IX Central Asia
Rise of British power in India—Rivalry of France—Aims of Napoleon—Russian influence in Central Asia—Its great extension after the Crimean War—And after the Berlin Congress—Possible points of attack on India—Constantinople the real aim of Russia’s Asiatic policy—Recent Russian annexations and railways in Central Asia—Reaction of Asiatic movements on the Balkan question—Dangerous condition of Austria—Possible future Russian advances in Asia—England’s true policy the construction of a speedy route to India by railway from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf—Alliance of England, France, Turkey, Austria, and Italy would effectively thwart Russian schemes.
I do not mean to detain my readers for any length of time upon this tedious subject which has been so often discussed. I shall sketch the policy of England and Russia in the region in question. However, it must not be forgotten that the subject is important, as it leads up to the great Pacific Question which will occupy European attention for many years to come.
The foundation of the British Empire in India dates from the Battle of Plassey, June 23, 1757, and Clive’s Second Governorship of the East India Company established the India administration on a firm basis.
Warren Hastings improved and properly organized the foundation laid by Clive, and Lord Cornwallis consolidated Bengal and the other chief states, and rendered them fairly secure.
Lord Wellesley was the first who felt fully convinced that England should be the permanent predominant Power in India, and he carried out this policy by extensive subsidiary alliances with native princes by which the states were placed under British protection.
It is said that this policy was suggested by “the great events that were taking place in Europe, where French ideas and French arms under the genius of Bonaparte were reducing kingdoms and states to provinces of an Empire.”94
Lord Minto first opened relations with the Punjaub, Afghanistan, and Persia. He was succeeded by Lord Moira, who saw that the British frontiers in India could never be secured till the natural barrier of the Himalayas and the sea were reached; while Lord Dalhousie proved a faithful follower and improver of this policy, and at last made India a completely organized state.
England’s Opponents in British India
The Portuguese ascendency in India was of short duration. It was followed by a keen rivalry between the English and French, the former eventually obtaining the precedence. This was owing to the naval superiority of the English in Indian seas, under the wise guidance of Chatham, supported by the skilful military and civil administration of Clive and Hastings.
In 1797–1798 Napoleon threatened to invade India from the north; first he threatened an attack from the Deccan, then in the latter part of the year he concluded an alliance with several Asiatic princes preparatory to another attack from the same quarter.
The Marquis Wellesley was at once sent out and landed in Madras, April 26, 1798. Affairs seemed critical. Napoleon was preparing for a great invasion of Egypt prior to a descent on India. Tippoo Sultan, in India, was raising troops, disciplined under French management, and strengthened by French help, commanded by Raymond. Rao Sindia (the Mahratta ruler), the Peshawar (Governor of Poonah), the Ameer of Afghanistan, and Holkar were all hostile to English interests in India, and threatened to plunge everything into war with the assistance of the French.
Wellesley plainly saw that a defensive policy was the best. Accordingly he made an alliance with some of the Mahratta powers to frustrate a French invasion from the north. He also strongly urged the English Home Government to take possession of the Cape of Good Hope, and the Isles of France and Bourbon, in order to cut off the sea route to India from France. This advice was followed by the English Government, who retained Malta, Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Ionian Islands by the provisions of the Congress of Vienna, 1815.
He then began to crush Tippoo Sultan and his allies, and by the brilliant victories of Assaye and Argaum brought them to his feet. Having conquered these Native states he now began to take measures to consolidate them. He allowed the princes to retain their titles, but subjected them to the English Power, which secured them from foreign aggression, and also let them have full liberty with regard to internal administration.
On his recall in 1805 a policy of non-interference was carried on by his successor, Lord Cornwallis.
During the Napoleonic European War, Lord Minto was Governor-General. Under his able administration the French Isles of Bourbon and Mauritius and the Dutch East Indian Islands were captured. He also sent political missions into Persia, Sindia, and Poonah to crush down the French influence and intrigue there.
Napoleon fell in 1815, and the most formidable opponent to British Indian interests disappeared.
Yet the Marquis of Hastings and his successors still carried out the same policy of annexation as had been in existence during the alarms of Napoleon, and the Indian frontiers have ever since been keenly watched and guarded from foreign attack. The second Mahratta War (1817–1819) and the first Burmese War (1824–1826) are instances of British watchfulness over the frontiers.
As was to be expected, Russia appeared on the scene in the place of France, and the drama of the Anglo-Russian struggle in Afghanistan was enacted in 1837.
For some time previously Russia had been gradually advancing into Central Asia. This movement started with Peter the Great, while Alexander I. arranged with Napoleon by the Treaty of Tilsit (1807) to annex whatever he pleased in Central Asia. Hence the Russian boast of Nicholas that “Russia has no boundary in Central Asia.” For some time, however, Turkish affairs occupied the Russian minds, and Asia was left untouched, while for twenty or thirty years after the fall of Napoleon, all the great countries were endeavouring to restore the balance of power in Europe. Then in 1830 Russia began to show her hand, and seized Jaxartes, and in 1837 the siege of Herat by the Persians (no doubt incited by the Russians), which is sometimes called the north-western gate of India, and the failure of negotiations with Dost Mohammed, who was backed by Russian influence, urged the English to take strong measures in order to protect India from Russian invasion, especially through the two Afghan Passes, the Bolon and Khyber.
The first English move was the sending of an expedition to Cabul, and its occupation in 1839. Its intention was to place a ruler over Afghanistan who should be under English influence. This was considered defensive policy.
In 1847 Lord Palmerston wrote to Lord John Russell the following:—
“The roads through Persia are good, and the Caspian gives additional facilities. From Astrabad through Afghanistan are very practicable military roads. A Russian force in occupation of Afghanistan might convert Afghanistan into the advanced post of Russia.”
The annexation of Sind (1843), Punjaub (1849), Oudh (1856), and the second Burmese War (1852), are all policies on the same lines.
Just at this period Russia was warmly engaged with Turkish affairs, and in 1853–1856 was employed in the Crimean War against England, France, and Turkey. She was beaten, and by the Treaty of Paris was driven back from the Danube, and forbidden to put a Russian fleet of any description in the Black Sea, and the fortifications of Sebastopol were dismantled. Thus a Russian advance on the Balkans and Armenia seemed then almost hopeless. Therefore she turned her attention to Central Asia, and vigorously carried out her plans for several years.
In 1864 the Russian forces captured Tchenken, in Turkestan, and she had advanced as far as the river Syr Daria. In 1865 she declared war with Bokhara, and captured Taskend, which was followed by the surrender of Khojind (1866).
In 1867 the province of Syr Adria was annexed, and in the same year Nicholas installed a Russian Government in Turkestan. In 1868 Samarcand was subjugated, and the Ameer of Bokhara was practically made a vassal of the Czar. In 1869 Krasnovodok, on the east coast of the Caspian, next fell a prey to Russian greed, and a fort was built there, and at present forms one of the Russian military outposts.
During and after the Franco-German War she was busily engaged in Central Asia, and still increased and extended her boundaries, until at length the Oxus was reached, and the Clarendon boundary in 1872 for a time stopped her roving footsteps. In 1873, however, the whole territory of the Khan of Khiva was drawn in, and the river Atrak was now the boundary with Persia. Zerafshan next fell before her, and now the Tian Shan mountains and the eastern part of Semipolatinsk formed the eastern boundary with China. Lastly, 1876 saw the annexation of Ferghana.
Let us now direct our attention to the English frontiers and territory, which she was trying to consolidate more firmly.
The Indian Mutiny of 1857 had led to the transferring of the Government of India from the East India Company to the Crown, and the reins of government from a Governor-General to a Viceroy (1858). The tour of the Prince of Wales through India, 1875–1876, had done a good deal of good in creating a friendly feeling with the natives, and he had met with a brilliant reception. This was the preliminary to Queen Victoria being proclaimed Empress of India in 1877.
The Russo-Turkish War (1878), the San Stefano Treaty, and the Congress of Berlin, produced a new phase in the Afghan question. The opposition of Austria to Russia at the Balkans, the defence of England in Asia Minor, both by the provisions of the Berlin Treaty, and the Anglo-Turkish Convention had frustrated the schemes of Russia in Europe; she therefore turned her undivided energies to her advance in Central Asia, with the object of dividing the attention and forces of the English between Asia Minor and the Afghan frontiers.
In 1880 the final conquest of the Turcomans along the northern frontier of Persia and the east coast of the Caspian facilitated her designs, and Askhabad was occupied. The dispute of the Kulja frontier with China was a winning move also in the eastern direction, also a part of Semipolatinsk was added, and fresh boundaries were made in the south-west of Ferghana towards the Chinese Empire, which measure caused England to adopt a defensive policy by the third Burmese War (1885).
In 1882 the Russo-Merv Convention was concluded, finally deciding the submission of the latter, while in 1884 “His Imperial Highness (of Russia) had determined to accept the allegiance of the Merv-Turcomans, and to send an officer to administer the government of that region.”95 The annexation of Merv gave Russia possession of the river Murghab, giving her an opportunity of having a waterway to Herat if needed.
This action compelled England to appoint a Commission to define the North-West frontier of Afghanistan (1885). England at this time was worried also with Egyptian affairs. Russia, notwithstanding, advanced and occupied Sarakhs and various other posts on the North-West frontier, all being strategically important. This aroused the English Government, who at once asked for a vote of credit of £11,000,000, and began to show such a determined front that Russia was compelled to make certain concessions.
However, at the conclusion of the negotiations it was found that Russia had pushed herself a considerable distance towards Herat, and had reached Ak Robat, while the railway to Samarcand was nearly finished. Thus Russia certainly scored a winning point, and, if desirous, could attack the Anglo-Indian frontier by three ways:
(1) By advancing towards Cabul from Bokhara across the Oxus.
(2) By marching towards Candahar viâ Herat by the Meshed line.
(3) By attacking the same place through the Attric Valley and Merv route.
The unsettled condition of the boundary between the Oxus and the Heri Rud, and particularly the Upper Oxus, will undoubtedly prove a source of discord between Russia and England for many years to come.
In spite of the strenuous efforts of Russia in advancing, and extending her power and boundaries in Central Asia, yet her great and absorbing thought was not revealed openly to the watchful eyes of European Powers, viz., to have full control of Constantinople, the key to the Black Sea, and by obtaining this to command the Mediterranean and be paramount in Western Europe.
A favourite manœuvre in military operations is to try and divert an opponent’s eyes from the true point of attack, and by so doing to weaken the opposition at that point.
As we have casually mentioned before, the elder Pitt “conquered America in Germany,” and afterwards when Charles III. of Spain concluded a secret Treaty known as the (third) “Family compact” with France, intending really to make war upon England, Chatham “determined to attack without delay the Havannah and Philippine Islands.”
Again, as another illustration of the above statement, we saw that Napoleon’s Egyptian expedition and his invasion of Russia were really underhand blows at England.
But why did he not attack America or Ireland? Surely if he had sailed directly from Brest, 1798, to either of the above places, instead of going to Egypt as he did, with the combined fleets of France, Spain, and Holland, he would have dealt a much deadlier blow at British power.
Let us examine the policy of Russia which has caused me to make the above statement.
Catherine II. had resolved to reach Constantinople through the Balkan Peninsula. Pitt withstood this resolution by supporting the Ottoman Empire, together with Austria, as conducive to the interests of both nations. Austria, therefore, became an enemy of Russia.
Alexander I., therefore, seeing the united interests of England, France, Austria, and Turkey allied against him, changed his front and determined to reach Constantinople along the Caucasian route. He plainly saw that by this manœuvre he would compel England and France to defend the Caucasus.
At the beginning of his career the Czar Nicholas followed the same plans as his predecessor, but carried them out much more firmly; he increased his field of operations by invading Persia, 1826–1828, and occupied Armenia.
By this measure, no doubt, he expected to attract either England or France, perhaps both of them, to the Caucasian Question, thereby weakening the power of their alliance in the Balkans. France certainly would feel considerable uneasiness for the Holy Places which had a special charm for her Catholic followers. England would also have felt qualms, seeing that if Russia occupied Persia, and made it an outpost for attacking India through Afghanistan she would have considerable trouble in defending her possession. However, this scheme did not prove so effective as Nicholas wished, for it did not divide the attention of England and France in the Balkans.
Russia, therefore, perceiving this, followed the Napoleonic scheme of a direct attack on India with the help of several Asiatic states. In 1830 she first appeared in Central Asia and soon subjugated Persia and induced the Shah to occupy Herat, 1837. Alarmed at this, the whole energy of England was directed towards Afghanistan, and special preparations, which lasted for a quarter of a century, were made to defend an attack from that quarter. The home affairs of England, together with these alarming schemes of Russia with regard to India, determined the Wellington Ministry to advocate non-interference in Balkan affairs.
Russia also removed French opposition from the Balkans to Syria by stirring up quarrels between the Greek and Latin Churches in Jerusalem. In addition to this, as I have shown, Nicholas separated England and France by his diplomatic tact.
Thus Turkey was left alone with Austria in the Balkans. Nicholas then, feeling confident of success, at once threatened Constantinople by taking the steps which led to the Crimean War. He, however, overreached himself, and was beaten, as we have seen, by the allied armies of England, France, and Turkey.
Immediately after the Crimean War Russia again stretched out her hands on Persia as she had done in 1837. Lord Palmerston, however, closed them by declaring war with the same country. “We are beginning,” wrote Lord Palmerston, “to repel the first openings of trenches against India by Russia, and whatever difficulties Ferokh may make about Afghanistan we may be sure that Russia is his prompt and secret backer.”96
In 1857 the peace of Paris was concluded by which the Shah renounced all claim over Herat and Afghanistan. This was a clever political stroke against a Russian attack on India.
In 1849 Lord Palmerston wrote:—
“Persia must, I (Lord Palmerston) fear, now be looked on as an advanced post for Russia whenever she chooses to make use of it. She will command it either by overpowering force or by bribing the state by prospect of acquisition in Afghanistan.”
However, ultimately the same policy was again resorted to by the Czar to worry England in Central Asia. Again the Russians advanced into Central Asia towards the Indian frontier and extended their borders both south and east with great celerity.
But a fresh complication arose extremely favourable for Russian plots. The Franco-German War (1870) seemed to be an introduction to the accomplishment of her wishes. France was miserably defeated, while the hands of Germany were fully tied up with Alsace and Lorraine. Two formidable opponents to Russian arms were therefore placed hors de combat. England and Austria were thus the only powers left for the defence of Constantinople. Austria had previously been weakened by a war with Prussia. It therefore seemed that England was the only strong supporter of the Ottoman Empire, and Russia determined to conquer Turkey in Central Asia, so she conquered and annexed Central Asia as far as possible until her boundaries reached Afghanistan and the Chinese Empire in 1874. Being naturally alarmed at these encroachments, England again was obliged to devote all her energies to the Indian and Afghan frontiers, and engaged in the Afghan War.
Russia now saw that she was in a better position with regard to Turkey than she had been before the Crimean War, for although Turkey was still assisted by Austria, yet the latter had not fully recovered from the Prusso-Austrian War. Again France was in a convulsed state, while England was harassed with Afghan affairs. A general alliance of the Mediterranean Powers seemed therefore impossible.
Russia, therefore, boldly declared war in 1878, and marched to the gates of Constantinople, and eventually concluded the San Stefano Treaty. This aroused both England and Austria, and, owing to their warlike attitude, the Berlin Congress was convened, and Russia again found her hands withheld from the Turkish metropolis, although she succeeded in definitely dividing the attention of England and Austria in the Balkans by turning English eyes towards Asia Minor. Her success was still greater in obtaining the outlet of the Danube and the arsenal of Batoum in the Black Sea.
Glancing, then, at the situation generally, one can perceive that Russia saw that the English opposition in Asia Minor would prove formidable, but she did not think that the Austrian defence of the Balkans would turn out so dangerous to her hopes. Her reasons for thinking this were plain. England at this crisis was a nation of the first magnitude, both in strength and wealth, and if only she (England) had fortified and occupied Cyprus as she ought to have done, she would have proved a valuable ally to Turkey, and would also have commanded the Ægean Sea. Russia saw that the most advantageous policy would be to distract England’s attention both from Cyprus and Asia Minor. To accomplish this she for the third time started to conquer Turkey through Central Asia.
In 1878 she concluded a secret agreement with Persia by which the territory down to Sarakhs from the Russian frontier was ceded, to her. Her influence in Khorasan was increasing day by day, and especially so in Meshed, owing to the skill and tact of M. Vlassoff, the Russian Consul-General in that district. India was again threatened by her, and Herat approached. Her boundaries were extended into the Chinese dominions, and great uneasiness was caused in England concerning the boundary question of the Oxus.
The most effective and important step, however, taken by Russia for the accomplishment of her schemes, was the construction of the Caspian-Samarcand Railway. It was started in 1881 with the primary object of facilitating the war operations of General Skobeloff for the reduction of the Tekkes. Lord Hartington called General Annenkoff, the promoter of the railway, “a foolish fellow.” However, Samarcand was reached in 1885, during the time that an Anglo-Russian war was threatening about the Murghab question. Thus a general military97 communication of Russia with Asia was established. She had three ways of sending troops and materials in the direction of the eastern shores of the Caspian:—
(1) From St. Petersburg to Saratoff on the Volga, viâ Moscow, by railway, from there to Astrakhan by steamboat on the river, and from the latter place to Krasnovodsk or Uzan Ada.
(2) From St. Petersburg to Voladis Caucase per railway, from thence to Tiflis by post road (an eighteen hours’ journey), from Tiflis to Baku by railway, and from there to Uzan Ada.
(3) From Odessa or the Crimea to Poti on the eastern Black Sea coast by steam, from Poti to Baku, and from there to Uzan Ada.
The water traffic across the Caspian, from its different ports is carried on by fifteen ships of the Caucasus and Mercury Company. They are in receipt of a large annual subsidy from the state for the conveyance of mails and troops, and also for the use of their boats for transport in case of war. One of these fifteen steamers sails from Baku to Uzan Ada twice a week.98
The Trans-Caucasian Railway starts from the latter place, running east and afterwards north-east to Merv. From there it proceeds in the same direction, crossing the Oxus, passing Bokhara, and eventually terminates at Samarcand—a distance altogether of about nine hundred miles.
The work of laying the rails was done by two battalions of Russian soldiers (five hundred each) and also by five thousand native labourers, whose wage was threepence a day. Wages have since been increased to sixpence a day. From the amount expended in labour we can see that the railway expense did not prove inordinately dear, viz., 30,000,000 roubles, including also the cost of the Siberian Railway, especially as the Russian estimate at first was 60,000,000 roubles. The average rate of laying the rails was exceedingly rapid, viz., four or five miles a day.
There are now one hundred and four locomotives and one thousand two hundred wagons, fifteen new locomotives have lately been ordered, six new passenger wagons, and eighty cistern cars. A commission has recently reported in favour of a further grant to General Annenkoff of 8,000,000 roubles.99
This line has opened a wide field for trade with Central Asia. The traffic in 1888 alone was about £3,000,000, and General Annenkoff announced that the net profit of the railway in 1888 amounted to about £80,000, that 2,000,000 pods of cotton had been conveyed by it during the same year, and that in 1889 a total of 4,000,000 pods was anticipated.100
Viewing from a political and strategical point of view this railway has been an even more important factor. The northern frontier of Persia by its means has been placed completely at the mercy of Russia, and by it she was enabled to consolidate her new Asiatic territories which she had annexed and conquered, Russian troops were able to be transported to the Afghan frontier at a very short notice from all parts of Russia.
Without doubt the construction of the Trans-Caspian Railway and its threatening results have proved of immense value for the success of Russia. By its means England was induced to turn her attention from Asia Minor to Indian affairs. This resulted in embroiling England with the second Afghan War, compelled her to appoint a boundary commission, and plunged her into the third Burmese War. All these catastrophes compelled her to neglect her Anglo-Turkish Convention promises—a result aimed at by her Russian friends(?)
Even in Persia English influence is at a discount, and proportionately Russian influence is rising. The appointment of Sir H. D. Wolff, a clever diplomatist, to the Teheran Court, and the brilliant reception accorded to the Shah during his recent visit by the English, were too late to do any good. It may do good, and it may not.
Let us now see what effect upon Austria the Russo-Asiatic policy had.
Firstly, Austria had been left alone to cope with Russia in the Balkans, and she was practicably left to defend the Ottoman Empire. France and Germany were practicably disarmed, and were unable materially, to assist Turkey against Russia. England, as we have seen before, was occupied elsewhere, and had practically deserted Asia Minor, although this might be altered if only she would station troops at Cyprus or somewhere near at hand. Austria did not wish for a naval alliance only, which she considered practically useless in event of war, but she wanted a complete alliance. An alliance between the two Powers failed at the Berlin Congress, and also in October, 1886.
Thus Russia obtained her desires in dividing the two Powers in Europe and Asia, and prevented a general alliance by threatening Central Asia.
Certainly Austria had performed her Balkan duty well, although she was clearly overweighted, and the result was internal exhaustion, financial difficulties, social discontent, the result of pecuniary troubles.101
Of all the great European cities, the socialists are at the present moment strongest in Vienna. An able political writer of the present day has said: “The Dualism of the Monarchy (Austria-Hungary) is very nearly dead, and if Austria is to exist at all she must rapidly become tripartite, and ultimately resolve herself into a somewhat loose confederation.”102
These domestic difficulties have caused her to gradually lose her influence in the Balkans, and the abdication of King Milan of Servia has proved a still more serious blow to her power in that quarter.
It seems to me impolitic for Russia to go to war with the five million Magyars. It would be better to influence Austria so as to increase her internal discords and foster them by skilful diplomacy if she wished to attain her objects. For instance, to demonstrate against the accession of Prince Ferdinand to the Bulgarian throne, to oppose the Bulgarian loans, and give pecuniary help herself to immigrants from Montenegro to Servia.
The consequence would be that Austria could not possibly remain peaceful when inhabited by bitter anti-Russian Magyars. She would have to make war preparations and spend money, and would thus increase her financial difficulties, and the result would be the breaking down of the Dual Monarchy, “the personal union of fifty-six states,” a mixture of races, religions, and tongues.
A strong and compact confederation can only be obtained by sound financial dealings. Austria once broken down by internal discord, then Constantinople and the Balkans would be Russian possessions.
If Russia is desirous of accomplishing her ends, her great aim must be to prevent any of the great Powers from making an alliance with Austria. Owing to the Franco-Russian alliance, Russia is quite powerful enough to hinder any effective alliance with Germany.
With regard to an alliance with England, there is one strong barrier which, if kept up, will always prevent such a coalition, viz., the Trans-Caspian Railway.
The following ideas would still further separate the two Powers:—
(1) The extension of the railway from Samarcand to Kokan, because from Kokan Russia can threaten to push on her border to Eastern Turkestan, and move southward to Tibet, and from there will be able to threaten the territory of Cashmere, which are the boundaries at present unsettled.
(2) An extension of railway from Samarcand to Tashkend, which is contemplated, and when completed will connect Siberia from a military point of view. It can be also taken north-west, along the north-eastern shore of the Aral Sea, and may be connected with the parent line at Orenburg, and connected with Russia and Central Asia for military purposes.
(3) To construct a line from Mertvi, or Dead Bay, on the Caspian, to the western shore of the Sea of Aral. This would prove another quick mode of transit, particularly from St. Petersburg and Moscow to Kilif, on the Oxus, and also to Samarcand. At present steamers ply on the Amu Daria from the Aral Sea southwards as far as Kilif on the northern boundary of Afghanistan.
These steamers are 20 feet broad, 150 feet long, and are of 500–horse power, travelling 16 miles an hour, and are capable of conveying 300 soldiers and 20 officers.
(4) To throw off a branch line from Bokhara to Kilif, and from there to Balkh.
(5) Two branch lines (a) from Merv to Herat, viâ Penjdeh; (b) from Merv to Sarakhs, viâ Chacha, and still further to Kuhsan, in the direction of Herat.
(6) By entering the Persian dominion from the present northern boundary to occupy Meshed, proceeding thence to Kuhsan to meet the line from Sarakhs.
In consequence of the approaching departure for Persia of M. de Buelzoff, the newly-appointed minister at Teheran, most of the Russian newspapers warmly advocated the immediate construction of a line from the northern part of Persia.
(7) An extension of railway from Meshed through Khorasan and Serstan southwards as far as Nasirabad, and eventually to get a port on the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean.
Once let Russia get the long-wished-for outlet in the southern seas, and then she will be still more able to strike another blow against English influence. There is not the least doubt that Persian affairs will occupy the attention of England for some years to come.
All these extensions will, if carried out, mean a Russian invasion all along the Hindostan frontier, and thus would further indirectly her European aspiration.
On the other hand, looking from an English point of view, we can suggest a scheme of frustration by means of sound and politic administration.
For instance, at present large railways start from Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, traversing Delhi and Lahore, terminating at Peshawar; from Lahore the line runs to Kurrachee, on the Arabian Sea, and a branch line goes north-west from Sakkar to Pishin, viâ Quetta. Thus we see the English defence of her Indian frontier is fairly well looked after, although a “forward” policy of railway construction in India may, and no doubt will, be advantageous to English defence and commerce.
England is certainly heavily handicapped owing to the want of a short and safe communication with India. The Suez Canal is not safe enough, both the Canadian Railway and the Cape of Good Hope routes are long, therefore it is a matter of great moment that she should have a safe and quick route by which she might despatch troops and materials with celerity.
The following route, if carried out, would prove of the very greatest advantage to England. First, the occupation of the Karrack Island in the Persian Gulf, which is in every respect suitable for a military station, having good water and being healthy. It is with truth often termed the key of the Persian Gulf.
Secondly, a railway should be constructed from Scandarum, on the Mediterranean, to Bussorah, on the Persian Gulf, through the Euphrates Valley—a saving of from seven hundred to one thousand miles, and of nearly four days.
If an Afghan war arose, troops could be landed at Kurrachee instead of Bombay, and time would be gained and the monsoon also avoided. Troops could be forwarded at very short notice from Malta to Pishin and Peshawar, with almost equal speed to that with which Russia can collect troops in Central Asia.
If once opened, the trade of Central Asia, India, and China would find its way by this route, and open out Persian and Indian relations with Europe as much as the Suez Canal103 did after its opening; Persia would be considerably strengthened. It would also, together with the military occupation of Karrack and Cyprus (if done properly), give a guarantee to both India and Persia against Russian attacks.
The distance from Scandarum to Bussorah is only seven hundred miles, and would be safe against attacks, being protected by the double rivers, the Euphrates and Tigris, for most of its course. Its cost would be estimated at £9,000,000, which might easily be raised in the London market. Also if the Mudinia Aksu line be extended to Scandarum, viâ Kiniah or the Scutari-Ismid line to Aleppo, through Angora, Kaisariyeh, and Abbiston, other beneficial effects may be produced. In the latter case it amounts, and is practically similar, to an extension of the Eastern Railway to the Persian Gulf, which starts from Paris, and passes Vienna, Belgrade, Sophia, Adrianople, terminating at Constantinople. So a direct land route could be obtained from Bussorah to Calais or Rotterdam if a bridge was constructed over the Bosphorus.
As I have already shown in chapter VIII., the construction of the Euphrates Railway would avoid a Franco-English conflict of interests in Egypt to a certain extent, and a dual control would be established; thus a strong and effective alliance would ensue, caused by mutual interests, and England would be able thereby to withdraw her troops from Egypt, and devote them to the defence of Asia Minor. Thus a firm alliance between England and Turkey would follow, and would prevent a Mahommedhan rebellion in India against England, the Sultan being looked upon as the Mahommedhan Pope.
England will also be able to call Indian troops to her assistance in Asia Minor. It will follow that as a larger number of troops and a better communication is obtained in Asia Minor, Austria would be quite willing to ally herself with England, instead of refusing, as she had done twice before, the English power at sea being only of little use. England and Austria therefore can not only jointly support Turkey, but also England can “come to the assistance of Austria in Europe, and Austria make common cause with England in the event of Turkey being attacked in Asia Minor.”
Having a French, Austrian, and Turkish alliance, England can send her home troops both to India and Asia Minor by the Eastern Railway in a very short space of time, and can strengthen both countries and also help in the Balkans if required, and a firm and lasting alliance would be made.
Why cannot Italy join this alliance? It is a matter of necessity and advantage, both geographically and strategically, to do so, and if an alliance in Southern Europe could thus be made, the safety of the Balkans, Asia Minor, Persia, and Afghanistan might be assured, even if Germany joined Russia, and the lofty hopes of Russia would be dashed to the ground.
The End
8.
| In 1887. | Imports in value from | Exports in value to |
|---|---|---|
| Great Britain | 25,666,477 tael | 16,482,809 tael. |
| Hong Kong | 57,761,039 tael | 31,393,189 tael. |
| India | 5,537,375 tael | 797,579 tael. |
| Continent of Europe (without Russia) | 2,587,548 tael | 11,545,406 tael. |
The average value of the Haikwan tael during 1887 was 4s. 10¼d. (“The Statesman’s Year-book,” 1889.)
26.
| The Russian frontier has been advanced toward Berlin, Dresden, Munich, Vienna, and Paris— | about 700 miles |
| Towards Constantinople | about 500 miles |
| Towards Stockholm | about 630 miles |
| Towards Teheran | about 1000 miles |
| Towards Peshawar | about 1300 miles |
| Regular army | 1,766,278 |
| Cossack troops | 145,325 |
| Irregular troops | 6,331 |
| ——— | |
| Total | 1,917,934 |
| ——— |
By adding to these figures, the effective troops not levied in time of peace, say 100,000 men, we reach an effective of 2,000,000 for the war footing. The Russian militia, which may be called out in times of war, amounts to 3,000,000 men” (Harper’s Magazine, January, 1890), “The Russian Army” by a Russian General.
UNWIN BROTHERS,
CHILWORTH AND LONDON.
St. Nicholas Magazine
FOR YOUNG FOLKS.
Edited by Mrs. Mary Mapes Dodge.
Price 1s. Monthly.
With the beginning of the Seventeenth Volume (November, 1889) ST. NICHOLAS will be enlarged by the addition of eight or more pages to each number, and the Magazine will be printed in a new and clearer-faced type. During the year there will be four important Serial Stories by well-known authors, and also Notable Papers on Athletics and Outdoor Sports, as well as a multitude of Occasional Papers, Stories, Illustrated Articles of Character and Adventure, Suggestive of Talks on Natural History, Scientific Subjects, &c. The price will remain the same.
The Century
ILLUSTRATED MONTHLY MAGAZINE.
Price 1s. 4d. Monthly.
FOR 1889–90,
Will include among other features:—
The Autobiography of Joseph Jefferson (“Rip Van Winkle”); “Friend Olivia,” a Serial Story by Mrs. Barr, Author of “Jan Vedder’s Wife,” &c.; “The Merry Chanter,” in Four Parts, by Frank R. Stockton; Letters from Japan, by John La Farge; and The Gold Hunters of California, being Personal Narratives of most Romantic Interest.
Besides the above Special Features there will be valuable Contributions in Prose and Verse by Mark Twain, Edmund Gosse, H. H. Boyesen, Henry James, Edw. Eggleston, &c., &c.
The Century Dictionary.
In 24 Monthly Parts, Price 10s. 6d. each.
Part I. Now Ready.
When completed the work will form Six Volumes, price £2 2s. each.
A LIBRARY IN ONE BOOK.
Purchasers of this Dictionary will obtain a reference library which does away with a great number of other books. They will have—
1. A COMPLETE DEFINING DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH WORDS. 2. A DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGIES, UNEQUALLED BY ANY WORK YET PUBLISHED. 3. A STANDARD DICTIONARY OF SPELLING AND PRONUNCIATION. 4. AN ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF GENERAL INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY RICH IN HISTORICAL MATERIAL. 5. A STANDARD DICTIONARY OF MECHANICAL TERMS. 6. A COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE PRACTICAL ARTS AND TRADES, COMMERCE, FINANCE, ETC. 7. A DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC TERMS, GIVING THE RESULT OF THE VERY LATEST THOUGHT IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE, AS BIOLOGY, BOTANY, ZOOLOGY, MINERALOGY, PHYSICS, ETC. 8. A DICTIONARY OF MEDICINE, SURGERY, PHYSIOLOGY, ANATOMY, ETC. 9. A DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS. 10. A DICTIONARY OF ART AND ARCHÆOLOGY, MYTHOLOGY, SCULPTURE, MUSIC, ETC., EXQUISITELY ILLUSTRATED. 11. A LAW DICTIONARY. 12. A STANDARD REFERENCE BOOK OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND PHILOLOGY. 13. A DICTIONARY OF SYNONYMS. 14. A TREASURY OF QUOTATIONS.
For Terms and Prospectuses apply to
T. FISHER UNWIN, 11, Paternoster Buildings, Paternoster Square, London, E.C.
Catalogue of Select Books in Belles Lettres, History, Biography, Theology, Travel, Miscellaneous, and Books for Children.
Belles Lettres
The Letters of Horace Walpole. Selected and Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by Charles Duke Yonge, M.A. Portraits and Illustrations. Limited Edition of 750 copies in Two Vols., medium 8vo., cloth, 32s.
The present selection comprises the more valuable portion of the famous letters to Thomas Gray the poet, Sir Horace Mann, and George Montagu, and is designed chiefly for those who, while lacking leisure to attack the bulk of the correspondence, may welcome the opportunity of becoming acquainted with “certainly the best letter-writer in the English language” (vide Sir Walter Scott).
“This is an extremely fascinating book, and it is surprising that several years should have elapsed before it was brought out in an English dress. However, we have lost nothing by waiting.”—Times.
“Dr. Martin has produced an interesting account of old Chelsea, and he has been well seconded by his coadjutor.”—Athenæum.
“If imagination and style constitute the true elixir of literary life, Dr. Garnett’s ‘Twilight of the Gods’ should live.”—British Weekly.
Contents.—I. The Coming of the Friars.—II. Village Life in Norfolk Six Hundred Years ago.—III. Daily Life in a Mediæval Monastery.—IV. and V. The Black Death in East Anglia.—VI. The Building-up of a University.—VII. The Prophet of Walnut-tree Walk.
“A volume which is, to our minds, one of the most delightful ever published in English.”—Spectator.
“Miss Levy’s story is bright and fresh; there is a dash of originality in the idea and plenty of spirit in its execution.”—Athenæum.
“Mr. Garnett’s dialogue is often quite as good as his description, and in description he is singularly happy. The mystery of London streets by night is powerfully suggested, and the realistic force of his night-pieces is enhanced by the vague and Schumann-like sentiment that pervades them.”—Saturday Review.
“It is the fruit, as every page testifies, of singularly wide reading and independent thought, and the style combines with much picturesqueness a certain largeness of volume, that reminds us more of our earlier writers than those of our own time.”—Contemporary Review.
“These studies show a wide range of knowledge of the subject, precise investigation, abundant power of illustration, and hearty enthusiasm.... The style of writing is cultivated, neatly adjusted, and markedly clever.”—Saturday Review.
“This way of conveying ideas is very fascinating, and has an effect of creating activity in the reader’s mind which no other mode can equal. From first to last there is a continuous and delightful stimulation of thought.”—Academy.
“To discuss it properly would require more space than a single number of ‘The Academy’ could afford.”—Academy.
“Est agréable à lire et fait penser.”—Revue des deux Mondes.
“The dialogues are written with... an intellectual courage which shrinks from no logical conclusion.”—Scotsman.
“A graceful little sketch.... Drawn with full insight into the period described.”—Spectator.
“The best work of its kind in English.”—Oxford Magazine.
The Fleet: Its River, Prison, and Marriages. By John Ashton, Author of “Social Life in the Reign of Queen Anne,” &c. With 70 Drawings by the Author from Original Pictures. Second and Cheaper Edition, cloth, 7s. 6d.
“The result (of the reproduction of the wood blocks) is as creditable to his artistic, as the text is to his literary, ability.”—Guardian.
“The book is one continued source of pleasure and interest, and opens up a wide field for speculation and comment, and many of us will look upon it as an important contribution to contemporary history, not easily available to others than close students.”—Antiquary.
“In every respect this comely volume is a notable addition to the shelf devoted to folk-lore... and the pictures in photogravure nobly interpret the text”—Critic.
“Charming from beginning to end.... Miss Zimmern deserves all credit for her courage in attempting the task, and for her marvellous success in carrying it out.”—Saturday Review.
“A strain of sadness runs through the delicate thought and fancy of the Queen of Roumania. Her popularity as an author is already great in Germany, and this little work will win her a place in many English hearts.”—Standard.
“There are six essays in this compact and well-printed volume. They are all written with great thoroughness, and the interest of each one is admirably sustained throughout.”—Freeman’s Journal.
The Temple: Sacred Poems and Private Ejaculations. By Mr. George Herbert. New and fourth edition, with Introductory Essay by J. Henry Shorthouse. Small crown, sheep, 5s.
A fac-simile reprint of the Original Edition of 1633.
“This charming reprint has a fresh value added to it by the Introductory Essay of the Author of ‘John Inglesant.’”—Academy.
“The romantic ballads have grace, movement, passion and strength.”—Spectator.
“Marked by sweetness of melody and truth of colour.”—Academy.
“His essays are always shrewd and readable. His criticisms on the critics are enjoyable for the irony (conscious or unconscious) that is in them; and the book will not fail to please lovers of literature and literary history, and to prove suggestive to the critical.”—Scotsman.
“One of the lightest and brightest writers of vers de société.”—St. James’s Gazette.
“This is a singularly brilliant, delicate and fascinating sketch—one of the most skilful pieces of literary workmanship we have seen for a long time.... Mrs. Sidgwick is a writer of very unusual equipment, power and promise.”—British Weekly.
Amos Kilbright: His Adscititious Adventures. With other Stories. By Frank R. Stockton. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“Mr. Stockton is the quaintest of living humorists.”—Academy.
History.
Battles and Leaders of the American Civil War. An Authoritative History, written by Distinguished Participants on both sides. Edited by Robert U. Johnson and Clarence C. Buel, of the Editorial Staff of “The Century Magazine.” Four Volumes, Royal 8vo., elegantly bound, £5 5s.
Lord Wolseley, in writing a series of articles in the North American Review on this work, says: “The Century Company has, in my judgment, done a great service to the soldiers of all armies by the publication of these records of the great War.”
“We travel from convent to palace, find ourselves among all the goodness, the wisdom, the wildness, the wickedness, the worst and the best of that wonderful time. We meet with devoted saints and desperate sinners.... We seem to have made many new acquaintances whom before we only knew by name among the names of history.... We can heartily recommend this book to every one who cares for the study of history, especially in its most curious and fascinating period, the later middle age.”—Spectator.
“The importance of the Essays can hardly be exaggerated.”—Glasgow Mail.
“L’interessante serie l’Histoire des Nations formera... un cours d’histoire universelle d’une très grande valeur.”—Journal des Debats.
“The remarkable series.”—New York Critic.
“That useful series.”—The Times.
“An admirable series.”—Spectator.
“That excellent series.”—Guardian.
“The series is likely to be found indispensable in every school library.”—Pall Mall Gazette.
“This valuable series.”—Nonconformist.
“Admirable series of historical monographs.”—Echo.
Rome. By Arthur Gilman, M.A., Author of “A History of the American People,” &c. Third edition.
The Jews. In Ancient, Mediæval, and Modern Times. By Prof. J. K. Hosmer. Second edition.
Germany. By Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Author of “Curious Myths of the Middle Ages,” &c. Second edition.
Carthage. By Prof. Alfred J. Church, Author of “Stories from the Classics,” &c. Third edition.
Alexander’s Empire. By Prof. J. P. Mahaffy, Author of “Social Life in Greece.” Fourth edition.
The Moors in Spain. By Stanley Lane-Poole, Author of “Studies in a Mosque.” Third edition.
Ancient Egypt. By Canon Rawlinson, Author of “The Five Great Monarchies of the World.” Third edition.
Hungary. By Prof. Arminius Vambéry, Author of “Travels in Central Asia.” Second edition.
The Saracens: From the Earliest Times to the Fall of Bagdad. By Arthur Gilman, M.A., Author of “Rome,” &c.
Ireland. By the Hon. Emily Lawless, Author of “Hurrish.” Third edition.
Chaldea. By Z. A. Ragozin, Author of “Assyria,” &c. Second edition.
The Goths. By Henry Bradley. Second edition.
Assyria: By Zénaïde A. Ragozin, Author of “Chaldea,” &c.
Turkey. By Stanley Lane-Poole. Second edition.
Holland. By Professor Thorold Rogers. Second edition.
Mediæval France. By Gustave Masson. Second edition.
Persia. By S. G. W. Benjamin. Second edition.
Phœnicia. By Canon Rawlinson.
Media. By Z. A. Ragozin.
The Hansa Towns. By Helen Zimmern.
Notes
1. Lord Palmerston’s letter to Lord Clarendon, Feb. 17, 1857.
2. John Morley’s “The Life of Richard Cobden,” vol. ii. p. 189.
3. “In the year 1855 or 1856 his father’s influence succeeded in procuring him a position in the suite of General Muravieff, who as Governor-general of Eastern Siberia, had undertaken a more accurate investigation of the Amoor territory, and was preparing for its colonization. During this work, the French and English war with China broke out; the allies occupied Pekin, and seemed to threaten the existence of the Celestial Empire. This moment was taken advantage of by Russia, who had already been negotiating for some time with China, respecting the cession of a large territory south of the Amoor. Ignatieff was sent to China as ambassador extraordinary” (F. E. Bunnett’s “Russian Society,” p. 170).
4. “The preciousness of Saghalien in the eye of the Russians, however, does not lie so much in its coal beds, its promise of future harvests, its use as a penal colony, or its six hundred miles of length, but in its situation commanding the northern entrance to the sea of Japan, and guarding, like a huge breakwater, the mouth of the great river Amoor” (John Geddie, F.R.G.S., “The Russian Empire,” p. 484).
5. “If war is made to enforce a commercial treaty, we run the risk of engaging in protracted hostilities, and of earning a reputation for quarrelling with every nation in the East.... The Japanese may well be jealous of Europeans, who insult their usages and carry away their gold” (Lord J. Russell to Mr. Alcock, Feb. 28, 1860).
6. “The Present Condition of European Politics,” p. 175.
7. Earl Russell, Nov. 22, 1861, echoed these conditions (four conditions) and equivalent, and added a somewhat cunning addition: “The opening of the ports of Tsushima (in place of Osaka, the centre and trading city of the Empire) and the neighbouring coast of Corea as far as Japanese authority extends, to the trade of the treaty powers.” It could only be the expectation of some secret advantages that do not at first sight meet the eye that could have induced any one to propose the port of Tsushima for that of Osaka (“Diplomacy in Japan,” p. 61). The Japanese wisely declined the British offer.
9. The Czar approved of the plan for completing the Siberian Railway, and for its connection with the Trans-Caucasian line, Jan., 1890; the works are to be commenced by the 1st of May at the latest.
10. The Chinese Government gave its assent to the construction of a railway from Pekin to Kirin viâ Moukden Jan., 1890.
11. There are now more than sixteen million miles of wire, and in 1887 the number of telegrams carried were about five millions (“The Statesman’s Year-book,” 1889).
12. The post office carried, in 1887, 54,313,385 letters, 55,332,873 post cards, 20,713,422 newspapers and books, 163,630 packets, 7,014,859 letters and newspapers free of postage (“The Statesman’s Year-book,” 1889).
13. “The English world-empire has two gigantic neighbours in the west and in the east. In the West she has the United States, and in the East Russia for a neighbour” (Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 288).
14. Extracts from a pamphlet written in 1847 by His Imperial Majesty, Napoleon III.:—
“There are certain countries which, from their geographical situation, are destined to a highly prosperous future. Wealth, power, every national advantage, flows into them, provided that where Nature has done her utmost, man does not neglect to avail himself of her beneficent assistance.
“Those countries are in the most favourable conditions which are situated on the high road of commerce, and which offer to commerce the safest ports and harbours, as well as the most profitable interchange of commodities. Such countries, finding in the intercourse of foreign trade illimitable resources, are enabled to take advantage of the fertility of their soil; and in this way a home trade springs up commensurate with the increase of mercantile traffic. It is by such means that Tyre and Carthage, Constantinople, Venice, Genoa, Amsterdam, Liverpool, and London attained to such great prosperity, rising from the condition of poor hamlets to extensive and affluent commercial cities, and exhibiting to surrounding nations the astonishing spectacle of powerful states springing suddenly from unwholesome swamps and marshes. Venice in particular was indebted for her overwhelming grandeur to the geographical position which constituted her for centuries the entrepôt between Europe and the East; and it was only when the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope opened a ship passage to the latter that her prosperity gradually declined. Notwithstanding, so great was her accumulation of wealth, and consequent commercial influence, that she withstood for three centuries the formidable competition thus created.
“There exists another city famous in history, although now fallen from its pristine grandeur, so admirably situated as to excite the jealousy of all the great European Powers, who combine to maintain in it a government so far barbarous as to be incapable of taking advantage of the great resources bestowed upon it by nature. The geographical position of Constantinople is such as rendered her the queen of the ancient world. Occupying, as she does, the central point between Europe, Asia, and Africa, she could become the entrepôt of the commerce of all these countries, and obtain over them an immense preponderance; for in politics, as in strategy, a central position always commands the circumference. Situated between two seas, of which, like two great lakes, she commands the entrance, she could shut up in them, sheltered from the assaults of all other nations, the most formidable fleets, by which she could exercise dominion in the Mediterranean as well as in the Black Sea, thereby commanding the entrance of the Danube, which opens the way to Germany, as well as the sources of the Euphrates, which open the road to the Indies, dictating her own terms to the commerce of Greece, France, Italy, Spain, and Egypt. This is what the proud city of Constantine could be, and this is what she is not, ‘because’ as Montesquieu says, ‘God permitted that Turks should exist on earth, a people the most fit to possess uselessly a great empire.’
“There exists in the New World a state as admirably situated as Constantinople, and we must say, up to the present time, as uselessly occupied; we allude to the state of Nicaragua. As Constantinople is the centre of the ancient world, so is the town of Leon, or rather Massaya, the centre of the new; and if the tongue of land which separates its two lakes from the Pacific Ocean were cut through, she would command by her central position the entire coast of North and South America. Like Constantinople, Massaya is situated between two extensive natural harbours, capable of giving shelter to the largest fleets, safe from attack. The state of Nicaragua can become, better than Constantinople, the necessary route for the great commerce of the world, for it is for the United States the shortest road to China and the East Indies, and for England and the rest of Europe to New Holland, Polynesia, and the whole of the western coast of America. The state of Nicaragua is, then, destined to attain to an extraordinary degree of prosperity and grandeur; for that which renders its political position more advantageous than that of Constantinople is, that the great maritime powers of Europe would witness with pleasure, and not with jealousy, its attainment of a station no less favourable to its individual interests than to the commerce of the world.
“France, England, Holland, Russia, and the United States, have a great commercial interest in the establishment of a communication between the two oceans; but England has more than the other powers a political interest in the execution of this project. England will see with pleasure Central America become a flourishing and powerful state, which will establish a balance of power by creating in Spanish America a new centre of active enterprise, powerful enough to give rise to a great feeling of nationality and to prevent, by backing Mexico, any further encroachment from the north. England will witness with satisfaction the opening of a route which will enable her to communicate more speedily with Oregon, China, and her possessions in New Holland. She will find, in a word, that the advancement of Central America will renovate the declining commerce of Jamaica and the other English island in the Antilles, the progressive decay of which will be thereby stopped. It is a happy coincidence that the political and commercial prosperity of the state of Nicaragua is closely connected with the policy of that nation which has the greatest preponderance on the sea.”
15. “The total length of the canal from sea to sea would be little short of 200 miles, viz., 15½ miles from the Pacific to the lake, 56½ across the lake, and 119 to the Atlantic; total, 191 miles; and the Lake of Nicaragua is navigable for ships of the largest class down to the mouth of the river San Juan” (C. B. Pin’s “The Gate of the Pacific,” p. 133).
16. Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 87.
17. “The negotiations with the Imperial Government for the establishment of a permanent line of first-class steamships, suitable for service as armed cruisers in case of need, resulted in an official notification that Her Majesty’s Government had decided to grant a subsidy of £60,000 per annum for a monthly service between Vancouver and Hong Kong, viâ Yokohama” (“Canada, Statistical Abstract and Record for the Year 1887,” p. 306).
18. “China is a storehouse of men and means; its outer door has scarcely yet been opened” (R. E. Webster’s “The Trade of the World,” p. 317).
19. Sir H. Parkes, late Minister of England in Japan, said: “The statement of the national liabilities this year (1878), shows that Japan has kept faith with her foreign creditors, the interest on her foreign debt and the sum requisite for the payment of the amount of capital redeemed during the year having been duly provided. There is no reason to doubt that care will be taken to ensure punctual payment in future on this account until the entire extinction of this debt in 1895.” Japan has never failed to pay her foreign debts.
20. There is also a Maritime Insurance Company.
21. Light-houses—fifty-seven in number and some of them are very powerful.
22. The Samoan Convention declared the Samoan Islands to be neutral territory. The citizens and subjects of the signatory powers will enjoy equal rights and the independence of the islands is recognized with Malietou as king: Jan., 1890.
23. The whole history of the French in the East is indissolubly bound up with the history of their efforts to destroy our Eastern supremacy. Mauritius was occupied to enable French cruisers to prey on our East Indiamen. Louis XIV. volunteered armed aid to Annam in order to cut off Calcutta from Canton. A French occupation of Tonkin is a serious matter. French cruisers supplied with coal from the mines of Tonkin would lie in the fairway of our China trade, Burmah and Calcutta would be effectually blockaded, and our outlying Oriental possessions grievously threatened (C. B. Norman’s “Tonkin and France in the Far East”).
24. The inhabitants of the eastern region refuse to recognize the Chinese authority. China cannot control the people of Formosa at all. There is a proverb, “Every three years an outbreak, every five a rebellion.”
25. In 1873 a Japanese vessel was wrecked on the eastern coast of Formosa and the crew massacred by the savages. The Japanese Government sent an expedition which was perfectly successful. Eighteen of the tribes in Formosa were defeated and subjugated.
27. E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. ii. p. 592.
28. “The separation of the Church of England from that of Rome, formally accomplished under Henry VIII., was a political and legal rather than a religious reformation. The doctrinal changes followed under Edward VI. and Elizabeth” (Taswell-Langmead’s “English Constitutional History,” p. 399).
29. “In the sixteenth century all Europe was aghast at the designs of Philip II. of Spain. He had the great mines of the New World, or at least levied a heavy tax on their produce. He seemed to be possessed of inexhaustible riches. He was baffled, beaten, made bankrupt by the Dutch, in whose country there was not an ounce of natural gold or silver, who got all their money by trade, were rapidly becoming the richest nation of Europe when Philip had ruined Spain and brought down the Genoese traders, on his declaring himself bankrupt” (J. E. Thorold Rogers’s, “The Economic Interpretation of History,” p. 95).
30. “Till this time our merchants were struggling to gain a footing and open up trade between England and different quarters of the globe, and endeavouring to prove that the encouragement of trade was for the royal honour and benefit... and their interests coincided with the national ambition of out-doing the Dutch, who would not acknowledge our sovereignty on the sea, and of thus attaining a mercantile supremacy throughout the world” (Dr. Cunningham’s “Growth of English Industry and Commerce,” p. 325).
31. (1) 1651. That the importation of goods into England, except in English ships, or in the ships of the nation producing the goods, was forbidden.
(2) 1663. That the colonies should receive no goods whatsoever by foreign vessels.
(3) 1672. That all the principal articles of commerce should be prohibited from being imported into England unless by English ships manned by a crew of whom at least three-quarters were English subjects.
32. England, Holland, and Sweden.
33. Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 95.
34. “There was between England and France during the Seven Years’ War the most disastrous struggle in which France was ever engaged. For all the wars in Europe, from the Peace of Utrecht to the outbreak of the great Continental War, were waged on behalf of monopolies of commerce, or, to be more accurate, monopolies of market, for success meant the exclusion of the beaten nation from the markets now secured by the victorious rival. At the end of the Seven Years’ War France was stripped of nearly every colony she possessed. At the beginning of it she was the rival of England in North America and in India. At the end of it she had scarce a foothold in either” (J. E. Thorold Rogers, “The Economic Interpretation of History,” p. 110).
35. Macaulay’s famous Essay on the Earl of Chatham.
36. “His (the elder Pitt) greatness is throughout identified with the Expansion of England; he is a statesman of Greater Britain. It is in the buccaneering war with Spain that he sows his political wild oats; his glory is won in the great colonial duel with France; his old age is spent in striving to avert schism in Greater Britain” (Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 144).
37. The epitaph on Chatham’s monument in Westminster Abbey.
38. The declaration of American Independence.
39. “As in the American War, France avenges on England her expulsion from the New World, so under Napoleon she makes Titanic efforts to recover her lost place there. This, indeed, is Napoleon’s fixed view with regard to England. He sees in England never the island, the European state, but always the world Empire, the network of dependencies and colonies and islands covering every sea, among which he was himself destined to find his prison and his grave” (Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 33).
40. The first coalition of England, Prussia, Holland, and Sweden, was for the purpose of keeping the European Peace.
The second coalition (1799–1801), composed of Russia, England, Austria, Portugal, Naples, and the Ottoman Empire.
The third coalition (1805), composed of England, Russia, Austria, and Sweden.
41. “Though he was still but forty-seven, the hollow voice and wasted frame of the great Minister had long told that death was near, and the blow to his hopes proved fatal. ‘Roll up that map,’ he said, pointing to the map of Europe, ‘it will not be wanted these ten years.’ Once only he rallied from stupor; and those who bent over him caught a faint murmur of ‘My country! How I leave my country!’” (Green’s “Short History of English People,” p. 799).
42. Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 105.
43. Napoleon, at St. Helena, prophesied that before a century was over Europe would be Cossack or Republican.
44. “The English victory at La Hogue, and the revival of the trade with Holland, had much to do with Peter’s visit to Archangel” (E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 276).
45. E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 323.
46. E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 368.
47. “Upon the Continental System he (Napoleon) had staked everything. He had united all Europe in the crusade against England; no state, least of all such a state as Russia, could withdraw from the system without practically joining England. Nevertheless, we may wonder that, if he felt obliged to make war upon Russia, he should have chosen to wage it in the manner he did, by an overwhelming invasion” (Seeley’s “A Short History of Napoleon the Great,” p. 169). Prof. Seeley also told the author that “if the Continental System had existed a little longer England would have been ruined, because it seems to me that a revolution would have taken place in England.”
48. “Napoleon’s great mistake was that he had laid his plan for an invasion of England and a war in Europe at the same time” (Seeley’s “A Short History of Napoleon the Great,” p. 115).
49. The Prince Regent declared his personal adherence to its principles.
50. Lord Castlereagh’s Speech, 1812.
51. He was “engaged in the glorious attempt to restore that country to her ancient freedom and renown” (The Epitaph in the Church near Newstead).
52. “In the present state of European politics there seems to be in the East a sort of vacuum, which it is advisable to supply, in order to counterbalance the preponderance of the North.... If anything like an equilibrium is to be upheld, Greece must be supported. Mr. Canning, I think, understands this, and intends to behave towards Greece” (R. C. Jebb’s “Modern Greece,” pp. 178–179).
53. This disadvantageous treaty for Russia was made owing to the disappearance of immense numbers of soldiers.
54. “The pressure of the heavy taxation and of the debts, which now reached eight hundred millions, was embittered by the general distress of the country” (J. R. Green’s “A Short History of the English People,” p. 812).
55. “Our ultimate object is the peace of the world; but let it not be said that we cultivate peace either because we fear or because we are not prepared for war. The resources created by peace are the means of war. In cherishing these resources we but accumulate those means. Our present repose is no more a proof of our inability to act than the state of inertness and inactivity in which I have seen those mighty masses that float in the waters above your town is a proof they are devoid of strength and incapable of being fitted for action. You well know how one of those stupendous masses now reposing on their shadow in perfect stillness, how soon, upon any call of patriotism or necessity, it would assume the likeness of an animated thing, instinct with life and motion; how soon it would ruffle, as it were, its swelling plumage; how quickly it would put forth all its beauty and its bravery, collect its scattered elements of strength, and awake its dormant thunders. Such as is one of these magnificent machines when springing from inaction into a display of its strength, such is England herself, while apparently passive and motionless she silently causes power to be put forth on an adequate occasion” (Canning’s speech at Plymouth, August, 1823).
56. Holland’s “European Concert on the Eastern Question,” p. 206.
57. “The growth of intimate relations between England and that country France... was manifestly viewed by him with jealous distrust, calculated as it was to affect most seriously any designs which might be entertained at St. Petersburg for enlarging Russian territory at the expense of Turkey. To detach England from this alliance would naturally be regarded by the Czar as a master-stroke of policy, and the recent conduct of France in the Eastern Question may have seemed to furnish an opening for making the attempt. If, however, as currently believed at the time, one main object of his visit was to ascertain for himself whether this was possible, he must soon have been satisfied to the contrary by the very decided language with which Sir Robert Peel received his suggestions as to the probably selfish action of France, in the event of the affairs of Turkey coming to a crisis” (Sir T. Martyn’s “Life of the Prince Consort,” vol. i. p. 216).
58. Thornton’s “Foreign Secretaries of the Nineteenth Century,” vol. iii. p. 100.
59. In 1840 France succeeded in obtaining from the Porte a grant of distinguished privileges in regard to the Holy Land.
60. Ashley’s “Life of Lord Palmerston,” vol. i. p. 279.
61. Kinglake’s “History of Crimean War,” vol. i. p. 82.
62. Baron Brunnon, the Russian Minister, said, to Count Vitzthum, “he knew that his Emperor (Nicholas), relying on Lord Aberdeen’s well-known love of peace, and on the protocol which had been signed by Aberdeen in 1844 under entirely different circumstances, regarded two things impossible: first, that England should declare war against Russia; and secondly, that she should conclude an alliance against Russia with France” (Count Vitzthum’s “St. Petersburg and London,” vol. i. p. 66).
63. “Men dwelling amidst the snows of Russia are driven by very nature to grow covetous when they hear of the happier lands where all the year round there are roses and long sunny days. And since this people have a seaboard and ports on the Euxine, they are forced by an everlasting policy to desire the command of the straits which lead through the heart of an empire into the midst of that world of which men kindle thoughts when they speak of the Ægean and of Greece, and the Ionian shores, and of Palestine and Egypt, and of Italy, and of France, and of Spain, and the land of the Moors, and of the Atlantic beyond, and the path of ships on the ocean” (Kinglake’s “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 54).
64. Kinglake’s “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 90.
65. The Grand Vizier said the mission was meant “to win some important right from Turkey, which would destroy her independence, and that the Czar’s object was to trample under foot the rights of the Porte and the independence of the Sovereign” (Kinglake’s “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 99).
66. “That the Sultan’s promise to protect his Christian subjects in the free exercise of their religion differed extremely from a right conferred on any foreign Power to enforce that protection, and also the same degree of interference might be dangerous to the Porte when exercised by so powerful an empire as Russia, on behalf of ten millions of Greeks” (Lord Stratford’s view).
67. “When the Emperor gave his reasons for rejecting the modifications we found that he interpreted the Note in a manner quite different from ourselves, and in a great degree justified the objections of Turks. We could not therefore honestly continue to give an interpretation to the Note, and ask the Turks again to sign it, when we knew that the interpretation of the Emperor is entirely different” (Lord Sheridan’s letter to Earl Russel, Sept. 22, 1853).
68. “I thought the Emperor Alexander had shown considerable moral courage in making peace after the Crimean War, contrary to the general feeling in Russia, and Prince D—— gave me the following curious details of what occurred on that occasion, which he said had been related to him by one of the Ministers present:—The Emperor called a Council of War at St. Petersburg, which was composed of the following members: Prince Dolgorouky, Minister of War; the Grand Duke Constantine, Minister of Marine; M. de Broek, Minister of Finance; Count Blondoff, Prince Moronzow, and, I think, M. Lapouchine, Minister of the Interior. The Emperor first called on the Minister of War to report on the state of the army, and he said the resources were exhausted, that more recruiting was almost impossible, and that he did not see how the war could be continued. The Emperor next addressed himself to his brother, who, together with Count Blondoff, was in favour of continuing hostilities at all risks. The Emperor asked what was the state of the navy? The Grand Duke answered, ‘Sire, we have a fleet in the Baltic, and another in the Black Sea.’ The Emperor acquiesced, but added, ‘True; but those fleets have never left our harbours. Are they fit to oppose the English and French fleets?’ The Grand Duke was obliged to reply in the negative. ‘Then,’ said the Emperor, ‘it appears we have no army and no fleet?’ The Grand Duke sighed, looked down, but made no answer. The Emperor next addressed the Minister of Finance, and asked what report he could give. He said, ‘Sire, we have just made one disadvantageous loan, upon conditions imposed upon us at Hamburg, and I believe another to be impossible.’ The Emperor then addressed the Council, and said, ‘Gentlemen, it appears from what we have just heard that we have neither army, navy, nor money; how, then, is it possible for me to continue the war?’ Count Blondoff then stepped forward and said, with deep emotion, ‘Sire, after the report we have just heard, it is clear that your Majesty is forced to make peace, but at the same time you must dismiss your incompetent Ministers, who have not known how to serve either your father or yourself—dismiss us all.’ The consternation of the other members of the Council at this outburst was great, but peace was signed forthwith” (Lady Bloomfield’s “Court and Diplomatic Life”).
69. A letter to Lord Clarendon, May 22, 1853.
70. The strength of Lord Palmerston’s character and his determination in matters of ready action is well illustrated through an incident recorded by Baron Bunsen (“Memoirs of Bunsen”): “Bunsen and Palmerston had elected to be rowed over to Portsmouth from Osborne, when guests of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and, the weather being rough, the Foreign Minister took the helm, demonstrating the connection between steering the vessel of State, as Bunsen phrased it, and steering a boat at sea—‘Oh, one learns boating at Cambridge, even though one may have learnt nothing better,’ remarked Lord Palmerston; and guide the craft safely to shore he certainly did. But when they landed, alas! the train was gone.”
71. Gladstone’s speech, May 8, 1854.
72. “Napoleon’s object was clear: in the first place, to wrest from the Emperor Nicholas the moral hegemony which he wielded on the Continent, and then, after conquering Russia, to get his hands free to tear up the treaties of 1815, restore to France her so-called natural frontiers, and reconstruct the map of Europe in accordance with Napoleonic ideas” (Count Vitzthum’s “St. Petersburg and London,” vol. i. p. 73).
73. Earl Russell’s “Recollections and Suggestions, 1813–1873,” p. 476.
74. “No sooner had Napoleon learned that an English Cabinet Minister was to go to Vienna than he sent thither also his own Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, while Prince Gortschakoff, who had already been designated as Nesselrode’s successor, represented Russia at the Conference. The first two points—the cessation of the Russian protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia, and the regulation of the navigation of the Danube in conformity with the resolutions of the Congress of Vienna—presented little difficulty. On the other hand, a lively word combat, and a not less lively interchange of despatches, arose over the third point, which demanded the revision of the Dardanelles Treaty of July 13, 1841, and the abrogation of Russian supremacy in the Black Sea. The words, ‘mettre fin à la prépondérance russe dans la Mer Noire,’ were of a very elastic nature, and capable of various interpretations. The Western Powers, mindful of Europe, demanded the neutralization of the Black Sea and a limitation of the number of Russian and Turkish war ships. Gortschakoff declared that Sebastopol was not yet taken, and probably never would be taken, and that Russia must reject any attempt to limit her naval forces as a humiliation unworthy of a Great Power. Austria then proposed a compromise that Russia should pledge herself to maintain the status quo of 1853; and that each of the Western Powers should be entitled to station two frigates in the Black Sea, in order to see that Russia did not increase her fleet. At the same time Austria promised to consider it as a casus belli if Russia kept there a single ship of war more than in 1853. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who, in the interest of exhausted France, was anxious to bring the war to an end, accepted this proposed compromise, and induced Lord John Russell to do likewise. Both were disavowed. Drouyn de Lhuys sent in his resignation, and was succeeded at the Ministry on the Quai d’Orsay by Walewski; but Lord John Russell, scorned alike by his friends and foes, returned to London, and, in spite of all, remained Minister for the present” (Count Vitzthum’s, “St. Petersburg and London.”)
75. In 1876 (September) Mr. Gladstone published his pamphlet entitled “Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East.” It passed through almost countless editions and created a great sensation.
76. “First, religious liberty, in the sense of religious equality, full and entire; second, the abolition of tax-farming; third, the exclusive application to Bosnia and Herzegovina of their own direct taxation; fourth, the appointment of an executory Commission to carry these reforms into effect, to be composed equally of Mahommedans and Christians; fifth, the amelioration of the condition of the rural population by some more satisfactory arrangement between the Christian Rajahs and the Mahommedan Agas, or landowners” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. i. p. 161).
77. “Sir H. Elliot was directed to give a ’general support’ to the Andrassy Note. It will be seen that in the mode of giving this ’general support’ to the action of the European Powers, Her Majesty’s Government here contrived to reduce the value of it to the lowest possible amount, and expressly to negative the significance of it.... But more than this—it is distinctly implied that any such meaning, if it were entertained, would be a violation of the Ninth Article of the Treaty of Paris. The Turks were thus encouraged to claim under that treaty a licence and immunity which it never was intended to afford. It is evident, therefore, that the British Cabinet only joined the other Powers, first, because it was impossible to deny the justice of the demand made on Turkey; secondly, because it would be inconvenient to stand alone against the united opinion of all the other Cabinets of Europe; thirdly, because Turkey herself saw some advantage in accepting the communication” (Ibid. vol. i. p. 166).
78. Lord Derby said that “the Note now proposed was sure to lead to farther diplomatic interference in the internal affairs of Turkey.”
79. “First, the provision of means sufficient to settle the refugees in their homes; second, the distribution of these means by a mixed Commission, with a Herzegovinian Christian as President; third, the concentration of Turkish troops into certain places; fourth, the retention of arms by the Christians; fifth, the Consuls or Delegates of the Powers to have a watch over the application of the promised reforms and repatriation of the people. The Memorandum farther proceeded thus in its closing paragraph: If, however, the armistice were to expire without the effort of the Powers being successful in attaining the ends they have in view, the three Imperial Courts are of opinion that it would become necessary to supplement their diplomatic action by the sanction of an agreement, with a view to such efficacious measures as might appear to be demanded in the interest of general peace, to check the evil and prevent its development” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. i. p. 193).
80. “The objections of detail taken by the English Cabinet to the Berlin Memorandum were at once met by Prince Bismarck by the declaration that these points were entirely ‘open to discussion, that they might be modified according to circumstances, and that he, for one, would willingly entertain any improvement which Her Majesty’s Government might have to propose.’... France implored Her Majesty’s Government to reconsider its decision, and declared that persistence in it would, at such a momentous crisis, be nothing short of a ‘public calamity.’ She ‘could not conceal the apprehensions for the future to which this refusal have given rise.’ Italy did the same. The position was, that England objected to everything proposed by others, and had nothing to propose herself. Continued trust in the Turks was her only suggestion” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. i. pp. 202, 203).
81. “At the first meeting of the Congress (June 13, 1878) Lord Beaconsfield made his concerted objection to the advanced position of the Russian troops at the gates of Constantinople. Count Schouvaloff replied that this advanced position had been taken up by the Russian army in consequence of the entry of the English fleet into the Bosphorus. Prince Bismarck, the President of the Congress, expressed himself satisfied with the Russian reply” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 144).
82. “Truth about Russia,” p. 282.
83. Lord Beaconsfield’s speech, April 8, 1878.
84. “The topics regulated by the three Treaties of Paris, London, and Berlin are:—
“(i.) The admission of the Porte to the concert of Europe (P. Art. 7).
“(ii.) The agreement as to resort to mediation (P. 8).
“(iii.) Religious equality in Turkey (P. 9; B. 62).
“(iv.) The navigation of the Straits (P. 10; L. 2).
“(v.) The navigation of the Black Sea (P. 12; L. 3).
“(vi.) The navigation of the Danube (P. 13–19; L. 4–7; B. 52–57; L. 1883).
“(vii.) Roumania (B. 43–51).
“(viii.) Servia (B. 34, 40–42).
“(ix.) Montenegro (B. 26–31, 33).
“(x.) Bulgaria (B. 1–12).
“(xi.) Eastern Roumelia (B. 13–21).
“(xii.) Bosnia and Herzegovina (B. 25).
“(xiii.) Other European provinces (B. 23).
“(xiv.) The Armenian provinces (B. 61).
“(xv.) Cessions to Greece (B. 24; Cons. of 1881).
“(xvi.) The Russian boundaries (B. 45, 58–60).
“(xvii.) The Persian boundary (B. 60).”
(Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question”).
85. In the House of Lords, July 18, 1878.
86. See Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question.”
87. At the ninth meeting of the Congress “the Greek delegates asked the Congress to sanction the annexation to the Hellenic Kingdom of the island of Crete, and the province of Thessaly and Epirus” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 167).
88. “Russia had pointedly and emphatically declared that she would not oppose any larger measure of liberty which the Congress might desire to secure to the provinces bordering on Greece. There was no symptom of any serious opposition from any other Powers. But England had deserted the cause of Greece, because they sold it to the Turks as part of the price to be paid for the island of Cyprus” (The Duke of Argyll’s, “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 170).
89. “Returning to Greece,” said Beaconsfield, “no one could doubt as to the future of this country. States, like individuals, which have a future, are in a position to be able to wait” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 169).
90. The explanation of Lord Palmerston’s opposition to M. de Lessep’s scheme, which was given confidentially by him to one of his subordinates in the Foreign Office.
91. “We do not want Egypt, or wish it for ourselves any more than any rational man, with an estate in the north of England and a residence in the south, would have wished to possess the inns on the north road. All he could want would have been that the inns should be well kept, always accessible, and furnishing him, when he came, with mutton chops and post horses. We want to trade with Egypt, and to travel through Egypt” (Lord Palmerston’s Letter to Lord Cowley, November 25, 1859).
92. Pall Mall, September 15, 1886.
93. “If Russia obtained Constantinople, she must cease to be barbarous before she could become formidable; and if she made a great navy, it must be by doing as the Venetians, the Dutch, the English, and the Americans did, by the accumulation of wealth, the exercise of industry, the superior skill and intelligence of her artizans” (Cobden’s Manchester Speech).
94. Carlo’s “British India,” p. 59.
95. Sir E. Thornton’s telegram from St. Petersburg.
96. Lord Palmerston’s Letter to Lord Clarendon, Feb. 17, 1857.
97. “Russia is divided into fifteen military districts, which comprise also Finland, Siberia, the Caucasus, the Trans-Caspian region, and Turkestan. The entire Russian effective force, including officers, artillery, engineers, train, &c., consists of—
98. The Times.
99. The Times.
100. The Times.
101. “A disastrous bankruptcy was the result of the wars which marked the beginning of the century, and the crash of 1873 caused most serious loss both to state and individuals. The stock exchange of Vienna is one of those where speculation is not rife. The Budget of 1888 for Austria gave £41,335,000 as the amount of revenue, and £48,030,000 as that of expenditure, and the public debt as £83,091,060. For Hungary, the revenue was in 1887 £28,937,630, and the expenditure £29,547,853. The public debt for the whole of the Empire is twenty-seven millions of florins” Leger’s “History of Austro-Hungary” (translated by Mrs. B. Hill), p. 633.
102. “The Present Condition of European Politics,” p. 203.
103. “A few years ago a swift voyage from England to Calcutta, viâ the Cape of Good Hope, was from a hundred and ten to a hundred and twenty days. Now steamers by way of the Canal make the same voyage in about thirty days. Here, then, is a diminution of 75 per cent. on the enormous stocks of goods continually required to be held unused, involving continued risk of depreciation, loss of interest, cost of insurance, to meet the requirements of mere transit” (S. A. Wells’ “Practical Economics,” p. 236).