| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Japan and the Pacific - And a Japanese View of the Eastern Question
Author: Inagaki, Manjiro
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Japan and the Pacific - And a Japanese View of the Eastern Question" ***
available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)
file which includes the original maps.
Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/japanpacificandj00inagrich
Transcriber’s note:
Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).
Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=).
JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC
[Illustration]
[Illustration:
JAPAN & THE NORTH PACIFIC.]
JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC,
And a Japanese View Of The Eastern Question.
by
MANJIRO INAGAKI, B.A.
(_Cantab_)
With Maps
London
T Fisher Unwin
Paternoster Square
MDCCCXC
TO
JOHN ROBERT SEELEY M.A. HON. LL.D.
_Regius Professor of Modern History Fellow of Gonville and Caius College
Cambridge_
THIS BOOK IS RESPECTFULLY
DEDICATED
IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HIS KINDNESS AND IN ADMIRATION OF HIS
QUALITIES AS A HISTORIAN
BY THE AUTHOR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE.
I feel that some explanation is due when a Japanese ventures to address
himself to English readers; my plea is that the matters on which I write
are of vital importance to England as well as to Japan. Though I feel
that my knowledge of English is so imperfect that many errors of idiom
and style and even of grammar must appear in my pages, yet I hope that
the courtesy which I have ever experienced in this country will be
extended also to my book.
My aim has been twofold: on the one hand, to arouse my own countrymen to
a sense of the great part Japan has to play in the coming century; on
the other, to call the attention of Englishmen to the important position
my country occupies with regard to British interests in the far East.
The first part deals with Japan and the Pacific Question: but so closely
is the latter bound up with the so-called Eastern Question that in the
second part I have traced the history of the latter from its genesis to
its present development. Commencing with a historical retrospect of
Russian and English policy in Eastern Europe, I have marked the
appearance of a rivalry between these two Powers which has extended from
Eastern Europe to Central Asia, and is extending thence to Eastern Asia
and the Pacific. This I have done because any movement in Eastern Europe
or Central Asia will henceforth infallibly spread northwards to the
Baltic and eastwards to the Pacific. An acquaintance with the Eastern
Question in all its phases will thus be necessary for the statesmen of
Japan in the immediate future. I have confined my view to England and
Russia because their interests in Asia and the North Pacific are so
direct and so important that they must enter into close relations with
my own country in the next century.
I cannot claim an extensive knowledge of the problems I have sought to
investigate, but it is my intention to continue that investigation in
the several countries under consideration. By personal inquiries and
observations in Eastern Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia,
China, and the Malay Archipelago, I hope to correct some and confirm
others of my conclusions.
I have to thank many members of the University of Cambridge for their
help during the writing and publication of my book. To Professor Seeley
especially, whose hints and suggestions with regard to the history of
the eighteenth century in particular have been so valuable to me, I
desire to tender my most hearty and grateful thanks. To Dr. Donald
Macalister (Fellow and Lecturer of St. John’s College) and Mr. Oscar
Browning, M.A. (Fellow and Lecturer of King’s College) I owe much for
kindly encouragement and advice and assistance in many ways, while I am
indebted to Mr. G. E. Green, M.A. (St. John’s College), for his labour
in revising proofs and the ready help he has given me through the many
years in which he has acted as my private tutor.
The chief works which I have used are Professor Seeley’s “Expansion of
England,” Hon. Evelyn Ashley’s “Life of Lord Palmerston,” and Professor
Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question.” The latter I have
consulted specially for the history of treaties.
M. INAGAKI.
CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
_April, 1890_.
CONTENTS.
PART I.
PAGE
_JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC_ 21
England and Asia—The Persian war—The Chinese war—Russian
diplomacy in China—Singapore and Hong Kong—Labuan and Port
Hamilton—Position of Japan; its resources—Importance of
Chinese alliance to England—Strength of English position in
the Pacific at present—Possible danger from Russia through
Mongolia and Manchooria—Japan the key of the Pacific; her area
and people; her rapid development; her favourable position;
effect of Panama Canal on her commerce—England’s route to the
East by the Canadian Pacific Railway—Japanese
manufactures—Rivalry of Germany and England in the South
Pacific—Imperial Federation for England and her
colonies—Importance of island of Formosa—Comparative progress
of Russia and England—The coming struggle.
PART II.
_THE EASTERN QUESTION._
I.
FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND DURING THE SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND
EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 73
The Spanish Empire, its power, and its decline—Commercial
rivalry of England and Holland—The ascendency of France;
threatened by the Grand Alliance—The Spanish succession and
the Bourbon league—England’s connection with the war of the
Austrian succession—The Seven Years’ War—Revival of the
Anglo-Bourbon struggle in the American and Napoleonic wars.
II.
FOREIGN POLICY OF RUSSIA DURING THE REIGNS OF PETER, CATHERINE,
AND ALEXANDER 95
Peter the Great, and establishment of Russian power on the
Baltic—Consequent collision with the Northern States and the
Maritime Powers—Catherine II. and Poland—First
partition—Russia reaches the Black Sea—Russo-Austrian alliance
against Turkey opposed by Pitt—Second and third partitions of
Poland—Rise of Prussia—Alexander I. and the conquest of
Turkey—Treaty of Tilsit—Peace of Bucharest—Congress of
Vienna—French influence in the East destroyed.
III.
THE NEW EUROPEAN SYSTEM 114
The concert of the Great Powers; its aims—It does not protect
small states from its own members, _e.g._, Polish
Revolution—How far can it solve the Turkish question?
IV.
GREEK INDEPENDENCE 120
The Holy Alliance—The Greek insurrection—Interference of the
Three Powers—Battle of Navarino—Treaty of Adrianople—The
policy of Nicholas I.; Treaty of Unkiar Ikelessi—Turkey only
saved by English and French aid—Palmerston succeeds to
Canning’s policy.
V.
THE CRIMEAN WAR 131
Nicholas I. alienates France from England by the Egyptian
question—Mehemet Ali and Palmerston’s convention against
him—Nicholas I. in England—The Protectorate of the Holy Land;
breach between Russia and France—Proposed partition of
Turkey—War of Russia and Turkey—The Vienna Note—Intervention
of France and England to save Turkey—Treaty of Paris; Russia
foiled—Correspondence between Palmerston and Aberdeen as to
the declaration of war—National feeling of England secures the
former’s triumph—French motives in joining in the war.
VI.
THE BLACK SEA CONFERENCE 164
French influence destroyed by the Franco-Prussian War—Russia
annuls the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris—Condition
of Europe prevents their enforcement by the Powers—London
Conference; Russia secures the Black Sea; England’s
mistake—Alsace and Lorraine destroy the balance of power.
VII.
THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR OF 1878 172
Bulgarian atrocities—The Andrassy Note; England destroys its
effect—The Berlin Memorandum; England opposes it—Russia
prepares for a Turkish war—Conference of Constantinople—New
Turkish Constitution—Russo-Turkish War—Treaty of San
Stefano—Intervention of the Powers—The Berlin Congress—Final
treaty of peace.
VIII.
REMARKS ON TREATY OF BERLIN 195
The position of affairs—The Salisbury-Schouvaloff Memorandum
and its disastrous effect on the negotiations at
Berlin—Russia’s gain—England and Austria the guardians of
Turkey—Austria’s vigorous and straightforward Balkan
policy—Thwarted in Servia but triumphant in Bulgaria—Relations
of Greece to Austria—Solution of the Crete question—Neutrality
of Belgium threatened—Importance of Constantinople to Russia;
the Anglo-Turkish Convention—England’s feeble policy in Asia
Minor—The question of Egypt—A new route to India by railway
from the Mediterranean to Persian Gulf—England’s relation to
Constantinople.
IX.
CENTRAL ASIA 227
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.
LIST OF MAPS.
1. JAPAN AND THE NORTH PACIFIC _Frontispiece_
2. THE PACIFIC AND ITS SEA ROUTES 46
3. THE EXPANSION OF RUSSIA IN EUROPE 97
4. EASTERN EUROPE AND WESTERN ASIA 115
5. THE EXPANSION OF RUSSIA IN ASIA 233
PART I.
JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC.
_England and Asia—The Persian war—The Chinese war—Russian diplomacy in
China—Singapore and Hong Kong—Labuan and Port Hamilton—Position of
Japan; its resources—Importance of Chinese alliance to
England—Strength of English position in the Pacific at
present—Possible danger from Russia through Mongolia and
Manchooria—Japan the key of the Pacific; her area and people; her
rapid development; her favourable position; effect of Panama Canal
on her commerce—England’s route to the East by the Canadian Pacific
Railway—Japanese manufactures—Rivalry of Germany and England in the
South Pacific—Imperial Federation for England and her
colonies—Importance of island of Formosa—Comparative progress of
Russia and England—The coming struggle._
Without doubt the Pacific will in the coming century be the platform of
commercial and political enterprise. This truth, however, escapes the
eyes of ninety-nine out of a hundred, just as did the importance of
Eastern Europe in 1790, and of Central Asia in 1857. In the former case
England did not appreciate the danger of a Russian aggression of Turkey,
and so Pitt’s intervention in the Turkish Question failed. It was
otherwise in the second half of the nineteenth century, when the Crimean
War and the Berlin Congress proved great events in English history. In
1857 the national feeling in England was not aroused as to the
importance of defending Persia from foreign attack. Lord Palmerston had
written to Lord Clarendon, Feb. 17, 1857, “It is quite true, as you say,
that people in general are disposed to think lightly of our Persian War,
that is to say, not enough to see the importance of the question at
issue.” How strongly does the Afghan question attract the public
attention of England at the present day?
It is very evident that in 1857 very few in England were awake to the
vital importance of withstanding Russian inroads into the far East,
viz., the Pacific.
After defeating Russia miserably in the Crimean War and driving her back
at the Balkans by the Treaty of Paris, Lord Palmerston’s mind was now
revolving and discussing the following serious thought: “Where would
Russia stretch out her hands next?”
I think I am not wrong in stating the following as Lord Palmerston’s
solution of the problem:—
(_a_) That Russia was about to strike the English interests at
Afghanistan by an alliance with Persia.
(_b_) That she would attack the Afghan frontier single-handed.
(_c_) That an alliance would be formed with the Chinese, and a combined
hostility against Britain would be shown by both.
(_d_) She would extend her Siberian territory to the Pacific on the
north, thereby obtaining a seaport on that ocean’s coast, and make it an
outpost for undermining English influence in Southern China.
Therefore in 1856 Lord Palmerston declared war against Persia remarking
that “we are beginning to reveal the first openings of trenches against
India by Russia.”[1]
This policy proved a winning one. The Indian Mutiny of 1857, however,
scarcely gave Palmerston time to mature his Afghan Frontier scheme,
consequently his views with regard to that country were to a great
extent frustrated by Russia.
In the autumn of 1856, the _Arrow_ dispute gave Palmerston his
long-wished for opportunity of gaining a stronghold in the South China
Sea. He declared war on China. The causes of this dispute on the English
side were morally unjust and legally untenable. Cobden brought forward a
resolution to this effect—that “The paper laid on the table failed to
establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measure resorted to.”
Disraeli, Russell, and Graham all supported Cobden’s motion. Mr.
Gladstone, who was also in favour of the motion, said, at the conclusion
of his speech, “with every one of us it rests to show that this House,
which is the first, the most ancient, and the noblest temple of freedom
in the world, is also the temple of that everlasting justice without
which freedom itself would only be a name, or only a curse, to mankind.
And I cherish the trust that when you, sir, rise in your place to-night
to declare the numbers of the division from the chair which you adorn,
the words which you speak will go forth from the halls of the House of
Commons as a message of British justice and wisdom to the farthest
corner of the world.”
Mr. Gladstone, it certainly seems to me, only viewed the matter from a
moral point of view. If we look at it in this light, then the British
occupation of Port Hamilton was a still more striking example of English
“loose law and loose notion of morality in regard to Eastern nations.”
Palmerston was defeated in the House by sixteen votes, but was returned
at the general election by a large majority backed by the aggressive
feelings of the English nation.
He contended that “if the Chinese were right about the _Arrow_, they
were wrong about something else; if legality did not exactly justify
violence, it was at any rate required by _policy_.”[2] He described this
policy in the following way—“To maintain the rights, to defend the lives
and properties of British subjects, to _improve our relations with
China_, and in the selection and arrangement of those objects to perform
the duty which we owed to the country.”
This is easy to understand, and showed at any rate a disposition, in
fact a wish, for the Anglo-Chinese alliance.
The Treaty of Pekin was finally concluded in 1860, the terms of which
were—Toleration of Christianity, a revised tariff, payment of an
indemnity, and resident ambassadors at Pekin.
Whatever might have been the policy of Palmerston in the Chinese War,
Russia took it as indirectly pointed at herself.
General Ignatieff[3] was sent to China immediately as Russian
Plenipotentiary. It is said that he furnished maps to the allies, in
fact did his very best to bring the negotiations to a successful and
peaceful close, and immediately after the signing of the agreement, he
commenced overtures for his own country, and succeeded in obtaining from
China the cession of Eastern Siberia with Vladivostock and other
seaports on the Pacific (1858).
Lord Elgin asked Ignatieff why Russia was so anxious to obtain naval
ports on the Pacific. He replied: “We do not want them for our own sake,
but chiefly in order that we may be in a position to compel the English
to recognize that it is worth their while to be friends with us rather
than foes.”
Here began the struggle between England and Russia in the Pacific.
In 1859 Russia obtained the Saghalien[4] Island, in the North Pacific,
from Japan, in exchange for the Kurile Island, while England was
bombarding[5] Kagoshima, a port in South Japan (1862), but the English
were virtually repelled from there.
Previous to this period the English policy in Asia was to establish a
firm hold of Indian commerce with the South China Sea, for she could not
find so large and profitable a field of commerce elsewhere. Therefore
the English attention for the time being was entirely directed in that
quarter.
In 1819 the island of Singapore, as well as all the seas, straits, and
islands lying within ten miles of its coast, were ceded to the British
by the Sultan of Johor. It then contained only a few hundred piratical
fishermen, but now it is on the great road of commerce between the
eastern and western portions of Maritime Asia, and is a most important
military and naval station.
Hong Kong, an island off the southern coast of China, was occupied by
the English, and in 1842 was formally handed over by the Treaty of
Nankin. It has now become a great centre of trade, besides being a naval
and military station.
In 1846 Labuan, the northern part of Borneo, was ceded to Great Britain
by the Sultan of Borneo, and owing to the influence of Sir James Brooke
a settlement was at once formed. Now it also, like Singapore, forms an
important commercial station, and transmits to both China and Europe the
produce of Borneo and the Malay Archipelago.
Owing to the opening of seaports in Northern China for foreign trade in
1842, the growing Russian influence in the Northern Pacific and many
other circumstances caused England to perceive the necessity of having a
naval depôt and commercial harbour on the Tong Hai and on the Yellow
Sea. England was doubtless casting her eyes upon the Chusan Island or
some other island in the Chusan Archipelago, but did not dare to occupy
any one of them lest she should thereby offend the chief trading nation
of that quarter, viz., China.
However, in 1885 England annexed Port Hamilton, on the southern coast of
the Corea, during the threatened breach with Russia on the Murghab
question.
“Port Hamilton,” said the author of “The Present Condition of European
Politics,”[6] “was wisely occupied as a base from which, with or without
a Chinese alliance, Russia could be attacked on the Pacific. It is vital
to us that we should have a coaling station and a base of operations
within reach of Vladivostock and the Amoor at the beginning of a war, as
a guard-house for the protection of our China trade and for the
prevention of a sudden descent upon our colonies; ultimately as the head
station for our Canadian Pacific railroad trade; and at all times, and
especially in the later stages of the war, as an offensive station for
our main attack on Russia.”
Port Hamilton forms the gate of Tong Hai and the Yellow Sea; it cannot,
however, become a base of operations for an attack on the Russian force
at Vladivostock and the Amoor unless an English alliance is formed with
Japan. The above writer shows an ignorance of the importance of the
situation of Japan in the Pacific question. Japan holds the key of the
North China Sea and Japan Sea in Tsushima.[7] She has fortified that
island, and placed it in direct communication with the naval station of
Sasebo, also with the military forces of Kumamoto. She also can send
troops and fleets from the Kure naval station and the garrison of
Hiroshima. She would also, if required, have other naval stations on the
coast of the Japan Sea ready for any emergency. In this manner she would
be able to keep out the British fleet from attacking Vladivostock and
the Amoor through the Japan Sea. Even if she might not be able to do
this single-handed she certainly could by an alliance with Russia.
If also Japan occupied Fusan, on the south-eastern shore of the Corea,
the Japan Sea would be rendered almost impregnable from any southern
attack.
Again, Port Hamilton would be useless as a head station for the Canadian
Pacific Railway trade without an Anglo-Japanese alliance. If you look at
the map, you can easily appreciate the situation. Japan, with many
hundreds of small islands, lies between 24° and 52° in N. lat., its
eastern shores facing the Pacific and cutting off a direct line from
Vancouver’s Island to Port Hamilton. It must therefore depend mainly
upon Japan as a financial and political success.
Japan is now divided into six military districts, while the seas around
it are divided into five parts, each having its own chief station in
contemplation. The Government are now contemplating establishing a
strong naval station at Mororan in Hokkukaido, for the defence of the
district and also the shore of the northern part of the mainland,
especially of the Tsugaru Strait. The strait of Shimonoseki also has
been fortified and garrisoned on both sides, and has close communication
from the Kure naval station, and with Hiroshima, and Osaka. Railway
communication has also made great strides during the last few years, and
rapid transit has consequently greatly improved throughout the empire.
If the Kiushiu, the Loo Choo, and the Miyako Islands are well looked
after by the Japanese fleet from the Sasebo naval station, then Japan
would be able to sever the communication between Vancouver’s Islands and
Port Hamilton, and also between the former place and Hong Kong to a
certain extent. The San-Francisco-Hong Kong route would be injured, and
Shanghai-Port-Hamilton line would be threatened. Without doubt _Japan is
the Key of the Pacific_.
Reviewing the discussion, we find that Port Hamilton is rather useless
with regard to the Japan Sea and the Canadian Pacific railway road
without a Japanese alliance, but it would be of immense importance in
withstanding a Russian attack on the British interests from the Yellow
Sea through Mongolia or Manchooria. It is also an excellent position for
any offensive attack upon China in case of war breaking out.
The British occupation of Port Hamilton was very galling to the Chinese
nation, in fact, quite as disagreeable as the occupation of Malta and
Corsica was to Italy, and the annexing of the Channel Islands and
Heligoland to France and Germany. It has therefore somewhat shaken the
Anglo-Chinese alliance.
A Chinese alliance, however, is of far greater importance for English
interests than the occupation of Port Hamilton. If relations became
strained a severe blow would be dealt to English trade and commerce in
that part. The main portion of the commercial trade of China is with the
United Kingdom and her colonies; for instance, in 1887, the imports of
China from Great Britain, Hong Kong, and India amounted to about
89,000,000 tael, while the exports to the same countries were 48,000,000
tael. It is hardly possible to find two countries more closely connected
by trade than England and China.[8] The Hamilton scheme was wisely
abandoned in 1887, and the English Government obtained a written
guarantee from China against a Russian occupation in future years.
Viscount Cranbrook said in his reply to a question asked by Viscount
Sidmouth: “That the papers to which he referred did contain a written
statement, and a very long written statement on the part of the Chinese
Government giving the guarantee in question. It was not a mere verbal
statement by the Chinese Government, but a very deliberate note. It was
found that the Chinese had received from the Russian Government a
guarantee that Russia would not interfere with Corean territory in
future if the British did not, and the Chinese Government were naturally
in a position, on the faith of that guarantee by the Russian Government,
to give a guarantee to the British Government. The Marquess of
Salisbury, on the part of her Majesty’s Government, had accepted it as a
guarantee in writing from the Chinese Government.”
This policy was undoubtedly an exceedingly wise and good one. By this
England not only regained a firm and complete commercial alliance, but
also maintained and strengthened a political alliance against Russian
attacks from the Corea and indirectly from Manchooria and Mongolia.
England also saved money by the abandonment of the Port Hamilton scheme,
and saved her fleet from being, to a certain degree, scattered in such a
far-off quarter of the globe.
England now holds complete sway both commercially and navally in the
Pacific. Lord Salisbury’s policy is worthy of all praise, together with
Mr. Gladstone’s original scheme. If the scheme had never been originated
there would not have been so firm an Anglo-Chinese alliance as there now
is.
England’s power at the present time is three times as great as that of
Russia in the Pacific; in fact Russia has always been overweighted in
that respect. Therefore it is selfevident she could never be able to
withstand the combined Anglo-Chinese fleets.
It seems to me that the only feasible plan for a Russian attack on
Anglo-Chinese alliance would be from Mongolia and Manchooria by means of
an alliance with the Mongolian Tartars. This would be preferable to
coping with England face to face in the Pacific.
Chinese history plainly tells us that the Chinese could not withstand an
attack of the brave Mongol Tartars from the north, and that they have
proved a constant source of dread to them.
The Great Wall which stretches across the whole northern limit of the
Chinese Empire from the sea to the farthest western corner of the
Province of Kansal, was built only for the defence of China against the
northern “daring” Tartars.
Ghenghis Khan (1194), the rival of Attila, in the extent of his kingdom,
who overran the greater part of China and subdued nearly the whole of N.
Asia, who carried his arms into Persia and Delhi, drove the Indians on
to the Ganges, and also destroyed Astrakhan and the power of the
Ottoman, was a Mongolian Tartar.
In the thirteenth century Kokpitsuretsu invaded China from Mongolia and
formed the Gen dynasty which ruled over the whole eastern part of Asia
except Japan (1280 to 1368). The founder of the present Chinese dynasty
was a Manchoorian. Both, however, were of Mongolian extraction, and well
kept up the fame of the Tartars for boldness and general daring. Since
their times the Tartars have fully maintained their title of being the
most warlike tribe in Asia.
Therefore if Russia were allied with the Mongol Tartars she would be
able at least to reach the Yellow Sea, even if she were not able to do
China serious harm.
Her best policy would be to extend the Omsk-Tomsk Railway[9] to Kiakhta
_viâ_ Kansk and Irkutsk, and from there to Ust Strelka and
Blagovestchensk through Nertchinsk; a branch also might be thrown off
from Kiakhta to Oorga, in the direction of Pekin, the metropolis of
China; two branches might also be constructed from Nertchinsk—(_a_) to
Isitsikar, through the western boundary of Manchooria, with the ultimate
object of reaching some convenient harbour on the Gulf of Leaotong, or
the Yellow Sea, _viâ_ Kirin[10] and Moukden—(_b_) to L. Kulon through
the northern boundary of Mongolia in the direction of Pekin; and to
construct a branch line from Blagovestchensk to Isitsikar _viâ_ Merghen.
By these means Russia would not only open sources of untold wealth in
Siberia, but also secure a larger field of commerce in Manchooria and
Mongolia than she has done by the opening of the Trans-Caspian Railway.
It is clear that there would be more political and strategical
advantages in this quarter, than in Central Asia. Should Russia ever be
able to get possession of a seaport in the Gulf of Leaotong or in the
Yellow Sea, she would deal a heavy blow against the Anglo-Chinese
alliance, and ultimately frustrate, to a great extent, British
aspirations in the East.
Russia, however, has worked in quite a different way, and is
strengthening the defences at Vladivostock both in military and naval
forces, and is acting towards the Corea in a gradually-increasing
aggressive spirit, which had succeeded in Europe and Central Asia
previously for more than one hundred and fifty years.
Lord Derby well described the Russian tactics in the following
speech:—“It has never been preceded by storm, but by sap and mine. The
first process has been invariably that of fomenting discontent and
dissatisfaction amongst the subjects of subordinate states, then
proffering mediation, then offering assistance to the weaker party, then
declaring the independence of that party, then placing that independence
under the protection of Russia, and finally, from protection proceeding
to the incorporation, one by one, of those states into the gigantic body
of the Russian Empire.”
But Russia should remember that a Russian annexation of Corea—“the
Turkey” in Asia—would necessitate an alliance of England, China, and
Japan, who all possess common interests in the Pacific and Yellow Sea;
also that it might cause a second Crimean war in the Pacific instead of
on the Black Sea.
Japan was comparatively unknown until Commodore Perry, of the United
States, introduced her to European society in 1854. Since that date a
“wonderful metamorphosis” has taken place in every branch of
civilization.
The total area of Japan is about 148,742 square miles, or nearly a
quarter greater than that of the United Kingdom, while the population is
about 38,000,000. The climate is very healthy, while the natural
resources are many.
Japanese patriotism is very keen, and their love of country stands
before everything; they are brave, honest, and open-minded. The
following facts bear out the above statement: In 1281 the “Armada of
Mongol Tartars” reached the Japanese shores, only to be easily repulsed
in Kiushiu by the Japanese fleet. Hideyoshi in the sixteenth century
conquered the Corea, and General Saigo defeated and subjugated eighteen
of the resident chiefs with all their followers in Formosa (1873).
One of the great traits in the Japanese character is that they never
hesitate to adopt new systems and laws if they consider them beneficial
for their country. Feudalism was abolished in 1871 without bloodshed. In
1879 city and prefectural assemblies were created, based on the
principle of the election. The new Constitution was promulgated in 1889,
and new Houses of Peers and Commons will be opened this year (1890).
Railways are rapidly growing, over 1,000 miles already having been laid,
and soon the whole country will be opened out by the “iron horse.” All
the principal towns are connected by telegraph[11] with one another and
with Europe. The postal system[12] is carried out on English lines,
while the police force is strong and very efficient. The standing army
consists of about forty-three thousand men, which, however, could be
quickly increased to two hundred thousand in case of war, all trained
and equipped under the European system. The navy consists of thirty-two
ships, including several protected cruisers, and in this or next year it
will be reinforced by three more ironclads and five or six gunboats. The
Japanese navy is organized chiefly upon the pattern of the English navy.
[Illustration:
THE PACIFIC & ITS SEA ROUTES.]
The geographical situation and condition of Japan are very favourable to
her future prosperity, both commercially and from a manufacturing point
of view. Look at a map of the world—the country lies between two of the
largest commercial nations, viz., the United States and China, the
former[13] being England’s great commercial rival of the present day,
while the latter offers a large field for trade and commerce.
If M. de Lesseps’ scheme of the Panama Canal should happen to be
completed on his Suez Canal line, undoubtedly the Pacific Ocean would be
revolutionized in every way. Up to now the waterway from Europe to the
Pacific has been from the West, viz., _viâ_ the Suez Canal, or the Cape
of Good Hope.
But in case of the “gate of the Pacific” being open, then European goods
could be transported in another direction, and the nations in the
Pacific would have two sea routes. Japan would be placed practically in
the _centre_ of _three large markets_—Europe, Asia, and America—and its
commercial prosperity would be ensured.
If, however, the Panama scheme failed from one cause or another there
would be another sea route.[14]
In 1887 the American Senate sanctioned the creation of a company for the
construction of a maritime canal across Nicaragua,[15] and the actual
work was begun in October, 1889.
The President of the country, which has a surplus of 57,000,000 dollars,
alluding to the commencement of the Nicaragua Canal said in his message
to the Senate:—
“This Government is ready to promote every proper requirement for the
adjustment of all questions presenting obstacles to its completion.” It
is therefore pretty sure, sooner or later, to be completed, and would
take the place of the Panama Canal and give the same advantages with
regard to the Pacific and Japan.
“In the school of Carl Ritter,”[16] said Professor Seeley, “much has
been said of three stages of civilization determined by geographical
conditions—the potamic, which clings to rivers; the thalassic, which
grows up around inland seas; and lastly, the oceanic.” He also traced
the movements of the centre of commerce and intelligence in Europe, and
at last found out why England had attained her present greatness.
Without doubt, since the discovery of a new world the whole world has
become the oceanic.
But the discoveries of Watt and Stephenson, seem to me to have added
another stage to general civilization, viz., the railway; and it seems
also to me that we might call the present era “the railway-oceanic.”
The Canadian Pacific Railway scheme was completed in 1887. It has a
total length of at least 3,000 miles, starting from Quebec and finishing
at Vancouver’s Island on the Pacific. Its marvellous success will also
considerably change the general tenor of the Pacific even more than the
Panama or Nicaragua scheme will do. An express train can cross in five
days, while the voyage from Vancouver to Yokohama in Japan, would only
occupy twelve days steaming at the rate of fourteen or fifteen knots an
hour. From England the whole journey to Shanghai and Hong Kong by this
route would take only thirty-four or thirty-five days, and Australia now
has direct communication with the mother country through a sister
colony.
Last of all, Japan would have much better communication with the
European markets generally than is possible at the present time, if the
English proposed[17] mail steamers should run, and it is said that the
Canadian Pacific route would bring Japan within twenty-six or
twenty-seven days’ reach of England.
On the other hand, if the Russian Siberian Railway scheme should be
carried out to the Pacific at Vladivostock, it would open a very large
field of trade and commerce with inland Siberia to Japan. It would be
still more so if the Chinese railways were extended so as to open the
entire empire.[18]
Japan has not only a splendid future before her with regard to
commercial greatness, but has every chance of rising to the head of
manufacturing nations. In the latter respect she has advantages over
Vancouver’s Island and New South Wales, her rivals on the Pacific. She
is known to possess valuable mineral resources, having good coal mines
at Kiushiu and Hokkukaido. The climate of Japan varies in different
localities, but on the whole is exceedingly healthy. Consisting as the
country does of numerous islands she has many good harbours and trading
ports. Wages are low though they might rise if a corresponding increase
of labour is required. The credit system is fairly well carried out[19]
and is growing day by day. There are about four hundred banks, including
the Bank of Japan; and the medium of exchange has a regular standard.
The principal exports are silk, tea, coal, and rice. Japan is not the
producer of raw goods for manufacturing purposes, but simply works them
up. Her area is not in comparison with the commercial greatness which
she will attain in the future. She may import raw goods from America,
Australia, and the Asiatic countries, in the same way that England does.
Her position enables her also to obtain wool from Australia and
California, also cotton from China, Manchooria, India, and Queensland.
All these imports are worked up into different manufacturing goods. She
has an advantage here over England, for she has not so far to send her
manufactured goods, and does not need, like England, to send them all
round the world.
Thus we see Japan has ample scope from a commercial point of view, and
has plenty of friendly countries close at home for the production of her
raw material, and has great advantages in sea routes to America and
Australia.
The Japanese are born sailors, being islanders.
There are several large steamship companies[20] whose ships are
continually plying along her own shores[21] and also to the mainland of
China, and one company contemplates shortly opening communication with
North and South America. It has often puzzled me why Japan does not hold
closer relations with Australia, especially as Australia is becoming one
of her most important neighbours in commerce. I can certainly predict
that if this suggestion comes to pass, that together they will in the
future hold the key of the Pacific trade.
Australia and her near colonies have already begun to play an important
part in the affairs of the Pacific; and why should she not, considering
their natural wealth and general progress? European Powers have begun to
take great interest, both commercially and diplomatically, in these
colonies. England, France, Spain, and Holland long ago saw the advantage
of having secured coaling stations in the Pacific, and England and
France have always taken great care in selecting posts in the immediate
vicinity of the sea route between America and Australia; and since the
working of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Panama Canal, they have
begun to annex those islands which lie near the route from Panama to the
Australian colonies, and from the latter to Vancouver. The French
occupation of Tahiti and the Rapa (both containing good harbours) in
1880 was with the distinct object of controlling the sea route from
Panama to Sydney, Brisbane, and Auckland. England also began to fortify
Jamaica in 1887, and she is now casting her eyes on Raratonga. The
dispute regarding the New Hebrides and the Samoan Conference[22] were
simply for the protection of the Vancouvan-Australian-San-Franciscan
sea-ways. England has lately annexed the Ellice Islands and undoubtedly
will shortly occupy the Gilbert and Charlotte Islands.
Germany also has been considering the Asiatic-Australian routes,
foreseeing that the whole Pacific question rests on that basis. In 1884
she annexed New Guinea, and the Bismarckian policy proved a severe blow
to the British power in the North and West Pacific. There are three
great sea routes from New South Wales to Hong Kong and other parts of
the North Pacific; one travels eastward of the Solomon Islands and New
Caledonia (6,000 miles) and the other two westward of the
above-mentioned islands (5,500 and 5,000 miles).
The German occupation of New Guinea actually resulted in her having the
entire control of these three important sea routes. The English
possession of the Treasury Islands, the depôt made there, and of the
Louisiade Archipelago is certainly not strong enough to protect these
routes, though they are very important for the defence of the Australian
colonies. Even the trade route from Vancouver’s Island to Brisbane has
to a certain extent been endangered. It would be policy on England’s
part to annex the Solomon Islands if she means to regain the prestige
which she has lost owing to the Germanic policy of annexation in the
Pacific.
In order to firmly establish her power in this quarter, Germany, in
1885, raised a quarrel with Spain concerning the sovereignty of the
Caroline and Pelew Islands, but this quarrel was composed by the
mediation of the Pope.
Frederick the Great “preferred regiments, as a ship cost as much as a
regiment.” Bismarck preferred “the Greater Germany,” and his policy was
“the German trade with the German flag” (_i.e._, the German flag shall
go where German trade has already established a footing). This policy
proved very successful, not only in the West Pacific, but also in the
North Pacific and the eastern coast of Africa. Germany now is the chief
colonizing rival of England.
In 1883 Mr. Chester annexed all the parts of New Guinea with the
adjacent islands lying between 141 deg. and 155 deg. of E. long. Lord
Derby; however, annulled this annexation, regarding it as an unfriendly
act, and he also assured the Colonial Government that “Her Majesty’s
Government are confident that no foreign power contemplates interference
in New Guinea.” This occurred in May, 1884. But this prognostication did
not prove true, for in November of the same year Germany occupied New
Guinea.
This caused much public indignation in the English colonies against the
Home Government, and the public of England recognized that the reasons
and complaints of the Australian Colonies were right and just.
The movement of Imperial Federation sprang up in England, the chief
object of which was “a closer association between the Colonies and Great
Britain and Ireland for common national purposes such as colonial and
foreign policy, defence and trade.” The result of this was the Colonial
Conference in 1887; and Lord Salisbury, offering a hearty welcome to the
Colonial delegates, said: “I do not recommend you to indulge in schemes
of Constitution making;” but also said: “It will be the parent of a long
progeniture, and distant councils of the empire may, in some far-off
time, look back to the meeting in this room as the root from which their
greatness and beneficence sprang.”
The following subjects were submitted for discussion: (1) The local
defence of ports other than Imperial coaling stations; (2) the naval
defence of the Australian Colonies; (3) measures of precaution in
relation to the defences of colonial ports; (4) various questions in
connection with the military aspects of telegraph cables, their
necessity for purpose of war, and their protection; (5) questions
relating to the employment and training of local or native troops to
serve as garrisons of works of defence; and, lastly (6), the promotion
of commercial and social relations by the development of our postal and
telegraphic communication.
Thus, by means of this Conference, the military federation of the
British Empire was established. By its efforts the English squadron in
the China Sea and in the Australian seas are more closely connected
together than they have been before, and, if needed, the English forces
in the North Pacific would be reinforced by Australian troops. We saw an
instance of this in the late Egyptian campaign.
One more question remains to be ventilated, viz., whether England is
able to secure absolute power in the North Pacific with the naval and
military forces she has at her command there, using Hong Kong as the
centre of war preparations.
I answer in the negative. It could be maintained only by an occupier of
the Island of Formosa, the “Malta” of the North Pacific, which lies
between the North China Sea and the South China Sea. Its area is
estimated at 14,978 square miles. It has a healthy climate, tempered by
the influence of the sea and its mountains. Coal is to be found in
considerable quantities, although not of the best quality. Its natural
products are plentiful, such as sugar, tea, and rice. It possesses
several good harbours, one of which, Tam-sui, or Howei, is surrounded by
hills upwards of 2,000 feet high, and has a depth of 3½ fathoms with a
bar of 7½ feet.
From this island, with a good navy, any power almost might be exerted
over the North and South China Seas, and over the Pacific highways from
Hong Kong to Australia, Panama, Nicaragua, San Francisco, Vancouver,
Japan, Shanghai. All these are in fairly close proximity to Formosa, and
the Shanghai route to Hong Kong actually runs between the island and the
China mainland.
There remain still two or three more facts which must not be neglected
in order to obtain a fair view of this important question.
(_a_) It is a fine post for any offensive attack upon China, and also a
stronghold for an attack upon the British power in the Pacific. If
fortified and defended by a navy from any other power, Formosa would
prove a great rival to Hong Kong, which would lose at least half of its
importance, commercially and strategically, and which has already been
somewhat weakened by the French occupation of Cochin China, in 1882.[23]
(_b_) In case of Asiatic complications, England would naturally expect
reinforcements from Australia, and from the mother country by the
Canadian Pacific Railway, but after they arrive at Vancouver, and are on
transport, they will be at the mercy either of Japan or the occupier,
whoever it may be, of Formosa. Even the Bismarckian policy _re_ New
Guinea would be broken down, _i.e._, all commercial and strategical
communication between Hong Kong and Australia would be seriously
incommoded by the occupation of Formosa.
(_c_) If China herself occupied Formosa thoroughly,[24] and allied with
Japan who occupies the Loo Choo Islands, they would be impregnable in
the sea above 20° of N. lat.
Again, if the occupier of the Loo Choo Islands[25] also occupied Formosa
on a military basis, she again would have nearly absolute control of the
North Pacific. England would be supreme if she held both Hong Kong and
Formosa; Germany if the holder would not only complete the Bismarckian
policy in New Guinea, but would start a new Germanic policy in the North
Pacific.
Thus we see that Japan, China, England, and Germany, might become
important actors in the China Sea, while Russia and China would be
actors behind the scenes in Manchooria and Mongolia.
The whole result of a historical study of the foreign policy of England
and Russia tells us that Russia has increased her influence by annexing
and conquering in every[26] direction of the compass with Moscow as the
centre of the Empire. Peter the Great started in the direction of the
Baltic, _i.e._, north-west; Catherine II. towards the Crimea and Poland
in a south and westerly direction; Alexander I. confined his attention
to the Balkans and Caucasus, while Nicholas improved on the same
directions, and marched into Central Asia, and since 1858 the Russian
attention has been turned on the East, _i.e._, the Pacific.
England, on the other hand, has added to her fame by establishing the
following naval and coaling stations along the great highways of trade:—
Heligoland in the North Sea, the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Malta,
Cyprus, Perim, Aden, Ceylon, Singapore, Hong Kong and Labuan; the
Accession Islands, St. Helena, and the Cape of Good Hope, in Africa; the
Bermuda Islands, Halifax, the West Indies, especially Jamaica, and the
Falkland Islands in America, besides many important islands in the South
and West Pacific.
By means of these, in the present days of steam, she has been able to
maintain her place as the Queen of the Maritime World—a position
superior to Russia, although the latter country is lord of one-seventh
of the globe.
With such great rivals, we can surely predict that at some future time
Russia will work her way into Manchooria and Mongolia to the Yellow Sea
and attack the North Pacific. “Everything is obtained by pains,” said
Peter the Great, in 1722; “even India was not easily found after the
long journey round the Cape of Good Hope.”[27] To this Soimonf, who
afterwards devoted himself for seventeen years to the exploration of
Siberia, and was its governor, said that “Russia had a much nearer road
to India, and explained the water system of Siberia, how easily and with
how little land carriage goods could be sent from Russia to the Pacific
and then by ships to India.” Peter replied, “It is a long distance and
of no use yet awhile.” But in the present days of telegraphy and
railroads it is not a great distance at all.
England will without doubt occupy Formosa in order to uphold her power
in the same quarter. The result it would be almost impossible to
foretell. But this fact remains a certainty that will one day come to
pass, that England and Russia will at some future period fight for
supremacy in the North Pacific. Japan lies between the future
combatants!
PART II.
_THE EASTERN QUESTION._
I.
FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND DURING THE SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND
EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.
_The Spanish Empire, its power, and its decline—Commercial rivalry of
England and Holland—The ascendency of France; threatened by the
Grand Alliance—The Spanish succession and the Bourbon
league—England’s connection with the war of the Austrian
succession—The Seven Year’ War—Revival of the Anglo-Bourbon struggle
in the American and Napoleonic wars._
Charles V. of Spain in the height of his power reigned over almost the
whole of Western Europe. Besides being King of Spain he was Archduke of
Austria, Duke of Burgundy, and Lord of Spanish-America. “The Emperor,”
said Sir William Cecil, “is aiming at the sovereignty of Europe which
cannot be obtained without the suppression of the reformed religion, and
unless he crushes the English nation he cannot crush the Reformation.”
Perceiving this important fact, Charles directed his attention to
England, and offered the hand of his son Philip to Mary of England who
was anxious to bring back the Catholic Faith into England.
Their marriage took place in 1554, and proved a great help towards
re-establishing the Papal supremacy in England, besides making Spain and
England strong political allies.
Charles V. abdicated in 1555 and spent the rest of his life in seclusion
at San Yusti, and the great part of his dominions, viz., the Colonies,
Italy, and the Netherlands descended to his son, Philip II., who was by
his marriage with Mary nominal King of England.
On the childless death of Mary the English crown descended to Elizabeth
in 1558. Philip thereupon offered marriage to her, but the virgin queen
wisely declined. England was by this refusal emancipated from Papal
interference and the tyrannies of Philip, and Elizabeth resolved to
carry out her religious and political views independently. Her
doctrinal[28] reform and foreign policy naturally made Spain her bitter
enemy.
In the Netherlands Philip’s general conduct raised the inhabitants to
revolt, and under the leadership of the Prince of Orange they soon
obtained a strong position, and eventually, in 1648, after a long and
protracted struggle, their independence was recognized.
Thus the two great sea powers of Philip’s age were both common enemies
against the arrogance of Spain and were consequently united.
In France a similar religious struggle, fierce and bitter, was raging.
Civil war was rampant and atrocities numerous, the massacre on St.
Bartholomew’s Day being a notable example. In 1585 the Catholic party
formed the “League,” whose main objects were the annihilation of the
reformed party, and the elevation of the Guises to the French throne
through an alliance with Philip II. of Spain. Its manifesto stated that
French subjects were not bound to recognize a prince who was not a
Catholic. The death of Henri III. made the situation worse, for two
candidates for the French throne appeared,—Henry of Navarre, who was
supported by the Huguenots and the Cardinal of Bourbon, whom the
Leaguers followed, while Philip II. laid claim to the throne on behalf
of his daughter by his third marriage with Elizabeth of Valois, sister
of Henri III. Hence, after the accession of the House of Bourbon, a
coalition of England, Holland, and France was formed against Philip II.
of Spain, and from 1600 to 1660 the European coalition was England,
Holland, and France, _versus_ the Spanish Empire.
In the meantime Spain had acquired Portugal in 1580, by which both
countries became one state, and Philip II. sovereign of the whole
oceanic world. Portugal for sixty years remained a dependency of Spain,
and then the Spanish Empire had attained to vast and unwieldy
dimensions. She could no longer defend her colonies from foreign
invasion and plunder. The Dutch established themselves wherever they
pleased, and plundered and occupied most of the Portuguese possessions.
It has been truly said that the Colonial Empire of Holland was founded
at the expense first of Portugal, and ultimately of Spain.[29]
England at this time was rapidly rising into the front rank of European
nations. In 1588 the “Invincible Armada” appeared in the English Channel
and was annihilated and disgraced. This was the introduction to that
English colonial greatness on which the sun never sets.
Then came the beginning of the fall of the Spanish Empire. In 1640
Cardinal Richelieu, the ablest French statesman, provoked Portugal to
rebel, his object being the aggrandizement of his own country abroad.
The revolt proved successful under John of Braganza, and again Portugal
posed as a nation. This proved a deadly blow to Spanish power, and
Cromwell finally crushed her power by his invincible foreign policy. He
seized Jamaica while Charles II. acquired Bombay.
This gradual decay of Spain had a corresponding inspiriting effect on
England and Holland. Both became commercial and colonial rivals one with
another. Ashley Cooper said, “Holland is our great rival in the ocean
and in the New World. Let us destroy her though she be a Protestant
Power; let us destroy her with the help of a Catholic Power.”[30]
The great naval victories of England and the Navigation Acts, 1651,
1663, and 1672,[31] crushed the Dutch carrying trade and navy, and
England now began to assume the supremacy of the whole oceanic world
which has from that time never departed from her.
However, France gradually filled the breach left by Holland and Spain,
and became a great naval rival of England. The strength of all the
nations round her had been considerably weakened by the Thirty Years’
War, while her commercial and manufacturing progress soon made her one
of the strongest European Powers.
From 1660 to 1672 may be regarded as the period of the great national
rise of France. Louis XIV. laid claim to Belgium and Burgundy in 1665 on
the death of Philip IV. of Spain, and in order to enforce his claim his
army entered Flanders and Burgundy, but owing to the pressure of the
Triple Alliance[32] the unfavourable Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle was
concluded.
However, later on Louis broke the Triple Alliance and secured the
valuable assistance of England and Spain, and with the assistance of the
former nation he made a concerted attack upon Holland. France had now
reached the topmost rung of the ladder between 1678 and 1688.
About this period the struggle against absolute monarchy was nearly
concluded in England, and was further strengthened in 1689 by the
Declaration of Rights. The English crown was offered to William of
Orange and Mary and accepted by them. Already this personal union had
caused an alliance to be formed between England and Holland, at that
time the two great Protestant Powers of Europe, against France the great
Roman Catholic upholder.
If France had remained quiet during the above-mentioned internal
discord, England would have been unable to form the “Grand Alliance.”
Thus Louis committed a great error in assuming an offensive attitude
against the two Protestant Powers. This caused a coalition to be formed
against him of England, Holland, Spain, and Austria.
This new system in Europe existed from 1688 to 1700. Then new
complications arose, for Charles II., King of Spain, died childless, and
the extinction of the Spanish House of Hapsburg seemed to be near at
hand. The question of a Spanish successor now occupied the minds of the
European cabinets after the Peace of Ryswick.
There were three claimants: Louis XIV., Leopold I., and the Electoral
Prince of Bavaria. The dominions of the Spanish sovereign were still
extensive, viz., Spain itself, the Milan territory, Italy, the
Netherlands, and Spanish-America. To unite the Spanish monarchy with
that of France or Austria, would destroy the European balance of power.
Consequently a general council with regard to the succession took place,
and the First Partition Treaty was drawn up. Charles II. of Spain,
however, made a will, appointing Louis’ grandson, Philip of Anjou, as
his successor, so Louis XIV. determined to uphold the will rather than
the treaty.
In 1701 the Duke of Anjou was peacefully proclaimed king as Philip V.
Louis XIV. on hearing this boasted that “Il n’y a plus de Pyrenees.”
This Bourbon succession in Spain changed the European system, and
henceforth we have England, Holland, and Austria, as opposed to France
and Spain.
The Duke of Marlborough, who combined the qualities of a general,
diplomatist, and minister skilfully together, was the leader of the
Second Grand Alliance against the Houses of Bourbon.
The inability of France to defend the Spanish Empire, followed by the
War of the Spanish Succession, paved the way for the Peace of Utrecht
(1713). By this treaty the Bourbons lost Italy and the Low Countries,
but retained the throne of Spain, thus still leaving that country open
to the influence of France. Hence the permanent alliance of France and
Spain was formed in the eighteenth century.
Meanwhile Holland had fallen into decay through internal exhaustion
caused by her struggle against foreign enemies; thus England had taken
her place as the great maritime and colonial power. Thus we see the
struggle between England and France (supported by Spain) for the oceanic
world in the eighteenth century.
By the Utrecht Treaty, France ceded to England Newfoundland, Arcadia,
and Hudson’s Bay territory, while Spain also ceded Gibraltar, the
Minorca Island, and the Asiento, the occupation of the two former making
another bitter enemy to England.
Spain had already a hatred of English trade with her colonies in
America, so that only a single English ship was conceded by the Treaty
of Utrecht, giving thereby only a limited right of trade in South
America to England. But this was evaded by a vast system of smuggling
which arose and proved a constant source of dispute between England and
Spanish revenue officers and rendered peace almost impossible.
In 1733 the first secret _pacte de famille_ had been concluded between
France and Spain for the ruin of English maritime trade. The American
coast was keenly watched, and the result was “The Jenkins’ Ear War,”
1739.
Charles VI., having no son, established an order of succession by the
Pragmatic Sanction, signed by nearly all the European Powers, by which
his daughter, Maria Theresa, was to succeed to all the hereditary
dominions of Hapsburg. But on his death two claimants appeared on the
scene—the Elector of Bavaria and Philip V. of Spain.
Walpole did his best to form a Grand Alliance between Hanover and
Prussia, also between England, Holland, and Austria. However,
Frederick’s claim to Silesia being refused by Austria, the French and
Prussian armies crossed the Rhine, 1741. Thus France began the War of
the Austrian Succession. In 1743 the Battle of Dettingen was fought
between England and France, the former fighting on behalf of Maria
Theresa, and as yet feeling her way carefully before she was brought
into direct conflict with the latter Power.
After the Treaty of Worms the question at issue was changed to that of
naval supremacy, and the War of the Austrian Succession fell into the
background.
In 1744, after an attempted invasion of England on behalf of the
Pretender, France declared war against both England and Austria. This
was bad policy, for if she had fought against one enemy at a time she
would have stood a far better chance of crushing England’s power.
Professor Seeley says, “If we compare together those seven wars between
1688 and 1815, we shall be struck with the fact that most of them were
double wars, and that there is one aspect between France and England,
another between France and Germany.... It is France,” says he, “that
suffers by it.”[33]
England and Holland firmly allied with one another, and German troops
were subsidized by England.
Against this alliance the second secret _pacte de famille_ was founded.
Battles were fought on all sides, by land and sea, both in Europe and
America. In spite of French successes at Fontenoy and Laufeldt, she was
severely defeated both on the sea and in America. Louisburg fell, Cape
Breton Island was captured, and many other losses sustained. At length
the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle brought a nominal peace into the oceanic
world, in 1748.
In 1756 this nominal peace came to an end, and the Seven Years’ War[34]
was fought out, both in the Old and New Worlds; Pitt the elder then
appeared as a great actor on England’s side, and used his great talents
to crush down the French Colonial Empire, and to obtain for his country
the sole mastery of the oceanic world.
He was essentially a war Minister: “The war was vigorously carried on
throughout 1758 in every part of the globe where French could be found,
and in 1759 Pitt’s energy and his tact in choosing men everywhere were
rewarded by the extraordinary success by land and sea.”[35]
The glorious death of Wolfe on the Heights of Abraham was followed by
the surrender of Montreal and the brilliant victory of Plassey in India
by Clive over the French. Pitt assured his countrymen that “they should
not be losers” (in giving pecuniary assistance to Frederick the Great)
“and that he would conquer America for them in Germany.”
This proved true. In 1762 the fall of the French Colonial Empire
occurred, and England obtained Canada and India.
This wonderful statesman[36] undoubtedly made England the first country
in the world.
_Three Wars of Revenge._
“A height of prosperity and glory unknown to any former age,”[37] was
reached in England during the administration of Chatham. Now the tide of
fortune began to run against England.
The passing of the famous Stamp Act, and many other “repeated injuries
and usurpations,”[38] made the relations between England and the
American Colonies virtually hostile. At last the Colonies revolted, and
it gave Spain and France the long-wished-for opportunity of taking
revenge upon England. France and Spain formed the third _pacte de
famille_, and assisted the insurgent Colonies, and the independence of
the United States was acknowledged in 1783.
In 1789 the French Revolution broke out, and the first effect felt in
England was the breaking-up of the Whig party.
In 1792 Austria and Prussia invaded France in order to put down the
Republicans in that country. In retaliation France determined to declare
war against all countries governed by kings, which principle she
established by the “Decree of November 19th,” and in 1793 she declared
war against England and Holland.
The younger Pitt had now come to the front. He was an economist and
advocated a peace policy. In the spring of 1792 he reduced the navy and
confidently looked forward to at least fifteen years of peace. There is
no doubt that if France had remained quiet his hopes would have proved
correct, and that the west bank of the Rhine would now be under French
rule.
But France was eager to revenge past injuries put upon her by England;
and, as if in answer to her desires, the second Alexander the Great
appeared in Napoleon, and began “alarming the Old World with his
dazzling schemes of aggrandizement.”
Against England his whole energies were directed. “Let us be masters,”
said he, “of the Channel for six hours and we are masters of the
world.”[39] In 1798, he captured Malta, occupied Egypt, and undertook a
campaign in Syria, as a furtherance to his desires of obtaining India,
at the same time retaining his ideas with regard to England. Malta to
Egypt, Egypt to India, India to England.
In 1802 a momentary universal peace occurred. But Napoleon could not
rest, his ambition spurred him on. His anger was again kindled by the
English retention of Malta, after his defeat in Egypt, and he saw if
Malta was wrested from him his lofty schemes would be undermined. In
1803 he again declared war against England and Holland. He arrested all
the English residents in France between the ages of sixteen and sixty
and kept them confined.
The younger Pitt was just the statesman fit to cope with him, and
frustrate his aims. He aimed at a European coalition,[40] by which all
threatening dangers from the overwhelming greatness of one nation might
be averted.
On October 21, 1805, the glorious victory at Trafalgar, the outcome and
consummation of Nelson’s inspiring command, “England expects every man
to do his duty,” broke the naval power of France. And yet this was
followed by the capitulation of Ulm, the defeat at Austerlitz, and the
subsequent Treaty of Presburg, which broke up the coalition of England,
Russia, and Austria, and seriously affected Pitt’s health thereby.
Truly, “Austerlitz killed Pitt.”[41]
At once Napoleon proceeded to turn the whole forces he had on the
Continent against England, especially after the Peace of Tilsit, (1807).
He first attacked England with the “Continental System,” _i.e._, he
prohibited all direct and indirect European trade with the British
Isles. This he confirmed by the Decrees of Berlin (1806) and Milan
(1807).
In 1812 he invaded Russia and entered the famous city with the cry of
“Moscow! Moscow!” Even at that moment, however, his real aim of attack
was England, across the Channel.
England was ever uppermost in his thoughts. “He conquers Germany, but
why? Because Austria and Russia, subsidized by England, march against
him while he is brooding at Boulogne over the conquest of England. When
Prussia was conquered, what was his first thought? That now he has a new
weapon against England, since he can impose the Continental System upon
all Europe. Why does he occupy Spain and Portugal? It is because they
are maritime countries, with fleets and colonies that may be used
against England.”[42]
Napoleon was driven out of Moscow by fire, and his return march turned
literally into a defeat, while his plan of a direct attack in England,
through Belgium, three years after, was frustrated at Waterloo.
Thus the scene of the great Napoleonic drama in English history closed
on June 18, 1815.
II.
FOREIGN POLICY OF RUSSIA DURING THE REIGNS OF PETER THE GREAT, CATHERINE
II., AND ALEXANDER I.
_Peter the Great, and establishment of Russian power on the
Baltic—Consequent collision with the Northern States and the
Maritime Powers—Catherine II. and Poland—First partition—Russia
reaches the Black Sea—Russo-Austrian alliance against Turkey opposed
by Pitt—Second and third partitions of Poland—Rise of
Prussia—Alexander I. and the conquest of Turkey—Treaty of
Tilsit—Peace of Bucharest—Congress of Vienna—French influence in the
East destroyed._
_Peter the Great_ (1689–1725).
The Russian territory now extends over one-seventh of the globe, and
Alexander III. rules over more than 100,000,000 souls. Russia is a
powerful political rival not only of England alone, but of all the
European Powers.[43]
However, on Peter the Great’s accession to the throne, his country
covered an area of only 265,000 square miles, and no harbours were to be
found either on the Baltic or the Black Sea. This was felt to be a
serious obstacle for a rising Power. Peter himself said, in the preface
to the “Maritime Regulations”: “For some years I had the fill of my
desires on Lake Pereyaslavl, but finally it got too narrow for me. I
then went to the Kubensky Lake, but that was too shallow. I then decided
to _see the open sea_ and began often to beg the permission of my mother
to go to Archangel.”[44] His first and great object was to establish
harbours on the Baltic or the Black Sea.
The Turks were the preliminary object of his attack. The first campaign
against Azof (1695) proved a failure, but a new campaign was started
again in 1696, and the Czar’s “bravery and his genius” were rewarded
with a great victory over Azof. Here begins the modern history of
Russia.
[Illustration:
THE EXPANSION OF RUSSIA IN EUROPE.]
Immediately after the capture of Azof Peter determined to carry out his
design of creating a large fleet on the Black Sea. For the purpose, “no
sooner had the festivities in Moscow ended than, at a general council of
the boyars, it was decided to send 3,000 families of peasants and 3,000
streltsi and soldiers to populate the empty town of Azof and firmly to
establish the Russian power at the mouth of the Don. At a second council
Peter stated the absolute necessity for a large fleet, and apparently
with such convincing arguments, that the assembly decided that one
should be built. Both civilians and clergy were called upon for
sacrifices.”[45]
Peter also sent fifty men of the highest families in Russia to Italy,
Holland, and England, to study the art of ship-building. Peter himself
visited Holland and England that he might learn ship-building. “One
thing, however, he could not learn there, and that was the construction
of galleys and galliots, such as were used in the Mediterranean, and
would be serviceable in the Bosphorus and on the coast of the Crimea.
For this he desired to go to Venice.”[46] This clearly shows us that
Peter had conceived the idea of establishing a strong navy on the Black
Sea.
The revolt of the streltsi recalled him home; however, he found no
difficulty in suppressing the insurrection.
After this, he sent an envoy to the Ottoman Empire to obtain permission
for the Russian fleet to enter the Black Sea, to which the Porte
replied: “The Black Sea and all its coasts are ruled by the Sultan
alone. They have never been in the possession of any other Power, and
since the Turks have gained sovereignty over this sea, from time
immemorial no foreign ship has ever sailed its water, nor ever will sail
them.”
Meanwhile Charles XII., King of Sweden, began to assume an attitude of
hostility to Peter, and the Battle of Narva was fought, where Peter was
miserably defeated. After this war, Charles made Russia the great object
of his attack instead of Poland. He said, “I will treat with the Czar at
Moscow.” Peter replied, “My brother Charles wishes to play the part of
Alexander, but he will not find me Darius.” The Battle of Pultawa (1709)
soon decided Peter’s superiority, and the Peace of Nystadt (1721) added
the Baltic provinces and a number of islands in the Baltic to Russia.
In 1703 “a great window for Russia to look out at Europe”—so Count
Algaratti called St. Petersburg—was made by Peter on the marshes of the
Neva. This step firmly established Russian power on the Baltic.
But to establish Russian power on the Baltic at all was as great a
mistake as ever has been committed by so shrewd a statesman as Peter the
Great. The predominance of Russia in the Baltic with her strong navy
threatened the interest of the commerce and carrying-trade of the
English and Dutch. Hence it was natural enough that England and Holland,
two great maritime powers, should have joined to protect their interest
in the Baltic as well as the integrity of Sweden against Russian
aggression. In the case of the Northern War, England had formed an
alliance with Sweden and sent her fleet to the Baltic under command of
Admiral Norris to prevent the Russian sway on those waters.
Had Peter thought less of the importance of the Baltic, and concentrated
his energies on obtaining a sure foothold in the Crimea, Constantinople
would now be a Russian southern capital.
_Catherine II._ (1762–1796).
The Seven Years’ War had been brought to a finish when Catherine II.
ascended the Russian throne. The next great European complication was
brought about by the affairs of Poland.
On the death of Augustus III., Stanislaus Poniatowski was elected King
of Poland, and at the request of Prussia and Russia the dissenters,
adherents of the Greek Church and the Protestants, received all civil
rights.
In opposition to this a Confederation of Bar was formed in 1768, with
the object of dethroning the King. Catherine now began to interfere with
Poland on behalf of the Greek Christians, and supported the King with
her Russian army. This interference made her practically mistress of
Poland. Turkey, an ally of the Confederacy, being alarmed at the growing
Russian influence and being urged on by France, declared war upon Russia
in order to resist the progress of Catherine in Poland; but this proved
disastrous, as she was miserably defeated, both on land and sea, and
brought to the verge of ruin. This Russian success alarmed Western
Europe, and especially the two neighbouring Christian Powers, Prussia
and Austria, each of whom had a special interest in the existence of
Poland and Turkey. Catherine would not make peace without acquiring
territory as a compensation for her exertions and outlay, while Prussia
and Austria would not allow her to do this unless they acquired a
certain amount of territory themselves. Hence the First Partition of
Poland took place, by which the three Powers secured equal
aggrandizement, Russia receiving the eastern part of Lithuania as her
share.
In 1774 the Treaty of Kutschouk Kainardji was concluded with Turkey, by
which the independence of the Mongol Tartars in the Crimea was
acknowledged by the Sultan; Russia obtained the right of protection over
all the Christian subjects of the Porte within a certain limit, and also
the right of free navigation in all Turkish waters for trading vessels.
This treaty firmly planted Russia on the northern coasts of the Black
Sea.
In 1783 the Crimea was incorporated with Russia, and in 1787 Catherine
visited the southern part of Russia as far as Kherson, on the Black Sea.
Joseph II. of Austria, on hearing of her approach to his dominions,
hastened to meet her, and together they journeyed through the Crimea,
the Czarina unfolding to the Emperor both her own plans and those of
Potemkin, her favourite, viz., to expel all the Turks from Europe,
re-establish the old Empire of Greece, and place her younger grandson
Constantine on the throne of Constantinople. Joseph fell in with her
view, and it was hinted that something like a Western Empire should be
also constituted and placed under the Austrian sway. In this way a
division of the Ottoman Empire was contemplated between the two
countries. This soon aroused the suspicions of Turkey, and war was again
declared. But now it was two against one, and the fate of Turkey again
seemed sealed.
William Pitt was the first statesman who directly opposed Russia and
tendered assistance to Turkey against Russian encroaching power. His
foreign policy of opposition to Russia has been followed more or less by
generations of English Ministers. The Triple Alliance of England,
Prussia, and Holland was formed by Pitt against the “Colossus of the
North,” in order to preserve the balance of power in Europe, and the
death of Joseph. II., saved Turkey again. Pitt, by means of this
Alliance, demanded that a peace be made between Russia and Turkey on the
_status quo ante bellum_, and threatened to maintain his demand by arms.
The English people, however, cared very little about a Russian invasion
of Turkey, while Catherine disregarded Pitt’s threats.
Soon after a peace between Russia and Turkey was concluded at Jassy, by
which Turkey ceded Oczakow and the land between the Dnieper, Bug, and
Dniester, containing several good harbours, and notably Odessa; the
protectorate of Russia over Tiflis and Kartalinia was also recognized.
By the above-mentioned acquisitions she felt certain that very soon
Constantinople would be in her hands. However, a nearer, and, in her
opinion, a more important matter engaged her attention. In 1792 the new
Constitution of Poland was drawn up by Ignaz Potocki, converting the
Elective Monarchy into an hereditary one, the House of Saxony supplying
a dynasty of kings. The Confederacy of Jargowitz, which was formed in
opposition to this new Constitution, called in the help of Russia.
This now seemed to be a grand opportunity for Russia to finally annex
Poland, because the deaths of Frederick the Great (1786) and Joseph
(1790), and the French Revolution, which occupied the attention of all
Western Europe, set the Czarina free from her most watchful rivals. A
Russian army invaded Poland, and the new Constitution was repealed.
Prussian troops also entered Poland under the pretence of suppressing
Jacobinism, and Russia again found herself frustrated, and concluded a
Second Partition (1793) with Prussia, by which she received Lithuania,
Volhynin, and Podolia.
In 1795 the Polish nation rebelled, under the leadership of Xoscruscko,
and this led to a Third Partition between Russia, Prussia, and Austria,
and the former Power added 181,000 square miles, with 6,000,000
inhabitants, together with Curland, to her already vast dominions.
By this last Partition a road of aggression was open towards Sweden on
the north-west, and towards Turkey on the south.
Many combined circumstances led Russia to assume an aggressive policy
towards Turkey specially. Sweden, or rather Finland, was not of
sufficient importance as a prey to the “northern bear”—a warmer climate
was also wanted. Catherine had already discovered the mistaken policy of
Peter the Great, who had spent all his energy in getting the strongholds
of the Baltic in opposition to Charles XII. of Sweden. Russian sway on
the Baltic meant a direct opposition from two great sea Powers, viz.,
England and Holland, whose interests would suffer thereby. A striking
proof of the opposition was seen in the case of the Northern War.
The Partition of Poland produced another stray Power in the Baltic, to
wit, Prussia.
Previous to the Partition of Poland, Prussia Proper and her dominions,
Brandenberg and Silesia, were separated, Poland being between them. The
First Partition joined the Prussian kingdom to the main body of the
Monarchy; by the Second and Third Partitions Prussia obtained the then
South Prussia and East Prussia, thereby uniting all into one compact
body.
Thus unconsciously a powerful Russian enemy was being formed in the
Baltic. Thus Russia had three great enemies—England, Holland, and
Prussia, joined by Sweden and Denmark, on the Baltic.
Catherine had already obtained a firm footing on the Black Sea coast,
and was confident of her ability to occupy Constantinople and make it a
Russian southern capital; the French Revolution attracting the attention
of Western Europe, the Ottoman Empire was left at the mercy of Russia.
Again a Russian occupation would give a fine prospect of extending
Russian authority into Danubian territory, Central Asia, and Asia Minor.
So we may conclude that Catherine’s annexation of Poland was only a step
towards attaining her great aim, and gave her time to mature her plans.
At this juncture Catherine died, and was succeeded by Paul (1796). He
reversed his mother’s policy by concluding an alliance with Turkey
against Napoleon, seeing that the latter’s policy was to destroy the
Turkish Empire for the benefit of France. He changed his policy later,
however, after his unsuccessful campaign in Holland, and threw himself
into Napoleon’s arms by establishing an armed neutrality in the north
against England.
_Alexander I._ (1801–1825).
Catherine died (1796), but her plan did not perish with her. Alexander
I. proved a faithful expounder of the late Czarina’s schemes.
His strong-handed policy was chiefly directed against Armenia and the
Persian frontier, although the Danubian territory, Poland and Finland,
did not escape his watchful eyes. Mingrelia and Imeretia were conquered
in 1803, Shiroan in 1805–1806.
At last Alexander’s policy took a definite form at the Treaty of Tilsit
(1807), for by the first provision “Russia was to take possession of
Turkey in Europe, and push on her conquests in Asia as she thought
proper.” This secret treaty, which was made with Napoleon I., caused
great uneasiness in England, and a coolness sprang up between the two
Powers (1807–1812), although England had adhered to an Anglo-Russian
Alliance during Chatham’s administration, and Alexander joined the
coalition of 1805.
In 1809 Russia gained Finland, with the whole of East Bothnia and part
of West Bothnia, as far as the River Tornea, by the Treaty of
Friedrichsham. The Peace of Bucharest (1812) was the result of England’s
mediation, by which Russia added Bessarabia, and the Pruth was made the
boundary between Russia and Turkey, while Russia gave up Moldavia and
Wallachia, which at that time were occupied by her.
The quarrel between Russia and France concerning the “Continental
System”[47] brought about a French invasion of Russia by 678,000 men
(1812). But Russia coped successfully with her powerful foe.
The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) met to restore the balance of power
and regulate the European relations, and also established the “Pentarchy
of the Great Powers.” Eight nations signed the Act of the Congress of
Vienna, by which Russia was, generally speaking, the greatest gainer,
for she received the greater part of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.
At the Congress of Vienna, Castlereagh (the English representative)
evidently had in view three aims—(1) to prevent any revival of the
Continental System; (2) to protect English communication with India; and
(3) to maintain her supremacy in the Mediterranean. For the first aim,
England obtained Heligoland, and the kingdom of the Netherlands was
formed, and “the surrender of Java was made to the Dutch by way of
increasing the wealth and power of that kingdom, and so helping to
re-establish the due counterpoise to French power which nature has given
to the possession of the Low Countries”; for the second aim, England
also obtained the possession of Cape Colony (from the Dutch) and the
Mauritius (from France) to render safe the road to India; and for the
third aim, England retained Malta, and also the seven Ionian islands
were brought under English protection.
The Battle of Waterloo stamped out Napoleon’s[48] ambitious schemes.
French power and influence in Eastern Europe vanished with Napoleon, and
from that time France has not fully recovered, and is therefore unable
to settle the Eastern Question for her benefit. The Napoleonic plan of
occupying Constantinople has been stolen by Russia.
III.
THE NEW EUROPEAN SYSTEM.
_The concert of the Great Powers; its aims—It does not protect small
states from its own members_, e.g., _Polish Revolution—How far can
it solve the Turkish question?_
Napoleon the Great fell at the Battle of Waterloo, 1815. The “concert of
the Great Powers,” the primary object of which is to avoid the
recurrence of universal war in Europe, was first established at the
Congress of Vienna in the same year. This new European System is,
however, only applicable to the case of a small Power or Powers, but not
to the Great Powers themselves. For instance, in the Schleswig-Holstein,
as well as the Franco-Prussian War, none of the other Great Powers could
interfere, and matters were entirely left to themselves.
[Illustration:
EASTERN EUROPE & WESTERN ASIA.]
But in the case of a lesser state or states becoming breaker of the
peace, the Great Powers have never hesitated to step in and settle the
difference according to their mutual agreement. We see good instance of
it in the Independence of Belgium.
The “concert of the Great Powers” is actually a second phase of the Holy
Alliance, and the new system has usually its object the protection of a
smaller state against the larger. Greek Independence was a singular
example of the new system. The revolt of Greece was entirely suppressed
by the Sultan, and there was no hope of freeing themselves from the
Turkish yoke. Though hardly justifiable, the Great Powers at last
interfered, and made Greece an independent state. The Independence of
Italy was another example.
Thus we see that under the new system now prevalent in Europe, a smaller
state _at least_ attains her end.
Let us examine the Polish Revolution against Russia. The Poles said, Let
us revolt. We shall undoubtedly be beaten by Russia; but we don’t mind
that at all, because we shall _at last_ attain our own end through the
interference of the Great Powers. There was every reason for the event
turning out as they had calculated. Louis Napoleon was the first
European sovereign who interfered in the Polish Revolution, and he
invited England to join him. England, however, declined, owing to the
difficulties of the situation. France, from her isolation, failed in her
desires, and Louis Napoleon lost his European confidence. Truly the fall
of the French Empire began from that date.
This Polish Revolution disclosed another characteristic of the new
European System. In the event of either country concerned being one of
the Great Powers, the system is of no effect at all. The late dispute
between England and Portugal comes under this heading.
One more interesting question needs investigation. How far this new
European System is applicable to the question of Turkey, a country which
may be placed among the first-class Powers, and where Christian
inhabitants are in an inferior position to the Turkish Mahomedans. This
is what I have to discuss in the following five chapters.
IV.
GREEK INDEPENDENCE.
_The Holy Alliance—The Greek insurrection—Interference of the Three
Powers—Battle of Navarino—Treaty of Adrianople—The policy of
Nicholas I.; Treaty of Unkiar Ikelessi—Turkey only saved by English
and French aid—Palmerston succeeds to Canning’s policy._
Alexander I., Emperor of Russia; Francis, Emperor of Austria; and
William I., King of Prussia, formed what was known as the Holy Alliance,
the first-named being the chief instigator.
Its aim was to promote peace and goodwill among European nations, based
upon Christianity, although it seemed quite liable to be abused for the
benefit of absolute monarchy, as in the case of Spain. Nearly all the
European Powers joined it, England[49] being the only one who declined.
England’s argument was that “such interference is inconsistent with the
fundamental laws of Great Britain. It must lead to a system of continual
interference incompatible with European interests and the independence
of nations.”[50] However, we are forced to admit and acknowledge that
the present system of Europe is conducted on the same lines, slightly
modified, as the Holy Alliance.
At the end of the eighteenth century the songs of the poet Rhegus and
the revolutionary influence of France (1789) stirred up the Greeks to
feelings of hatred against the Porte.
In 1821 the Danubian Provinces (Roumania), under the leadership of
Hypisilands, rose in rebellion, trusting to receiving assistance from
Alexander I., the instigator of the Holy Alliance. But their hopes were
shattered, and Turkey soon crushed the revolt. This was the only case in
which Russia did not interfere with Turkey in the Danubian question.
A little reflection, however, will show the cause of the Russian
non-interference in this case. Alexander’s power and influence were
declining, and Russia was filled internally with discontent. Secret
societies flourished everywhere, and the Czar dreaded a revolution in
his own country if he gave help to the Danubian Provinces, which would
be approving a rebellion against a legitimate sovereign.
The Greek rising in the Morea was answered by a counter Turkish massacre
of Greeks in most of the principal cities of Turkey, and Gregory, the
head of the Greek Church at Constantinople, was executed. This caused
great indignation in the Russias and war appeared imminent, but owing to
the mediation of England and Austria it was averted.
There is no doubt that Russia felt that it was to her advantage to
assist a revolutionary movement, in order that she might secure as much
influence in Turkey as possible. But Austrian interest in the Balkans
was of vital importance. Her policy was naturally to oppose Russia in
her desires, in order to keep the Turkish honour unstained and use her
as a bulwark against Russia.
However, great enthusiasm was aroused, not only in England, but also in
Germany and Switzerland.
Lord Byron died,[51] and Shelley wrote for the Greek cause. Lord
Cochrane and Sir Richard Church fought, while the German poet, Müller,
and the Swiss Eynard, warmly upheld the cause of the oppressed Greeks.
Notwithstanding this help, the Greeks were far from fortunate, and the
Sultan, with the help of the Egyptians, captured Athens. But their brave
defence of Missolonghi aroused the sympathies of the European Powers.
_Nicholas I._ (1825–1855).
On the death of Alexander I. the Holy Alliance vanished (1825), and
Nicholas I. ascended the throne (1825–1855). Now the Greeks appealed to
England for help, and Canning[52] saw that it was the best policy for
England to assist Greece in order to control the ambitious plans of
Russia. Accordingly he sent the Duke of Wellington as the English
representative, and a protocol was signed at St. Petersburg by which
Greece was to remain tributary to the Sultan, but to be independent as
regards commercial relations. This protocol developed into the Treaty of
London, between England, France, and Russia, by which the three Powers
bound themselves to act as mediators in the Eastern question. The
mediation of the Powers was rejected by the Porte, but accepted by the
Greeks. The result was that the Turko-Egyptian fleet was totally
destroyed at the Battle of Navarino by the allies, and the Sultan
retreated from the Morea. Canning’s death in 1827 gave England an
opportunity of retiring from active participation in the alliance,
especially as she regarded the Battle of Navarino as an “untoward
event,” so Russia and Turkey were left alone in conflict.
This, in my opinion, was a half-hearted policy on the part of England,
although the Cabinet at that time could do no other, because their
tenets would not allow them to help a revolutionary people against a
country governed by a legitimate sovereignty.
Now had the long-wished-for opportunity arrived for Russia to carry into
effect on Turkey her long-cherished designs. Diebitch, a Russian
general, crossed the Balkans, and soon captured Adrianople; while
Paskevitch took Kars and Erzeroom in Asia.
These successes resulted in the Treaty of Adrianople (1829), between
Russia and Turkey. By the treaty[53] Russia gave back almost all her
conquests to Turkey, only retaining the ports of Anapa and Poti, on the
eastern coast of the Black Sea, and the Protectorate powers of the Czar
over the Danubian Principalities were confirmed and extended. In return
Turkey acquiesced in all the provisions of the London Conference.
This made Greece practically an independent state.
Nicholas pursued the policy of Alexander I. with regard to the Asiatic
boundaries, and successfully carried on a war with Persia from 1826 to
1828 which was terminated by the Treaty of Turkmantchai (1828), Russia
receiving the provinces of Erivan and Nakhitcheven. This was the period
of the expansion of Russia, and the first appearance of Russia as a real
rival of Great Britain.
Reviewing the general policy of Nicholas the reader cannot help being
struck with the skilful manner and clever system by which the Czar
carried out his plans.
Before his reign the Russian attacks were all made particularly in the
south-west and south-east direction, viz., the Danubian territory, and
Armenia; but on his accession he began to attack from a more southerly
direction even than Turkey, viz., Greece, whom he assisted in rebellion
against her Turkish oppressors. From 1826–1828 he attacked in a
south-easterly quarter, viz., Armenia and Persia, at the same time
occupying Adrianople and threatening Constantinople. Finally, to
complete his plans, he struck a fatal blow at the heart of Turkey, viz.,
its capital, Constantinople, in 1833, with the Treaty of Unkiar
Skelessi, by which Turkey was practically made a vassal of Russia.
This treaty exercised a great influence upon foreign powers. For Russia
by it would have obtained actual possession not only of the Black Sea
but also of its only entrance, the Dardanelles, which thus would have
become a fortified Russian outpost.
Turkey now was in a very precarious state. She was almost past the aid
of any earthly powers. But luckily two doctors stepped into the breach,
namely, England and France, and, after a course of treatment, the
following protocol was indited by the Pentarchy of Powers: “That ships
of war have at all times been prohibited from entering the Channel of
Constantinople, viz., by the Straits of the Dardanelles and of the Black
Sea.”
Reshid Pacha had performed for Turkey great internal reforms, but,
unfortunately, he was exiled through a Court intrigue. This proved a
great blow to Turkish politics.
Thus Turkey began to decline again; and, as John Bright said in an able
speech at Manchester (1854), “Turkey is a decaying nation;” and Cobden
on the same occasion said, “Turkey is a decaying country, and the Turks
cannot be permanently maintained as a ruling Power in Europe.” The Czar
himself said that “a sick man is dying,” referring to Turkey, in his
remarkable conversation with Sir Hamilton Seymour on January 28, 1853.
When Turkey appeared at her last gasp she had been saved by England and
France. Now, for the second time, the same Powers rescued her from
annihilation.
England a short time previously had been in a feeble state owing to her
severe war with Napoleon the Great. This had exhausted her financially
to a great extent.[54]
However, Huskisson’s commercial policy (1823), Wellingtons Catholic
Emancipation (1829), Russell’s great Reform Bill (1832), and the Repeal
of the Corn Laws by Sir Robert Peel (1846), had exercised a refreshing
influence upon her general prosperity.
Here Lord Palmerston, a disciple[55] of Canning, appeared on the scene
to play his part in “the European concert.”
V.
THE CRIMEAN WAR.
_Nicholas I. alienates France from England by the Egyptian
question—Mehemet Ali and Palmerston’s convention against
him—Nicholas I. in England—The Protectorate of the Holy Land; breach
between Russia and France—Proposed partition of Turkey—War of Russia
and Turkey—The Vienna Note—Intervention of France and England to
save Turkey—Treaty of Paris; Russia foiled—Correspondence between
Palmerston and Aberdeen as to the declaration of war—National
feeling of England secures the former’s triumph—French motives in
joining in the war._
Although Turkey was unable to withstand Russia alone, yet, with the help
of England and France, she was able to prevent the Russian inroad, on
the south.
Nicholas, ever crafty, now turned his attention to fostering the minor
disputes which still existed between England and France.
Being envious of the English naval supremacy in the Mediterranean,
France resumed her traditional policy of obtaining influence in Egypt,
in order to be able to have a stronghold there against English power,
and succeeded in making Egypt a faithful ally.
England, on the other hand, clung to the alliance with Turkey, and
assisted the Sultan in quelling the rebellion of Mehemet Ali.
Thus we see there existed a difference between the two Powers,
notwithstanding that Russia was a common rival of both.
Nicholas used this difference as a tool to weaken the allies against his
own country.
In 1839 Mehemet Ali, with the silent approval of Russia, determined to
become an independent monarch.
Thiers, a minister of Louis Phillipe, in helping Mehemet Ali, the
viceroy of Egypt, had fallen into a Russian trap, although he believed
and hoped that he was following the traditional policy of Napoleon the
Great. This proved, however, a mistaken policy; for it was the general
European feeling that if war resulted the Egyptians would be victorious,
Constantinople would be in danger; the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi would
come into force, the Russians would rush to help the Porte, while the
Anglo-French fleets would be barred from the Dardanelles.
Lord Palmerston saw that the united action of the five Great Powers
might settle the Eastern Question and destroy the influence of Russia,
which seemed to be too arbitrarily strong. His idea was that a
Conference should be held by the five Great Powers, and this was
approved of by all.
There was no doubt that the Conference was not as unanimous as could be
wished, and certainly England did not agree with France on several
points.
At length Palmerston made a convention with three of the Powers for an
armed interference in the Eastern Question. France was left alone. And
Palmerston determined to pursue the above-mentioned policy.
Admiral Stopford captured Beyrout, and Sir Charles Napier bombarded
Acre. The fall of the fortress of Acre—which was thought to be
impregnable—before the English fleet, terminated the war, and Mehemet
Ali became only an hereditary ruler over Egypt under the over-lord of
the Porte.
The breach between England and France having become serious, Russia
having obtained her desires stationed her fleet at Sebastopol, where it
remained quiescent during the English bombardment of Acre.
Thus, although Lord Palmerston succeeded in crushing the French
Minister’s scheme, yet he fell into the snare laid for him by Russia,
viz., of bringing about a diplomatic disagreement between England and
France.
But Russia did not gain by the transaction, for she in her turn lost her
single-handed power over Turkey, which was given into the hands of the
Five Powers.
Lord Palmerston offered the following condition to the Turkish
Government. “England having, in conjunction with other Christian Powers,
succeeded in restoring Syria to the Sultan, she is entitled to expect
that the Sultan, in return for such assistance, should secure his
Christian subjects from oppression.”[56]
At last the Syrian affairs were settled, but still England was always
dreading a French attack both on Egypt and Syria.
In 1844 the Emperor Nicholas paid his famous visit to England. What was
his object in coming to England at such a period? The only idea that I
can put forward is, that he wanted to see to what extent the
Anglo-French disagreement[57] with regard to Syrian affairs had reached;
also to widen them as much as possible in order to make it impossible to
form an Anglo-French alliance against him, and thus leave him a free
hand in the settlement of the Eastern Question when the fall of Turkey
should take place.
Nicholas was at once informed, after his arrival, by the British Prime
Minister, “that no foreign influence in Egypt would be allowed by the
British Government, who desired to keep the way open to India.” He at
once perceived that the English were fearful of the French historic
Napoleonic plans; and he at once used this fear to his advantage.
He first proposed a partition of Turkey, knowing that the English
Government would not dare to agree to it, because it would hurt the
national feeling of England. Soon after the Anti-Napoleonic Revolution
was over the Holy Alliance was concluded between several European
Courts, and the moral feelings in the western states of Europe were to
defend the weak against the strong, and to resist unjust aggression.
These feelings were clearly shown during the Russian oppression of
Poland (1837), and in the Independence of Greece (1821–1829).
In England these feelings had manifested themselves, and any English
Government which should venture to shock them would have been certainly
upset. Therefore, a proposed partition of Turkey by Russia was received
by the English Government with decided disfavour.
Then the Czar proposed that the guardianship of the Holy Land should be
entrusted to Russia. This was his great aim, and was his principal
object.
England found herself in a dilemma. What was she to do? She had already
refused the Czar’s first proposal, and she felt obliged to accept the
second. “The three representatives of the Conservative party, namely,
the Duke of Wellington, Sir Robert Peel, and Lord Aberdeen, met the Czar
and signed a secret memorandum, promising to exert their personal
influence on behalf of the Greeks as opposed to the Latin Church at
Jerusalem, and so practically to forward Russian claims to the
guardianship of the Holy Places, as opposed to those of France, who was
to be ignored in the matter. This memorandum, to a certain extent
favouring Russia’s claim to a protectorate of the Greek Church, was
never placed in the Foreign Office archives, but was forwarded in
succession from one English Foreign Secretary to another, until, as we
shall show, poor Lord Aberdeen (Wellington and Peel being dead) was
called on for his pound of flesh in 1853.”[58]
Thus Nicholas attained the end he had in view, and left England, well
pleased with the brilliant reception he had met with. “The Greek and the
Catholic Church,” Lord Palmerston had written to Canning, 1849, “are
merely other names for Russian and French influence.”
France at once perceived that the Czar’s visit to England was connected
with some secret arrangement to the prejudice of French interests, and
felt highly indignant.
France did not lose any time, and commenced plans to overturn Russian
influence in the Holy Land. Russia resented this, thinking that France
would be her only enemy. The Holy Land dispute soon became general.
The Turkish compromise did not please Russia and France. “Suddenly, the
French ambassador at Constantinople, M. de Lavalette, was instructed to
demand that the grants[59] to the Latin Church should be strictly
executed in the Holy Land.”[60]
In 1852 Lord Aberdeen was made the British Prime Minister, and “the
Emperor Nicholas heard the tidings of Lord Aberdeen’s elevation to a
premiership with a delight he did not suppress.”[61]
Nicholas thought that now an alliance between England and France was
impossible,[62] and at the same time, seeing that Prussia and Austria
were neutral, determined to obtain “the key of the Black Sea.”[63]
However, he wanted to ascertain whether England would keep her secret
engagement to come to a separate understanding with him. He again
proposed a partition of Turkey, on January 28, 1853, at the same time
making use of the curious expression to Sir Hamilton Seymour that “a
sick man is dying,” and that his (the sick man’s) property should be
divided according to agreement between England and Russia. Nicholas’
idea was (_a_) that Servia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, and the other
principalities of the Danube, should become independent states under
Russian protection, and (_b_) that he would “have no objection to
offer,” to the occupation of Egypt and Candia by England “in the event
of a distribution of the Ottoman Succession upon the fall of the
Empire,” (_c_) that Constantinople should never be held by the English
or French, or any other great nation, and Greece should not strengthen
herself “so as to become a powerful state,” and (_e_) that Russia should
occupy Constantinople provisionally, not “as a proprietor, of course,
but as a trustee.”
“In answer to these overtures,” Kinglake says, “the Government of the
Queen disclaimed all notion of aiming at the possession of either
Constantinople or any other of the Sultan’s possessions, and accepted
the assurances to the like effect which were given by the Czar. It
combated the opinion that the extinction of the Ottoman Empire was near
at hand, and deprecated the discussions based on that supposition as
tending directly to produce the very result against which they were
meant to provide.”[64]
Then the Czar sent Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople, and entrusted
to him the two following missions: viz., (_a_) to set forth a Russian
claim on the Holy Places, and (_b_) that all orthodox Christians, who
were subjects of Turkey, should be placed under the immediate
protectorate of Russia.
The above second mission was planned by Russia owing to her deep
sympathy with the Sclavonic races, who had adhered to the same religion
although they were still under Turkish rule. But this bond was rapidly
getting weaker, and the Christian inhabitants were determined to throw
off, if possible, the Mahomedan yoke.
But the second demand of Russia, to my mind, was an unjust claim,
because it would have considerably affected the independence or dignity
of the Sultan.[65]
The English Ambassador in Turkey, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, a great
opponent of Russia, advised the Porte to stand firm and resist to the
utmost the second demand.[66] He and Lord Clarendon (the English Foreign
Secretary), however, tried to persuade the Porte to agree to the first
demand, but the Porte, with decided firmness, declined to accept this
advice.
This was followed, on May 21, 1853, by the departure of Prince
Menschikoff from Constantinople, with the threat that “he had come in
his great coat, but would return in his uniform.” Russia then crossed
the Pruth on July 2nd, and occupied the Danubian Principalities as a
preliminary to her demands. On the same day of the Russian invasion the
representatives of the Great Powers assembled at Vienna. This Congress
drew up what is known as the “Vienna Note.” Russia acceded to the terms
contained in the Note, but the Porte refused, and offered certain
amendments. The Powers after a time accepted them, and forwarded them to
Russia, who, however, rejected them.[67] The Conference then dissolved.
In October, 1853, the Porte declared war on Russia; and the destruction
of the Turkish fleet at Sinope sealed the Russian acquiescence to the
declaration.
England and France allied themselves with Turkey against Russia, and
declared war on March 28, 1854.
The siege of Sebastopol lasted for nearly a year, and its fall was
followed by the Congress of Paris.[68] The plenipotentiaries of France,
England, Russia, Turkey, Sardinia, Austria, and at last Prussia,
assembled at Paris (February, 1856), and the “Treaty of Paris” was
signed, by which the following matters were settled:—
1. The Great Powers “declare the Sublime Porte admitted to participate
in the advantages of the public law and system (concert) of Europe.
Their Majesties engage, each on his part, to respect the independence
and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire; guarantee in common
the strict observance of that engagement; and will, in consequence,
consider any act tending to its violation, as a question of general
interest” (Art. VII.).
2. “The Black Sea is neutralized; its waters and its ports thrown open
to the mercantile marine of every nation, are formally and in perpetuity
interdicted to the flag of war, either of the Powers possessing its
coasts, or of any other Power” (Art. XI.), and, “The Black Sea being
neutralized according to the terms of Article XI., the maintenance or
establishment upon its coast of military maritime arsenals becomes alike
unnecessary and purposeless; in consequence, His Majesty the Emperor of
all the Russias, and His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, engage not to
establish or to maintain upon that coast any military maritime arsenal”
(Art. XIII.).
The docks and fortifications at Sebastopol were destroyed by the Western
Powers; but it was allowed that Russia and the Porte should keep up “the
number of light vessels necessary for the service of the coast” (Art.
XIV.), and merchant ships of all kinds were allowed freely to enter it.
3. All control over the mouth of the Danube was taken from Russia and
entrusted to the authority of the Riverain Commission (Art. XVII.). “A
Commission shall be established, and shall be composed of delegates of
Austria, Bavaria, the Sublime Porte, and Würtemburg (one for each of
those Powers), to whom shall be added commissioners from the three
Danubian Principalities, whose nomination shall have been approved by
the Porte. This Commission, which shall be permanent: (1) Shall prepare
regulations of navigation and river police; (2) Shall remove the
impediments, of whatever nature they may be, which still prevent the
application to the Danube of the arrangements of the Treaty of Vienna;
(3) Shall order and cause to be executed the necessary works throughout
the whole course of the river; (4) Shall, after the dissolution of the
European Commission, see to maintaining the mouths of the Danube and the
neighbouring parts of the sea in a navigable state” (Art. XVII.).
4. A portion of Bessarabia on the left bank of the Danube was ceded by
Russia in order to make the Turkish defence against Russia more easy,
and more fully to secure the freedom of the navigation of the Danube
(Art. XX.).
There is no doubt Russia was beaten by the combined alliance against
her. She had entirely overreached herself and miscalculated the temper
of the other Powers. She had thought that an Anglo-French alliance was
impossible, and that Prussia and Austria would have remained neutral.
Prussia indeed did maintain a neutrality at the commencement of the war,
and the King of Prussia himself said, “I am resolved to maintain a
position of complete neutrality, and to this I add with proud elevation
that my people and myself are of one mind. They require absolute
neutrality from me.”
Austria, however, only maintained a conditional neutrality. The Austrian
Emperor, in replying to the Russian Ambassador, Count Orloff, said,
“Then must Austria be equally free to act as her interest and dignity
may direct,” if Russia was to cross the Danube, or seek to occupy fresh
territory, or not evacuate the Principalities when the war was over.
Later on both Prussia and Austria formed a defensive alliance against
Russia, and with the consent of the Porte, the Principalities were
provisionally occupied by Austria.
In England Lord Aberdeen did his utmost to bring about a peace between
Russia and Turkey, but it was a hopeless task. Lord Palmerston, on the
other hand, described the aggressive policy of Russia as follows:—
“The policy and practice of the Russian Government has always been to
push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want
of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go, but always to
stop and retire when it was met with decided resistance, and then to
wait for the next favourable opportunity to make another spring on its
intended victim. In furtherance of this policy, the Russian Government
has always had two strings to its bow—moderate language and
disinterested professions at Petersburg and at London; active aggression
by its agents on the scene of operations. If the aggressions succeed
locally, the St. Petersburg Government adopts them as a _fait accompli_
which it did not intend, but cannot, in honour, recede from. If the
local agents fail, they are disavowed and recalled, and the language
previously held is appealed to as a proof that the agents have
overstepped their instructions. This was exemplified, in the treaty of
Unkiar-Skelessi, and in the exploits of Simonivitch and Vikovitch in
Persia.”[69] And Lord Palmerston wrote as follows to Lord Aberdeen (July
4, 1853), when the combined fleets of England and France were at Besika
Bay:—“In the meantime, however, I hope you will allow the squadrons to
be ordered to go up to the Bosphorus as soon as it is known at
Constantinople that the Russians have entered the Principalities, and to
be further at liberty to go into the Black Sea, if necessary or useful
for the protection of Turkish territory. The advantages of such a course
seem to be—
“First. That it would encourage and assist the Turks in those defensive
arrangements and organizations which the present crisis may give the
Turkish Government facilities for making, and the benefit of which, in
strengthening Turkey against attack, will continue after the crisis is
over.
“Secondly. It would essentially tend to prevent any further inroad on
Turkish territory in Europe or in Asia, and it is manifest that any such
further inroad would much increase the difficulties of a settlement.
“Thirdly. It would act as a wholesome check upon the Emperor and his
advisers, and would stimulate Austria and Prussia to increased exertions
to bring the Russian Government to reason.
“Fourthly. It would relieve England and France from the disagreeable,
and not very creditable, position of waiting without venturing to enter
the back door as friends, while the Russians have taken forcible
possession of the front hall as enemies.
“If these orders are to be given, I would suggest that it is very
important that they should be given without delay, so that we may be
able, when these matters are discussed this week in Parliament, to say
that such orders have been sent off. Of course they would at the same
time be communicated to the Russian Government.”
But the Premier did not agree with Palmerston’s views.
The combined fleets, at the request of the Sultan, passed up to
Constantinople (October 7, 1853). Palmerston then made two propositions
to the Cabinet:—
“First. That instructions should be sent to Constantinople that, in the
event of war having been declared, the two squadrons should enter the
Black Sea, and should send word to the Russian admiral at Sebastopol
that, in the existing state of things, any Russian ship of war found
cruising in the Black Sea would be detained, and be given over to the
Turkish Government.
“Secondly. That England and France should propose to the Sultan to
conclude a convention to the effect that, whereas war has unfortunately
broken out between Russia and Turkey, in consequence of differences
created by unjust demands made upon Turkey by Russia, and by
unwarrantable invasion of the Turkish territory by a Russian army; and
whereas it is deemed by England and France to be an object of general
European interest, and of special importance to them that the political
independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire should
be maintained inviolate against Russian aggression, the two Powers
engage to furnish to the Sultan such naval assistance as may be
necessary in existing circumstances for the defence of his empire; and
they moreover engage to permit any of their respective subjects who may
be willing to do so, to enter the military or naval service of the
Sultan. In return, the Sultan is to engage that he will consult with
England and France as to the terms and conditions of the new treaty
which is to determine, on the conclusion of hostilities, the future
relations of Russia and Turkey.”
But Lord Aberdeen in reply said:—
“I cannot say that I think the present state of the Russo-Turkish
question would authorize such a proceeding on our part as that which you
intend to propose.”
On November 1, 1853, Palmerston again said in concluding another letter
to Lord Aberdeen:—
“It seems to me, then, that our course is plain, simple, and straight.
That we must help Turkey out of her difficulties by negotiation, if
possible; and that if negotiation fails, we must, by force of arms,
carry her safely through her dangers.”
After the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope, Palmerston wrote
to Aberdeen as follows:—
“Will you allow me this opportunity of repeating in writing what I have
more than once said verbally, on the state of things between Russia and
Turkey? It appears to me that we have two objects in view: the one to
put an end to the present war between these two Powers; the other to
prevent, as far as diplomatic arrangements can do so, a recurrence of
similar differences, and renewed dangers to the peace of Europe.
“Now it seems to me that, unless Turkey shall be laid prostrate at the
feet of Russia by the disasters of the war—an event which England and
France could not without dishonour permit—no peace can be concluded
between the contending parties unless the Emperor consents to evacuate
the Principalities, to abandon his demands, and to renounce some of the
embarrassing stipulations of former treaties upon which he has founded
the pretensions which have been the cause of existing difficulties.
“To bring the Emperor to agree to this, it is necessary to exert a
considerable pressure upon him; and the quarter in which that pressure
can at present be most easily brought to bear is the Black Sea and the
countries bordering upon it. In the Black Sea, the combined English,
French, and Turkish squadrons are indisputably superior to the Russian
fleet, and are able to give the law to that fleet. What I would strongly
recommend, therefore, is that which I proposed some months ago to the
Cabinet, namely, that the Russian Government and the Russian admiral at
Sebastopol should be informed that so long as Russian troops occupy the
Principalities, or hold a position in any other part of the Turkish
territory, no Russian ships of war can be allowed to show themselves out
of port in the Black Sea.
“You will say that this would be an active hostility towards Russia; but
so is the declaration already made, that no Russian ships shall be
permitted to make any landing or attack on any part of the Turkish
territory. The only difference between the two declarations is that the
one already made is incomplete and insufficient for its purpose, and
that the one which I propose would be complete and sufficient. If the
Russian fleet were shut up in Sebastopol, it is probable that the Turks
would be able to make in Asia an impression that would tend to
facilitate the conclusion of peace.
“With regard to the conditions of peace, it seems to me that the only
arrangement which could afford to Europe a fair security against future
dangers arising out of the encroachments of Russia on Turkey, and the
attempts of the Russian Government to interfere in the internal affairs
of the Turkish Empire, would be that arrangement which I have often
suggested, namely, that the treaty to be concluded between Russia and
Turkey should be an ordinary treaty of peace and friendship, of
boundaries, commerce, and mutual protection of the subjects of the one
party within the territories of the other; and that all the stipulations
which might be required for the privileges of the Principalities and of
Servia, and for the protection of the Christian religion and its
churches and the Ottoman dominions by the Sultan and the five Powers. By
such a treaty, Russia would be prevented from dealing single-handed with
Turkey in regard to those matters on which she has, from time to time,
endeavoured to fasten a quarrel on the Sultan.”
Lord Aberdeen’s reply was:—
“I confess I am not prepared to adopt the mode which you think most
likely to restore peace.”
Lord Palmerston tendered his resignation on receiving this reply, but
withdrew it ten days after when the Cabinet adopted his views.
On June 16, 1854, Lord Palmerston wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, then
Minister of War—“Our only chance of bringing Russia to terms is by
_offensive_ and not by defensive operations. We and the French ought to
go to the Crimea and take Sebastopol. If this blow were accompanied by
successful operations in Georgia and Circassia, we might have a Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year.”
Thus we see that the English policy during the Crimean crisis changed
from peace tactics to defensive operations, and was subsequently turned
into an offensive line of action which terminated in a brilliant triumph
for England.
But how was Lord Palmerston able to carry out his war policy so
vigorously? The answer is a very simple one. He was backed and urged on
by the nation at large, who were incensed at the insolence of Russia.
Thus he was able to pursue his plans, being encouraged and supported by
a people who were well able to carry out what they resolved upon.
Kinglake said he (Lord Palmerston) “was gifted with the instinct which
enables a man to read the heart of a nation.”
His judgment was rightly pronounced, for Palmerston saw the feelings of
his national constituents and steered his course well and skilfully.[70]
What, then, was the national feeling of England at that time?
“In the present instance,” said the Prince Consort, “their (the English)
feeling is something of this sort: The Emperor of Russia is a tyrant,
the enemy of all liberty on the Continent, and the oppressor of Poland.”
From these royal remarks, I do not think I shall be far wrong in saying
that the growing tendency of the English people towards liberalism since
the Reform Bill of 1832, and the teaching of William Wilberforce, had
led them to consider Russia not only as a national enemy but as a
general opponent of the rights of humanity and civilization. No wonder
that a war became a necessity after this public manifestation.
At the end of the last chapter I stated that England had rapidly
increased, in wealth and prosperity since the Repeal of the Corn Laws.
Gladstone, in the House of Commons, stated that such was the vigour and
elasticity of the English trade, that even after the disadvantage of a
bad harvest, and under the pressure of war, the imports from day to day,
and almost from hour to hour, were increasing, and that the very last
papers laid on the table showed within the last three months of the year
that there was an increase of £250,000 in the national exports.[71]
This, then, was one of the reasons which enabled England to carry on
this war so successfully.
Let us turn our attention for a short time to France, which at this
period was undergoing considerable internal agitation. Republicanism was
now abolished and Monarchy reigned in its stead in the hands of Napoleon
III. (1852). There seemed every prospect of the French Monarchy being
firmly re-established.
The French Emperor was very desirous of starting a European War for the
purpose of securing his seat on the throne, and also for the
aggrandizement of his country abroad.[72] The interests of his country,
both religious and political, were opposed to those of Russia with
regard to the Holy Places, while both England and France had a common
interest in keeping the Ottoman Empire from Russia. This latter interest
acted as a means of union between the two Powers, both of whom were
ready at any moment to attack Russia, and the publication of the Czar’s
memorable conversation with Sir H. Seymour still further cemented that
union.
The result we have already seen. Russia was humiliated.
VI.
THE BLACK SEA CONFERENCE.
_French influence destroyed by the Franco-Prussian War—Russia annuls
the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris—Condition of Europe
prevents their enforcement by the Powers—London Conference; Russia
secures the Black Sea; England’s mistake—Alsace and Lorraine destroy
the balance of power._
Russia had convinced herself that the separation of England from France
was not a sufficient guarantee to hinder the possibility of the alliance
of the two Powers against her, because a common interest would unite
them immediately. Russia now determined to crush down one of the two
Powers, independently of the other, and was only waiting for an
opportunity to do so.
In 1870 the Franco-Prussian War broke out through the question of the
Spanish Succession. England maintained a strict neutrality, and this now
seemed a glorious opportunity for Russia to carry out her long-cherished
designs. She supported Prussia _morally_, in this way hoping to crush
France, and then only England would be left to attack. The result proved
favourable; France was defeated by Prussia, and this was followed by the
fall of the Monarchy, and the proclamation of the Republic (September
14, 1870).
Russia now looked around, and at a glance saw the favourable position
she occupied, and her strength. Austria had been weakened by the war
with Prussia in 1866, Spain and Italy were convulsed with revolutions,
Turkey was naturally weak; Prussia had suffered somewhat in 1866 with
Austria, and with France in 1870. France herself had undoubtedly
received a crushing blow, while England was worried over the Alabama
claims with America.
Thus we see the balance of power was considerably shaken by the
Franco-Prussian War, while an alliance among the Western states seemed
impossible.
In 1870 Western Europe was startled by Prince Gortchakoff’s declaration
that the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris, 1856, were null and
void. “He declared it would no longer be submitted to by his Imperial
master.”[73]
England naturally felt very indignant, but was practically helpless, as
she was unable to get any ally from among the Western Powers, and she
felt unable to cope singly with Russia. The Government were perplexed,
and the Premier, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, sent Lord Odo Russell to the
German Chancellor to ask his advice on the subject, and to inform him
that “the question was of such a nature that England, with or without
allies, would have to go to war with Russia.”
Prince Bismarck, who was afraid of a Franco-Russian alliance, and wished
to conciliate the Russian Emperor, recommended that a conference should
be held in St. Petersburg. The English Government objected to this, so a
Conference was held in London where the following provisions were agreed
to:—
“Article I. Articles XI., XIII., and XIV., of the Treaty of Paris, 1856,
are abrogated.
“Article II. The principle of the closing of the Straits of the
Dardanelles and the Bosphorus is maintained, with power to his Imperial
Majesty the Sultan to open the said Straits in time of peace to the
vessels of war of friendly and allied Powers, in case the Sublime Porte
should judge it necessary in order to secure the execution of the
stipulations of the Treaty of Paris.
“Article III. The Black Sea remains, as heretofore, open to the
mercantile marine of all nations.
“Article IV. The Commission managing the navigation of the Danube “is
maintained in its present composition” for a further period of twelve
years.
“Article VIII. The high contracting parties renew and confirm all the
stipulations of 1856, which are not annulled or modified by the present
treaty.”
This treaty resulted in what Russia wished, viz., the opening of the
Black Sea to Russian war ships—a right which she had held previous to
the Crimean War.
Mr. Disraeli (afterwards Lord Beaconsfield) vigorously attacked the
Gladstonian policy by saying that “the neutral character of the Black
Sea is the essence of the Treaty of Paris, and that that, in fact, was
the question for which we had struggled and made great sacrifice and
endured these sufferings which never can be forgotten,” and the “point
upon which the negotiations for peace (at Vienna, 1855) was broken off
was the neutral character of the Black Sea.”[74]
In answer to this attack Mr. Gladstone replied, “I do not speak from
direct communication with Lord Clarendon, but I have been told since his
death that he never attached a value to that neutralization. Again I do
not speak from direct communication, but I have been told that Lord
Palmerston always looked upon the neutralization as an arrangement which
might be maintained and held together for a limited number of years, but
which, from its character, it was impossible to maintain as a permanent
condition for a great settlement of Europe.”
However, Russia had regained what she had lost at the close of the
Crimean War by skilful diplomacy. She now was perfectly at liberty to
keep her fleet in the Black Sea, and to refortify Sebastopol and Keotch
to such an extent as to render them impregnable.
She felt gratified at the result of the Franco-Prussian War, and on
hearing that Prussia had annexed Alsace and Lorraine. General Ignatieff,
the Russian Ambassador at Constantinople, hastened to the German
Ambassador, Count Karserling, and said, “Permit me to congratulate you,
and _thank you_; for you it is a prodigious mistake, but on Russia you
have conferred the greatest possible boon.” At the time of the
annexation of the two French provinces, Germany thought that they would
prove of the greatest value to the German Empire, but this idea proved a
mistake, and since then Russia has used, and still uses them, as a pivot
on which the Eastern Question turns.
Frederick III.’s idea of selling back Alsace and Lorraine would no doubt
prove a great benefit, not only to the German nation, but also to the
maintenance of the balance of power in Europe.
Yet, though Bismarck defeated Napoleon III. in a sanguinary war, Prince
Gortschakoff had beaten all the signitary powers at the Treaty of Paris
by one stroke of the pen, and the greatest gainer, in the
Franco-Prussian War was not Germany but Russia. Verily, indeed, is it
once more proved that the Pen is mightier than the Sword.
VII.
THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR OF 1878.
_Bulgarian atrocities—The Andrassy Note; England destroys its
effect—The Berlin Memorandum; England opposes it—Russia prepares for
a Turkish war—Conference of Constantinople—New Turkish
Constitution—Russo-Turkish War—Treaty of San Stefano—Intervention of
the Powers—The Berlin Congress—Final treaty of peace._
The Slavs migrated to the Balkan Peninsula as early as 450 A.D., and
Bosnia remained the only Slavonic part of the Turkish Empire where a
native nobility owned the land and a peasantry tilled it for them.
Having been defeated by the Turks, the nobility became Mahommedans to
save their patrimony, while the peasantry, having nothing to lose,
remained Christians; but the tyranny of their nobility at length obliged
the Turks to put an end to the Feudal System in Bosnia (1850–1851).
In August, 1875, Herzegovina (the southwestern district of Bosnia)
revolted against the Sultan, being aided by a strong natural position
and receiving the assistance of both Servia and Montenegro.
While this revolt was going on the Bulgarians also rose in rebellion
against the Sultan (1876), but were put down by the Turkish Government,
although not without shameful cruelties and outrages being committed by
the Turkish troops and militia, which caused great indignation
throughout Europe,[75] and specially so in Russia. This, therefore, gave
the latter country a good opportunity of claiming to be a general
protector of the Christians in Turkey.
The Austro-Hungarian Minister, Count Andrassy, on behalf of Austria,
Germany, and Russia, drew up a Note in which five[76] chief concessions
were insisted upon from the Porte as necessary for the pacification of
the revolted provinces.
Lord Derby, on behalf of the English Government, signed[77] it, but
added that the integrity[78] of the Ottoman Empire was to be respected.
Here the Czar caught a key-note of the English policy, and he played on
it afterwards to his own advantage.
The Porte accepted the conditions of the Note, but the rebels did not
trust the Turkish promises, so the insurrections continued.
The Czar then, with Gortschakoff, met Bismarck and Andrassy at Berlin,
and, together, they drew up the “Berlin Memorandum,”[79] in which the
three Powers asked the Sultan to grant an armistice for two months in
order that the demands of the insurgents might receive a fair
consideration. Italy and France added their voices, but England
refused[80] to sign the Memorandum and sent a powerful squadron to
Besika Bay, expecting that the Sultan would refuse the Memorandum
because it would endanger the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. This
“Berlin Memorandum” displays the skilful way in which Russia, under the
clever guidance of the Czar and his Minister Gortschakoff, carried on
negotiation. She was only seeking a _pretence_[81] for a single-handed
war policy with Turkey, and in order to do this she proposed measures at
Berlin which she knew would prove objectionable to England. Germany, who
dreaded a special alliance between France and Russia, was obliged to
agree to these measures, thus becoming a tool of Russia, who wanted to
make England first deviate from the Treaties of Paris and London, and,
if possible, to break down the balance of power in Europe which she
herself had already done by her withdrawal from the Black Sea clauses in
the Treaty of Paris. England fell into the snare together with the other
Powers. She objected to the Berlin Memorandum, refused to sign, and sent
a fleet to Besika Bay in support of her objection. This was just what
Russia desired.
A new Sultan now ascended the throne, and Russian influence declined
while that of England increased.
In July, 1876, Prince Milan of Servia, and Prince Mikita of Montenegro,
declared war against Turkey, having open assistance from Russia. The
rebels, however, were subjugated by the Turks.
In November, 1876, Alexander II. of Russia, made a public declaration
that “if Turkey did not give due guarantees for the better government of
her Christian subjects he would force them to do so, either in concert
with his allies or by independent action.”
The European Powers, in consequence of this proclamation, proposed a
Conference at Constantinople to settle the matter. The Czar, seeing that
the Conference was inevitable, agreed to it. The representatives met,
and, as was to be expected, asked nearly the same conditions as had been
contained in the “Andrassy Note.”
The promulgation of a new Constitution for the Ottoman Empire was the
result of the Conference, much to the disappointment of Russia, who did
not expect that any such result would be arrived at. Thus, in order to
stop any further reforms or concessions being made by Turkey, she
succeeded in removing from power the author of the new Constitution,
viz., Midhat Pasha, who was an important personage in Turkish politics.
The following little story shows the skilful way in which the Turkish
Minister was removed from power by the agency of Russia:—
“During the Conference, the day after the Turks had proclaimed their new
Constitution, General Ignatieff met Sir W. White.
“‘Have you read the Constitution?’ asked Ignatieff. ‘No,’ said the
Englishman; ‘what does it matter? It is not serious.’ ‘But,’ said
Ignatieff, ‘you must really read one Article;’ and so saying he pointed
out the Article which set forth that all provisions to the contrary
notwithstanding the Sultan was to retain an absolute right to banish
from the capital any person whose presence might seem objectionable to
him. ‘Mark my words,’ said Ignatieff, ‘the first man to be exiled under
that clause will be Midhat Pasha, the author of the Constitution.’
“The prediction was fulfilled to the letter. Meeting Ignatieff some time
after, Sir W. White recalled the prophecy and its fulfilment. ‘Oh! yes,’
said the general, carelessly; ‘I arranged that.’ ‘But you had left
Constantinople before Midhat’s exile.’ ‘Certainly, but I arranged it
just before I left.’ ‘How?’ ‘It was very simple; the weather was stormy
in the Black Sea, and I could not leave for some days after the
departure of my colleague. I went on board my steamer and anchored
exactly opposite the Sultan’s palace. I did not go and bid him farewell,
but waited. In a day or two, as I anticipated, there came an
_aide-de-camp_ from the Sultan to express his regret and surprise that
I, whom he had known better than any of the Ambassadors, should be
departing without paying him a farewell visit. I replied that, of
course, I should have been delighted to have paid my respects to His
Majesty, but that it was no longer necessary. I had paid my farewell
visit to Midhat Pasha, as, under the Constitution, it was to him, not
the Sultan, that such an act of respect was due. Almost immediately
after arriving in Russia I heard of the exile of Midhat. My parting shot
had secured his downfall.’”[82]
The Conference failed, and Russia declared war against Turkey, for now
she had obtained what she had been striving for during the diplomatic
transactions, viz., a pretence for a single-handed policy with regard to
Turkey, and, secondly, she had obtained sufficient time for making all
necessary war preparations. Now, although she had already got back what
she had lost in the Crimean War (through the Franco-Prussian War), yet
she was determined to obtain what she had intended to take at the
Crimean War, viz., Constantinople.
A large Russian army crossed the Pruth (April, 1877), and encamped
before Constantinople. In Asia Kars was captured. This led to the Treaty
of San Stefano.
By this treaty the Ottoman Empire in Europe was completely abrogated. It
recognized the independence of Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania;
Bulgaria was created, and its boundaries now extended to the Black and
Ægean Seas, embracing several valuable harbours. Although the latter
country still remained tributary to Turkey, yet Russia had the
appointment of a Christian prince in her hands. It has now to have a
separate administration, to be supervised by Russian commissioners, and
was also to be garrisoned by Russian troops.
In Bosnia, Crete, Thessaly, and Epirus a certain amount of reform was to
be introduced by the Porte under the supervision of Russia. It was also
enacted that the part of Bessarabia taken from Russia in 1856 should be
ceded back to her, to which Lord Palmerston attached great value,
“because,” he said, “it is not of local, but of European interest.”
Kars, Batoum, and other adjoining districts in Asia were added to
Russia, by which cession she undoubtedly held the strongholds of
Armenia. Turkey had to pay Russia three hundred million roubles.
The results of this treaty may be described as follows: It was nothing
less than (1) “To take all the European dominions of the Ottoman Empire
from the Porte and put them under the administration of Russia;” (2) “to
make the Black Sea as much a Russian lake as the Caspian;” (3) to give
Russia a firm hold of the Mediterranean, and thereby imperil the naval
supremacy of England in that quarter.
Naturally, England could not accept the Treaty of San Stefano without
some alterations. Lord Derby resigned on the refusal of his demand that
the treaty should be laid before Parliament, and Lord Salisbury sent out
a vigorous circular which showed the injustice towards other races of a
large Bulgaria establishing Slav supremacy in the Balkan Peninsula under
Russian influence; also the loss of the ports of Bourgas and Batoum by
the Turks would give Russia command of the Black Sea trade, while the
cession of Kars to her would also influence Turkey’s Asiatic
possessions. This would also affect the English interests in the Persian
Gulf, the Levant, and the Suez Canal, which were in the Ottoman keeping,
and therefore was a matter of extreme solicitude for England. She would
be willing, however, to join in general stipulations made by the joint
Powers, but would not submit to Prince Gortschakoffs commands. Again, an
unpaid pecuniary debt owing to Russia by Turkey would give the former
dangerous power.
The following words occur in the first despatch of the English
Government to Russia:—
“The course on which the Russian Government has entered involves graver
and more serious consideration. It is in contravention of the
stipulation of the Treaty of Paris (March 30, 1856), by which Russia and
the other signatory Powers engaged, each on its own part, to respect the
independence and the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. At the
close of the Conference of London of 1871, the above plenipotentiary, in
common with those of the other Powers, signed a declaration affirming it
to be an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can
liberate itself from the engagement of a treaty, nor modify the
stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting parties
by means of an amicable arrangement. In taking action against Turkey on
his own part, and having recourse to arms without further consultation
with his allies, the Emperor of Russia has separated himself from the
European concert hitherto maintained, and has at the same time departed
from the rule to which he himself had solemnly recorded his
consent.”[83]
The English Government addressed a second despatch to Russia, stating
that the English Government is “of opinion that any treaty concluded by
the Governments of Russia and the Porte affecting the treaties of 1856
and 1871 must be a European treaty, and would not be valid without the
assent of the Powers who were parties to those treaties.”
The Russian Minister’s (Gortschakoff’s) reply was received at last: “We
repeat the assurance that we do not intend to settle by ourselves
European questions having reference to the peace which is to be made.”
Then the English Government sent another despatch to Russia and the
other foreign Courts, and it was communicated through an English
Ambassador at St. Petersburg that the Russian Emperor “stated
categorically that questions bearing on European interests will be
concerted with European Powers, and he had given Her Majesty’s
Government clear and positive assurance to this effect.”
At length Austria, with the full appreciation of Russia, invited England
to a Conference at Berlin for the object of establishing “an European
agreement as to the modifications which it might become necessary to
introduce in existing treaties in order to make them harmonize with the
present situation.”
The English Government, however, stipulated beforehand “that it would be
desirable to have it understood in the first place that all questions
dealt with in the San Stefano Treaty between Russia and Turkey” should
be fully considered in the Congress, and “that no alteration in the
condition of things previously established by treaty should be
acknowledged as valid until it has received the consent of the Powers.”
Russia replied that “the preliminary treaty of peace between Russia and
Turkey will be textually committed to the Great Powers before the
meeting of the Congress, and that in the Congress itself each Power will
have full liberty of assent and of its free action” (“_la pleine liberté
de ses appréciations et de son action_”).
This was a diplomatic triumph for England, and the treaty was formally
submitted to the Congress. But there were certain facts which must not
escape our notice, for just before the publication of the Treaty of San
Stefano the excitement in England had attained its zenith. Russia,
perceiving this, and hearing that England was quite ready to take up
arms against her, took the utmost precautions not to injure English
interests; so a Russian occupation of Constantinople, or any other
circumstance which might excite the enmity of England, were omitted in
the San Stefano Treaty.
When this became known in England the excitement abated somewhat; and,
seeing this, Russia consented to submit the treaty to the Congress.
The Congress was opened at Berlin, under the presidency of the German
Chancellor, Bismarck; and Beaconsfield firmly stood his ground at the
Congress, previously calling out the reserve forces and summoning seven
thousand Indian troops to Malta. Austria began to arm. Russia now could
not be obstinate.
The following conditions were fixed and drawn up by the Congress:—
_Bulgaria._
Article I. Bulgaria is constituted an autonomous and tributary
principality under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan; it
will have a Christian Government and a national militia.
Article III. The Prince of Bulgaria shall be freely elected by the
population and confirmed by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the
Powers. No member of the reigning dynasties of the Great European Powers
may be elected Prince of Bulgaria.
In case of a vacancy in the princely dignity, the election of the new
prince shall take place under the same conditions and with the same
forms.
_Eastern Roumelia._
Article XIII. A province is formed south of the Balkans which will take
the name of “Eastern Roumelia,” and will remain under the direct
political and military authority of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan,
under conditions of administrative autonomy. It shall have a Christian
Governor-general.
Article XVII. The Governor-general of Eastern Roumelia shall be
nominated by the Sublime Porte, with the assent of the Powers, for a
term of five years.
_Crete, &c._
Article XXIII. The Sublime Porte undertakes to scrupulously apply to the
island of Crete the Organic Law of 1868, with such modifications as may
be considered equitable.
Similar laws adapted to local requirements, excepting as regards the
exemption from taxation granted to Crete, shall also be introduced into
the other parts of Turkey in Europe for which no special organization
has been provided by the present treaty.
_Bosnia and Herzegovina._
Article XXV. The provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied
and administered by Austria-Hungary.
_Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania._
Article XXVI. The independence of Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania is
recognized by the Sublime Porte, and by all the high contracting
parties, subject to the conditions set forth in the following:—
In Montenegro the difference of religious creeds and confessions shall
not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or
incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil and political
rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honours, or the
exercise of the various professions and industries in any locality
whatsoever.
The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be
assured to all persons belonging to Montenegro, as well as to
foreigners; and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical
organization of the different communions or to their relations with
their spiritual chiefs.
Article XLV. The principality of Roumania restores to His Majesty the
Emperor of Russia that portion of Bessarabian territory detached from
Russia by the Treaty of Paris of 1856.
_Cessions in Asia._
Article LVIII. The Sublime Porte cedes to the Russian Empire in Asia the
territories of Ardahan, Kars, and Batoum, together with the latter port.
Article XIX. His Majesty the Emperor declares that it is his intention
to constitute Batoum a free port, essentially commercial.
Article LX. The valley of Alaxhkerd and the town of Bayazid, ceded to
Russia, are restored to Turkey.
The Sublime Porte cedes to Persia the town and territory of Khotou for
its delimitation of the frontiers of Turkey and of Persia.[84]
_The Anglo-Turkish Convention._
Article I. Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, or any of them, shall be retained by
Russia, and if any attempt shall be made at any future time by Russia to
take possession of any further territories of His Imperial Majesty the
Sultan in Asia, as fixed by the Definitive Treaty of Peace, England
engages to join His Imperial Majesty the Sultan in defending them by
force of arms.
In order to enable England to make necessary provision for executing her
engagement, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan further consents to assign
the island of Cyprus to be occupied and administrated by England.
Beaconsfield having thus attained “peace with honour” for England,
returned, and in a speech[85] in the House, said, “They are not
movements of war, they are operations of peace and civilization; we have
no reason to fear war. Her Majesty has fleets and armies which are
second to none.”
VIII.
REMARKS UPON THE TREATY OF BERLIN.
_The position of affairs—The Salisbury-Schouvaloft Memorandum and its
disastrous effect on the negotiations at Berlin—Russia’s
gain—England and Austria the guardians of Turkey—Austria’s vigorous
and straightforward Balkan policy—Thwarted in Servia but triumphant
in Bulgaria—Relations of Greece to Austria—Solution of the Crete
question—Neutrality of Belgium threatened—Importance of
Constantinople to Russia; the Anglo-Turkish Convention—England’s
feeble policy in Asia Minor—The question of Egypt—A new route to
India by railway from the Mediterranean to Persian Gulf—England’s
relation to Constantinople._
Let us now review and make a few remarks on the Treaty of Berlin.
Firstly, the whole treaty seems to me to be virtually a repetition[86]
and revision of the conditions of the European concert in the Eastern
question.
Prince Bismarck’s opinion was that the Treaty of San Stefano meant to
alter “the state of things as fixed by former European Conventions,”
consequently the Berlin Congress followed for “the free discussion of
the Cabinets’ signatories of the treaties of 1856 and 1871.”
The Treaties of Paris and London being still in force, and owing to the
rise of a new nationality and the redistribution of territory, these
treaties were altered and amended by the Congress.
Before we criticize the Treaty of Berlin we ought to bear two things in
our mind. (1) At the Conference of Paris, 1856, England, France, and
Turkey were victorious, while Russia was conquered. (2) At the Berlin
Congress, 1878, Russia was victorious over Turkey, while England and
France were neutral.
In both meetings it was asserted and claimed that the Powers
collectively had the right of settling the Eastern Question as against
Russia’s single-handed interference, England leading the van with fair
words but selfish interests.
On Russia concluding the San Stefano Treaty with Turkey, England said
that, according to the conditions of the Treaty of Paris, the Great
Powers of Europe “engaged each on its own part to respect the
independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire,” and consequently
Turkish affairs produced a general interest throughout Europe.
Russia had committed a serious breach of “the law of nations” by a
treaty single-handed with Turkey. When the European Congress at Berlin
was consented to by Russia, England said that the Treaty of San Stefano
was not valid without the consent of the signatory Powers of the
Treaties of Paris and London. She also demanded from Russia that, “in
the Congress itself, each Power should have full liberty of assent and
free action.” These demands seemed perfectly reasonable. However,
England, before the Berlin meeting, contracted a secret agreement with
Russia, in which the modifications asked for by England in the Treaty of
San Stefano were specified. This agreement did not leave out the
bringing in of other changes by mutual consent, but, if these failed,
tended to be a mutual engagement by the ambassadors of Russia and Great
Britain as to their general behaviour and conduct at the Congress. This
secret agreement between the two Powers practically blocked the full
liberty of the other Powers and the full amount of good they might
otherwise have done. England had been one of the first to attack Russia
for committing a breach of the Treaties of Paris and London; yet she
overlooked the fact that she herself had morally broken the same
treaties by her secret negotiation with Russia, the other Powers not
being at the time cognizant of the fact.
Once more Russia, by the Black Sea Conference, had gained full freedom
on the Black Sea, now she had regained the part of Bessarabia which she
had lost during the Crimean War, the principal object of which was to
drive Russia from the banks of the Danube. The above-mentioned territory
was ceded to Russia through the influence of Lord Salisbury, who had
secretly promised Schouvaloff, the Russian ambassador, that he would
support the Russian demand with regard to that land.
By the Berlin Treaty England and Austria were invested with a special
responsibility for protecting the integrity of the Ottoman Empire
against Russian aggression—England in Asia Minor, and Austria in the
Balkans.
If Russia attacked through Asia Minor the English interests would be
imperilled; and by the disappearance of the Balkan States, then Austria
would be open to Russian immediate attacks—a consummation which would be
little desired by that Power.
This responsibility has undoubtedly from that time engrossed the
attention of Austria and Hungary. She has had to encounter several
difficulties. Bessarabia was no longer a Turkish province, and had been
ceded to Russia by the Salisbury-Schouvaloff memorandum. Also there, was
no possibility of the Balkan States being confederated owing to the
different races, language, and feelings of the nationality.
In September, 1879, Bismarck visited Vienna and concluded an
Austro-German defensive alliance against the alliance of France and
Russia. Bismarck, however, described the German policy in the following
terse manner: “Fight by all means, if you feel yourself strong enough to
beat Russia single-handed. France and Germany will see all fair, and you
can hardly expect anybody effectually to help you.”
Notwithstanding these rather unfavourable circumstances, and her
financial difficulties as well, still the policy of Austria is at the
present time carried on straightforwardly and vigorously, and the duty
with which she charged herself at the Berlin Treaty is ably done, and is
well backed up by the five million Magyars who inhabit Hungary and the
adjoining provinces. This nation had been cruelly put under Austria by
Russia (1848–49), and consequently their hatred against Russia was
deeply rooted.
At present, therefore, Russia’s schemes with regard to Constantinople
have been frustrated, and Austria holds the lead in the Balkan Peninsula
race.
Austria was asked to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina, in order to secure
peace and order there. She did so, and, notwithstanding an armed
resistance, entered and fulfilled her promise. She is now strengthening
her hold on these states by stationary garrisons of soldiers in
different parts, and also Jesuits, who exercise a moral influence over
the people. The affairs of Servia have also deeply occupied the
attention of the Austrian Government. She captured King Milan, and used
him as a tool for her own purposes. Russia, however, desired to get hold
of Servia through the ex-queen.
Intrigues at the Servian Court were numerous, and at last the miserable
divorce of the king and queen leaked out. The present young king
ascended the throne. This was a blow to the Austrian influence.
Bulgaria had been declared an independent country by the Berlin Treaty.
On this state the question of supremacy between Russia and Austria in
the Balkans hangs to a great degree. In 1855 Bulgaria and Eastern
Roumelia were united into a single state. This revolution occasioned
very great displeasure in Russia, and under her influence Prince
Alexander was kidnapped and compelled to abdicate, and Prince Ferdinand
of Coburg was elected as the ruling prince.
Although of German extraction, he is an Austrian by allegiance, and a
Roman Catholic. He was originally an officer in the Hungarian army.
There seems to me no doubt that his election was illegal, because, in
the first place, by the Berlin Treaty the ruling prince must belong to
the Greek Church.
Prince Ferdinand was quite ready to submit his claim for decision to the
Great Powers, and abide by the result. All the Powers except England and
Austria declared that he had no claim to the crown, but the two had
their own way, and he ascended the Bulgarian throne—another repulse and
blow to Russian influence. Prince Alexander meanwhile was given a post
in the Austro-Hungarian army. Only recently, to show the friendly spirit
that exists between Austria and Bulgaria, a loan has been concluded and
advanced by the former to the latter.
Undoubtedly Austria committed a slight mistake in her policy with regard
to Greece. She had arrogantly displayed her fleet and strength at
Salonika, which no doubt was a source of irritation to Greece. Her best
policy would have been kindness and consideration, not forcible means,
for the prosperity of Austria was to a certain extent dependent on her
treatment of neighbouring countries, and, together with the Great Powers
she was to a certain extent dependent upon Greece’s action. The latter,
therefore, was a necessary bulwark against Russian encroachments, and
was thus of primary importance to England, France, and Italy. If,
therefore, the Turks were driven from Europe, Greece would occupy the
place of Turkey with regard to Russia, and would be the only obstacle to
Russian Mediterranean advance. “I would never permit,” said the Czar
Nicholas, “such an extension of Greece as would render her a powerful
state.” Truly Greece might well be called the Belgium of the
Mediterranean!
By the Berlin Treaty the Porte was advised to cede Thessaly and Epirus
to Greece. This was done, and as the Greeks were noted for being good
traders and sailors, great progress and improvement was made in their
newly acquired territory.
It is difficult to see the reason why the Berlin Congress did not advise
the Porte to cede Crete to Greece. If the island was left alone it would
be harmless, and exercise no influence on the naval supremacy of the
Mediterranean.
However, an occupation of Crete by a European Power would to a great
extent change the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean, destroy
European tranquillity and peace, the Levant would be in the hands of the
Cretan occupiers. Again, its position would completely command the Ægean
Sea, and if properly fortified might be rendered almost impregnable. Its
natural wealth, population, and general productiveness afford ample
resources both in times of war and peace; in fact, it might be very well
termed the Second Gate to the Black Sea.
Therefore it seems to me the best policy to let this important island
remain in a neutral state by an agreement between the Great Powers, and
the sooner it is agreed to the better it would be for the peace of
Europe generally.
In my opinion it would have been better to have placed it under Grecian
rule for the following reasons:—
(1) Because Greece herself was a neutral nation. (2) They were a
commercial people, and peaceful, which would have a beneficial effect
upon the island. (3) More than half of the Cretan population are of
Grecian extraction.
There is no doubt that if any one[87] of the Great Powers had proposed
the cession of Crete to Greece it would have met with the general
approbation of the Congress. This would not have met with Turkish
opposition, particularly as England had before the Berlin Congress
mentioned it in the Anglo-Turkish agreement; and to show that Turkey did
not attach much importance to Crete, it is related in Turkish history
that it was offered to Mehemet Ali as a reward for his help in the Greek
insurrection; besides, the national force of Turkey was not large enough
to utilize the strong natural position of the island.
Austria,[88] unless she had been influenced by her national vanity,
would have agreed to such a proposal owing to the great value as a
national defence that she received from the Balkan States. Again,
Germany, France, and Italy could find no reasonable argument for
opposing this plan.
The policy of England with regard to a neutral state has always been to
strengthen its national power, and that to such a degree as to properly
maintain its fixed neutrality.
In 1815 England ceded the Java Islands to the Dutch on the formation of
the Netherlands at the Congress of Vienna. Why did she do this? For this
reason: because by doing this the new States would be rendered neutral
in case of a French or German invasion, and by this cession of Java the
Dutch national power was increased in every way, and their power of
maintaining a strict neutrality rendered stronger.
Another instance may strengthen my statement. Corfu, an important
military and naval post, was put under English protection at the Vienna
Congress, 1815. Lord Palmerston at one time saw that it would be
impolitic to hand over Corfu to Austria, and declared that the islands
ought never to be abandoned by England.
However, when the new kingdom of Greece was formed England cordially
agreed to hand over Corfu and several other islands to Greece, on the
condition that the Greeks should choose a king subject to the approval
of England. The fortifications of Corfu were demolished, and the
neutrality of the islands was declared by the Great Powers.
These circumstances, then, tend to show us that England was distinctly
favourable[89] to the cession of Crete to Greece, and they were
considerably strengthened by the fact that Greece was an ally of
England, and the commercial relations between the two were very free.
There is no doubt that the marriage of the Crown Prince of Greece with a
German Princess (1889) has morally strengthened the position and power
of Greece. However, Greece still needs material strength for the
maintenance of a strict neutrality.
Turning to another country, we find that it is a matter of considerable
doubt whether Belgium can maintain a firm neutrality in case of a
Franco-German war. At the time of Lord Palmerston she might perhaps have
been able to do so, but the recent discoveries in the world of science,
and their application to military purposes, and the immense increase of
the French and German armies, have changed the military world, and the
neutrality of Belgium is a doubtful point. In 1887 an important
discussion on this question took place, which resulted in the
fortification of Namur and Liege. This was followed by the fortification
of the Meuse, but it is said that the Belgians have not enough troops to
garrison these newly-made defences. It has been publicly admitted in
Belgium that their national force is not sufficient to defend a
violation of neutrality against France and Germany, therefore Belgium
must regard the first violator of her neutrality as her national enemy,
and will be obliged to ally herself with a nation which is an enemy of
the state which has violated neutrality. This is not the Belgium which
Lord Palmerston meant it to be.
Another important fact is that since the Franco-German war German
attention has been turned to the North Sea, and a new naval harbour and
arsenal have been built at Wihelmshafen. Two other large harbours in the
North Sea have also been improved lately, viz., Hamburg and Bremen.
Kiel, the finest port on the Baltic, has been confiscated, and is now
connected with the North Sea by a canal, through which ships of large
tonnage may one day pass. Numerous ironclads and fleets of large
merchant and emigrant steam vessels have been constructed which, in case
of war, can be armed and turned into transports. Her land forces have
been well organized and augmented, and military tactics scientifically
developed. From these threatening facts it is certain that in the event
of a Franco-German war both Holland and Belgium would occupy most
dangerous positions. Having these events staring them in the face, only
one expedient could present itself to the two states, viz., union. This
would enable them to show a powerful front to the rival Powers, and
would enable them both to maintain a united fixed neutrality, thus
showing Lord Palmerston’s mistaken policy of the separation of the two
states to be a weak one with regard to the present state of affairs,
though perhaps it may have served its purpose at that time.
All these arguments go to prove that a cession of Crete to Greece would
be beneficial to both European and Grecian interests.
Constantinople was hardly mentioned in the Berlin Treaty, although it is
said that Lord Beaconsfield had suggested to General Ignatieff a Russian
occupation of the Bosphorus with an English one of Mitylene. Ignatieff
said, however, that “Mitylene was too near, as it was only two hours’
steam from the north of the Dardanelles.” Lord Beaconsfield did not,
therefore, press the discussion. The importance of Constantinople can be
explained in a few words.
By possession of the Straits Russia would be able to make the Black Sea
a second Caspian, whose coasts are left undefended, and it would become
a great Russian arsenal, for ten or fifteen thousand troops would be
sufficient to shut out an English fleet from the Straits, and by this
means quite two hundred thousand Russian troops could be withdrawn from
the Black Sea and turned to the Balkans, Asia Minor, or Central Asia.
_The Anglo-Turkish Convention._
Notwithstanding the fact that Austria has fulfilled her contract in
preventing Russian aggression through the Balkans, yet Russia could find
a way through Asia Minor, although her progress through Asia was stopped
by England at the Anglo-Turkish Convention.
By this treaty, however, England committed a still more grave and
serious breach of the Treaties of 1856 and 1871 than by this Berlin
Treaty. Yet although England and Russia had made a secret agreement
beforehand, still the Berlin Treaty was discussed and drawn up by the
Congress. Therefore England was only morally to blame. But the
Anglo-Turkish Convention was concluded between the two countries
themselves, and was never submitted for the consideration of the Great
Powers. Lord Beaconsfield sought to screen England by declaring that
Russia had concluded the San Stefano Treaty with Turkey without the
knowledge and consent of the Powers, and Russia herself, therefore, had
broken the principles of the 1856 and 1871 Treaties. Yet this did not
conceal the fact that England herself had not acted up to her tenets in
the Anglo-Turkish Convention.
The Porte ceded Ardahan, Kars, and Batoum, together with its port, to
Russia. England occupied Cyprus, and engaged to defend Asiatic Turkey,
Syria, Palestine, Assyria, Arabia, and Armenia, against Russian
invasion.
Has England performed her contract in Asiatic Turkey as Austria has done
in the Balkans? We will see. Cyprus is left almost in the same condition
as it was before our English occupation, and nothing has been done by
England for the defence of Asiatic Turkey, while only a few hundred
soldiers guard against a Russian invasion in Asia Minor. Surely this
cannot be a sufficient number of men to withstand a Russian army. What,
then, has become of the Anglo-Turkish Convention? Russia has taken
advantage of this, and is doing her utmost to bring about war in that
quarter.
By the Berlin Treaty the Russian Emperor declared that it was his
_intention_ to constitute Batoum a free port essentially commercial.
Lord Salisbury interpreted this remark that the port of Batoum was to be
_only_ a commercial port. The Russian Emperor has, however, _changed his
intention_, and Batoum is essentially a fortress, and is connected with
Poti by a railway through Kutais.
Why cannot, therefore, Russia have an idea of breaking the Berlin Treaty
with equal freedom as England did with regard to the Treaties of 1856
and 1871 by concluding the Anglo-Turkish Convention single-handed? It
seems to me that Russia has a great opportunity of advancing to
Erzeroum, and from there proceeding to Alexandretta; and from there to
Constantinople. At any rate she has ample opportunities of reaching the
Persian Gulf by piercing the northern frontiers and western part of
Persia, and thus completing the far-seeing policies of Peter the Great,
Nicholas, and Alexander.
How can England withstand this? When Cyprus was placed under English
administration both France and Italy were opposed to this, France
especially so, because she had a special interest with regard to Syria.
However, she concluded a secret agreement with England, that the latter
would consent to a French Protectorate over Tunis, which was done in
1881, a protectorate which is now extending to Tripoli. Many regard this
action of France as an indirect third offer of Egypt to England, the
first having been made by Nicholas I., and the second by Louis Philippe.
Whatever the French occupation of Tunis might be, England occupied Egypt
in 1885, thus fulfilling Lord Palmerston’s prophecy of a quarter of a
century before, when he said that “if a practicable waterway were
created between the Gulf of Pelusium and the Red Sea England would be
compelled sooner or later to annex Egypt, and that he opposed M. de
Lessep’s scheme because he considered it undesirable that England should
annex territory in that part of the world.”[90]
The Suez Canal was opened in 1869, and Lord Palmerston’s prophecy was
fulfilled. In 1875 the English Government purchased the Khedive’s shares
(£4,000,000) in the Suez Canal, and this was followed by the bombardment
of Alexandria by the British fleet in 1885. The chief aim of the English
occupation of Egypt was “to possess the inns on the north road.”[91]
It will be impossible to avoid the conflict of English and French
interests as long as there is only one route through the Suez Canal to
India, and an Anglo-French alliance on the subject seems to be far
distant, particularly as England has three-fourths of the traffic
through the canal.
It is also a matter of great importance that England should keep Egypt
orderly and peaceful. Lord Salisbury, in an excellent speech on Lord
Mayor’s Day, 1889, said:
“We (English) have undertaken to sustain Egypt until she is competent to
sustain herself against every enemy, foreign or domestic. We cannot see
that that time has yet arrived. It may arrive quicker or later. Other
Powers may help us by concurring in measures which will improve the
position and increase the prosperity of Egypt, or they may defer that
day by taking an opposite course. But whether the day comes sooner or
later, our policy remains unaltered, and we will pursue our task to the
end.”
We can easily get at the pith of Lord Salisbury’s speech. If France
again became a co-partner of England in establishing peace and order in
Egypt, then England would be quite willing to restore the dual control
with regard to Egypt, and Lord Salisbury in 1878 had declared that
England did not desire to annex Egypt.
The dual control of France and England with regard to Egypt might
possibly settle affairs there temporarily, or neutralize that country on
the same lines as Belgium; but still this is not a sufficient guarantee
against an Anglo-French dispute on the Egyptian question.
The French Government of the present day is not noted for stability,
always changing, never agreeing, and ready for foreign quarrels, and
although now they are supporting the English Government in Egypt, it is
not safe to depend upon them, for the feeling of rivalry is sure to
arise, and great caution has to be exercised in order to prevent
complications arising. No matter what happens, England must have free
communication with India, and as long as there is only one road,
ruptures will be inevitable, and there can be no firm alliance as in the
case of the Crimean War.
It seems to me to be a favourable time to suggest to Turkey the
construction of a railway from Constantinople or some other port on the
Mediterranean to Bussorah on the Persian Gulf: why should not England
undertake the construction herself? This route would certainly possess
four great advantages:
(1) It would be a shorter route to India.
(2) It would be a valuable means of quick transportation of either
Turkish or English troops for the defence of Asia Minor.
(3) It would avoid a clashing of English and French interests in Egypt
to a certain extent, and a dual control would thereby be strengthened,
and would produce two more results, viz:—
(_a_) A firmer alliance between England and France.
(_b_) England would be able to reduce her troops in Egypt, and devote
them to the defence of Asia Minor, and by this means be more able to
withstand Russian attacks in that quarter and in Persia.
(4) Lastly, Turkey would be strengthened financially owing to the
prosperity of her commerce, and productions in Asia Minor, which is the
usual effect of such a communication.
By this means England can fulfil her public duty to Turkey, which she
had undertaken to do by the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and can maintain
her national honour pledged when Lord Beaconsfield and Count Andrassy
discussed the defence of Turkey from Russian invasion in Asia and
Europe.
It is difficult to see why this railway scheme was not brought forward
at the Anglo-Turkish Convention, because it appears to me to be of
primary importance for the defence of both Asia Minor and India; and
also how it escaped the mind of so clever a statesman as Lord
Beaconsfield.
It has, however, been informally discussed both at political meetings
and by pamphlet only recently: the financial difficulties seemed quite
surmountable, but political opinions are decidedly at variance on the
subject. But it is my opinion that England would be perfectly right in
compelling Turkey to carry out this scheme, and if she was not able to
execute it, then England could perform it herself, and she would be only
fulfilling one of the duties which she has undertaken to perform with
the Sultan at the Anglo-Turkish Convention.
The following articles strangely enough appeared in one of the English
daily papers[92]:—
“The tradition, adhered to even by Lord Beaconsfield, of remaining
allied with Turkey at all hazards, is no longer advocated even by
Conservative occupants of the Foreign Office. Since the occupation by
England of Cyprus, and still more of Egypt, Constantinople has lost much
of its importance to England. The Russian fleet in the Black Sea would,
in the event of war, pass through the Dardanelles, with or without the
Sultan’s consent, and advance into the Mediterranean. The rule of the
Sultan at Constantinople, therefore, no longer affords a guarantee
against a Russian attack of the English possessions in the
Mediterranean. Russia already possesses a road to India _viâ_ Merv, and
the possession of Constantinople could afford her no resistance in this
direction.”
“England, on the other hand, in the event of Russia’s impeding the
conveyance of English troops through the Suez Canal, has at her disposal
another way to India, one which leads exclusively through British
dominions—the new Canadian railway. One no longer thinks of defending
India at Constantinople, but in Afghanistan and on the Anglo-Afghan
frontier. England has as much interest as the other Powers in preventing
Russia from advancing towards Constantinople, but this is no longer held
to be a vital interest that would have to be protected even by force of
arms.”
This is certainly a serious mistake in policy if backed up by the
English Government, even more so than that of the Duke of Wellington,
1827–1830.
If Constantinople were once occupied by Russia, it is certain that
Turkey would be a thing of the past, the Russian fleet on the Black Sea
would at once sail into the Mediterranean and attack the English
supremacy there. The Russian occupation would enable them to withdraw
quite 200,000 troops from the Black Sea coasts which could be used for
an attack on the Balkans, Armenia, or Central Asia; Cyprus would be lost
to England, and Asia Minor to Turkey; Russia would have a largely
increased power in the Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf would be no
longer open to English ships.
If the Franco-Russian alliance of to-day remained firm, and war was to
be declared, then England would only have two long routes to India:
(_a_) round the Cape of Good Hope, (_b_) the new Canadian railway. Lord
Charles Beresford said, “With the Cape well fortified and held by a
military force, England might laugh at the world.” But the Cape would be
unsafe, owing to France having now firm hold of the Indian Ocean
“Malta,” viz., Madagascar.
Notwithstanding that the new Canadian route passes exclusively through
British dominions, yet it cannot be called a direct route, for it is
certainly a seven days longer journey than the Gibraltar route to
Calcutta. Russia, on the other hand, could send an immense number of
troops in seven or ten days from Moscow to the Afghan frontiers, and in
about another extra day from St. Petersburg, or the Caucasian Peninsula.
This would be all in favour of Russia gaining the first military move—a
matter of extreme importance in the present advanced stage of military
tactics.
This question may also be viewed from two other points:—
First, Cobden[93] and Bright were once under the idea that if Russia
occupied Constantinople, she would change into a peaceful and civilized
nation, and that England would be materially benefited commercially.
This was merely an imaginary dream, for there is no doubt in my mind
that a Russian occupation of the Turkish capital is a preliminary to
shutting out English trade from the Black Sea by heavy protective
duties. Second, England has engaged herself, together with the other
European Powers, to respect the integrity and independence of the
Ottoman Empire by the Treaties of Paris, London, and Berlin, and still
more emphatically by the Anglo-Turkish Convention. If, therefore, she
followed the policy of leaving Constantinople to its fate, and simply
defended her interests on the Afghan frontiers, she would at once be
branded with disgrace, and stigmatized as a breaker of the 1856, 1871,
and 1878 Treaties, and a backslider from the Anglo-Turkish Convention.
At the present time, however, an indirect change of policy may be
observed. Early in March, 1889, the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord
George Hamilton) introduced and passed the Naval Defences Bill,
authorizing an expenditure of £21,500,000 on the Navy by constructing
eight first and two second-class battle-ships, nine first-class and
thirty-three smaller cruisers, and eighteen torpedo gunboats. This
surely implies that England is determined to prevent Russian
encroachments both at Constantinople and in the Mediterranean.
Reviewing the above, the following things seem plainly revealed, viz.,
that Russia has in the majority of cases assumed an offensive policy
while England has maintained a defensive one with regard to Eastern
Europe.
Pitt started a splendid scheme of resistance against Russia; Canning
worked upon it, and developed the European Concert scheme with regard to
Turkey; Palmerston improved, expanded, and eventually completed a
perfectly harmonious unison; while Beaconsfield composed and worked
variations upon the original strain of the Concert. Surely the example
of such noble and great statesmen is worthy of veneration both in the
present and the future.
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.
[Illustration:
THE EXPANSION OF RUSSIA IN ASIA.]
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 military[97]
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 Canal[103] 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.
-----
Footnote 1:
Lord Palmerston’s letter to Lord Clarendon, Feb. 17, 1857.
Footnote 2:
John Morley’s “The Life of Richard Cobden,” vol. ii. p. 189.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 6:
“The Present Condition of European Politics,” p. 175.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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.)
Footnote 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.
Footnote 10:
The Chinese Government gave its assent to the construction of a
railway from Pekin to Kirin _viâ_ Moukden Jan., 1890.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 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).
Footnote 16:
Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 87.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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.
Footnote 20:
There is also a Maritime Insurance Company.
Footnote 21:
Light-houses—fifty-seven in number and some of them are very powerful.
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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”).
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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
Footnote 27:
E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. ii. p. 592.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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.
Footnote 32:
England, Holland, and Sweden.
Footnote 33:
Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 95.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 35:
Macaulay’s famous Essay on the Earl of Chatham.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 37:
The epitaph on Chatham’s monument in Westminster Abbey.
Footnote 38:
The declaration of American Independence.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 42:
Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 105.
Footnote 43:
Napoleon, at St. Helena, prophesied that before a century was over
Europe would be Cossack or Republican.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 45:
E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 323.
Footnote 46:
E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 368.
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 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).
Footnote 49:
The Prince Regent declared his personal adherence to its principles.
Footnote 50:
Lord Castlereagh’s Speech, 1812.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 53:
This disadvantageous treaty for Russia was made owing to the
disappearance of immense numbers of soldiers.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 56:
Holland’s “European Concert on the Eastern Question,” p. 206.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 58:
Thornton’s “Foreign Secretaries of the Nineteenth Century,” vol. iii.
p. 100.
Footnote 59:
In 1840 France succeeded in obtaining from the Porte a grant of
distinguished privileges in regard to the Holy Land.
Footnote 60:
Ashley’s “Life of Lord Palmerston,” vol. i. p. 279.
Footnote 61:
Kinglake’s “History of Crimean War,” vol. i. p. 82.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 64:
Kinglake’s “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 90.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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”).
Footnote 69:
A letter to Lord Clarendon, May 22, 1853.
Footnote 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.”
Footnote 71:
Gladstone’s speech, May 8, 1854.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 73:
Earl Russell’s “Recollections and Suggestions, 1813–1873,” p. 476.
Footnote 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.”)
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 78:
Lord Derby said that “the Note now proposed was sure to lead to
farther diplomatic interference in the internal affairs of Turkey.”
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 82:
“Truth about Russia,” p. 282.
Footnote 83:
Lord Beaconsfield’s speech, April 8, 1878.
Footnote 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”).
Footnote 85:
In the House of Lords, July 18, 1878.
Footnote 86:
See Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question.”
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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).
Footnote 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.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 92:
_Pall Mall_, September 15, 1886.
Footnote 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).
Footnote 94:
Carlo’s “British India,” p. 59.
Footnote 95:
Sir E. Thornton’s telegram from St. Petersburg.
Footnote 96:
Lord Palmerston’s Letter to Lord Clarendon, Feb. 17, 1857.
Footnote 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—
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.
Footnote 98:
_The Times._
Footnote 99:
_The Times._
Footnote 100:
_The Times._
Footnote 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.
Footnote 102:
“The Present Condition of European Politics,” p. 203.
Footnote 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).
The Gresham Press,
UNWIN BROTHERS,
CHILWORTH AND LONDON.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Illustration]
Select Books
PUBLISHED BY
Mr. T. FISHER UNWIN
❦
London:
PATERNOSTER SQUARE.
* * * * *
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).
The English Novel in the Time of Shakespeare. By J. J. JUSSERAND,
Author of “English Wayfaring Life.” Illustrated. Demy 8vo., cloth.
The work is divided into six chapters:—I. Before Shakespeare; II.
Lyly and his Euphues; III. The School of Lyly; IV. Sir Philip
Sydney and the Pastoral romance; V. Thomas Nash and the
picturesque romance; VI. After Shakespeare.
Light and Shadow: A Novel. By EDWARD GARNETT, Author of “The Paradox
Club.” Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
In Thoughtland and in Dreamland. By ELSA D’ESTERRE-KEELING, Author of
“Three Sisters,” “Bib and Tucker,” &c. Square imperial 16mo.,
cloth, 6s.; Presentation Edition (uniform with the above), in Box,
7s. 6d.
English Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages (XIVth Century). By J. J.
JUSSERAND. Translated from the French by LUCY A. TOULMIN SMITH.
Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy 8vo., cloth, 12s.
“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._
Old Chelsea. A Summer-Day’s Stroll. By Dr. BENJAMIN ELLIS MARTIN.
Illustrated by JOSEPH PENNELL. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth,
7s. 6d.
“Dr. Martin has produced an interesting account of old Chelsea,
and he has been well seconded by his coadjutor.”—_Athenæum._
The Twilight of the Gods. By RICHARD GARNETT, LL.D. Crown 8vo., cloth,
6s.
“If imagination and style constitute the true elixir of literary
life, Dr. Garnett’s ‘Twilight of the Gods’ should live.”—_British
Weekly._
The Coming of the Friars, And other Mediæval Sketches. By the Rev.
AUGUSTUS JESSOPP, D.D., Author of “Arcady: For Better, For Worse,”
&c. Third Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
_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.
Arcady: For Better, For Worse. By AUGUSTUS JESSOPP, D.D., Author of
“One Generation of a Norfolk House.” Portrait. Popular Edition.
Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“A volume which is, to our minds, one of the most delightful ever
published in English.”—_Spectator._
The Romance of a Shop. By the late AMY LEVY, Author of “Reuben Sachs,”
“A London Plane Tree, and Other Poems,” &c. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
“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._
The Paradox Club. By EDWARD GARNETT. With Portrait of Nina Lindon.
Second Edition. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.
“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._
Euphorion: Studies of the Antique and the Mediæval in the Renaissance.
By VERNON LEE. Cheap Edition, in one volume. Demy 8vo., cloth, 7s.
6d.
“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._
Studies of the Eighteenth Century in Italy. By VERNON LEE. Demy 8vo.,
cloth, 7s. 6d.
“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._
Belcaro: Being Essays on Sundry Æsthetical Questions. By VERNON LEE.
Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
“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._
Juvenilia: A Second Series of Essays on Sundry Æsthetical Questions.
By VERNON LEE. Two vols. Small crown 8vo., cloth, 12s.
“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._
Baldwin: Dialogues on Views and Aspirations. By VERNON LEE. Demy 8vo.,
cloth, 12s.
“The dialogues are written with ... an intellectual courage which
shrinks from no logical conclusion.”—_Scotsman._
Ottilie: Eighteenth Century Idyl. By VERNON LEE. Square 8vo., cloth
extra, 3s. 6d.
“A graceful little sketch.... Drawn with full insight into the
period described.”—_Spectator._
Introductory Studies in Greek Art. Delivered in the British Museum by
JANE E. HARRISON. With Illustrations. Square imperial 16mo., 7s.
6d.
“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.
Romances of Chivalry: Told and Illustrated in Fac-simile by JOHN
ASHTON. Forty-six Illustrations. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown
8vo., 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 Dawn of the Nineteenth Century in England: A Social Sketch of the
Times. By JOHN ASHTON. Cheaper Edition, in one vol. Illustrated.
Large crown 8vo., 10s. 6d.
“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._
Legends and Popular Tales of the Basque People. By MARIANA MONTEIRO.
With Illustrations by HAROLD COPPING. Popular Edition. Crown 8vo.,
cloth, gilt edges, 6s.
“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._
Heroic Tales. Retold from Firdusi the Persian. By HELEN ZIMMERN. With
Etchings by L. ALMA TADEMA. Popular Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth
extra, 5s.
“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._
Pilgrim Sorrow. By CARMEN SYLVA (The Queen of Roumania). Translated by
HELEN ZIMMERN. Portrait-etching by LALAUZE. Square crown 8vo.,
cloth extra, 5s.
“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._
Chopin, and Other Musical Essays. By HENRY T. FINCK, Author of
“Romantic Love and Personal Beauty.” Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
“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._
Songs, Ballads, and A Garden Play. By A. MARY F. ROBINSON, Author of
“An Italian Garden.” With Frontispiece of Dürer’s “Melancolia.”
Small crown 8vo., half-bound, vellum, 5s.
“The romantic ballads have grace, movement, passion and
strength.”—_Spectator._
“Marked by sweetness of melody and truth of colour.”—_Academy._
Essays towards a Critical Method. Studies in English Literature. By
JOHN M. ROBERTSON. Cr. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
“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._
The Lazy Minstrel. By J. ASHBY-STERRY, Author of “Boudoir Ballads.”
Fourth and Popular Edition. Frontispiece by E. A. ABBEY. Fcap.
8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
“One of the lightest and brightest writers of vers de
société.”—_St. James’s Gazette._
Caroline Schlegel, and Her Friends. By Mrs. ALFRED SIDGWICK. With
Steel Portrait. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
“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.”
Diary of the Parnell Commission. Revised with Additions, from _The
Daily News_. By JOHN MACDONALD, M.A. Large crown 8vo.
The End of the Middle Ages: Essay and Questions in History. By A. MARY
F. ROBINSON (Madame Darmesteter). Demy 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
“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 Federalist: A Commentary in the Form of Essays on the United
States Constitution. By ALEXANDER HAMILTON, and others. Edited by
HENRY CABOT LODGE. Demy 8vo., Roxburgh binding, 10s. 6d.
“The importance of the Essays can hardly be exaggerated.”—_Glasgow
Mail._
The Story of the Nations. Crown 8vo., Illustrated, and furnished with
Maps and Indexes, each 5s.
“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.
Early Britain. By Prof. A. J. CHURCH, Author of “Carthage,” &c.
Russia. By W. R. MORFILL, M.A., Author of a “A Grammar of the Russian
Language.”
The Barbary Corsairs. By STANLEY LANE-POOLE, Author of “The Moors in
Spain,” “Turkey,” &c.
The Jews under the Roman Empire. By W. DOUGLAS MORRISON, M.A.
Scotland. By JOHN MACINTOSH, LL.D., Author of “The History of
Civilisation in Scotland.”
(_For further information, see “Nation Series” Catalogue. Sent to
any address on application to the Publisher._)
* * * * *
Biography.
Sir John Hawkwood (l’Acuto). Story of a Condottiere. Translated from
the Italian of John Temple-Leader and Guiseppe Marcotti, by LEADER
SCOTT. Illustrated. Royal 8vo., bound in buckram, gilt tops.
Limited Edition.
_Extract from Preface._—“He was for more than thirty years one of
the most effective dominators of Italian affairs, and in her
history—military, political, and social—he figures as a personage
whose character and actions have an importance more than
sufficient to justify the simple curiosity of biographical
erudition.”
The Life & Times of William Lloyd Garrison. From 1840-1879. By HIS
CHILDREN. Vols. III. and IV., completing the work. Portraits and
Illustrations. Demy 8vo., cloth, 30s.
Compiled by Mr. Garrison’s two sons, Wendell Phillips Garrison,
Literary Editor of the _Nation_, and his brother, F. J. Garrison,
the above work is undoubtedly one of the most important
contributions yet made to American history and biography. Among
those with whom Mr. Garrison was at one time or another during his
career associated, may be mentioned Mazzini, John Bright, J. S.
Mill, Emerson, James Mott, William E. Channing, Whittier, Maria W.
Chapman, Caleb Cushing, Lafayette, Wilberforce, Fowell Buxton,
Daniel O’Connell, George Thompson, Zachary Macaulay, Clarkson,
Harriett Martineau, Wendell Phillips, Mrs. Opie, Haydon, Lady
Byron, Sir Jonn Bowring, the Duchess of Sutherland, and others.
Good Men and True: Biographies of Workers in the Fields of Beneficence
and Benevolence. By ALEXANDER H. JAPP, LL.D. Illustrated. Crown
8vo., cloth, 6s.
CONTENTS:—I. Norman MacLeod, D.D.—II. Edward Denison.—III. Arnold
Toynbee.—IV. John Conington.—V. Charles Kingsley.—VI. Bishop
Hannington.—VII. The Stanleys: Father and Son.—VIII. Thomas
Guthrie, D.D.—IX. Sir Titus Salt.—X. Samuel Plimsoll.
Life & Times of Girolamo Savonarola. By PASQUALE VILLARI. Translated
by LINDA VILLARI. Portraits and Illustrations. Two vols. Second
Edition, with New Preface. Demy 8vo., cloth, 32s.
Anne Gilchrist: Her Life and Writings. Edited by HERBERT HARLAKENDEN
GILCHRIST. Prefatory Notice by WILLIAM MICHAEL ROSSETTI. Second
edition. Twelve Illustrations. Demy 8vo., cloth, 16s.
Charles Dickens as I knew Him: The Story of the Reading Tours in Great
Britain and America (1866-1870). By GEORGE DOLBY. New and cheaper
edition. Crown 8vo., 3s. 6d.
“It will be welcome to all lovers of Dickens for Dickens’ own
sake.”—_Athenæum._
Ole Bull: A Memoir. By SARA C. BULL. With Ole Bull’s “Violin Notes”
and Dr. A. B. Crosby’s “Anatomy of the Violinist.” Portraits.
Second edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
Johannes Brahms: A Biographical Sketch. By Dr. HERMAN DEITERS.
Translated, with additions, by ROSA NEWMARCH. Edited, with a
Preface, by J. A. FULLER MAITLAND. Portrait. Small crown 8vo.,
cloth, 6s.
The Lives of Robert and Mary Moffat. By their Son, JOHN SMITH MOFFAT.
Sixth edition. Portraits, Illustrations, and Maps. Crown 8vo.,
cloth, 7s. 6d.; Popular Edition, crown 8vo., 3s. 6d.
“The biographer has done his work with reverent care, and in a
straightforward unaffected style.”—_Contemporary Review._
The German Emperor and Empress: The Late Frederick III. and Victoria.
The Story of their Lives. By DOROTHEA ROBERTS. Portraits. Crown
8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
“A book sure to be popular in domestic circles.”—_The Graphic._
Arminius Vambery: His Life and Adventures. Written by Himself. With
Portrait and Fourteen Illustrations. Fifth and Popular Edition.
Square Imperial 16mo., cloth extra, 6s.
“The work is written in a most captivating manner.”—_Novoe Vremya,
Moscow._
Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam): A Critical Review of his Life and
Character, with Selections from his Writings. By B. G. LOVEJOY,
A.M., LL.B. Crown 8vo., half-bound cloth, gilt top, 6s.
* * * * *
Theology and Philosophy.
The Treasure Book of Consolation: For all in Sorrow or Suffering. By
BENJAMIN ORME, M.A. Popular Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth extra, gilt
edges, 3s. 6d.
The Questions of the Bible, Arranged in the Order of the Books of
Scripture, with Connective Readings and Tables. By W. CARNELLEY.
Demy 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
“The book will be a useful one for theologians and
students.”—_Fireside News._
“A book of peculiar value to all who study the
Bible.”—_Christian._
The House and Its Builder, with Other Discourses: A Book for the
Doubtful. By Dr. SAMUEL COX. Third Edition. Small crown 8vo.,
paper, 2s. 6d.; cloth, 3s.
“Expositions.” By the same Author. In Four Volumes, demy 8vo., cloth,
price 7s. 6d. each.
“We have said enough to show our high opinion of Dr. Cox’s volume.
It is indeed full of suggestion.... A valuable volume.”—_The
Spectator._
“Here, too, we have the clear exegetical insight, the lucid
expository style, the chastened but effective eloquence, the high
ethical standpoint, which secured for the earlier series a
well-nigh unanimous award of commendation.”—_Academy._
“When we say that the volume possesses all the intellectual,
moral, and spiritual characteristics which have won for its
author so distinguished a place among the religious teachers
of our time ... what further recommendation can be
necessary?”—_Nonconformist._
The Risen Christ: The King of Men. By the late Rev. J. BALDWIN BROWN,
M.A. Second and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“We have again felt in reading these nervous, spiritual, and
eloquent sermons, how great a preacher has passed
away.”—_Nonconformist._
Christian Facts and Forces. By the Rev. NEWMAN SMYTH, Author of “The
Reality of Faith.” New edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s. 6d.
“An able and suggestive series of discourses.”—_Nonconformist._
“These sermons abound in noble and beautiful teaching clearly and
eloquently expressed.”—_Christian._
Inspiration and the Bible: An Inquiry. By ROBERT HORTON, M.A.,
formerly Fellow of New College, Oxford. Fourth and Cheaper
Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“The work displays much earnest thought, and a sincere belief in,
and love of the Bible.”—_Morning Post._
“It will be found to be a good summary, written in no iconoclastic
spirit, but with perfect candour and fairness, of some of the more
important results of recent Biblical criticism.”—_Scotsman._
Faint, yet Pursuing. By the Rev. E. J. HARDY, Author of “How to be
Happy though Married.” Sq. imp. 16mo., cloth, 6s. Cheaper Edition,
3s. 6d.
“One of the most practical and readable volumes of sermons ever
published. They must have been eminently hearable.”—_British
Weekly._
The Meditations and Maxims of Koheleth. A Practical Exposition of the
Book of Ecclesiastes. By Rev. T. CAMPBELL FINLAYSON. Crown 8vo.,
6s.
“A thoughtful and practical commentary on a book of Holy Scripture
which needs much spiritual wisdom for its exposition.... Sound and
judicious handling.”—_Rock._
The Pharaohs of the Bondage and the Exodus. Lectures by CHARLES S.
ROBINSON, D.D., LL.D. Second edition. Large crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
“Both lectures are conceived in a very earnest spirit, and are
developed with much dignity and force. We have the greatest
satisfaction in commending it to the attention of Biblical
students and Christian ministers.”—_Literary World._
A Short Introduction to the History of Ancient Israel. By the Rev. A.
W. OXFORD, M.A., Vicar of St. Luke’s, Berwick Street, Soho, Editor
of “The Berwick Hymnal,” &c. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“We can testify to the great amount of labour it
represents.”—_Literary World._
The Reality of Religion. By HENRY J. VANDYKE, Junr., D.D., of the
Brick Church, N.Y. Second edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s. 6d.
“An able and eloquent review of the considerations on which the
writer rests his belief in Christianity, and an impassioned
statement of the strength of this belief.”—_Scotsman._
The Reality of Faith. By the Rev. NEWMAN SMYTH, D.D., Author of “Old
Faiths in New Light.” Fourth and cheaper edition. Crown 8vo.,
cloth, 4s. 6d.
“They are fresh and beautiful expositions of those deep things,
those foundation truths, which underlie Christian faith and
spiritual life in their varied manifestations.”—_Christian Age._
A Layman’s Study of the English Bible Considered in its Literary and
Secular Aspects. By FRANCIS BOWEN, LL.D. Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s.
6d.
“Most heartily do we recommend this little volume to the careful
study, not only of those whose faith is not yet fixed and settled,
but of those whose love for it and reliance on it grows with their
growing years.”—_Nonconformist._
The Parousia. A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of
Our Lord’s Second Coming. By the Rev. J. S. RUSSELL, M.A. New and
cheaper edition. Demy 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
“Critical, in the best sense of the word. Unlike many treatises on
the subject, this is a sober and reverent investigation, and
abounds in a careful and instructive exegesis of every passage
bearing upon it.”—_Nonconformist._
The Ethic of Freethought: A Selection of Essays and Lectures. By KARL
PEARSON, M.A., formerly Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. Demy
8vo., cloth, 12s.
“Are characterised by much learning, much keen and
forcible thinking, and a fearlessness of denunciation and
exposition.”—_Scotsman._
Descartes and His School. By KUNO FISCHER. Translated from the Third
and Revised German Edition by J. P. GORDY, Ph.D. Edited by NOAH
PORTER, D.D., LL.D. Demy 8vo., cloth, 16s.
“A valuable addition to the literature of Philosophy.”—_Scotsman._
“No greater service could be done to English and American students
than to give them a trustworthy rendering of Kuno Fischer’s
brilliant expositions.”—_Mind._
Socrates: A Translation of the Apology, Crito, and Parts of the Phædo
of Plato. 12mo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“The translation is clear and elegant.”—_Morning Post._
A Day in Athens with Socrates: Translations from the Protagoras and
the Republic of Plato. 12mo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“We can commend these volumes to the English reader as giving him
what he wants—the Socratic ... philosophy at first hand; with a
sufficiency of explanatory and illustrative comment.”—_Pall Mall
Gazette._
Talks with Socrates about Life: Translations from the Gorgias and the
Republic of Plato. 12mo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“A real service is rendered to the general reader who has no
Greek, and to whom the two ancient philosophers are only names, by
the publication of these three inviting little volumes.... Every
young man who is forming a library ought to add them to his
collection.”—_Christian Leader._
Natural Causation. An Essay in Four Parts. By C. E. PLUMPTRE, Author
of “General Sketch of the History of Pantheism,” &c. Demy 8vo.,
cloth, 7s. 6d.
“While many will find in this volume much from which they will
dissent, there is in it a great deal that is deserving of careful
consideration, and a great deal that is calculated to stimulate
thought.”—_Scotsman._
* * * * *
Travel.
Our Journey to the Hebrides. By JOSEPH PENNELL and ELIZABETH ROBBINS
PENNELL. 43 Illustrations by JOSEPH PENNELL. Crown 8vo., cloth,
7s. 6d.
“It will be easily understood that we could not plan a route out
of our ignorance and prejudice. It remained to choose a guide, and
our choice, I hardly know why, fell upon Dr. Johnson.”
Studies in the South and West, with Comments on Canada. By CHARLES
DUDLEY WARNER, Author of “Their Pilgrimage.” Crown 8vo., 10s. 6d.
Studies of Kentucky, The Blue Grass Region, New Orleans, Chicago,
etc., etc.
Ranch Life and the Hunting Trail. By THEODORE ROOSEVELT, Author of
“Hunting Trips of a Ranchman.” Profusely Illustrated. Small 4to.,
cloth elegant, 21s.
“It contains the highest excellence of letter-press and
engraving.”—_Saturday Review._
Rides and Studies in the Canary Isles. By CHARLES EDWARDES. With many
Illustrations and Maps. Crown 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
“An honest piece of work done by a capable hand.”—_Academy._
Guatemala: The Land of the Quetzal. By WILLIAM T. BRIGHAM. Twenty-six
full-page and Seventy-nine smaller Illustrations. Five Maps. Demy
8vo., cloth, £1 1s.
“A book of laborious research, keen observation, and accurate
information concerning a region about which previously scarcely
anything was known.”—_Leeds Mercury._
A Summer’s Cruise in the Waters of Greece, Turkey, and Russia. By
ALFRED COLBECK. Frontispiece. Crown 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
The Decline of British Prestige in the East. By SELIM FARIS, Editor of
the Arabic “El-Jawaïb” of Constantinople. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
“A perusal of his book must do the English reader good.”—_Asiatic
Quarterly Review._
Daily Life in India. By the Rev. W. J. WILKINS. Illustrated. Crown
8vo., cloth, 5s.
“A very able book.”—_Guardian._
Modern Hinduism: An Account of the Religion and Life of the Hindus in
Northern India. By Rev. W. J. WILKINS. Demy 8vo., cloth, 16s.
“A valuable contribution to the study of a very difficult
subject.”—_Madras Mail._
Central Asian Questions: Essays on Afghanistan, China and Central
Asia. By DEMETRIUS C. BOULGER. With Portrait and Three Maps. Demy
8vo., cloth, 18s.
“A mine of valuable information.”—_Times._
The Balkan Peninsula. By EMILE DE LAVELEYE. Translated by Mrs. THORPE.
Edited and Revised for the English Public by the Author. Map. Demy
8vo., cloth, 16s.
“Likely to be very useful at the present time, as it is one of the
best books on the subject.”—_Saturday Review._
Tuscan Studies and Sketches. By LEADER SCOTT, Author of “A Nook in the
Apennines,” “Messer Agnolo’s Household,” &c. Many Full-page and
smaller Illustrations. Sq. imp. 16mo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
“The sketches are of that happy kind which appeal to the learned
through their style, and to the simple through their
subjects.”—_Truth._
Letters from Italy. By EMILE DE LAVELEYE. Translated by Mrs. THORPE.
Revised by the Author. Portrait of the Author. Crown 8vo., 6s.
“A most delightful volume.”—_Nonconformist._
“Every page is pleasantly and brightly written.”—_Times._
* * * * *
Miscellaneous.
The Letters of the Duke of Wellington to Miss J., 1834-1851. Edited
with extracts from the Diary of the latter by CHRISTINE TERHUNE
HERRICK. Crown 8vo., paper boards, 6s.
How Men Propose. The Fateful Question and Its Answer. Love scenes from
popular works of Fiction, collected by AGNES STEVENS. Square Imp.
16mo., cloth, 6s.; Presentation Edition, cloth elegant, bevelled
boards, gilt edges, in box, 7s. 6d. (Uniform with “How to be Happy
Though Married.”)
This work presents a collection of extracts from the works of
prominent novelists, showing the many and various ways in which
they treat the marriage proposal. No effort has been spared to
include the widest range of authors and varieties of treatment.
Sylvan Folk. Sketches of Bird and Animal Life in Britain. By JOHN
WATSON, Author of “A Year in the Fields,” &c. Crown 8vo., cloth,
3s. 6d.
“His descriptions are so fresh that they will give genuine
pleasure to everyone who reads them. The book will be especially
interesting to young readers.”—_Nature._
Industrial Rivers of the United Kingdom. By various well-known
Experts. With numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
These Chapters are not confined to the commerce and industries
which characterise the great rivers: the history of each stream is
traced from the earliest times. The foundation of the trade and
manufactures which distinguish the several ports and districts are
noticed; and the improvement of the rivers and harbours, and the
development of the trade and commerce, up to the latest possible
period, are dealt with at length.
Crime: Its Causes and Remedy. By L. GORDON RYLANDS, B.A. (Lond.) Crown
8vo., cloth, 6s.
A treatise on crime and its causes, presenting many interesting
statistics and tables on its fluctuations, and suggesting remedies
and a new method of meeting it.
The Five Talents of Woman. A Book for Girls and Young Women. By the
Rev. E. J. HARDY, Author of “How to be Happy though Married,” &c.
Sq. Imperial 16mo., cloth, 6s.; Presentation Edition, bevelled
boards, gilt edges, in box, 7s. 6d.
How to be Happy though Married. Small crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
Bridal Gift Edition, white vellum cloth, extra gilt, bev. boards,
gilt edges, in box, 7s. 6d.
“We strongly recommend this book as one of the best of wedding
presents.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._
“Manners Makyth Man.” By the Author of “How to be Happy though
Married.” Popular Edition, small crown 8vo. cloth, 3s. 6d.; imp.
16mo., cloth, 6s.
Representative British Orations. With Introductions, &c., by CHAS. K.
ADAMS. 16mo., Roxburgh, gilt tops, 3 vols., in cloth box, 15s. The
volumes may also be had without box, 13s. 6d.
Jottings from Jail. Notes and Papers on Prison Matters. By the Rev. J.
W. HORSLEY, M.A., Oxon., late (and last) Chaplain of H.M. Prison,
Clerkenwell. Second edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
Literary Landmarks of London. By LAURENCE HUTTON. Fourth, revised, and
cheaper edition. Crown 8vo., Illustrated cover, 2s. 6d.; cloth,
3s. 6d.
English as She is Taught. Genuine Answers to Examination Questions in
our Public Schools. With a Commentary by MARK TWAIN. Demy 16mo.,
cloth, 2s.; parchment, 1s.
MARK TWAIN says: “A darling literary curiosity.... This little
book ought to set forty millions of people to thinking.”
Proverbs, Maxims and Phrases of all Ages. Classified subjectively, and
arranged alphabetically. By ROBERT CHRISTY. 2 vols., half cloth,
gilt tops, 21s.
* * * * *
Books for Children.
Daddy Jake, the Runaway; And Short Stories told after Dark. By “UNCLE
REMUS” (Joel Chandler Harris). Many Illustrations. Medium 4to.,
cloth, gilt edges, 6s. (Uniform with “The Brownies.”)
When Mother was Little. By S. P. YORKE. Thirteen Full-page
Illustrations by HENRY J. FORD. Small square 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
The Butterfly. Its Nature, Development, and Attributes. By JOHN
STUTTARD. Dedicated to Sir John Lubbock, Bart. Illustrated. Fscap.
8vo., limp cloth, 1s.
Æsop’s Fables for Little Readers: Told by Mrs. ARTHUR BROOKFIELD.
Twenty-five Illustrations by HENRY J. FORD. Small 4to., cloth, 3s.
6d.
“In their present shape, the fables should be very popular among
the inmates of the nursery, more particularly as they are
illustrated with nearly thirty clever drawings by Henry Ford,
which are beautifully printed in monochrome.”—_Scottish Leader._
Six Girls. A Home Story. By FANNIE BELL IRVING. Illustrated by F. T.
MERRILL. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
“The six main characters are drawn carefully, and well
differentiated. The book has many a touch of simple pathos, and
many a passage of light-hearted high spirits.”—_Scotsman._
The Brownies: Their Book. By PALMER COX. Reprinted from _St.
Nicholas_, with many new Poems and Pictures. Third and Cheaper
Edition. Medium 4to., cloth, gilt edges, 6s.
New Fairy Tales from Brentano. Told in English by KATE FREILIGRATH
KROEKER, and Pictured by F. CARRUTHERS GOULD. Eight Full-page
Coloured Illustrations. Square 8vo., illustrated, paper boards,
cloth back, 5s.; cloth, gilt edges, 6s.
“A really charming collection of stories.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._
Fairy Tales from Brentano. Told in English by KATE FREILIGRATH
KROEKER. Illustrated by F. CARRUTHERS GOULD. Popular Edition. Sq.
imp. 16mo., 3s. 6d.
“An admirable translator in Madame Kroeker, and an inimitable
illustrator in Mr. Carruthers Gould.”—_Truth._
In the Time of Roses: A Tale of Two Summers. Told and Illustrated by
FLORENCE and EDITH SCANNELL, Author and Artist of “Sylvia’s
Daughters.” Thirty-two Full-page and other Illustrations. Sq. imp.
16mo., cloth, 5s.
“A very charming story.”—_Scotsman._
“A delightful story.”—_Punch._
Prince Peerless: A Fairy-Folk Story-Book. By the Hon. MARGARET COLLIER
(Madame Galletti di Cadilhac), Author of “Our Home by the
Adriatic.” Illustrated by the Hon. JOHN COLLIER. Sq. imp. 16mo.,
cloth, 5s.
“Delightful in style and fancy.”—_Scotsman._
“A volume of charming stories.”—_Saturday Review._
When I was a Child; or, Left Behind. By LINDA VILLARI, Author of “On
Tuscan Hills,” &c. Illustrated. Square 8vo., cloth, gilt edges,
3s. 6d.
“A finer girl’s book could not be had.”—_Scotsman._
The Prince of the Hundred Soups: A Puppet Show in Narrative. Edited,
with a Preface, by VERNON LEE. Illustrated. Cheaper edition.
Square 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“There is more humour in the volume than in half-a-dozen ordinary
pantomimes.”—_Spectator._
The Bird’s Nest, and other Sermons for Children of all Ages. By the
Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D., Author of “Expositions,” &c. Cheap and
Popular Edition. Imp. 16mo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
“These beautiful discourses were addressed to children of all
ages, and must have found an echo in the hearts of many youthful
listeners.”—_St. James’s Gazette._
Spring Blossoms and Summer Fruit; or, Sunday Talks for the Children.
By the Rev. JOHN BYLES, of Ealing. Crown 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
“They are of simple and instructive character.”—_Dundee
Advertiser._
Arminius Vambéry: His Life and Adventures. Written by Himself. With
Introductory Chapter dedicated to the Boys of England. Portrait
and Seventeen Illustrations. Crown 8vo., 5s.
“We welcome it as one of the best books of travel that our boys
could have possibly placed in their hands.”—_Schoolmaster._
Boys’ Own Stories. By ASCOTT R. HOPE, Author of “Stories of Young
Adventurers,” “Stories out of School Time,” &c. Eight
Illustrations. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
“This is a really admirable selection of genuine narrative and
history, treated with discretion and skill by the author. Mr. Hope
has not gathered his stores from the highway, but has explored far
afield in less-beaten tracts, as may be seen in his ‘Adventures of
a Ship-boy’ and ‘A Smith among Savages.’”—_Saturday Review._
The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. Newly Edited after the Original
Editions. Nineteen Illustrations. Large crown 8vo., cloth extra,
5s.
Two Little Confederates. By THOMAS NELSON PAGE. With eight full-page
illustrations by E. W. KEMBLE and A. C. REDWOOD. Square 8vo.,
cloth, 6s.
“A charming story.”—_American Traveller._
* * * * *
THE CAMEO SERIES.
Half-bound, paper boards, price 3s. 6d. each. Fine Edition, bound in
parchment, printed on Japan paper, numbered and signed, 30 copies
only printed, 25 being for sale; terms on application from
Booksellers or the Publisher.
The Lady from the Sea. By HENRIK IBSEN. Translated, with the Author’s
permission, from the Norwegian by ELEANOR MARX AVELING. With a
Critical Introduction by EDMUND GOSSE. Portrait of the Author and
Autograph.
A London Plane-Tree, and Other Poems. By the late AMY LEVY, Author of
“The Romance of a Shop,” “Reuben Sachs,” &c. Illustrated by J.
BERNARD PARTRIDGE.
Wordsworth’s Grave and Other Poems. By WILLIAM WATSON, Author of “The
Prince’s Quest,” &c. Frontispiece.
Sakuntala; or, The Fatal Ring. An Indian Drama by KALIDASA. Translated
by Sir WILLIAM JONES, and Edited, with an Introduction, by T. W.
RHYS DAVIDS, Ph.D., LL.D.
* * * * *
“_UNWIN’S NOVEL SERIES._”
The Volumes average about 300 pp., small cr. 8vo., limp cloth, price
2s. each.
Gladys Fane. By T. WEMYSS REID. Fifth Edition.
Mrs. Keith’s Crime. By Mrs. W. K. CLIFFORD.
Concerning Oliver Knox. By G. COLMORE.
Miss Bayle’s Romance; Or, An American Heiress in Europe. By W. FRASER
RAE.
Isaac Eller’s Money. By Mrs. ANDREW DEAN.
Chronicles of a Health Resort. By A. HERDER.
London: T. FISHER UNWIN, PATERNOSTER SQUARE, E.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s note:
1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
2. Anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as
printed.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Japan and the Pacific - And a Japanese View of the Eastern Question" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.