Period of his Death, in August 1897 (London, 1831), ii. 429-30, and Canning to Granville, 15 Nov. 1824, Augustus Granville Stapleton, George Canning and His Times (London, 1859), p. 458.
18. Canning to Bagot, 20 Aug. 1823, George Canning and His Friends, ed. Captain Josceline Bagot (London, 1909), 2 197.
19. Schwartzbeig, ‘Lion-I’, p. 154, and ‘Lion-II p. 292.
20. Schwartzbeig, ‘Lion-I, pp. 155, 170.
21. Canning to Liverpool, 25 Oct. 1825, Some Official Correspondence of George Canning, ed. Edward J. Stapleton (London, 1887), 1. 317.
22. Cunningham, Philhellenes’, pp. 176–177.
23. Cunningham, ‘Philhellenes’, p. 179. To avoid confusion, I will hereafter refer to the foreign secretary as ‘Canning’ and to his cousin as ‘Stratford.
24. A.G. Stapleton, Political Life, i. 900-1; ibid., ii. 495; A.G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, p. 456, and M.S. Anderson, Eastern Question, 1774-1923: A Study in International Relations (London, 1968), p. 58.
25. Schwartzberg, ‘Lion-P, p. 154. Cf. A.G. Stapleton, Political Life, ii. 411-19; C.W. Crawley, The Question of Greek Independence: A Study of British Policy in the Near East, 1821–1833 (New York, 1973), pp. 77, 81-9; and Rolo, George Conning, pp. 909, 945, 960–3. On the elusive meaning of the term ‘balance of power’, see Ernest B. Haas, The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concoept, or Propaganda?’, World Politics, v (1953)5 449–77, and Paul W. Schroeder, The Nineteenth Century System: Balance of Power or Political Equilibrium?’, Review of International Studies, xv (1989), 135–53. For our purposes, the term ‘balance of power’ will be subsequently used to indicate the principle invoked in the interest of checking Russian expansion.
26. Cunningham, ‘Philhellenes’, pp. 176–177.
27. Canning to Granville, 11 March 1825, Official Correspondence, ed. EJ. Stapleton, L 258–259.
28. See, for example, Dakin, Greek Struggle, p. 176.
29. Crawley, Question, p. 35.
30. A.G. Stapleton, Political Life, L 200, and Canning to Liverpool, 16 Nov. 1824, Official Correspondence, ed. E.J. Stapleton, 1. 197.
31. Princess Lieven to Mettemich, 27 Jan. 1825, Private Letters of Princess Lieven to Prince Mettemich, 1820–1836, ed. Peter Quennell (London, 1937), pp. 281–2. Canning had been alarmed enough to consider a secret agreement with Metter-nich on a joint strategy for the conference, but Wellington had discouraged him. See Wellington’s correspondence with Canning in Wellington, Despatches, 2. 395-400-
32. Cunningham, ‘Philhellenes p. 171.
33. Ministerstvo inostrannykh del SSSR: Vneshnaia politika rossii XIX i nachala XX veka (Series II, Moscow, 1974–85), vi. 184–5, hereaftec VPR. All dates listed for the Russian correspondence are New Style.
34. Cunningham, ThUhellencs, p. 172.
35. Official Correspondence, ed. EJ. Stapleton, 1. 303–305.
36. Seton-Watson, Britain in Europe, pp. 104–5. As much as the author praises Canning and reproaches Canning's immediate successors for their ‘negation and hesitation’, he allows with no apparent irony that the developments over the summer ‘all forced [Canning] in the same direction.
37. Temperley, Princess Lieven and the Protocol of 4 April 1826’, English Historical Review, 34 (1994), 63, and Canning to Granville, 19 April 1895, A.G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, pp. 460–9, 464–465.
38. Gf. Schwartzberg, Lion-I, p. 158.
39. A.G. Stapleton’s comments on the rift between the tsar and Mettemich are in Political Life, iL 469–3. Canning’s letter, 13 Aug. 1895, to Granville is in Official Correspondence, ed. E.J. Stapleton, i. 285 (italics added).
40. Instructions to Stratford, 12 Oct. 1825, Wellington, Despatches, 2 534–535.
41. Cf. Anderson, Eastern Question, p. 62. 45 Patricia Kennedy Grimsted, The Foreign Ministers of Alexander: I: Political Attitudes and the Conduct of Russian Diplomacy, 1801–1835 (Berkeley, 1969), P- 350-
42. Stwianley Lane-Poole, Life of the Right Honourable Stratford Canning Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe K.G. G.CM. D.C.L. LL.D. : From his Memoires and Private and Official Papers (London, 1888), i. 386, and Instructions to Stratford, 12 Oct. 1825, Wellington, Despatches, 2. 535.
43. Grimsted, Foreign Ministers, pp. 211–13. Gf. pp. 197–8.
44. Jelavich, Century, p. 72.
45. Grimsted, Foreign Ministers, p. 270.
46. Harold N. Ingle, Nesselrode and the Russian Rapprochement with Britain, 1836–1844 (Berkeley, 1976), p. 4.
47. Nesselrode to Lieven, 14 June 1825, VPR, II. vi. 184–5.
48. Ingle, Nesselrode, pp 19, 21, 24(11. 3), 37. 52 Cf. Grimsted, Foreign Ministers, pp. 270–1, 284.
49. Lieven to Nesselrode, 30 Oct. 1825, VPR, II. vi. 385–6. See also Canning to Liveipool, 35 Oct. 1835, Official Correspondence, ed. E.J. Stapleton, 1. 317.
50. Temperley, ‘Princess Lieven and the Protocol’, p. 62.
51. Lieven to Nesselrode, 16 Dec. 1835, VPR, II. vi. 303, 305. 59 Temperiey, Foreign Policy, p. 348.
52. Temperley, Foreign Policy, p. 350, and Rolo, George Canning, p. 343.
53. Temperiey, Foreign Policy, pp. 349–50, and ‘Queries’ to Sir George Cock burn, Official Correspondence, ed. E.J. Stapleton, i. 321–2. Although the naval inquiry is undated, Stapleton asserts that it ‘may be fairly placed in November’. This claim is not disputed in any of the secondary sources.
54. Canning to Granville, 31 oct. 1835, Official Correspondence, ed. E.J. Stapleton, 1. 318.
55. Canning to Stratford, 9 Jan. 1826, Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, 1. 395.
56. Schwartzberg, Lion-I’, p. 162, and Dakin, Greek Struggle, p. 176.
57. A.G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, pp. 471-472.
58. Canning to Stratford, 10 Feb. 1826, Wellington, Despatches, 3. 105–6.
59. Cf. Schwartzberg, Lion-V, p. 164.
60. Instructions to Wellington, 10 Feb. 1826, Wellington, Despatches, iii. 92. 73 Ingle, Nesselrode, p. 26.
61. Memo (Zapiska) to Nicholas I, 28 Feb. 1826, VPR, II. 6. 397.
62. Cf. Grimsted, Foreign Ministers, pp. 271, 277.
63. Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, i. 396, and Stratford to Canning, 14 Jan. 1826, Wellington, Despatches, iii. 126.
64. Wellington to Canning, 4 March 1826, and ‘Projet de note k remettre par Monsieur de Minciacky k la Porte Ottomane’, Wellington, Despatches iii. 174-9,233-6.
65. Temperley, Foreign Policy, p. 515.
66. Schwartzberg, ‘Lion-I, p. 306.
67. Temperley, Foreign Policy, p. 355; Schwartzberg: Tion-H, p. 305, and Lian-I pp. 154, 164–71.
68. Canning to Granville, 15 April 1856, A.G. Stapleton, George Canning and His Times, p. 473.
69. Instructions to Wellington, 10 Feb. 1836, Wellington, Despatches, in. 88. Cf. Schwartzbeig, ‘Lion-II’, p. 304, who suggests that, due to Canning’s political rivalry with Wellington, his communications to the duke are unreliable indicators of his own thinking.
70. Unpublished Diary and Political Sketches of Princess Lieven together with Some of Her Letters, ed. Harold Temperley (London, 1925), p. 113. Cf. Temperley, Foreign Policy, pp. 391, 515.
71. Memo to Nicholas I, 28 Feb. 1826, VPR, II. vi. 397.
72. Cannings shifting reaction to this leak exhibits his characteristic cycle of rationalization. Compare Cannings p. first letter of 8 May 1826 to Wellington with the second letter of the same date in Wellington, Despatches, iii. 323. Princess Lieven noted that Canning could also derive a touch of satisfaction after he considered the discomfort that the Anglo-Russian agreement would cause both Wellington and Mettemich. Princess Lieven to Mettemich, 26 April 1826, Private Letters of Princess Lieven, ed. Quennell, 302.
73. Canning to Stratford, 26 April 1826, Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, 1. 407.
74. Canning to Liverpool, 21 June 1826, and to Granville, 22 June and 1 July 1826, Official Correspondence, ed. EJ. Stapleton, ii 59, 61, 63.
75. Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, i. 403. See also Wellington’s reaction to Canning’s tactics in Wellington, Despatches, iiL 349, 350, 361–4, 378.
76. It is useful to recall in this context Canning’s naval inquiry of November 1825, in which he had been careful to specify, long before any discussion with the French on the matter, that the intervention envisioned would include France as well as the two flank powers. ‘Queries’ to Sir George Cockbum (undated), Official Correspandence, ed. E.J. Stapleton, i. 321–2.
77. Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, L 431.
78. Crawley, Question, p. 66.
79. Canning to Stratford, 5 Sept 1826, Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, 1. 430.
80. Schwartzberg, Tion-I, p. 168.
81. Lieven’s 37 Noy. 1826 report to Nesselrode is in VPR, II. vi. 661. His remarks to Canning are quoted in Crawley, Question, pp. 68–69 (emphasis in original).
82. Isambert, VIndependence Grecque, p. 288.
83. Lane-Doole, Life of Stratford Canning, L 432.
84. Ottenfels to Mettemich, 7 March 1827, and Nesselrode to Ribeaupierre, 23 Jan. 1827, quoted in Crawley, Question, pp. 73–74.
85. Ingram, Great Game, pp. 13, 50, 328.
86. Ingram, In Defence of British India: Great Britain in the Middle East, 7775–1843 (London, 1984) P. 153. See also Ingram, Great Game, p. 339.
87. Webster, Foreign Policy of Castlereagh, 1815–1833, pp. 350, 378–9.
88. Isambert, L’Independence Grecque, p. 290, and Temperley, Foreign Policy, p. 399.
89. Canning to Wellington, 19 March 1827, Wellington, Despatches, 3. 610.
90. F. De Martens, Recueil des T r ait is et Conventions Conclus par la Russie avec les Puissances Rtrangires (St. Petersburg, 1894–1900), 9. 353.
91. Wellington, Despatches, iv. 43-5, 47-9.
92. Crawley, Question, p. 75, n. 31.
93. Temperley, Foreign Policy, pp. 400–1, 601, and Wellington, Despatches, iv. 62. iv. 62.
94. The instructions are in Situation International de la Gr2ce [iSai-igiy): Recueil de Documents, ed. Karl Strupp (Zurich, n.d.), p. 16. See Woodhouse, Battle of Navarino, p. 51 on Admiral Sir Edward Codiington’s misgivings about the instructions.
95. Canning to Granville, 13 July 1837, quoted in Temperley, Foreign Policy, pp. 402-403.
96. Seton-Watson, Britain in Europe, p. 117.
97. Temperley, foreigner Policy, p. 403.
98. Crawley, Question, pp. 77, 81–82.
99. Schwartzberg, Lion-II, p. 293.
100. Temperley, Foreign Policy, pp. 350, 398.
101. Seton-Watson, Brjtain in Europe, p. 118.
102. Lane-Poole, Life of Stratford Canning, 1. 446–448.
103. Dakin, Greek Struggle, p. 183.
104. Temperley, Foreign Policy, p. 403. Cf. Schwartzberg, ‘Lion-IF, p. 296.
105. Seton-Watson, Britain in Europe, p. 119, and Temperley, quoted in Schwartzberg, ‘Lion-IP, p. 306.
106. Schroeder, ‘Containment’, pp. 2, 7, and Jelavich, Century, p. 55.
107. Schroeder, ‘Containment’, p. 10.
108. Ingram, Great Game, pp. 42,46,50.