The Project Gutenberg eBook of Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern Question

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern Question

Author: Manjiro Inagaki

Release date: January 7, 2020 [eBook #61126]

Most recently updated: October 17, 2024

Language: English

Credits: E-text prepared by Richard Tonsing, MFR, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC, AND A JAPANESE VIEW OF THE EASTERN QUESTION ***

The Project Gutenberg eBook, Japan and the Pacific, by Manjiro Inagaki

Note:

Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive. See https://archive.org/details/japanpacificandj00inagrich

JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC

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.

F   OREIGN 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.

F   OREIGN 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.

T   HE 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.

G   REEK 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.

T   HE 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.

T   HE 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.

T   HE 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.

R   EMARKS 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.

C   ENTRAL 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Lord Palmerston’s letter to Lord Clarendon, Feb. 17, 1857.

2. John Morley’s “The Life of Richard Cobden,” vol. ii. p. 189.

3. “In the year 1855 or 1856 his father’s influence succeeded in procuring him a position in the suite of General Muravieff, who as Governor-general of Eastern Siberia, had undertaken a more accurate investigation of the Amoor territory, and was preparing for its colonization. During this work, the French and English war with China broke out; the allies occupied Pekin, and seemed to threaten the existence of the Celestial Empire. This moment was taken advantage of by Russia, who had already been negotiating for some time with China, respecting the cession of a large territory south of the Amoor. Ignatieff was sent to China as ambassador extraordinary” (F. E. Bunnett’s “Russian Society,” p. 170).

4. “The preciousness of Saghalien in the eye of the Russians, however, does not lie so much in its coal beds, its promise of future harvests, its use as a penal colony, or its six hundred miles of length, but in its situation commanding the northern entrance to the sea of Japan, and guarding, like a huge breakwater, the mouth of the great river Amoor” (John Geddie, F.R.G.S., “The Russian Empire,” p. 484).

5. “If war is made to enforce a commercial treaty, we run the risk of engaging in protracted hostilities, and of earning a reputation for quarrelling with every nation in the East.... The Japanese may well be jealous of Europeans, who insult their usages and carry away their gold” (Lord J. Russell to Mr. Alcock, Feb. 28, 1860).

6. “The Present Condition of European Politics,” p. 175.

7. Earl Russell, Nov. 22, 1861, echoed these conditions (four conditions) and equivalent, and added a somewhat cunning addition: “The opening of the ports of Tsushima (in place of Osaka, the centre and trading city of the Empire) and the neighbouring coast of Corea as far as Japanese authority extends, to the trade of the treaty powers.” It could only be the expectation of some secret advantages that do not at first sight meet the eye that could have induced any one to propose the port of Tsushima for that of Osaka (“Diplomacy in Japan,” p. 61). The Japanese wisely declined the British offer.

8.

I   N 1887.

I   MPORTS 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.)

9. The Czar approved of the plan for completing the Siberian Railway, and for its connection with the Trans-Caucasian line, Jan., 1890; the works are to be commenced by the 1st of May at the latest.

10. The Chinese Government gave its assent to the construction of a railway from Pekin to Kirin viâ Moukden Jan., 1890.

11. There are now more than sixteen million miles of wire, and in 1887 the number of telegrams carried were about five millions (“The Statesman’s Year-book,” 1889).

12. The post office carried, in 1887, 54,313,385 letters, 55,332,873 post cards, 20,713,422 newspapers and books, 163,630 packets, 7,014,859 letters and newspapers free of postage (“The Statesman’s Year-book,” 1889).

13. “The English world-empire has two gigantic neighbours in the west and in the east. In the West she has the United States, and in the East Russia for a neighbour” (Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 288).

14. Extracts from a pamphlet written in 1847 by His Imperial Majesty, Napoleon III.:—

“There are certain countries which, from their geographical situation, are destined to a highly prosperous future. Wealth, power, every national advantage, flows into them, provided that where Nature has done her utmost, man does not neglect to avail himself of her beneficent assistance.

“Those countries are in the most favourable conditions which are situated on the high road of commerce, and which offer to commerce the safest ports and harbours, as well as the most profitable interchange of commodities. Such countries, finding in the intercourse of foreign trade illimitable resources, are enabled to take advantage of the fertility of their soil; and in this way a home trade springs up commensurate with the increase of mercantile traffic. It is by such means that Tyre and Carthage, Constantinople, Venice, Genoa, Amsterdam, Liverpool, and London attained to such great prosperity, rising from the condition of poor hamlets to extensive and affluent commercial cities, and exhibiting to surrounding nations the astonishing spectacle of powerful states springing suddenly from unwholesome swamps and marshes. Venice in particular was indebted for her overwhelming grandeur to the geographical position which constituted her for centuries the entrepôt between Europe and the East; and it was only when the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope opened a ship passage to the latter that her prosperity gradually declined. Notwithstanding, so great was her accumulation of wealth, and consequent commercial influence, that she withstood for three centuries the formidable competition thus created.

“There exists another city famous in history, although now fallen from its pristine grandeur, so admirably situated as to excite the jealousy of all the great European Powers, who combine to maintain in it a government so far barbarous as to be incapable of taking advantage of the great resources bestowed upon it by nature. The geographical position of Constantinople is such as rendered her the queen of the ancient world. Occupying, as she does, the central point between Europe, Asia, and Africa, she could become the entrepôt of the commerce of all these countries, and obtain over them an immense preponderance; for in politics, as in strategy, a central position always commands the circumference. Situated between two seas, of which, like two great lakes, she commands the entrance, she could shut up in them, sheltered from the assaults of all other nations, the most formidable fleets, by which she could exercise dominion in the Mediterranean as well as in the Black Sea, thereby commanding the entrance of the Danube, which opens the way to Germany, as well as the sources of the Euphrates, which open the road to the Indies, dictating her own terms to the commerce of Greece, France, Italy, Spain, and Egypt. This is what the proud city of Constantine could be, and this is what she is not, ‘because’ as Montesquieu says, ‘God permitted that Turks should exist on earth, a people the most fit to possess uselessly a great empire.’

“There exists in the New World a state as admirably situated as Constantinople, and we must say, up to the present time, as uselessly occupied; we allude to the state of Nicaragua. As Constantinople is the centre of the ancient world, so is the town of Leon, or rather Massaya, the centre of the new; and if the tongue of land which separates its two lakes from the Pacific Ocean were cut through, she would command by her central position the entire coast of North and South America. Like Constantinople, Massaya is situated between two extensive natural harbours, capable of giving shelter to the largest fleets, safe from attack. The state of Nicaragua can become, better than Constantinople, the necessary route for the great commerce of the world, for it is for the United States the shortest road to China and the East Indies, and for England and the rest of Europe to New Holland, Polynesia, and the whole of the western coast of America. The state of Nicaragua is, then, destined to attain to an extraordinary degree of prosperity and grandeur; for that which renders its political position more advantageous than that of Constantinople is, that the great maritime powers of Europe would witness with pleasure, and not with jealousy, its attainment of a station no less favourable to its individual interests than to the commerce of the world.

“France, England, Holland, Russia, and the United States, have a great commercial interest in the establishment of a communication between the two oceans; but England has more than the other powers a political interest in the execution of this project. England will see with pleasure Central America become a flourishing and powerful state, which will establish a balance of power by creating in Spanish America a new centre of active enterprise, powerful enough to give rise to a great feeling of nationality and to prevent, by backing Mexico, any further encroachment from the north. England will witness with satisfaction the opening of a route which will enable her to communicate more speedily with Oregon, China, and her possessions in New Holland. She will find, in a word, that the advancement of Central America will renovate the declining commerce of Jamaica and the other English island in the Antilles, the progressive decay of which will be thereby stopped. It is a happy coincidence that the political and commercial prosperity of the state of Nicaragua is closely connected with the policy of that nation which has the greatest preponderance on the sea.”

15. “The total length of the canal from sea to sea would be little short of 200 miles, viz., 15½ miles from the Pacific to the lake, 56½ across the lake, and 119 to the Atlantic; total, 191 miles; and the Lake of Nicaragua is navigable for ships of the largest class down to the mouth of the river San Juan” (C. B. Pin’s “The Gate of the Pacific,” p. 133).

16. Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 87.

17. “The negotiations with the Imperial Government for the establishment of a permanent line of first-class steamships, suitable for service as armed cruisers in case of need, resulted in an official notification that Her Majesty’s Government had decided to grant a subsidy of £60,000 per annum for a monthly service between Vancouver and Hong Kong, viâ Yokohama” (“Canada, Statistical Abstract and Record for the Year 1887,” p. 306).

18. “China is a storehouse of men and means; its outer door has scarcely yet been opened” (R. E. Webster’s “The Trade of the World,” p. 317).

19. Sir H. Parkes, late Minister of England in Japan, said: “The statement of the national liabilities this year (1878), shows that Japan has kept faith with her foreign creditors, the interest on her foreign debt and the sum requisite for the payment of the amount of capital redeemed during the year having been duly provided. There is no reason to doubt that care will be taken to ensure punctual payment in future on this account until the entire extinction of this debt in 1895.” Japan has never failed to pay her foreign debts.

20. There is also a Maritime Insurance Company.

21. Light-houses—fifty-seven in number and some of them are very powerful.

22. The Samoan Convention declared the Samoan Islands to be neutral territory. The citizens and subjects of the signatory powers will enjoy equal rights and the independence of the islands is recognized with Malietou as king: Jan., 1890.

23. The whole history of the French in the East is indissolubly bound up with the history of their efforts to destroy our Eastern supremacy. Mauritius was occupied to enable French cruisers to prey on our East Indiamen. Louis XIV. volunteered armed aid to Annam in order to cut off Calcutta from Canton. A French occupation of Tonkin is a serious matter. French cruisers supplied with coal from the mines of Tonkin would lie in the fairway of our China trade, Burmah and Calcutta would be effectually blockaded, and our outlying Oriental possessions grievously threatened (C. B. Norman’s “Tonkin and France in the Far East”).

24. The inhabitants of the eastern region refuse to recognize the Chinese authority. China cannot control the people of Formosa at all. There is a proverb, “Every three years an outbreak, every five a rebellion.”

25. In 1873 a Japanese vessel was wrecked on the eastern coast of Formosa and the crew massacred by the savages. The Japanese Government sent an expedition which was perfectly successful. Eighteen of the tribes in Formosa were defeated and subjugated.

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

27. E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. ii. p. 592.

28. “The separation of the Church of England from that of Rome, formally accomplished under Henry VIII., was a political and legal rather than a religious reformation. The doctrinal changes followed under Edward VI. and Elizabeth” (Taswell-Langmead’s “English Constitutional History,” p. 399).

29. “In the sixteenth century all Europe was aghast at the designs of Philip II. of Spain. He had the great mines of the New World, or at least levied a heavy tax on their produce. He seemed to be possessed of inexhaustible riches. He was baffled, beaten, made bankrupt by the Dutch, in whose country there was not an ounce of natural gold or silver, who got all their money by trade, were rapidly becoming the richest nation of Europe when Philip had ruined Spain and brought down the Genoese traders, on his declaring himself bankrupt” (J. E. Thorold Rogers’s, “The Economic Interpretation of History,” p. 95).

30. “Till this time our merchants were struggling to gain a footing and open up trade between England and different quarters of the globe, and endeavouring to prove that the encouragement of trade was for the royal honour and benefit ... and their interests coincided with the national ambition of out-doing the Dutch, who would not acknowledge our sovereignty on the sea, and of thus attaining a mercantile supremacy throughout the world” (Dr. Cunningham’s “Growth of English Industry and Commerce,” p. 325).

31. (1) 1651. That the importation of goods into England, except in English ships, or in the ships of the nation producing the goods, was forbidden.

(2) 1663. That the colonies should receive no goods whatsoever by foreign vessels.

(3) 1672. That all the principal articles of commerce should be prohibited from being imported into England unless by English ships manned by a crew of whom at least three-quarters were English subjects.

32. England, Holland, and Sweden.

33. Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 95.

34. “There was between England and France during the Seven Years’ War the most disastrous struggle in which France was ever engaged. For all the wars in Europe, from the Peace of Utrecht to the outbreak of the great Continental War, were waged on behalf of monopolies of commerce, or, to be more accurate, monopolies of market, for success meant the exclusion of the beaten nation from the markets now secured by the victorious rival. At the end of the Seven Years’ War France was stripped of nearly every colony she possessed. At the beginning of it she was the rival of England in North America and in India. At the end of it she had scarce a foothold in either” (J. E. Thorold Rogers, “The Economic Interpretation of History,” p. 110).

35. Macaulay’s famous Essay on the Earl of Chatham.

36. “His (the elder Pitt) greatness is throughout identified with the Expansion of England; he is a statesman of Greater Britain. It is in the buccaneering war with Spain that he sows his political wild oats; his glory is won in the great colonial duel with France; his old age is spent in striving to avert schism in Greater Britain” (Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 144).

37. The epitaph on Chatham’s monument in Westminster Abbey.

38. The declaration of American Independence.

39. “As in the American War, France avenges on England her expulsion from the New World, so under Napoleon she makes Titanic efforts to recover her lost place there. This, indeed, is Napoleon’s fixed view with regard to England. He sees in England never the island, the European state, but always the world Empire, the network of dependencies and colonies and islands covering every sea, among which he was himself destined to find his prison and his grave” (Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 33).

40. The first coalition of England, Prussia, Holland, and Sweden, was for the purpose of keeping the European Peace.

The second coalition (1799–1801), composed of Russia, England, Austria, Portugal, Naples, and the Ottoman Empire.

The third coalition (1805), composed of England, Russia, Austria, and Sweden.

41. “Though he was still but forty-seven, the hollow voice and wasted frame of the great Minister had long told that death was near, and the blow to his hopes proved fatal. ‘Roll up that map,’ he said, pointing to the map of Europe, ‘it will not be wanted these ten years.’ Once only he rallied from stupor; and those who bent over him caught a faint murmur of ‘My country! How I leave my country!’” (Green’s “Short History of English People,” p. 799).

42. Prof. Seeley’s “Expansion of England,” p. 105.

43. Napoleon, at St. Helena, prophesied that before a century was over Europe would be Cossack or Republican.

44. “The English victory at La Hogue, and the revival of the trade with Holland, had much to do with Peter’s visit to Archangel” (E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 276).

45. E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 323.

46. E. Schuyler’s “Peter the Great,” vol. i. p. 368.

47. “Upon the Continental System he (Napoleon) had staked everything. He had united all Europe in the crusade against England; no state, least of all such a state as Russia, could withdraw from the system without practically joining England. Nevertheless, we may wonder that, if he felt obliged to make war upon Russia, he should have chosen to wage it in the manner he did, by an overwhelming invasion” (Seeley’s “A Short History of Napoleon the Great,” p. 169). Prof. Seeley also told the author that “if the Continental System had existed a little longer England would have been ruined, because it seems to me that a revolution would have taken place in England.”

48. “Napoleon’s great mistake was that he had laid his plan for an invasion of England and a war in Europe at the same time” (Seeley’s “A Short History of Napoleon the Great,” p. 115).

49. The Prince Regent declared his personal adherence to its principles.

50. Lord Castlereagh’s Speech, 1812.

51. He was “engaged in the glorious attempt to restore that country to her ancient freedom and renown” (The Epitaph in the Church near Newstead).

52. “In the present state of European politics there seems to be in the East a sort of vacuum, which it is advisable to supply, in order to counterbalance the preponderance of the North.... If anything like an equilibrium is to be upheld, Greece must be supported. Mr. Canning, I think, understands this, and intends to behave towards Greece” (R. C. Jebb’s “Modern Greece,” pp. 178–179).

53. This disadvantageous treaty for Russia was made owing to the disappearance of immense numbers of soldiers.

54. “The pressure of the heavy taxation and of the debts, which now reached eight hundred millions, was embittered by the general distress of the country” (J. R. Green’s “A Short History of the English People,” p. 812).

55. “Our ultimate object is the peace of the world; but let it not be said that we cultivate peace either because we fear or because we are not prepared for war. The resources created by peace are the means of war. In cherishing these resources we but accumulate those means. Our present repose is no more a proof of our inability to act than the state of inertness and inactivity in which I have seen those mighty masses that float in the waters above your town is a proof they are devoid of strength and incapable of being fitted for action. You well know how one of those stupendous masses now reposing on their shadow in perfect stillness, how soon, upon any call of patriotism or necessity, it would assume the likeness of an animated thing, instinct with life and motion; how soon it would ruffle, as it were, its swelling plumage; how quickly it would put forth all its beauty and its bravery, collect its scattered elements of strength, and awake its dormant thunders. Such as is one of these magnificent machines when springing from inaction into a display of its strength, such is England herself, while apparently passive and motionless she silently causes power to be put forth on an adequate occasion” (Canning’s speech at Plymouth, August, 1823).

56. Holland’s “European Concert on the Eastern Question,” p. 206.

57. “The growth of intimate relations between England and that country France ... was manifestly viewed by him with jealous distrust, calculated as it was to affect most seriously any designs which might be entertained at St. Petersburg for enlarging Russian territory at the expense of Turkey. To detach England from this alliance would naturally be regarded by the Czar as a master-stroke of policy, and the recent conduct of France in the Eastern Question may have seemed to furnish an opening for making the attempt. If, however, as currently believed at the time, one main object of his visit was to ascertain for himself whether this was possible, he must soon have been satisfied to the contrary by the very decided language with which Sir Robert Peel received his suggestions as to the probably selfish action of France, in the event of the affairs of Turkey coming to a crisis” (Sir T. Martyn’s “Life of the Prince Consort,” vol. i. p. 216).

58. Thornton’s “Foreign Secretaries of the Nineteenth Century,” vol. iii. p. 100.

59. In 1840 France succeeded in obtaining from the Porte a grant of distinguished privileges in regard to the Holy Land.

60. Ashley’s “Life of Lord Palmerston,” vol. i. p. 279.

61. Kinglake’s “History of Crimean War,” vol. i. p. 82.

62. Baron Brunnon, the Russian Minister, said, to Count Vitzthum, “he knew that his Emperor (Nicholas), relying on Lord Aberdeen’s well-known love of peace, and on the protocol which had been signed by Aberdeen in 1844 under entirely different circumstances, regarded two things impossible: first, that England should declare war against Russia; and secondly, that she should conclude an alliance against Russia with France” (Count Vitzthum’s “St. Petersburg and London,” vol. i. p. 66).

63. “Men dwelling amidst the snows of Russia are driven by very nature to grow covetous when they hear of the happier lands where all the year round there are roses and long sunny days. And since this people have a seaboard and ports on the Euxine, they are forced by an everlasting policy to desire the command of the straits which lead through the heart of an empire into the midst of that world of which men kindle thoughts when they speak of the Ægean and of Greece, and the Ionian shores, and of Palestine and Egypt, and of Italy, and of France, and of Spain, and the land of the Moors, and of the Atlantic beyond, and the path of ships on the ocean” (Kinglake’s “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 54).

64. Kinglake’s “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 90.

65. The Grand Vizier said the mission was meant “to win some important right from Turkey, which would destroy her independence, and that the Czar’s object was to trample under foot the rights of the Porte and the independence of the Sovereign” (Kinglake’s “Invasion of the Crimea,” vol. i. p. 99).

66. “That the Sultan’s promise to protect his Christian subjects in the free exercise of their religion differed extremely from a right conferred on any foreign Power to enforce that protection, and also the same degree of interference might be dangerous to the Porte when exercised by so powerful an empire as Russia, on behalf of ten millions of Greeks” (Lord Stratford’s view).

67. “When the Emperor gave his reasons for rejecting the modifications we found that he interpreted the Note in a manner quite different from ourselves, and in a great degree justified the objections of Turks. We could not therefore honestly continue to give an interpretation to the Note, and ask the Turks again to sign it, when we knew that the interpretation of the Emperor is entirely different” (Lord Sheridan’s letter to Earl Russel, Sept. 22, 1853).

68. “I thought the Emperor Alexander had shown considerable moral courage in making peace after the Crimean War, contrary to the general feeling in Russia, and Prince D—— gave me the following curious details of what occurred on that occasion, which he said had been related to him by one of the Ministers present:—The Emperor called a Council of War at St. Petersburg, which was composed of the following members: Prince Dolgorouky, Minister of War; the Grand Duke Constantine, Minister of Marine; M. de Broek, Minister of Finance; Count Blondoff, Prince Moronzow, and, I think, M. Lapouchine, Minister of the Interior. The Emperor first called on the Minister of War to report on the state of the army, and he said the resources were exhausted, that more recruiting was almost impossible, and that he did not see how the war could be continued. The Emperor next addressed himself to his brother, who, together with Count Blondoff, was in favour of continuing hostilities at all risks. The Emperor asked what was the state of the navy? The Grand Duke answered, ‘Sire, we have a fleet in the Baltic, and another in the Black Sea.’ The Emperor acquiesced, but added, ‘True; but those fleets have never left our harbours. Are they fit to oppose the English and French fleets?’ The Grand Duke was obliged to reply in the negative. ‘Then,’ said the Emperor, ‘it appears we have no army and no fleet?’ The Grand Duke sighed, looked down, but made no answer. The Emperor next addressed the Minister of Finance, and asked what report he could give. He said, ‘Sire, we have just made one disadvantageous loan, upon conditions imposed upon us at Hamburg, and I believe another to be impossible.’ The Emperor then addressed the Council, and said, ‘Gentlemen, it appears from what we have just heard that we have neither army, navy, nor money; how, then, is it possible for me to continue the war?’ Count Blondoff then stepped forward and said, with deep emotion, ‘Sire, after the report we have just heard, it is clear that your Majesty is forced to make peace, but at the same time you must dismiss your incompetent Ministers, who have not known how to serve either your father or yourself—dismiss us all.’ The consternation of the other members of the Council at this outburst was great, but peace was signed forthwith” (Lady Bloomfield’s “Court and Diplomatic Life”).

69. A letter to Lord Clarendon, May 22, 1853.

70. The strength of Lord Palmerston’s character and his determination in matters of ready action is well illustrated through an incident recorded by Baron Bunsen (“Memoirs of Bunsen”): “Bunsen and Palmerston had elected to be rowed over to Portsmouth from Osborne, when guests of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and, the weather being rough, the Foreign Minister took the helm, demonstrating the connection between steering the vessel of State, as Bunsen phrased it, and steering a boat at sea—‘Oh, one learns boating at Cambridge, even though one may have learnt nothing better,’ remarked Lord Palmerston; and guide the craft safely to shore he certainly did. But when they landed, alas! the train was gone.”

71. Gladstone’s speech, May 8, 1854.

72. “Napoleon’s object was clear: in the first place, to wrest from the Emperor Nicholas the moral hegemony which he wielded on the Continent, and then, after conquering Russia, to get his hands free to tear up the treaties of 1815, restore to France her so-called natural frontiers, and reconstruct the map of Europe in accordance with Napoleonic ideas” (Count Vitzthum’s “St. Petersburg and London,” vol. i. p. 73).

73. Earl Russell’s “Recollections and Suggestions, 1813–1873,” p. 476.

74. “No sooner had Napoleon learned that an English Cabinet Minister was to go to Vienna than he sent thither also his own Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, while Prince Gortschakoff, who had already been designated as Nesselrode’s successor, represented Russia at the Conference. The first two points—the cessation of the Russian protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia, and the regulation of the navigation of the Danube in conformity with the resolutions of the Congress of Vienna—presented little difficulty. On the other hand, a lively word combat, and a not less lively interchange of despatches, arose over the third point, which demanded the revision of the Dardanelles Treaty of July 13, 1841, and the abrogation of Russian supremacy in the Black Sea. The words, ‘mettre fin à la prépondérance russe dans la Mer Noire,’ were of a very elastic nature, and capable of various interpretations. The Western Powers, mindful of Europe, demanded the neutralization of the Black Sea and a limitation of the number of Russian and Turkish war ships. Gortschakoff declared that Sebastopol was not yet taken, and probably never would be taken, and that Russia must reject any attempt to limit her naval forces as a humiliation unworthy of a Great Power. Austria then proposed a compromise that Russia should pledge herself to maintain the status quo of 1853; and that each of the Western Powers should be entitled to station two frigates in the Black Sea, in order to see that Russia did not increase her fleet. At the same time Austria promised to consider it as a casus belli if Russia kept there a single ship of war more than in 1853. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who, in the interest of exhausted France, was anxious to bring the war to an end, accepted this proposed compromise, and induced Lord John Russell to do likewise. Both were disavowed. Drouyn de Lhuys sent in his resignation, and was succeeded at the Ministry on the Quai d’Orsay by Walewski; but Lord John Russell, scorned alike by his friends and foes, returned to London, and, in spite of all, remained Minister for the present” (Count Vitzthum’s, “St. Petersburg and London.”)

75. In 1876 (September) Mr. Gladstone published his pamphlet entitled “Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East.” It passed through almost countless editions and created a great sensation.

76. “First, religious liberty, in the sense of religious equality, full and entire; second, the abolition of tax-farming; third, the exclusive application to Bosnia and Herzegovina of their own direct taxation; fourth, the appointment of an executory Commission to carry these reforms into effect, to be composed equally of Mahommedans and Christians; fifth, the amelioration of the condition of the rural population by some more satisfactory arrangement between the Christian Rajahs and the Mahommedan Agas, or landowners” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. i. p. 161).

77. “Sir H. Elliot was directed to give a ‘general support’ to the Andrassy Note. It will be seen that in the mode of giving this ‘general support’ to the action of the European Powers, Her Majesty’s Government here contrived to reduce the value of it to the lowest possible amount, and expressly to negative the significance of it.... But more than this—it is distinctly implied that any such meaning, if it were entertained, would be a violation of the Ninth Article of the Treaty of Paris. The Turks were thus encouraged to claim under that treaty a licence and immunity which it never was intended to afford. It is evident, therefore, that the British Cabinet only joined the other Powers, first, because it was impossible to deny the justice of the demand made on Turkey; secondly, because it would be inconvenient to stand alone against the united opinion of all the other Cabinets of Europe; thirdly, because Turkey herself saw some advantage in accepting the communication” (Ibid. vol. i. p. 166).

78. Lord Derby said that “the Note now proposed was sure to lead to farther diplomatic interference in the internal affairs of Turkey.”

79. “First, the provision of means sufficient to settle the refugees in their homes; second, the distribution of these means by a mixed Commission, with a Herzegovinian Christian as President; third, the concentration of Turkish troops into certain places; fourth, the retention of arms by the Christians; fifth, the Consuls or Delegates of the Powers to have a watch over the application of the promised reforms and repatriation of the people. The Memorandum farther proceeded thus in its closing paragraph: If, however, the armistice were to expire without the effort of the Powers being successful in attaining the ends they have in view, the three Imperial Courts are of opinion that it would become necessary to supplement their diplomatic action by the sanction of an agreement, with a view to such efficacious measures as might appear to be demanded in the interest of general peace, to check the evil and prevent its development” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. i. p. 193).

80. “The objections of detail taken by the English Cabinet to the Berlin Memorandum were at once met by Prince Bismarck by the declaration that these points were entirely ‘open to discussion, that they might be modified according to circumstances, and that he, for one, would willingly entertain any improvement which Her Majesty’s Government might have to propose.’... France implored Her Majesty’s Government to reconsider its decision, and declared that persistence in it would, at such a momentous crisis, be nothing short of a ‘public calamity.’ She ‘could not conceal the apprehensions for the future to which this refusal have given rise.’ Italy did the same. The position was, that England objected to everything proposed by others, and had nothing to propose herself. Continued trust in the Turks was her only suggestion” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. i. pp. 202, 203).

81. “At the first meeting of the Congress (June 13, 1878) Lord Beaconsfield made his concerted objection to the advanced position of the Russian troops at the gates of Constantinople. Count Schouvaloff replied that this advanced position had been taken up by the Russian army in consequence of the entry of the English fleet into the Bosphorus. Prince Bismarck, the President of the Congress, expressed himself satisfied with the Russian reply” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 144).

82. “Truth about Russia,” p. 282.

83. Lord Beaconsfield’s speech, April 8, 1878.

84. “The topics regulated by the three Treaties of Paris, London, and Berlin are:—

“(i.) The admission of the Porte to the concert of Europe (P. Art. 7).

“(ii.) The agreement as to resort to mediation (P. 8).

“(iii.) Religious equality in Turkey (P. 9; B. 62).

“(iv.) The navigation of the Straits (P. 10; L. 2).

“(v.) The navigation of the Black Sea (P. 12; L. 3).

“(vi.) The navigation of the Danube (P. 13–19; L. 4–7; B. 52–57; L. 1883).

“(vii.) Roumania (B. 43–51).

“(viii.) Servia (B. 34, 40–42).

“(ix.) Montenegro (B. 26–31, 33).

“(x.) Bulgaria (B. 1–12).

“(xi.) Eastern Roumelia (B. 13–21).

“(xii.) Bosnia and Herzegovina (B. 25).

“(xiii.) Other European provinces (B. 23).

“(xiv.) The Armenian provinces (B. 61).

“(xv.) Cessions to Greece (B. 24; Cons. of 1881).

“(xvi.) The Russian boundaries (B. 45, 58–60).

“(xvii.) The Persian boundary (B. 60).”

(Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question”).

85. In the House of Lords, July 18, 1878.

86. See Holland’s “European Concert in the Eastern Question.”

87. At the ninth meeting of the Congress “the Greek delegates asked the Congress to sanction the annexation to the Hellenic Kingdom of the island of Crete, and the province of Thessaly and Epirus” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 167).

88. “Russia had pointedly and emphatically declared that she would not oppose any larger measure of liberty which the Congress might desire to secure to the provinces bordering on Greece. There was no symptom of any serious opposition from any other Powers. But England had deserted the cause of Greece, because they sold it to the Turks as part of the price to be paid for the island of Cyprus” (The Duke of Argyll’s, “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 170).

89. “Returning to Greece,” said Beaconsfield, “no one could doubt as to the future of this country. States, like individuals, which have a future, are in a position to be able to wait” (The Duke of Argyll’s “The Eastern Question,” vol. ii. p. 169).

90. The explanation of Lord Palmerston’s opposition to M. de Lessep’s scheme, which was given confidentially by him to one of his subordinates in the Foreign Office.

91. “We do not want Egypt, or wish it for ourselves any more than any rational man, with an estate in the north of England and a residence in the south, would have wished to possess the inns on the north road. All he could want would have been that the inns should be well kept, always accessible, and furnishing him, when he came, with mutton chops and post horses. We want to trade with Egypt, and to travel through Egypt” (Lord Palmerston’s Letter to Lord Cowley, November 25, 1859).

92. Pall Mall, September 15, 1886.

93. “If Russia obtained Constantinople, she must cease to be barbarous before she could become formidable; and if she made a great navy, it must be by doing as the Venetians, the Dutch, the English, and the Americans did, by the accumulation of wealth, the exercise of industry, the superior skill and intelligence of her artizans” (Cobden’s Manchester Speech).

94. Carlo’s “British India,” p. 59.

95. Sir E. Thornton’s telegram from St. Petersburg.

96. Lord Palmerston’s Letter to Lord Clarendon, Feb. 17, 1857.

97. “Russia is divided into fifteen military districts, which comprise also Finland, Siberia, the Caucasus, the Trans-Caspian region, and Turkestan. The entire Russian effective force, including officers, artillery, engineers, train, &c., consists of—

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.

98. The Times.

99. The Times.

100. The Times.

101. “A disastrous bankruptcy was the result of the wars which marked the beginning of the century, and the crash of 1873 caused most serious loss both to state and individuals. The stock exchange of Vienna is one of those where speculation is not rife. The Budget of 1888 for Austria gave £41,335,000 as the amount of revenue, and £48,030,000 as that of expenditure, and the public debt as £83,091,060. For Hungary, the revenue was in 1887 £28,937,630, and the expenditure £29,547,853. The public debt for the whole of the Empire is twenty-seven millions of florins” Leger’s “History of Austro-Hungary” (translated by Mrs. B. Hill), p. 633.

102. “The Present Condition of European Politics,” p. 203.

103. “A few years ago a swift voyage from England to Calcutta, viâ the Cape of Good Hope, was from a hundred and ten to a hundred and twenty days. Now steamers by way of the Canal make the same voyage in about thirty days. Here, then, is a diminution of 75 per cent. on the enormous stocks of goods continually required to be held unused, involving continued risk of depreciation, loss of interest, cost of insurance, to meet the requirements of mere transit” (S. A. Wells’ “Practical Economics,” p. 236).

The Gresham Press,

UNWIN BROTHERS,

CHILWORTH AND LONDON.

St. Nicholas Magazine

FOR YOUNG FOLKS.

Edited by Mrs. MARY MAPES DODGE.

Price 1s. Monthly.

With the beginning of the Seventeenth Volume (November, 1889) ST. NICHOLAS will be enlarged by the addition of eight or more pages to each number, and the Magazine will be printed in a new and clearer-faced type. During the year there will be four important Serial Stories by well-known authors, and also Notable Papers on Athletics and Outdoor Sports, as well as a multitude of Occasional Papers, Stories, Illustrated Articles of Character and Adventure, Suggestive of Talks on Natural History, Scientific Subjects, &c. The price will remain the same.

The Century

ILLUSTRATED MONTHLY MAGAZINE.

Price 1s. 4d. Monthly.

FOR 1889–90,

Will include among other features:—

The Autobiography of Joseph Jefferson (“Rip Van Winkle”); “Friend Olivia,” a Serial Story by Mrs. BARR, Author of “Jan Vedder’s Wife,” &c.; “The Merry Chanter,” in Four Parts, by FRANK R. STOCKTON; Letters from Japan, by JOHN LA FARGE; and The Gold Hunters of California, being Personal Narratives of most Romantic Interest.

Besides the above Special Features there will be valuable Contributions in Prose and Verse by MARK TWAIN, EDMUND GOSSE, H. H. BOYESEN, HENRY JAMES, EDW. EGGLESTON, &c., &c.

The Century Dictionary.

In 24 Monthly Parts, Price 10s. 6d. each.

PART I. NOW READY.

When completed the work will form Six Volumes, price £2 2s. each.

A LIBRARY IN ONE BOOK.

Purchasers of this Dictionary will obtain a reference library which does away with a great number of other books. They will have—

1.

A COMPLETE DEFINING DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH WORDS.

2.

A DICTIONARY OF ETYMOLOGIES, UNEQUALLED BY ANY WORK YET PUBLISHED.

3.

A STANDARD DICTIONARY OF SPELLING AND PRONUNCIATION.

4.

AN ENCYCLOPÆDIA OF GENERAL INFORMATION, PARTICULARLY RICH IN HISTORICAL MATERIAL.

5.

A STANDARD DICTIONARY OF MECHANICAL TERMS.

6.

A COMPREHENSIVE DICTIONARY OF THE PRACTICAL ARTS AND TRADES, COMMERCE, FINANCE, ETC.

7.

A DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC TERMS, GIVING THE RESULT OF THE VERY LATEST THOUGHT IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE, AS BIOLOGY, BOTANY, ZOOLOGY, MINERALOGY, PHYSICS, ETC.

8.

A DICTIONARY OF MEDICINE, SURGERY, PHYSIOLOGY, ANATOMY, ETC.

9.

A DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS.

10.

A DICTIONARY OF ART AND ARCHÆOLOGY, MYTHOLOGY, SCULPTURE, MUSIC, ETC., EXQUISITELY ILLUSTRATED.

11.

A LAW DICTIONARY.

12.

A STANDARD REFERENCE BOOK OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND PHILOLOGY.

13.

A DICTIONARY OF SYNONYMS.

14.

A TREASURY OF QUOTATIONS.

For Terms and Prospectuses apply to

T. FISHER UNWIN, 11, Paternoster Buildings, Paternoster Square, London, E.C.

Catalogue of Select Books in Belles Lettres, History, Biography, Theology, Travel, Miscellaneous, and Books for Children.

Belles Lettres

The Letters of Horace Walpole. Selected and Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by CHARLES DUKE YONGE, M.A. Portraits and Illustrations. Limited Edition of 750 copies in Two Vols., medium 8vo., cloth, 32s.

The present selection comprises the more valuable portion of the famous letters to Thomas Gray the poet, Sir Horace Mann, and George Montagu, and is designed chiefly for those who, while lacking leisure to attack the bulk of the correspondence, may welcome the opportunity of becoming acquainted with “certainly the best letter-writer in the English language” (vide Sir Walter Scott).

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 THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC, AND A JAPANESE VIEW OF THE EASTERN QUESTION ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC, AND A JAPANESE VIEW OF THE EASTERN QUESTION.

PREFACE.

CONTENTS.

LIST OF MAPS.

PART I. JAPAN AND THE PACIFIC.

PART II. THE EASTERN QUESTION.

I. FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND DURING THE SIXTEENTH, SEVENTEENTH, AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.

Three Wars of Revenge.

II. FOREIGN POLICY OF RUSSIA DURING THE REIGNS OF PETER THE GREAT, CATHERINE II., AND ALEXANDER I.

Peter the Great (1689–1725).

Catherine II. (1762–1796).

Alexander I. (1801–1825).

III. THE NEW EUROPEAN SYSTEM.

IV. GREEK INDEPENDENCE.

Nicholas I. (1825–1855).

V. THE CRIMEAN WAR.

VI. THE BLACK SEA CONFERENCE.

VII. THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR OF 1878.

Bulgaria.

Eastern Roumelia.

Crete, &c.

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Montenegro, Servia, and Roumania.

Cessions in Asia.

The Anglo-Turkish Convention.

VIII. REMARKS UPON THE TREATY OF BERLIN.

The Anglo-Turkish Convention.

IX. CENTRAL ASIA.

England’s Opponents in British India.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE