Chapter VII: Part II: The Eastern Question (4)

England will also be able to call Indian troops to her assistance in Asia Minor. It will follow that as a larger number of troops and a better communication is obtained in Asia Minor, Austria would be quite willing to ally herself with England, instead of refusing, as she had done twice before, the English power at sea being only of little use. England and Austria therefore can not only jointly support Turkey, but also England can “come to the assistance of Austria in Europe, and Austria make common cause with England in the event of Turkey being attacked in Asia Minor.”

Having a French, Austrian, and Turkish alliance, England can send her home troops both to India and Asia Minor by the Eastern Railway in a very short space of time, and can strengthen both countries and also help in the Balkans if required, and a firm and lasting alliance would be made.

Why cannot Italy join this alliance? It is a matter of necessity and advantage, both geographically and strategically, to do so, and if an alliance in Southern Europe could thus be made, the safety of the Balkans, Asia Minor, Persia, and Afghanistan might be assured, even if Germany joined Russia, and the lofty hopes of Russia would be dashed to the ground.

THE END.

-----

Footnote 1:

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

Footnote 2:

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

Footnote 3:

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

Footnote 4:

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

Footnote 5:

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

Footnote 6:

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

Footnote 7:

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

Footnote 8:

IN 1887. IMPORTS IN VALUE FROM EXPORTS IN VALUE TO Great Britain 25,666,477 tael 16,482,809 tael. Hong Kong 57,761,039 tael 31,393,189 tael. India 5,537,375 tael 797,579 tael. Continent of Europe (without Russia) 2,587,548 tael 11,545,406 tael.

The average value of the Haikwan tael during 1887 was 4s. 10¼d. (“The
Statesman’s Year-book,” 1889.)

Footnote 9:

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

Footnote 10:

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

Footnote 11:

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

Footnote 12:

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

Footnote 13:

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

Footnote 14:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 15:

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

Footnote 16:

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

Footnote 17:

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

Footnote 18:

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

Footnote 19:

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

Footnote 20:

There is also a Maritime Insurance Company.

Footnote 21:

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

Footnote 22:

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

Footnote 23:

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

Footnote 24:

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

Footnote 25:

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

Footnote 26:

The Russian frontier has been advanced toward Berlin, Dresden, Munich, Vienna, and Paris— about 700 miles Towards Constantinople about 500 miles Towards Stockholm about 630 miles Towards Teheran about 1000 miles Towards Peshawar about 1300 miles

Footnote 27:

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

Footnote 28:

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

Footnote 29:

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

Footnote 30:

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

Footnote 31:

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

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

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

Footnote 32:

England, Holland, and Sweden.

Footnote 33:

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

Footnote 34:

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

Footnote 35:

Macaulay’s famous Essay on the Earl of Chatham.

Footnote 36:

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

Footnote 37:

The epitaph on Chatham’s monument in Westminster Abbey.

Footnote 38:

The declaration of American Independence.

Footnote 39:

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

Footnote 40:

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

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

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

Footnote 41:

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

Footnote 42:

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

Footnote 43:

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

Footnote 44:

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

Footnote 45:

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

Footnote 46:

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

Footnote 47:

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

Footnote 48:

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

Footnote 49:

The Prince Regent declared his personal adherence to its principles.

Footnote 50:

Lord Castlereagh’s Speech, 1812.

Footnote 51:

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

Footnote 52:

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

Footnote 53:

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

Footnote 54:

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

Footnote 55:

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

Footnote 56:

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

Footnote 57:

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

Footnote 58:

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

Footnote 59:

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

Footnote 60:

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

Footnote 61:

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

Footnote 62:

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

Footnote 63:

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

Footnote 64:

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

Footnote 65:

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

Footnote 66:

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

Footnote 67:

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

Footnote 68:

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

Footnote 69:

A letter to Lord Clarendon, May 22, 1853.

Footnote 70:

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

Footnote 71:

Gladstone’s speech, May 8, 1854.

Footnote 72:

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

Footnote 73:

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

Footnote 74:

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

Footnote 75:

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

Footnote 76:

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

Footnote 77:

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

Footnote 78:

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

Footnote 79:

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

Footnote 80:

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

Footnote 81:

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

Footnote 82:

“Truth about Russia,” p. 282.

Footnote 83:

Lord Beaconsfield’s speech, April 8, 1878.

Footnote 84:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“(vii.) Roumania (B. 43–51).

“(viii.) Servia (B. 34, 40–42).

“(ix.) Montenegro (B. 26–31, 33).

“(x.) Bulgaria (B. 1–12).

“(xi.) Eastern Roumelia (B. 13–21).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 85:

In the House of Lords, July 18, 1878.

Footnote 86:

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

Footnote 87:

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

Footnote 88:

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

Footnote 89:

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

Footnote 90:

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

Footnote 91:

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

Footnote 92:

_Pall Mall_, September 15, 1886.

Footnote 93:

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

Footnote 94:

Carlo’s “British India,” p. 59.

Footnote 95:

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

Footnote 96:

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

Footnote 97:

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

Regular army 1,766,278
Cossack troops 145,325
Irregular troops 6,331
—————————
Total 1,917,934
—————————

By adding to these figures, the effective troops not levied in time of
peace, say 100,000 men, we reach an effective of 2,000,000 for the war
footing. The Russian militia, which may be called out in times of war,
amounts to 3,000,000 men” (_Harper’s Magazine_, January, 1890), “The
Russian Army” by a Russian General.

Footnote 98:

_The Times._

Footnote 99:

_The Times._

Footnote 100:

_The Times._

Footnote 101:

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

Footnote 102:

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

Footnote 103:

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

The Gresham Press,

UNWIN BROTHERS,

CHILWORTH AND LONDON.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Select Books

PUBLISHED BY

Mr. T. FISHER UNWIN

❦

London:
PATERNOSTER SQUARE.

* * * * *

St. Nicholas Magazine

FOR YOUNG FOLKS.

Edited by Mrs. MARY MAPES DODGE.

Price 1s. Monthly.

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

* * * * *

The Century

ILLUSTRATED MONTHLY MAGAZINE.

Price 1s. 4d. Monthly.

FOR 1889–90,

Will include among other features:—

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

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

* * * * *

The Century Dictionary.

_In 24 Monthly Parts, Price 10s. 6d. each._