IGN POLICY OF EUROPE, 1891. im ajacnell Hmugraitg ffithratg 3tt!8ta, Kjw lork CHARLES WILLIAM WASON COLLECTION CHINA AND THE CHINESE THE GIFT OF CHARLES WILLIAM WASON CLASS OF 1876 1918 £eu)l$ HDDleton. Cornell University Library D 363.A65 The foreign policy of Europe ... / 3 1924 023 000 981 'c^AX^-'x^'<_^ ^^. fi^^^<^^ FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SPECIALLY TAKEN BY LAMBERT WESTON & SON, FOLKESTONE. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF EUROPE BY LEWIS APPLETON, F.R.H.S.. WITH PORTRAIT OF THE AUTHOR. DEDICATED TO THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF DERBY, P.C. K.G., FORMERLY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS ; SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES ; PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL ; SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA, ETC., ETC. PRICE FIVE SHILLINGS. LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. (limited). PARIS : BOYVEAU & CHEVILLET, 22, RUE DE LA BANQUE. ROME: ERMANNO LOESCHER & CO.; 307, VIA DEL CORSO. [AH RIGHTS RBSBBVED.] 'OUW 1 ! \AM\Kh\\\ A4^ LONDON : PRINTED AT 74-76, GREAT QUEEN STREET, lincoln's-inn fields, W.C. \a1 3;iS^^ THE EARL OF DERBY, P.C. K.G.. D.C.L., LLD., F.R.S., WHOSE EMINENT PUBLIC SERVICES FOR UPWARDS OF FORTY YEARS, IN VARIOUS RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS, ESPECIALLY, AS A MINISTER OF THE CROWN ; IN 1852, AS UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS J IN 1858, AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA ; 1 866- 1 868, AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS; 1 874- 1878, AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS; IN 1882, AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES ; AND WHOSE ENLIGHTENED STATESMANSHIP, IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, AND PRE-EMINENTLY IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, BY THE ADOPTION OF A WISE, A JUST, AND PACIFIC POLICY, JUSTLY ENTITLE HIS LORDSHIP TO THE HONOURABLE POSITION OF A DISTINGUISHED STATESMAN, AND AN ABLE, AND SAGACIOUS MINISTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN, Ci^xs ^alnmt is ^nscx'xlatlsi, WITH CORDIAL SENTIMENTS OF ESTEEM AND ADMIRATION, §10 i\i& %vii^ox. THE AUTHOR'S RETROSPECT OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, 1866 TO 1891. FIFTEEN YEARS TRAVELLING AGENT AND ORGANIZING SECRETARY OF THE PEACE SOCIETY; FOUNDER, AND FIVE YEARS SECRETARY OF THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND PEACE ASSOCIATION ; FOUNDER, AND FIVE YEARS HONORARY SECRETARY OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION; AUTHOR OF "REMINISCENCES OF THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR"; "memoirs of HENRY RICHARD''; ETC., ETC. THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS WORK. The Political Writings of Richard Cobden. 2 vols. {1867.) An Historical Review of the European Nations. Christopher W. Koch. (1823.) The History of Poland, &c. James Fletcher. • (1831.) History of the Secretaryships of the Earl of Aberdeen and Viscount Palmerston. Thomas Macknight. (1855.) The Life of Viscount Palmerston (1846-1865). Hon. Evelyn Ashley. (1876.) The Annual Register. (1854 to 1891.) Revue des Deux Mondes. (1866 to 1891.) Regeneration of Eastern Europe, &c. Vladimir Yovanovitch. (1871.) Russia : Europe and the East. By a Foreigner. (1884.) Parliamentary Papers on Newfoundland, Egypt, Suez Canal, France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, &c., &c. (1852 to 1891). The Great Canal of Suez, &c. P. Fit_zgerald. (1876.) Ferdinand de Lesseps' Recollections of Forty Years. (1887.) Servia and the Servians. William Denton. (1862.) A History of Our Own Times, from the Accession of Queen Victoria to the Berlin Congress. Justin McCarthy, M. P. (1879.) French Treaty Rights in Newfoundland. J. S. Winter, K.CjM.G., &c. (1890.) A Treatise on Maritime Law. Robert Ward. (1873.) Maritime Warfare. Thomas Gibson Bowles. (1878.) Maritime Rights. The Hon. Charles Sumner. (1862.) A Manual of International Law. Jan Helenus Fergusson. 2 vols. (1884.) International Reform. Frederic Seebohm. (1871.) Essays on Modern International Law. T. J. Lawrence, M.A. (1884.) Almanach de Gotha. Justus Perthes. (189 1.) • The Statesman's Year Book. J. Scott Keltie. (1891.) Hertslet's Commercial Treaties. (Latest Vol. 1887.) Hertslet's British and Foreign State Papers. (1814-1884.) Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty. (1814-1891.) History of the Law of Nations. Henry Wheaton, LL.D. (1845.) International Law. Henry Sumner Maine, K.C.S. I. (1889.) Institute of the Law of Nations. James Lorimer, LL.D. (1884.) THE AUTHOR'S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ARE ALSO DUE TO THE LEAI&NG OSGANS OF THE 7KESS, ESPECIALLY TO THE TIMES, STANDARD, MORNING POST, FOR NUMEROUS SPECIAL ARTICLES ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS OF FOREIGN POLITICS, AND TO THE FOLLOWING GENTLEMEN FOR THEIR INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE ; — SIR EDWARD HERTSLET, C.B. | G. DE. WINTON, F.S.A., ChevS, &c. W. M. BROOKES, Esq., Bradford. "Sunt duo genera decertandi : unum per disceptationem ; alterum per vim ; illud proprius est hominis, hoc belluarum." — CiCERO. CONTENTS PAGES Title Page i. Dedication to the Right Hon. The Earl of Derby, K.G iii. Portrait of the Author Separate Plate. The Author's Retrospect iv. Principal Authorities Consulted v. Contents vii. Errata xii. The Introduction xiii. THE WARS OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S REIGN. 1837 to 1887. The accession of Queen Victoria, 1837. The First War : in Canada, 1838. The Second War: the Afghan War, 1839 to 1842. The Third War: China, 1839. The Fourth War: in Syria, 1840. The Fifth War: in the Punjaub, 1848. The Sixth War: in Borneo, 1849. The Seventh War: Don Pacifico, 1850. The Eighth War : Kaffir War, 1846. The Ninth War : Kaffir War, 1850 to 1853. The Tenth War: in Burmah, 1852. The Eleventh War : Crimean War, 1854-5. The Twelfth War : in Oude, 1856. The Thirteenth War : Persian War, 1857. The Fourteenth War : Mutiny in India, 1857. The Fifteenth War : the Second China War, 1857. The Sixteenth War: the Third China War, 1859. The Seventeenth War : in Japan, 1863. The Eighteenth War : in New Zealand, 1860-64. The Nineteenth War: in Abyssinia, 1867. The Twentieth War : in Ashantee, 1873. The Twenty -first War : in the Transvaal, 1877. The Twenty-second War : the Zulu War, 1878. The Twenty-third War: the Afghan War, 1878. The Twenty-fourth War : War in Egypt, 1882. Conclusion : Legislation of the Fifty Years' Reign. The Record of Wars. Non-intervention. Balance of Power. Opinions of Cobden and Bright I to 54 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 1768 to 1886. History of the Ottoman Empire. The First Intervention of Russia, 1768. The Second Intervention of Russia, 1820. The Third Intervention of Russia, 1834. The Fourth Intervention of Russia, 1853. The Fifth Intervention of Russia, 1876. The Insurrection in Bosnia. The Andrassy Note. The Berlin Memorandum. Deputation to Lord Derby. The Constantinople vm CONTENTS. Russia, Turkey, and Bulgaria — Continued. PAGES Conference. Declaration of War by Russia, 1877. Manifesto of the Ottoman Porte. Wars of Coercion, Invasion, and Conquest. The Mediation of England. Treaty of San Stefano. Opposition of England. The Berlin Congress. The Treaty of Berlin, 1878. A Great Bulgaria. Coup-d'etat in Roumelia in 1886. Origin of the Revolution. Union of Bulgaria and Roumelia. Servo-Bulgarian War. Deposition of Prince Alexandria by Russia. The Ambition of Russia. Non-intervention by Russia, The Eastern Question 55^88 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 1839 to 1889. Foreign Policy of England in 1839. A Crisis in the East. Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, declares War against Turkey. Lord Palraerston, Foreign Minister. Policy of England. Conference in London, 1839. Its Failure. Mission of Baron Brunnow to England. The Policy of France. Convention of the Five Great Powers. Opposition of France. The War in Syria. Overthrow of Mehemet Ali. Treaty of Peace 13th July, 1841. Events in Egypt from 1862 to 1881. Ismail Pasha, Khedive, contracts a Debt of ;^90,ooo,ooo. Mission of Stephen Cave to Egypt) 1875. The Dual Control. Deposition of Ismail Pasha. Events in Egypt in 1881. Tewfilc Pasha Khedive. Insurrection in Cairo. Arabi heads the Revolt. Events in Egypt in 1882. France and England intervene. The Allied Fleet ordered to Egypt. Withdrawal of French Fleet. Bombardment of Alexandria. Resignation of Mr. Bright. British Troops ordered to Egypt. Tel-el-Kebir and overthrow of Arabi. Events in Egypt in 1883. Occupation v. Evacuation. The Mahdi in the Soudan. Expedition of Hicks Pasha. Events in Egypt in 1884. Defeat of Baker Pasha. Army under General Graham ordered to Egypt. Cry of despair from Khartoum. General Gordon. Army under Wolseley ordered to Egypt. Too late ! Events in Egypt in 1885. Marquis of Salisbury, Premier. Mission of Sir Henry Drummond Wolif to Egypt. Result of the Negotiations. Future Policy of England in Egypt 89 to 119 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1787 to 1887. Early History of Annam. French Policy from 1787 to 1874. Expedition to Cochin-China, 1858. Treaty of Peace, 1862. French Expedition on the Red River, 1873. Expedition of Gamier in Tonquin. Treaty of Peace, 1874. French Policy from 1881 to 1884. Expedition of Riviere to Tonquin. Defeat and Death of Riviere. En Revanche I General Bouit succeeds Riviere. CONTENTS. IX France^ Annam, and China — Continued. PAGES Treaty of Hue, 1884. Opposition of China. Events in Tonquin from 1 884 to 1 886. France drifting into War with China. Military operations in Tonquin. Friendly Mediation of England. Treaty of Peace, June 9, 1885. Restoration of order in Annam. Tonquin in Revolt. Recall of De Courcy. Paul Bert appointed Resident-General at Hu^. His Death in 1886. M. Bihourd succeeds him. A Retrospect. French Intervention in Tonquin, from 1881 to 1888. French Colonisation in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula 120/0 143 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1356 to 1889. Early History of Servia. Events from 1356 to 1717. Stefan Dooshan the Mighty. The Disaster at Kossovo. Under the Ottoman Rule. The Servians of Austria. Events from 171 7 to i860. Austria and Turkey struggle for supremacy. Servia rose en masse for Independence. Servia under Kara-Georgevics. Under Milosh Obreuovics. Overthrow of Turks. The Obrenovitch Dynasty. Events from i860 to 1875. Emancipation of Servia. Political Struggles. The Omladina. Assassination of Prince Michel. Accession of Prince Milan, 1868. New Constitution. The Servo- Turkish War, 1875. Servo-Bulgarian War, 1886. Servian Politics in i888. Abdication of King Milan, 1889. Future Prospects of Servia 144 Z'o 171 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1713 to 1891. Early History of Newfoundland. General Characteristics. St. Pierre and Miquelon. The Shoals. Treaty of Utrecht, 17 13. Treaty of Paris, 1763. Treaty of Versailles, 1783. Subsequent Treaties. French Fishing Industry. The Political Situation. Negotiations in 1844. Negotiations in 1851. Negotiations in 1856. Negotiations in 1859. Negotiations in 1866. Negotiations in 1874. Negotiations in 1881. Negotiations in 1884 to 1887. The Lobster Difficulty. French Protest against British Factories. England protests against French Lobster Factories. A New Departure, 1889. The " Modus Vivendi," 1890. Arbitration Proposals, 1891. General Review of the Question. Mission of the Delegates from Newfoundland in 1890. The Delegation of 1891. Manifesto of the Colonial CJovemment. The Delegates at the Bar of the House of Lords. The Speech of Sir William Whiteway examined and criticised. An Appeal to the Parliament and Government of Newfoundland. 172 td22i X CONTPNTS. A POSTSCRIPT. PAGES North American Discoverers. Crantz on Greenland. Rees on Jean Cabot. The Metropolitana on Jean Cabot. Columbas's Visit to North America. Morse on Newfoundland. Barclay on Sebastian Cabotti. Stow on John Cabote. The Cabots at Bristol. The Universal Traveller on Expeditions to New- foundland. Oliver Cromwell's action. France and New- foundland. Expedition of Verazzini, 1524. Expedition of Jacques Cartier, 1525. De La Roche's Expedition, 1542. Father Hennipin's Expedition, 1676. De La Salle Expedition, 1679. Book of Days, on Benjamin Franklin 229 to 234 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 1852 to 1888. Its early History. The Scheme of M. De Lesseps. The Act of Concession of the Viceroy of Egypt, 1854. Opposition of England. Lesseps' Commission in Egypt, 1855. Lesseps visits Great Britain, 1857. The Subscription for Shares opened at Paris, 1858. Commencement of operations at the Isthmus, 1859. Death of Mahommed Said Pasha, 1863. The Opposition of Turkey. The Arbitration of Napoleon III., 1864. The Firman of the Sultan, 1866. The Opening of the Canal, 1869. Descrip- tion of the opening Ceremony. The Empress Eugenie. The Official Journal. The Financial position of the Canal, 1858 to 1874. England buys the Khedive's Shares, 1876. N. Rothschild and Sons' Negotiations. Opinions of De Lesseps, Bismarck, Italy, and Austria. Mr. Disraeli and the British Parliament. Lord Derby, Foreign Minister. Action of the British Parliament. Intervention of England in Egypt in 1882. Opinion of Mr. Gladstone. Importance to England of the Suez Canal. The Interests of France. PoUcy of England. Tonnage and Receipts of the Suez Canal, 1885. A Common Accord of England and France. Action of Lord Derby in Russo-Turkish War. Nego- tiations with the Suez Canal Company in 1883. Scheme of the Government of Mr. Gladstone. The Convention with De Lesseps withdrawn. Neutralization of the Canal. The Despatch of Lord Granville, 1883. The Conference at Paris, 1883. Abortive Results. Friendly action of Italy. An International Conven- tion proposed. Agreement of the Great Powers, 1885. Resistance of the Ottoman Porte. Concerted action of France and England, 1886. Prolonged Negotiations. Celebrated Despatch of the Marquis of Salisbury to the Maritime Powers, 1887. The Ottoman Porte opposes the Convention for Neutrality of Canal. Full Text of the Convention. Its Ratification at Constantinople, 1888. Concluding Remarks. Neutralization of Territories and Waters. The Era of Ship Canals. Rights of Maritime Nations. 23s to 28s CONTENTS. xi MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. PAGES Maritime Law defined. Historic risumS. Customs of the earliest Maritime States. The "Consolato Del Mare." Treaties on Maritime Law since the 17th Century. Armed Neutrality of Russia, 1780. Actionof England in 1854. The Declaration of Paris, 1856. Action of the United States. Piracy ». Privateering. The "Alabama" Controversy. Commercial Blockade. Its abolition advocated. Opinions of Grotius, Napoleon I., and Charles Sumner 286 to 304 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL CONDITION OF EUROPE, 1891. Armaments provocative of War. The Military Conscription. Si ■vis Pacem parem Bellum. Military and Financial Condition of Austro - Hungarian Empire. Belgium. Denmark. France. German Empire. Great Britain and Ireland. Greece. Italy. Holland. Luxembourg. Montenegro. Norway. Portugal. Roumania. Russian Empire. Servia. Spain. Sweden. Switzerland. Ottoman Empire. Roumelia and Bulgaria. Egypt. Financial Summary. Military Summary. Europe from 1840 to 1890. Military and Financial comparison. Opinions of The Daily Telegraph and The Times. The late Mr. John Bright on the situation. A stormy outlook. Duty of the friends of Peace in this Crisis 305 to 339 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. Militarism in the 19th Century. Practice of Civilised Communities. Wars of Modern Europe. Declaration of Lord John Russell. Opinion of Grotius. Absence of a Judicial Tribunal. Historic Survey of International Tribunals. Draft project of "A High Court of Nations," by Leone Levi. Moral v. Potential Power. Instances of successful and unsuccessful Congresses. The Concert of Europe. Opinions of eminent Publicists. A Tribunal for Europe, with Executive Authority. A great Reform advocated 340 tt 373 APPENDIX. In chronological order, Instances of Successful Arbitration by Con- ferences. Mediation, and Amicable Reference. Declarations of Legislative Bodies. Resolutions of Congresses. Clauses in International Treaties. Opinions of Statesmen, and Jurists. 374 to 408 ERRATA. Page I, line 21, for "born" read "borne." Page 35, line 9, for "scatters" read "scatter." ^^S^ 35) l^st line, for "were" read "was."' Page 62, line 25, for "with" read "for.'' Page 72, line 23, before "the dream" read "was." Page 74, line 7, for " no " read " not." Page 74, line 8, for "signatures'" read "signatories.'' INTRODUCTION. The various questions of Foreign Policy, dealt with in this volume, have occupied my attention for several years past, not only in my pubhc capacity as a lecturer in various parts of Great Britain and Ireland, but, also, as an essayist and contributor to the public press, more particularly when these important questions affecting International Relations were in the front rank of public interest, and, therefore, occupying the attention of Governments, and of Statesmen throughout the Empire. These questions of Foreign Policy, that I have selected for pub- lication, from a large number of subjects of international interest and importance, which have for upwards of a quarter of a century past excited public interest, I now present, in a compact form, to the public eye, in each and every instance considerably enlarged both in scope and in character, and, also more complete in their historic ■ references, at least, so far as my humble research and earnest con- sideration of them have permitted. They embrace three periods of time, the past, present, und future; and although the events of the past — which cannot be revoked or erased from the records of the Political History of European nations — iriay, generally, be considered to have a limited bearing only on the political events of the present time, or upon the Foreign Pohcy of the future, yet, so interwoven are the events of the past, to which some of the subjects in this volume relate, in their relations with, and their influence upon, the future, that I have considered them to be of sufficient international importance to be suitably included in a volume bearing the title of "The Foreign Policy of Europe." Under the category of the events of the past, I include, " The Wars of Queen Victoria's Reign," being the history of the wars waged by England during a period of 50 years, from the Accession XIV INTRODUCTION. in 1837, of Her Majesty Queen Victoria to the Throne, down to the year 1887, wherein was commemorated the Jubilee of Her memorable Reign ; also, " The Maritime Canal of Suez," being the History of the Isthmus of the Suez Canal, from the earliest times, down to the events of recent years, when its neutralisation was, after prolonged negotiations, accomplished by the Great Maritime Powers of Europe, by which it has become, for all time, a neutral highway for all nations, whether in time of peace or of war. The subjects in this volume having reference more especially to the present time, notwithstanding they may have some retrospective record, are those of the States of Bulgaria, Servia, and Tonquin. Thechapter devoted to Bulgaria, under the title of "Russia, Turkey, and Bulgaria," refers, in considerable detail, to the various interven- tions of Russia, by force of arms, in the affairs of the Balkan States, beginning with her first interference under the Empress Catherine II., 1 768, to enable her to carry out the policy for the dismemberment of Poland, down to her fifth, and, let us hope, the last, armed inter- vention of Russia, in 1877, when, under the pretext of promoting reforms, and ameliorating the condition of the Slavonic Christians in the various Provinces, under the rule of the Sultan, she waged a cruel and sanguinary war in the East. This chapter is especially devoted to the advocacy of the freedom and independence of Bulgaria, under the sanction and authority of the Congress and Treaty of Berlin of 1878 ; the peaceful revolution in Roumelia, on the i8th September, 1886, the result of which secured its union with Bulgaria, under the rule of Prince Alexander, but, that, un- fortunately, led to his deposition as Ruler of the United Provinces ; the midnight seizure of Prince Alexander by the political emissaries of Russia, and his banishment across the Danube into Russian Territory; and, lastly, the subsequent events and chronic inter- ference of Russia in Bulgaria, whose future safety and prosperity as a free state is earnestly advocated. The chapter devoted to Servia, under the title of " Servia, Austria, Turkey, and Russia," embraces its early history, from the time that she freed herself from the supremacy of the Byzantine Empire, at Constantinople, in the Xllth century, and secured her independence under Steefan Nemanya, and became, in the XlVth century, a powerful State under Stebfan-Dooshan, who assumed the Imperial title of Czar. The subsequent events of Servian history are traced in INTRODUCTION. 5CV chronological order, her subjugation by Turkey in 1389, after the Battle of Kossovo ; her struggles, for four centuries, against Turkey and Austria, in order to secure her independence, and her final triumph under the leadership of Kara-Georgevics, in 1812. The modern history of Servia, under the ObrenovicS Dynasty, from 181 2 to the present time, is fully given, from the reign of Prince Michel, down to the rule of Prince Milan, until his abdica- tion, in 1889, and the stirring events which have subsequently transpired in that distracted state. Finally, the present position and future prospects of Servia are considered) with especial reference to the intrigues of Austria on the one hand, and of Russia, and Turkey combined on the other ; yet, in face of factions within, and of intrigues without, her freedom and independence under the Obrenovics rule, judged by her past remarkable history, cannot, if she be true to herself, for one moment be imperilled by any of these causes. The chapter devoted to Tonquin, under the title of " France, Annam, and China," gives a brief history of the ancient empire of Tonquin, from the XVth century, under the Dynasty of Lhh, to the year 1787, when it entered, for the first time, into political relations with France, by a Treaty of Alliance, in which France agreed to assist, by force of arms, the restoration of the Dynasty of Lbh, deposed by revolution in 1774. The successive miUtary expeditions which followed are described ; that in 1858, for the protec- tion of French Missionaries, which led to the annexation by France of Cambodia (confirmed by the subsequent Treaty of 1862); the expedition in 1873, under Frangois Garnier, for the purpose of extending French dominion in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, followed by the Treaty of Saignon, isth March, 1874, which recognised the sovereignty of France over the territories surrendered to her by the Treaty of 1862. This Treaty of Saignon, 1874, appears to have been the pretext for the last prolonged war in Tonquin, entered upon by France in 1 88 1, as this Treaty gave great dissatisfaction to a large section of the military and colonial interests of France. This struggle, beginning with the ill-fated expedition of Henri Rivifere, the sanguinary conflicts with the Black Flags in Tonquin, the conquest of Annam, followed by the Treaty of Huh, 23rd August, 1884, gave great offence to China, and was the cause of a serious crisis between France and China. Happily, through the XVI ' INTRODUCTION. mediation of the late Lord Granville, H.M. Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the judicious diplomacy of the Marquis Tseng, Ambassador to Europe for China, bases for peace were arrived at, and, on the gth June, 1885, a Treaty of Peace was signed at Pekin, by which France obtained absolute possession of Tonquin and Annam, and, on the other hand, China agreed to recognise the provisions of the Treaty of Hufe, 1884. The course of subsequent events from the signing of the Treaty of Pekin in 1885, is referred to, the efforts of France for the restoration of order, and the consolidation of her recent conquests ; the succession of military expeditions, and of political missions, the latter including that of Henri Brisson ; General-de-Courcy ; Paul Bert ; and of M. Bihourd, a sad record of reverses and disasters, which have cost France very dear, both in statesmen, soldiers, and treasure. The four subjects in this volume having reference to the future, that is to say, questions of Foreign Policy, and of international relations, which have, and, also, must in the future, claim the serious attention of governments, parliaments, and the people generally, are, Newfoundland, Egypt, Militarism in Europe, and the necessity of an International Tribunal for the pacific adjustment of national differences. The chapter on Newfoundland, under the title of " The New- foundland Fisheries Question, and Great Britain and France," deals exhaustively with a controversy of considerable intricacy that has recently harassed, and still troubles the Governments of England and France, as well as of Newfoundland. Throughout the negotiations of this vexed controversy, there are few intricate questions in our Foreign Policy (if we now except Egypt, to which we shall presently refer), which have lately come to the front, and demanding the anxious consideration of the British Government, wherein the Foreign and Colonial Ministers of Great Britain and France have displayed greater patience, better temper, or that deserve greater credit from all observers not biased by political prejudice. Whichever Government has been in power, whether in England, (a Liberal or Conservative Administration), or in France, whatever its Republican character, it must be candidly admitted, that of recent years under the former, through the excellent statesmanship of the Earl of Derby, Lord Rosebery, the Marquis of SaUsbury, and lijTRODUCTlOrJ. xvii Lord Knutsford, and, under the latter,of M. DeFreycinet, M. Flourens, M. Ribot (and with these eminent Ministers of both nations, should be mentioned, the Ambassadors of France and England, at their respective capitals, viz. : — Lord Lyons, Lord Lytton,* and M. Waddington), one and all, have approached and grappled with the difficulties that have arisen, in a spirit worthy of the traditional friendship and alliance of the two nations, and all parties have shown themselves to be actuated only by the paramount con- sideration of arriving at an amicable and honourable settlement of the controversy. This is an encouraging illustration of that high-toned diplomatic policy which is so full of promise for the maintenance ■ of the entente cordiale in this, as in all future questions affecting mutual and international relations. The chapter upon Egypt, under the title of " England, France, and Egypt," discusses a question, the magnitude and gravity of Which, it is impossible to overestimate, and sensible of its wide- reaching importance, I have approached it, and endeavoured fo deal with it in no preconceived partizanship, nor doctrinaire con- victions, but rather, with an open mind, anxious only to record a full and faithful history of the remarkable events which have trans- pired in Egypt, from 1834 to 1890, and of the political transactions of whatever character that these events evolved. In this effort, I trust I have done full justice to the motives, and to the action that has been taken by the several governments, and of the statesmen, who have been, at any rate, from 1876 to 1890, primarily responsible throughout this period. As regards the past policy which has been pursued in Egypt, by Liberal and Conservative Governments, since the deposition of Ismail Pasha in 1879, it is surely puerile and unchivalrous to attempt to single out either Mr. Gladstone, or the Marquis of Salisbury (the only two living statesmen who are at all responsible) for public condemnation, and personal responsibility, because, an * We did not anticipate that the distinguished diplomatist. Lord Lytton, whose eminent services, as the Ambassador of Great Britain to France, we have cordially acknowledged, should have been so suddenly removed by death. As British Minister at Paris, he was a worthy successor to the equally distinguished diplo- matist, Lord Lyons, both of whom, it may be truly said, displayed in a remarkable degree, that stiaviter in modo, et fortiter in re, wherein consists the true secret of success in the rare science of diplomacy. Xviii iNTRObucfioist examination of the whole case will prove, that both are equally responsible, a responsibility that cannot be divorced from their respective colleagues, or of the several parliaments which sustained their executive authority. There may have been, as there undoubtedly were, regrettable incidents and transactions, and even public declarations, for which one or the other of these two distinguished statesmen, may be justly held accountable, and, it may possibly be, they will both frankly avow it; but, to go beyond this, and attempt to divide, or, what is worse, to shift the greater onus probandi on either of the broad shoulders of one or the other statesmen, governments, or parliaments, is not heroic, nor is it consistent with the judgment of history. If we desire to single out, and to hold up to public opprobrium, the men who alone were really responsible for this miserable Egyptian embroglio, we shall be obliged to say, that they were, in the first instance, the Khedive, Said Pasha ; for, to him must be laid the heavy charge of first preparing the disturbing elements in Egypt, or rather in the administration of the Egyptian affairs, in 1862, by contracting the first Public Debt, against the earnest entreaty of his Chief Minister. In the second place, to his successor in the Khediviate, Ismail Pasha, who wantonly and deeply pledged the public credit of Egypt to the tune of ^^90,000,000, thus laying the foundation of chronic embarrassment in the finances, and of widely- spread dissatisfaction amongst the people. This finally culminated in the ill-starred revolution of 1882, under the lead of Arabi Pasha, with all its misfortunes and subsequent disasters ; the armed intervention of England ; the overthrow of the Egyptian Army at Tel-el-Kebir; the banishment of Arabi and his associates to Ceylon ; and, finally, the military occupation of Egypt by England, pending the restoration of assured order and general tranquillity — a halcyon period that France and Turkey are impatient to see the accomplishment of ; and, until that period of happier and brighter days, we shall not be able to adopt triumphantly the memorable declaration of the late Lord Granville, that, in Europe, "The political horizon is tranquil," The last two chapters are devoted, firstly, to the military and financial condition of Europe ; and, secondly, in favour of *the establishment of an International Tribunal in Europe, to which shall be referred, for pacific solution, all questions of difference and INTRODUCTION. XIX dispute that cannot be amicably adjusted by diplomatists and statesmen. The colossal armaments, and the tremendous expenditure which they involve, may well cause serious misgivings for the future, for, at the present time, they are full of grave peril, not only to the peace of Europe, and, to the prosperity of the nations, but to the stability and the very existence of the governments and of the rulers who organise and maintain them, whether they are imperial, monarchical, or republican, as all alike are largely responsible for them at the bar of public opinion. Twenty years ago, the eminent Hungarian Statesman, Herr Francis Deak, referred to them in the following terms : — " The present condition of Europe, with its enormous armaments, reminds me of the state of things in the Middle Ages, when men wore coats of mail, which, in the supposed necessity of more effectual self-defence, they went on increasing in weight, until at last they became so crushingly heavy as to weigh down their wearers altogether, and then, from sheer necessity, the custom was abandoned." At that period, the combined armies of Europe stood at 12,454,867 men, and the annual expenditure of Europe was ;^346,625,747, but at the present time, they have swollen to the following enormous proportions : — The Standing Army and Reserves, 18,909,608 men; the Annual Expenditure, ;^847,so3,886 ; and the total of the National Debts, _;^s,230,022,434 — a state of affairs that is frightfully appalling. Now the question naturally arises, if in twenty years the armaments and expenditure have swollen to this terrible extent, what will be the ratio of speed in the same period of time, and what must be the inevitable result in the years which are to come? Truly, as the late Mr. Bright observed, "Europe is marching towards some great catastrophe." To endeavour to justify this deplorable state of affairs on any ground of justice or necessity, is an impossibility, and, if we seek for any reason in state policy, the only explanation vouchsafed to Europe, is that found in the remarkable speech delivered in the German Reichstag, nth January, 1887, by the late German Chancellor, Prince von Bismarck, wherein we find the following important statements : — " I am convincerl we have to fear a war from an attack by France, but whether in ten days or ten years, that is a question I cannot decide, depending B 2 XX INTRODUCTION as it does on the durationof the Government for the time beingan France. . . . Any day there may possibly arise a French Government whose whole policy aims at living from the feu sacri, which is now so carefully cherished under the ashes. ... "We are at present in possession of the object in dispute, if I may so' term Alsace, We have no reason to fight about it; but that France is not striving for its re-conq^uest can be maintained by no one who at all troubles himself about the French press. Has there ever been a French Ministry which has dared publicly and unreservedly to say, ' We abandon the re-conquest of Alsace- Lorraine ; we will not go to war about it. We accept the situation of the Frankfojt Peace, just as we accepted that of the Paris Peace of 1815, and we do not intend to go to war on account of Alsace ? ' Has there been in France a Ministry which dared to say that ? No ; and why not ? There is usually no lack of courage on the part of the French. There has been no Ministry, because the public opinion of France is against such a declaration, because it is like a boiler filled with steam up to the explosion point, when an unskilled movement might serve to blow the valve into the air, — in other words, to bring about war." This fear, entertained by Germany of an attack by France, proves the force of the words of Emmanuel Kant, " That every war, however satisfactory the peace, always leaves behind, it. the germ of a future and coming quarrel." " For what does war, but endless wars produce ? " We are told by Prince von Bismarck, in the above great speech, of January nth, 1887, that he_ was opposed, in 1871, to the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, and these are his words : — " I must honestly say that, in 1871, I was for the linguistic frontier, and against, the taking of Metz, but I was overruled by the military authorities, who argued that, in the next war, this fortress would be equal to 100,000 men, and I then gave in." " Gave in " ! What a humiliating acknowledgment by the most powerful, and, at that time, the most sagacious statesman in Europe ! The voice of diplomacy, he candidly admits, was drowned in the boom of the cannon. Fatal and deplorable surrender of political sagacity to the exigencies of a military despotism ! Well might the late Emperor Frederick, when Crown Prince of Prussia, declare, as it is affirmed upon unimpeachable authority, he did : "Annexa- tion of territory from France by Germany means 100 years of war for Europe." And what' is the result ? Germany now finds herself surrounded by the vast armed hosts of Russia and France-^-s, 000,000 — at the INTRODUCTION. XXl lowest estimate, of disciplined warriors, like a circle of fire around her, which may, at any moment, combine and hurl their serried ranks in a concentrated attack on the Fatherland. And, to meet this danger, she is imperatively compelled to form an offensive and de- fensive Alliance with the Governments of Austria-Hungary and Italy, because she knows full well a war on a colossal scale in Central Europe is inevitable — France allied with Russia, against Germany, Austria, and Italy— a war, which, when it does break out, will extend from Moscow to the Pyrenees, and, from the North Sea to the Adriatic — a war, which, at the onset, no man can foresee the results of; and, at the conclusion, no man will be able to say what it has been waged for, other than an insatiable lust for territory, and a- determined resolve for military sway. This Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria and Italy, is believed by some to be a guarantee for peace in Europe, but is it not rather a menace, and will not its later and final development prove it to be the accelerating cause of a great European war, as it is to-day the powerful factor for the vast and threatening armaments which must, sooner or later, precipitate a mighty struggle in Central Europe for military supremacy? The publication by the Official Gazette {Reichsanzeiger) on February 4th, 1888, of the full Text of the Austro-German Treaty, will enable us to judge of its real scope and character, and of the grave perils which this aUiance is intended to grapple with. Its publication was prefaced by an introductory note, as follows : — " The Governments of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy have determined to publish their Treaty of Alliance, concluded on the 7th of October, 1879, in order to put an end to the.doubts as to its purely defensive objects, which are entertained in various quarters, and which are made to serve diverse purposes. ' "The policy of both the Allied Governments is guided by the desire to preserve peace, and obviate breaches thereof to the best of their ability. "They are convinced that the divulgation of the contents of their Treaty of Alliance will dispel every doubt on the subject, and therefore they have resolved to publish it. " The text of the Treaty is as follows :— "'Whereas their Majesties, the German Emperor, King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, must regard it as their imperative duty as monarchs to have a care in all circumstances for the security of their realms, and the repose of their peoples ; "And whereas both monarchs— as during the federal relationship which XXU INTRODUCTION. previously existed between them — will be enabled to fulfil this duty more easily and effectively by the steadfast co-operation of both their empires ; "And whereas, finally, such a close connexion between Germany and Austria- Hungary can threaten no one, but it is rather calculated to consolidate the peace of Europe, as it was established by the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin ; " Now, therefore, their Majesties the Emperor of Germany and the Emperor of Austria, King oi Hungary, while solemnly promising to each other that they will never attach an aggressive meaning in any direction to their purely defensive agreement, have resolved to conclude a pact of peace and of mutual defence, and for this purpose they have appointed as their plenipotentiaries : — " His Majesty the German Emperor, his Envoy Extraordinary and Ambassador Plenipotentiary, Lieutenant-General Prince Henry VII. Reuss, &c, ; ' " His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, his Actual Privy Councillor, Minister of the Imperial House and of Foreign Affairs, Field Marshal Lieutenant Julius Count Andrassy, of Csik-Szent-Kiraly and Krasna' Horka, &c. ; " Who, having met this day at Vienna, and exchanged their full powers, which were found good and sufficient, agreed as follows, to wit : — "Article I. — If, contrary to the hope and against the sincere wish of both the high contracting parties, one of the two empires should be attacked by Russia, then the high contracting parties bind themselves to asast each other with the entire military power of their empires, and, accordingly, only to conclude peace by common agreement. "Article II. — Should one of the high contracting parties be attacked by another power (i.e., other than Russia) then the other high contracting party hereby binds itself not only not to assist the assailant of its High Ally, but also at least to observe an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards its high co-party. "But if, nevertheless, in such an event the attacking power should be supported by Russia, whether in the form of active co-operation or by military measures involving menace to the attacked, then the obligation of mutual assistance with full military power, stipulated for in Article I. of the Treaty, shall in this case immediately come into force, and then, also, the military operations of both the high contracting parties shall be conducted in common, until they conclude a peace in common, " Article III. — In consideration of its pacific character and in order to obviate all misunderstanding, this Treaty shall be kept secret by the high contracting parties, and be communicated to a Third Power by agreement of both sides only and on the strength of a special understanding. ' ' In view of the sentiments expressed by the Emperor Alexander on the occasion of the (Imperial) meeting at Alexandrovo (in the beginning of September, 1879), both the high contracting parties surrender themselves to the hope that the armaments of Russia will in reality not prove to be menacing to them, and for the present, therefore, they have no occasion to make a communication (on the subject to Russia). But should this hope, contrary to expectation, turn out to be erroneous, then the high contracting parties would look upon it as a duty of INTRODUCTION. xkiii loyalty to give the Emperor Alexander, confidentially at least, to understand that they would consider an attack against one of them as directed against them both. " In witness whereof the Plenipotentiaries have hereto affixed their signatures and seals. " Done at Vienna this 7th day of October, 1879. " H. VII. P. REUSS, "ANDRASSY."' By the first Article of the Treaty, any attempted aggression on the part of Russia on Austria, or Germany, the combined miUtary forces of the Triple Alliance shall be employed to resist it, and war thus being entered upon, neither of the Allies shall negotiate peace without a mutual understanding. By the second Article of the Treaty, it is plainly indicated, that in the event of Germany being attacked by France, Austria shall observe not only a benevolent neutraUty in the struggle between Germany and France, but also keep Russia in check, and, further, should Russia assist France in the struggle, then Austria must assail Russia with all her military strength, and conclude no Treaty of Peace with Russia, until Germany is in a victorious position to dictate a Treaty of Peace with France. The position of Italy in the Triple Alliance, not being defined in this Treaty of 1879, a subsequent Treaty of AUiance, offensive and defensive, has been entered into, but the exact terms of this second Treaty not having, up to the present time, been published, its pro- visions can only be a matter of conjecture. It may, however, be safely concluded, that the position of Italy towards Germany is precisely the same as of Austria towards Germany, and that in the event of an attack by France upon Germany, Italy will move her forces against the aggressor. Herein is the raison d'etre oiXhs. rumoured Russo-French Alliance, or the real cause of the Alliance of Germany and Austria with Italy, to checkmate the dangers incident to a Russo-French Alliance, of which there can now be little doubt, in face of recent' events, for France has now given, by the raj;>prochement of her Fleet with the Russian Fleet in the Baltic, and the enthusiasm she has shown in regard to the recent Russian Loan, unmistakeable proof of a desire to bury the animosities engendered by the Crimean War, and, notwithstanding differences in poKtical and religious aspirations, to encourage and secure an entente cordiale with the empire of Russia, that empire, which, M. Barthdlemy St. Hilaire jiistly observes, "represents despotism, and that an alliance with 3uch a Power XXIV INTRODUCTION. would be folly, for it would mean a declaration of war to-morrow which would involve the disruption of the entire world. Allans t^est impossible! " / But to return to the Treaty for the safe-guarding of the Triple Alliance. It is not defended by either Germany, or Austria, or Italy for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of any international instrument, such as the Treaty of Frankfort of 187 1, or the Treaty of Berlin of 1878, or, to secure the settlement of any international difficulty, such, for instance, as the sovereignty, or independence of any one of the Balkan States, or to guarantee the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine by Germany, in 1871, or to reverse the annexation of Nice and Savoy by France, in 1859. No, not a sentence, or word, in this Treaty of the Triple Alliance can be found referring to any one of these subjects, nor for " the rectification of any frontier, nor the revision of any humiliating Treaty," to justify or explain this offensive and defensive Alliance of three mighty empires against Russia, and France, or both com- bined, and the only explanation, for we can hardly call it a justifica- tion, is to be found in the one word, " attack." " If one of the two Empires should be attacked by Russia," says Clause I.; or "should one of the high contracting parties be attacked by another Power, other than Russia," says Clause II. ; they would consider an attack, says Clause III., a justification for a declaration of war. In other words, it is the menacing armaments of Russia and France, that fill the Triple Alliance with dismay and alarm, as it is equally the menacing armaments of Germany, Austria, and Italy, that bid defiance to, and that tempt an attack from Russia and France. Now what is the military and financial position of the Great European Powers, of Russia, Germany, Austria, France, and Italy ? At the present time, Russia has 2,392,327 men under arms, echeloned on the frontiers of Germany, ^Austria, Turkey, and the Balkan States, and, it is stated on good authority, that inclusive of her mobilised European and Asiatic forces, Russia can place in the field 6,000,000 of disciphned soldiers. Her Military Budget is .;£43)S39,iii for her Army and Navy, and £\2,i^o,2,\o for the interest of her National Debt — a total of ;^86,329,45i voted annually for War. INTRODUCTION. XXV Germany has a military force, when mobilised, of 3,093,500 men, and her Navy is steadily increasing. The National Debt of the Empire is ;^38s,667,9S9, its Annual Expenditure ;^r 55,349)9 16, the interest of its National Debt ;^26,93o,2so, and her Army and Navy Expenditure .^^39,675,764, and, including the interest of her National Debt, a total of ;^66,6o6,oi4 voted annually for War. France has an Army, when mobilised, of 4,190,000 men, with a Navy, equal, if not superior, to any European Power. Her National Debt, including the Unfunded Debt, amounts to the enormous total of^i,265,748,8o4, her National Annual Expenditure ;^i5i,943,3i8, the Army and Navy Expenditure ^^36,41 2,409, and the interest of her huge National Debt ;^S2,o22,767, making a total Annual Expenditure for War of ;^88,43S,i76. Austro-Hungary has an Army, when mobilised, of 1,813,414 men, and it is stated that in case of war. she could increase that number by the addition of the Landsturm, to a total of 4,000,000 of trained soldiers. Her National Debt, which includes the whole Empire,- amounts to ;^545,3i3,95o; her Annual Expenditure is ;^9i, 530,757, of which sum ^^26,332,288 is devoted to the interest of the National Debt, and ^^12,863,481 for the Army and Navy, making a total Expenditure for War of ;^39,i9S,769 per annum. Italy has an Army, including its Reserves, of 2,852,323 men; her National Debt amounts to ;^449,262,66o; her Annual Expenditure is ;^74,885,33i, which includes the Army and Navy Expenditure of ;^i6,i55,485, and -the interest of the National Debt ;^2 3, 159,393, total ;^39,3i4,878 annually voted for War. In the face of these astounding facts and figures, the question ■naturally arises, What is the remedy that the wit of man can devise, and the courage of statesmen can adopt, to remove this great scandal to civilisation, this huge barrier to the peace and prosperity of Europe ? Proposals have been brought forward from time to time, in the Parliaments of England and Germany, Austria and France, by men distinguished in those several countries for their devotion and services to the cause of peace, in favour of a mutual reduction of Armaments, as the first practical step towards international peace ; but on every occasion, notwithstanding a powerful advocacy, strengthened by an unchallenged array of facts and figures, their proposjtiops for disarmament have. been resisted, and even ridiculed XXVI INTRODUCTION. by three-fourths of their parliamentary colleagues, and by the entire personnel of the responsible Governments of the respective States. On only two occasions during this century, or at any previous period, has any European Government approached this thorny question of Disarmament, with a sincere desire to bring about a diminution of the crushing armed forces of Europe, and it is to the great credit of England that she made the attempt. The first occasion, to which I refer, were the strenuous, although un- availing efforts made by the late Lord Clarendon in 1866, at the time that he held the seals of office as Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Lord John Russell. At that time the friendly relations between Prussia and Austria were seriously threatened, in consequence of the annexation by Prussia of the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein after the inglorious war against Denmark in 1864; for it was the general opinion of the European Governments that war was inevitable, an opinion so strongly held by Lord Clarendon, that his Lordship determined, if possible, to avert it, by the assembling of a European Congress, having for its object, not only the peaceful solution of existing differences between Austria, Italy, Prussia, and Denmark, but also to secure a European disarmament. With these great objects in view, negotiations were entered into, and on the 28th May, 1866, a despatch was addressed simultaneously by Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of the Governments of Great Britain and France, to their representatives in Berlin, Vienna, and Florence, which contained three definite proposals for the con- sideration of the Congress, and proposing Paris for the assembling of the Congress. The Government of Prussia, through Count von Bismarck, cordially accepted the proposal, declaring, " that the menacing attitude, and the military preparations of Austria, and other German Governments (evidently meaning Bavaria, Saxony, and Wurtemburg) as the true origin of the complications which have since assumed more and more alarming proportions." This unquahfied approval by Prussia, was followed by an equally cordial acceptance by the Germanic Confederation, from the Diet at Frankfort, and also by the Government of Italy, which " approved without any hesitation"; but the Governnient of Austria, whilst reciprocating the pacific sentiments of the three Great Powers " to avert from thgfape of ^Europe the calamities of war," yet corj- INTRODUCTION. XXVU sidered it was indispensable to exclude from the deliberations of the Congress all territorial questions of dispute. In consequence of this declaration by Austria, it fell to the lot of Lord Clarendon to announce to the European Governments invited to participate in the Congress, the abandonment of the Congress, and of all hopes of 'maintaining the general peace, which was communicated in a despatch of commendable moderation, dated 3rd June, 1866; and the following extract deserves record- ing:— " Her Majesty's Government do not feel called upon to pronounce any judgment on the course that the Austrian Government has pursued in this matter. But they cannot do otherwise than feel the greatest regret that apparently the last expedient for preserving the Peace of Europe has been renounced without a trial, and that there remains nothing more for the Neutral Powers at the present moment to do than to look on with sorrow at the misery and ruin by which it is probable that some of the fairest countries in Europe will be overwhelmed." Undaunted by this failure in 1866, Lord Clarendon made a more determined effort in 1869, when Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Government, under the premiership of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone. At this period the relations of France and Prussia were severely strained, owing, as events subsequently proved, to the resolute determination of Prussia to refuse to carry out the compact at Biarritz, wherein the neutrality of France was secured in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, on the understanding that, if Prussia was successful in the struggle with Austria, a rectification of frontiers would be secured, by which either Belgium, or Holland, or the Rhine provinces, should be annexed, with the connivance of Prussia, by France. Whatever may have been the character of the arrangement between France and Prussia, whether the neutrality of France was purchased by Prussia by a secret Treaty, or not, there is no doubt that their relations were very menacing, and Lord Clarendon, fearing that war was sooner or later inevitable, endeavoured to prevail on the two Governments, to agree upon a basis for a mutual disarmament. Unfortunately the overtures of the British Government were unsuccessful, for, although the Government and Emperor of France cordially reciprocated the pacific intentions of England, and con- XXVIll INTRODUCTION sented, as a proof thereof^ to make a reduction of 10,000 men, yet' Germany, or rather the Prussian Chancellor, Count von Bismarck, refused to entertain the proposition, on the ground that the military forces of Prussia were insufiScient for her threatened position in Europe. This praiseworthy effort, and the motives that prompted it, reflect great credit upon the Government of Mr. Gladstone, and especially upon the distinguished Minister, Lord Clarendon, one of the last eminent public services in the honourable career of that noble Lord. Twenty-five years have now rolled by since these diplomatic attempts were made by any responsible Government in the direction of a simultaneous disarmament of the vast armed forces in Europe, and the question naturally arises, now that these vast armed forces of United Europe, and the military expenditure which they involve, have doubled, nay trebled, compared with twenty or twenty-five years ago, and especially that so many international questions of difficulty and dispute disturb the political horizon, every one of which threatens at any moment to involve Europe in a terrible war, whether the time has not arrived to bring about the assembling of a great Europe^ Congress, for the express purpose of considering, in a spiri^^Honcession and conciliation all round, the various questions that ^Beaten to disturb the maintenance of peace, and thus to arrive "^t a mutual understanding for a large and permanent reduction of their respective armaments, which are such an intolerable burden to every European State ? In 1866, and in 1869, Lord Clarendon not only foresaw, with an unerring prescience and political instinct, the imminent danger of a great European War, but he possessed the splendid courage of his convictions by making an heroic effort to stay the avenging sword of the destroyer, and alas ! failed — in the first instance, in 1866, by the dogged obstinacy of Austria to submit to the Congress any territorial questions for consideration, and in the second instance, n 1869, by the hesitation of Prussia to submit to the reduction of her armed forces. At the present time Europe is face to face with a crisis far more acute and far wider-reaching in its probable results, than at any period of her history ; and is there no Ruler, nor Government, nor Statesman that will follow in the steps of that chivalrous Minister of Great Britain, the courageous Lord Clarendon, and propose the assembling of a European Congress for the pacific solution of INTRODUCTION. XXIX existing international differences, and thereby secure the reduction of the overwhelming and crushing armed forces, and thus safeguard to the peoples of Europe the unspeakable blessings of peace ? Disguise it as we may, it cannot be denied that Europe is on the brink of a huge precipice. Will no one at such a supreme crisis in the affairs of Europe stand, as it were, between the living and the dead, and intercede with the responsible Governments, and say to them, "This must not, this cannot, this shall not be, 'Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye one another this harm?'" The present time seems eminently favourable for making such an attempt. For on the one hand, the Governments, everywhere proclaim by the mouth of their Prime Ministers, in the strongest language possible, their fervent desires for the maintenance of the general peace, and, further, that no efforts shall be spared on their part to secure it, whilst on the other hand, from the peoples of every nation, who are groaning beneath the colossal burden of taxation, rises a loud, deep, and universal appeal for deliverance from that most detestable system of the modern statesmanship of Europe, the military conscription. There is, too, at the present moment, a calm over tha political horizon^, the calm, Alas ! which may precede the coming storm, as if, by tacit consent amongst the Great Powers, it was mutually agreed that there should reign, for a brief perio4, an interregnum of peace, a truce amongst the Nations. During this interval of apparent tranquillity, will no Government take the initiative, and avert from Europe the indescribable horrors of wholesale human carnage ? Europe, with one voice, earnestly appeals to the statesmanship of every State, whether Imperial, Monarchical, or Repiiblican, to take the initiative in this grand crusade of humanity, and civilisation against war; and whatever statesman boldly intervenes, at this critical moment, will undoubtedly, whether he fails or whether he succeeds, reap an imperishable glory, far transcending the glory of " the warrior' of the battlefield of confused noise, and of garments rolled in blood," for it will be a glory immortal, because, if successful, he will have saved a vast continent from spoliation and ruin, and delivered its people from an inglorious and an ignominious death. Important, however, as may be any international arrangement for securing mutual disarmament, yet it will be generally acknowledged that the only true remedy, for the Militarism which exists in Europe, the vast and . unnecessary arinaments, and the gigantic expenditure which they involve, is the establishment of a recognised- XXX tNTfeODUCTION. system of International Arbitration, for the peaceful and honourable settlement of all national disputes, and the last chapter, under the title of an " International Tribunal for Europe " is devoted to the consideration of this important subject. At the same time it must not be supposed that all the advocates of International Arbitration believe that it will settle every difficulty between nations, and that, therefore, there will be no more war. Would that it might be so ! But this is expecting too much. The utmost we can hope for, under the present circumstances and relations of the Great European Powers, is, that it may show govern- ments a better way ; and that, by the power of a strong public opinion, may compel responsible statesmen to have recourse to this system, and in a majority of cases, no doubt, it will be adopted. Some years ago (in 1872), I was conversing with an eminent statesman, at that time a member of Her Majesty's Government, on this subject, and, in effect, these were his words : — "There are cases in which Arbitration will fail; such, for instance, as the difficulty between France and Germany. Though the immediate cause of that war was the question of the election of a German Prince to the throne of Spain, yet it was the excuse, not the reason. The real causes were deeper seated. They were underlying causes, such as jealousies, rivalries, hatreds of long standing, that nothing could quench but blood ; and in such a case Arbitration will and did fail. But in an international dispute jthreatening war, where the causes in dispute are real and clearly defined, where there are no underlying causes, no jealousies, or rivalries, or hatreds to quench, then, Arbitration will be practicable and successful ; such, for instance, as the differences between Great Britain and the United States of America, arising out of the Alabama contro- versy, and then we foilnd Arbitration was possible, and the result satisfactory." Again, I am reminded of a conversation with another eminent English statesman on this subject (in 1872), and I would desire to take this opportunity of placing his views on public record — " There are many cases of international difference which may be fairly and successfully referred to Arbitration ; but, on the other hand, there are periods in a nation's history when Arbitration will fail. " For instance, where you have a nation like Italy, prior to i860, longing for freedom and independence, bound down by oppression and tyranny ; or, again, beyond the Atlantic a great nation, the United States of America, intent upon maintaining the Union, and on wiping out that foul blot of slavery. " And lastly, such as we have recently witnessed in Europe, between France and Germany; a ruler like Napoleon III., feeling his throne tottering, and believing that the only means of saving the Empire was to divert the attention of the people from internal reforms, to a great struggle vidth Germany." INTRODUCTION. XXXI "But, happily," said the veteran statesman, " tliese cases are rare in history. They are the exception, rather than the rule. " In all or most of these wise opinions I cannot but agree, and I would fain hope and believe that Arbitration is becoming the rule, and War the exception, in international affairs. Again, it may be said that a Minister who wishes for war will not be hindered by Arbitration. That is precisely what will hinder him, for it is taking a very low estimate of a responsible Minister of a great nation to suppose the reverse. I recall a remarkable declaration by one, if not the very greatest statesman, France has produced, M. Thiers, who in 187 1, when speaking of the miserable causes which culminated in the disastrous Franco-German War, declared, that, if France had had twenty-four hours, to consider calmly and dispassionately the question, the War would have been averted. That language is somewhat similar to the declaration of one of our own statesmen, the late Lord Granville, namely — " That the advantage of an arbitral reference is this : that it gives nations and governments an opportunity to gain time." Time is a powerful factor for peace, at a crisis between nations alternating between peace and war, and if, in such a crisis, as M. Thiers referred to, there is an interval allowed for reflection, when nations and governments have an opportunity to calm their disturbed passions, and judiciously examine the question in dispute, before blindly rushing into war, I believe it will be found, in nine cases out of ten, that peace will be preserved. Undoubtedly, the great want in every State is some influential or executive authority, not only to compel Governments to carry out the obligations of Treaties, and to act justly towards foreign States, but to have recourse on all questions of difficulty or dispute, to some system of amicable reference. This executive authority, really to be effective, must be supported by a healthy and powerful Public Opinion, for, to quote an Italian phrase, Public Opinion is the "Queen of the World;'' or, to adopt the words of the late Lord Palmerston — " Public Opinion, if founded in truth and justice, i.s more powerful than the musketry of infantry, the charge of cavalry, or the fire of artillery." I heard Mr. Bright, in one of his great speeches, addressed to his constituents at Birmingham in 1869, declare; XXxn INTRODUGtION. " You may have a parliament, you may have a government, you may have a great Minister, eminently desirous for peace, and none more so than the government now in power; but no government, no parliament, no Minister, can do anything in this direction, unless sustained and compelled by the voice of public opinion." To this we must look, not only in England, but in every constitutionally-governed State, and I would commend this great cause to all who desire, to see "Truth and justice, peace and concord," prevail amongst the nations of the world. LEWIS APPLETON. ^Tst December, 1891. THE TWENTY-THREE WARS OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S REIGN. FROM 1837 TO 1887. The celebration of the Jubilee of Queen Victoria's. Reign, from 1837 to 1887, naturally leads the minds of her subjects to a retrospect of the great events in the history of the Nation, which have taken place since the Sceptre was placed in the hand, and the Crown was set upon the Head, on the 21st June, 1837, of the youthful Queen, and who has therefore completed the soth year of her Reign. From the moment of Queen Victoria's accession to the Throne until now, it may, without exaggeration be said, that the Queen has reigned in the hearts of her people ; and, with here and there an exception, has fulfilled the brightest hopes of her loyal subjects of the whole Empire. In celebrating, therefore, the year of Jubilee, it would be well to give a sketch of the Foreign Policy that has been pursued, and the Wars that have been waged during Queen Victoria's Reign. There can be little doubt that the full importance of the great events in the history of England are not duly estimated at the moment. When the future historian of the 19th Century reviews the great events, the varied episodes of the years of Queen Victoria's Reign, he will see the great issues of the many campaigns which have marked (may I not say disgraced) her memorable Rule ; cam- paigns in which the British Army has born so conspicuous a part, and of campaigns in which it has been an ally of a European Power. When the body of King William IV. lay in State, and when the accession of Queen Victoria was proclaimed on the 21st of June, B 2 THE TWENTY-TWO WARS OF QUEEN VICTORIA'S REIGN. 1837, with the boom of Cannon and the fluttering of Flags, almost on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, England was at peace with the whole of the Nations of the World. The whole of Europe, so long convulsed with the protracted struggles which had raged since 1793, and which had deluged the Continent with blood, was once more restored to tranquihty and the priceless blessings of peace, and the Nations and peoples were rejoic- ing in the cessation of hostilities. Queen Victoria, in her first Speech from the Throne, October 20, 1837, addressed to the British Parliament, rejoiced in the amicable relations between Great Britain and all Nations, and used the follow- ing words : — " I rejoice that, in ascending the Throne, I find the country in amity with all Foreign Powers ; and while I faithfully perform the engagements of my Crown, and carefully watch over the interests of my Subjects, it shall be the constant object of my solicitude to preserve the blessings of Peace." When the Queen succeeded to the Throne of England, vacated by the death of William IV., Lord Melbourne, at the head of the Liberal Party, was the first Prime Minister of the Crown, a Minister to whom the Queen was much attached, and not to be wondered at, for he was a man of kindly nature, generous to his opponents, and genial to his friends, but he was not a strong man, he was not a Statesman. With Lord Melbourne were associated in the government of England the Liberals and Radicals of that day: Edward Grote, Edward Lytton Bulwer, Lord John Russell, Benjamin Disraeli, Charles Buller, Sir William Molesworth, J. A. Roebuck ; and among the Leaders of the Conservative party were Sir Robert Peel, Lord Stanley, and W. E. Gladstone, and many others; and it is somewhat remarkable, of that brilliant array of political Leaders, Orators, and Statesmen, one only remains — William Ewart Gladstone, of whom it may be said, after his lifelong labours for Progress, Liberty and Peace : " Like some tall cliff that lifts its awful form, Swells from the vale and midway leaves the storm ; Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread. Eternal sunshine settles on its head." THE FIRST war: CANADA. 3 THE FIRST WAR: CANADA. IN 1838. The first disturbance to the quiet and good promise which heralded Queen Victoria's Reign, canae from Canada. Founded originally as a French Colony m 1608, many differences arose between the French Colonists and the English during the first century of its history, until, in 1756, it was conquered by the British troops under General Wolfe, and settled down into comparative peace. On the division of the two Provinces, Upper Canada received English laws in full, and had the control of its own affairs, under a Governor and a House of Representatives. In Lower Canada the feudal tenure of the land, and the preservation of the French language, with other customs of their country were granted, in addition to their own Governor, Council, and Legislature. Re- volutionary agents, however, were constantly at work in both Provinces stirring up disaffection. The cause of the War in Canada arose out of the revolutionary spirit of a few demagogues taking advantage of every trifling point upon which antagonism could exist between the Colonists and the Government, stirring them up to rebellion, and that the sure and certain remedy was to break with the Government under which they lived. One of the leading men in the movement, which afterwards became a rebellion in Lower Canada, was Louis Joseph Papineau. This man had risen to high position by his talents and energy ; he had represented Montreal in the Assembly, and afterwards was Speaker of the House. He made himself Leader of the movement against the policy of the Governor-General, the representative of the Government at Home. Lord Gosford, Governor of Lower Canada, dismissed Militia officers who took part in the movement, and amongst them Papineau, also other members of the Assembly, and resistance thereto fanned the flame of rebellion. The Rebels fought with desperation in Lower Canada, but the rebellion soon extended to Upper Canada, whose conciliatory Governor was Francis Head; but his policy not being approved by the British Government, he was induced to resign, and rewarded with a baronetcy. The Government resolved to suspend the Constitution for a time, and to send out a Governor-General and a High Commissioner with 4 THE SECOND WAR : THE AFGHAN WAR. "full powers" to deal with the rebellion, for which post Lord Durham was selected, a man of remarkable character and distinguished public service, and who went to Canada with the brightest hopes and prospects, and there is no doubt that his mission, and the policy he adopted, saved Canada, but it ruined his political reputation. Lord Durham went to work as if he were invested with absolute authority, and his policy met with the strongest hostility at home ; almost all the leading men were against him, especially Lord Brougham and Lord Lyndhurst ; and Lord Melbourne's Government not being a strong one, they were obliged to remove him from his high, responsible position. But though Lord Durham's personal career was a failure, his policy for Canada was a splendid success, for it estabhshed the great principle of self-government, which was carried into practice in Canada, and has since been extended to all branches of our Colonial Empire ; and this principle of self-government is that to which the Colonial Empire of England owes its strength and security to-day. THE SECOND WAR: THE AFGHAN WAR. [1839 TO 1842.] The rejoicings on the accession of the young Queen were still going on, when a series of events in Afghanistan excited the pro- foundest emotion in England, as it could not fail to exercise the most powerful influence upon her Foreign PoUcy. The Government of Lord Melbourne, acting on the sinister advice of Lord Auckland, the Governor-General of India, resolved to inter- fere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, and accordingly, in September, 1837, Mr. Alexander Burnes, an Oriental Traveller, arrived in Cabul for the purpose of entering into commercial or political relations with Dost Mahommed Khan, the Ameer of Afghanistan, a man of extraordinary ability and energy. At this period a Quarrel existed between the Shah of Persia and the Prince of Herat. At this period, also, Russian oflficers were believed to be in Afghanistan, wishing to win the alliance of the Ameer, the precise object that Mr. Burnes was sent to promote ; and seeing the Russian THE SECOND WAR : THE AFGHAN WAR. 5 intrigue going on at Cabul, Lord Auckland foolishly resolved to treat the Ameer as an enemy, and to drive him from Cabul, and for this object he entered into an alliance with Runjeet Singh, the ruler of the Punjaub, and with Shah Soojah, the exiled ruler of Afghanistan, in order to secure the latter's restoration to the Afghan Throne, and to to overthrow the power of Dost Mahommed Khan, the reigning Ameer. Here then, was the fatal cause of that ill-starred war in Afghanistan ; a war that cost England and India ^^15, 000,000, and which sacrificed 20,000 men of all arms and 60,000 camp followers ; a total of 80,000 lives, besides the Afghans who fell in the struggle of which we have no estimate. It was on Oct. ist., 1838, that the Governor-General of India issued his declaration of war, and that an army of nearly 20,000 fighting men, accompanied by 60,000 camp followers, 35,000 camels and pack-horses, artillery, baggage, and stores, concentrated in Scinde, at Sukkur, as their base of action, moved forward through Beloo- chistan and the Bolan Pass into Afghanistan. " Success all along the line " crowned the invasion and march to Cabul. The British forces conquered Dost Mahommed Khan after an obstinate resistance, dethroned him, captured Ghuz- nee, Jellalabad, and made a triumphal entry into Cabul, installed Shah Soojah on the Throne, and placed Sir William McNaghten British Minister at Cabul, who really believed Shah Soojah as safe on his Throne, as Queen Victoria was safe on the Throne of England, but alas ! he was cruelly deceived. On Nov. 2, 1840, Dost Mahommed Khan, galled by hfs over- throw, invaded his conquered dominions, and won at Purwandurrah a decisive victory over the combined Afghan and British forces, but not wishing to reap the results of the victory, he rode up to the British lines and offered his sword to the British General as a token of submission. The British Commander, favourably impressed by such an incident, returned him the sword, treated him with great distinction, and offered him a princely residence and income in India. Exactly a year after this incident, an insurrection broke out in Cabul, which led to the assassination of poor Alexander Burnes and his brother ofiScers; and this was really the turning point of the Afghan disasters. The head of this insurrection was Akbar Khan, a son of Dost Mahommed Khan, whodemanded that the British troops should quit Afghanistan, and that his father should be restored to the Throne. THE SECOND WAR: THE AFGHAN WAR. Whilst these negotiations were going on, Akbar Khan made a new proposal — to keep Shah Soojah on the Throne, and make himself Grand Vizier, which was agreed to by our envoy, Sir Wm. McNaghten ; an error of policy which was dearly bought, for he was basely assassi- nated at a Conference soon afterwards, with his body-guard and ofificers, and their mangled bodies exhibited in the streets of Cabul. In such a crisis the British garrison in Cabul determined to make the best terms possible to secure their safe evacuation of the city ; and to do this they were obliged to surrender their guns and war material, and treasure, and to leave a hostage in the persons of General Elphinstone, Lady Sale, and many other ladies of distinction. The withdrawal from Cabul began in the depth of winter, and the army marched through gorges and over precipitous mountains every- where blocked by snow and crevasses. The retreating army numbered 4,000 men and some 12,000 camp followers besides women and children, including poor Lady McNaghten and other ladies whose husbands had perished in the recent massacres. At every step of the road, at every cleft in the rocks, this little army was assailed by the savage Afghans, and, it may be said, all along their line of retreat was a succession of murderous conflicts. In the terrible Koord Cabul Pass 3,000 men and women fell, slain by the Afghans or exhausted by the hardships of the retreat. The straggling remnant of the British army entered Jugdulluk Pass, which was blocked by the fanatical enemy. All was now over ! The brave army of Cabul was finally annihilated. A few only escaped ; and when sixteen miles from Jellalabad, where General Sale and an army were entrenched, the number was reduced to six ; and of these five were killed by hovering Afghans, and only one man, Dr. Brydon, reached Jellalabad to tell the mournful tale, out of a host of 16,000 who set out on its retreat. History does not record a more awful catastrophe, or a more affect- ing incident, than this emaciated survivor on horseback, " wearied and worn and sad," bearing to a beleaguered garrison the sad tidings of defeat, disaster and death to 80,000 men and women. This disaster to the British army encouraged Akbar Khan to besiege Jellalabad, but the garrison held out fearlessly until the arrival by the Khyber Pass of General Pollock, when they attacked the Afghan forces, and completely defeated them ; and Lord Ellen- borough having succeeded Lord Auckland as Governor-General of India, a forward movement was made by the British forces to inflict a signal chastisement. They encountered and defeated the Afghans, THE THIRD WAR : CHINA. 7 recaptured fortress after ifortress, and on the 15th September, 1842, entered Cabul. Of the British hostages left in Cabul poor Elphinstone had died, and Lady Sale and her companions had suffered terribly, having been hurried from fort to fort, dragged, according to the fortunes of war, far away into the mountains of the Indian Caucasus, and then finally ransomed and safely delivered into the English camp, " where," says one of them, " our joy was too great, too overwhelming, for tongue to utter." On the ist October, 1842, exactly four years from the commencement of this disastrous war, for the purpose of restoring Shah Soojah to the Throne of Afghanistan, Lord EUenborough revoked the policy of his predecessor. Lord Auckland, by a proclamation, which declared, " That, to force a Sovereign upon a reluctant people, would be as inconsistent with the policy, as it is with the principles, of the British Government ; therefore, the British army would be with- drawn -from Afghanistan, and the Government of India would remain content with the limits Nature had assigned to its Empire." Thus, after four years of unparalleled trial and disaster, Afghanistan was restored to the condition we found it, and Dost Mahommed Khan once more became its ruler. Whatever may have been the causes of those disasters, it is doubt- ful whether the genius of a Napoleon, or the daring of a Wellington, could have won success in such an inglorious war ; for it was based on a false and fatal policy ; in the words of Lord EUenborough, "to force a Sovereign upon a reluctant people." THE THIRD WAR: CHINA. 1839. When the Queen came to the Throne the state of our relations with China were very unsettled, in consequence of the resolute determination of the Chinese authorities to put down the importation of opium, which our merchantmen, in defiance of the Chinese law, and of all moral law, persisted in forcing into China. 8 THE THIRD WAR : CHINA. The Chinese Admiral Chin, in his proclamation, in 1839, against England, declares : " You foreigners, giving no heed to the laws of Heaven's dynasty, are every day rambling about. You never let us rest for a moment from your visits. We would like to ask,'' says the Chinese Admiral, " if our Chinese ships were to take a commodity prohibited in your country, and go on forcing it into consumption, if you would bear it patiently or not ? " This it was that led to the Opium War against China in 1838-39, a war which was the direct cause of the deplorable successive Wars against China in 1857 and 1858. Reduced to plain words, the vicious principle England wickedly fought for in the China War was the unjust right of Great Britain to force a hateful trade upon a foreign people, in spite of the protesta- tions of the Government and of the public voice of the Chinese Nation. A more iniquitous War cannot be imagined, for England at the onset and throughout was distinctly in the wrong, for which the East India Company were mainly responsible, and with them a few private merchants, who bought of the East India Company the noxious drug which they grew in India, and sold it to poison the Chinese. The Chinese Government, and the whole Nation, desired to get rid of, and to put down, this infamous trade. They considered it highly detrimental to the morals, the health, and the happiness of the people. In dealing with China, the Government of England never seemed to have given a thought of the right or wrong of the question, for they did not consider it a matter worthy of any consideration. The controversy was entered upon, and the War waged with a "light heart." The English Government appointed officials to reside in China to control our commerce, and, unluckily, they invested themselves with a sort of political or diplomatic character ; and no sooner was opposition shewn, than these officials, acting on the conviction that the English Government were behind them, ordered Ships of War to break down the opposition at Canton, and thus to light the torch of War between England and China. England believed that China was determined on War, which she was not ; and China believed that England, from the first, was determined on War, which was quite true. The fact was, the English people knew little or nothing of the THE THIRD WAR: CHINA. 9 merits of the quarrel ; all they imagined was, that Englishmen were in danger in a foreign country, which they were not ; that they were imprisoned, which was false ; their lives in danger, which was equally absurd ; and then, as usual, that the Flag of England was insulted, whereas it was the Flag of China that was insulted. Moreover, it was a general but mistaken notion, that the Chinese were a barbarous people, who had no alphabet, and were conceited, and that it would be a good thing to take the conceit out of them; and for this sentimental and absurd grievance, the War was justified. In my opinion we ought to have had nothing to do with this iniquitous trade of opium; and we ought to have announced from the first, and in the firmest language, that we would not protect it, and then held firmly to this righteous determination. That course would have been worthy of England and worthy of a Christian nation; whereas we bullied and threatened, and finally rushed into an unholy War. It was on our side an easy victory; in fact, a succession of easy victories. We captured the island of Chusan ; our naval squadron went up the Peiho, and burnt and bombarded in every direction, and at last threatened the Capital ; when, to avoid a general massacre negotia- tions were opened, and the preliminaries of a Treaty drafted; but neither side would agree to sign, and the War was re-opened. Ningpo fell, Amoy was captured, and Nankin besieged; when the Chinese Government saw resistance was hopeless, and they sued for peace. What did England get ? We asked for the island of Hong Kong, and got it. Then that the Five Ports — Canton, Amoy, Foo-Choo-Foo, Ningpo, and Shanghai — should be thrown open to British trade, and that British Consuls should reside there ; and finally, England demanded a War indemnity of four and a half millions sterling, and one and a quarter millions sterling in compensation to the British merchants; in all, five and three-quarter millions sterling, which the Chinese were compelled to pay. Then followed the usual flourish of trumpets, the thanks of both Houses of Parliament to the Fleet and the Army, and the promotion and decoration of the officers of the Army and Fleet. 10 THE FOURTH WAR : IN SYRIA. THE FOURTH WAR : IN SYRIA. 1840. Her Majesty had not been three years on the Throne ere the vexed Eastern Question first began to disturb the minds of her Government and the general peace of Europe; and it arose from a declaration of independence by the Pacha of Egypt, and his refusal to pay for the future any tribute to the Porte at Constantinople. Mehemet Ali, Pacha of Egypt, had assumed such power in Syria, that his position seemed to endanger the whole authority of the Sultan of Turkey, where, as Viceroy in the government of Egypt and Syria, he had been for some years arrogating to himself all the authority of an independent Prince. The Sultan called upon the Great Powers to assist in a settlement of the question between Turkey and Egypt, and between himself and his Viceroy, who threatened to march on Constantinople with a large army, a proceeding which, by the existing Treaty between England, Russia, Austria and Prussia, called for their armed intervention. In consequence of this appeal of the Sultan, the Four Great Powers, England, Austria, Prussia and Russia, signed a Convention on July 15th, 1840, with Turkey, for the pacification of the Levant. Russia viewed the existing War as a revolt of Mehemet Ali against the authority of his Sovereign, the Sultan, and the Four Great Powers were in complete accord as to the necessity of wresting Syria from the hands of the Pacha, Mehemet Ali. The English Admiral in the Mediterranean, having received in- structions from the Government, arrived off Beyrout in September, 1840, with the combined squadron of the Turkish and Austrian Navy, and the Egyptian Commander was called upon to deliver up the town. An amusing episode of this first summons was the reply of Suliman Pacha : — " Ne sachant pas lire la language Anglaise, il lui est impossible de repondre a moins que les amiraux ne vent bien lui faire traduire en Francaise, et en Turque ou en Arabe leur communication.'' [Not knowing how to read the English language it is impossible to answer, unless they would translate into French, Turkish, or Arabian their communication.] The Pacha, refusing a peaceful solution of the matter, soon found to his cost what the communications of the Allied Fleet were, while a land force, under command of Charles Napier, confronted the army THE FIFTH WAR: IN THE PUNJAUB. II of Ibrahim Pacha. Napier distinguished himself on sea and on shore. The bombardment and capture of the great fortress St. Jean D'Acre followed, and soon afterwards Mehemet Ali accepted the terms of peace, by which the Turkish fleet was given back to the Sultan, Syria was evacuated by Egyptian forces, and the hereditary Government in Egypt secured. THE FIFTH WAR: IN THE PUNJAUB 1848. The War in the Punjaub, in 1848, added another page to the sanguinary records of barbarous ambition, and reckless conquests by England, of territory in Hindostan. The Sikhs are the bravest enemies that England ever encountered in India, for they fight with the desperation of men inspired alike by military ardour and religious fanaticism . The War in 1848, and subsequent annexation of the Punjaub, arose from our interference in its internal affairs ; and the event which pre- cipitated the struggle was the assassination of two English officers, Vans Agnew and Anderson, at Mooltan, whilst on a mission from the Governor-General of India to Sirdar Khan, the Governor of the city. During the time of Maharajah Runjeet-Singh, peace and friendship prevailed between the British Government in India and the Sikhs ; but when he died, and his wisdom no longer guided the counsels of the State, his successor Maharajah Dhuleep-Singh, refused to recognise his allegiance to the Government at Calcutta, violated every compact his predecessor had entered into, repudiated the payment of the annual tribute, and, casting aside the peaceful traditions of his dynasty, the army of Maharajah Dhuleep-Singh, the whole of the Sikh population, joined by many of the Sirdars of the Punjaub, rose in arms, and waged a fierce and bloody War for the purpose of emancipating themselves from the British yoke. At Mooltan, Ramnuggur, Ferozepore, Moodkee, and Chillian- wallah, the Sikhs struggled with all the ancient prowess of their race, and poured out their life-blood like water in defence of their territory and independence. The great battle of Goojerat closed the greatest 12 THE SIXTH WAR: IN BORNEO. Struggle of the War, for there England had to cope with the most formidable foes who have ventured to withstand her in the field. Glowing eulogies were everywhere pronounced upon the skill of British Generals, the intrepidity of Officers, and the dashing bravery of the British troops, and the immediate consequences of the brilliant series of victories was the annexation of the Punjaub to the Empire of India. It was the triumph of brute power, and the victory must be written in letters of blood. Stars and Garters, titles and promotions were profusely lavished, besides Peerages and Pensions for the few favoured ones. Viscount Gough, gorged with the wealth and treasure of Indian Princes, sent home ;^7o,ooo to buy an estate in Ireland, and was rewarded with an Earldom and a Marshal's baton; and what for? because a magnifi- cent Province of India was conquered, its brave defenders put down by sanguinary violence, its soil saturated with blood, villages burnt, towns sacked, and tens of thousands slain. Surely this conquest of the Punjaub by War could have no other result than plant the traditions of vengeance in the breasts of a brave people. To atone for the past, may England strive in the future to con- solidate her conquests in India by ruling that Empire on the only true basis which can secure its permanence — the development of her material resources, the devotion of all the energies of Government to elevate the moral and social civilization of the vast population whose destinies are committed to her hands. THE SIXTH WAR: IN BORNEO. 1849. The originator of this War in Borneo was Mr. James Brooke, a subaltern in the East India Company. On his return from India, in 1838, he fitted out and armed a yacht, called the " Royalist," and with a commercial cargo sailed for the Archipelago, and thence to Borneo. On landing at Sarawak he found the Rajah of Borneo engaged in THE SIXTH WAR : IN BORNEO. 1 3 putting down a revolt of his own subjects, and he thereupon placed his men and guns of the " Royalist " at his disposal. His chief exploit was to break down a stockade of bamboo and mud; and thus Brooke and his allies won, as they considered, a great victory ! For this brilliant exploit Brooke claimed the cession of the entire province and government of Sarawak to him and his successors for ever ; and, after a little opposition, on 24th Sept., 1841, he was declared Rajah of Sarawak, amidst the roar of his own guns and the blowing of his own trumpets. This attempt of Rajah Brooke to establish an European settlement on the coast of Borneo, was again and again disturbed by the furious onslaughts of the natives, or, as they called them, Eastern pirates, who, when successful, burnt the villages and ships in the annexed province, and captured and massacred the inhabitants. To put down this revolt, and to support Rajah Brooke, the British Government despatched an expedition to Borneo, consisting of H.M. Vessels of War and a native flotilla under the command of Rajah Brooke. At the mouth of the Sareba river the squadron encountered the enemy, and a terrible conflict ensued. Out of 120 Vessels of the enemy 80 were destroyed, and upwards of 1,500 men were slain ; but the English forces escaped with no loss save a few trifling casualties. After the war, or rather, massacre, of these 1,500 men, Rajah Brooke and his allies applied to the Admiralty for the " head money," as it was then called — the price of blood which they had earned ; and blush, oh ! Christendom, for shame, ;!£'2o,7oo was paid them, being at the rate of ^20 for each of the enemies' heads. Mr. Cobden boldly denounced at the time this gratuitous and cold- blooded butchery, which branded its authors, he said, not only with cruelty but cowardice. There is no doubt that this system of "head-money" for the slaughter of pirates (and all enemies of England on the seas were considered as pirates) was founded on a base and false principle, for it was a reward for homicide, it was a temptation to murder. It was stated on good authority that it was not an unusual circum- stance for H.M. Ships of War, when the resources of the officers and men were rather low, to project in merry mood a pirate hunting expedition, in order to replenish their exhausted purses. Happily, the people of England forty years ago refused any longer to incur the terrible blood-guiltiness by these wanton outrages of cruelty. 14 THE SEVENTH WAR : DON PACIFICO. They spoke out indignantly, and smote with dismay the hearts of men like Rajah Brooke, who, in the fancied security of a remote and obscure province, tarnished the honour of the British name. With one shout down went the walls of Jericho, and this, what might be termed sanguinary law, was for ever abolished. THE SEVENTH WAR: DON PACIFICO. 1850. In 1850 England became involved in a dispute with Greece, which was known as the " Don Pacifico." It was in consequence of demands made by a Mr. Finlay for the price of a small piece of land, which had been taken from him by King Otho ; and secondly, of a claim made by one Don Pacifico, a Portugese Jew, for losses through pillage of his house by a mob in Athens. Mr. Finlay had paid ;^io for the land, and he claimed Don Pacifico estimated his losses at ;£^3i,534, most of which were imaginative. Neither of these gentlemen, however, had sought to establish their claim in the Courts of Greece, yet reprisals were made by the Government of England, and for a time England and Greece were at War. On the 17th January, 1850, the British Fleet appeared in the Piraeus, with a demand for the settlement by the Greek Government, within twenty-four hours, of these preposterous claims ; and this demand not being complied with the Fleet blockaded the Ports, and laid an embargo, i.e., seized the Government and merch'ant ships in the harbour. When the absurd nature of the claims were understood, and this high-handed policy of England against a weak state like Greece known, it caused a flutter of excitement, and the man, Don Pacifico, became famous for the moment, as one whose miserable quarrel threatened an European War. Greece appealed to Russia and France for support, and Count Nesselrode for Russia, and M. Thouvenel for France, conveyed strong remonstrances to Lord Palmerston ; but they were informed that there THE EIGHTH WAR: KAFFIR WAR. 1 5 had been no mistake, that the affair was one which alone concerned Greece and England. Over this trumpery dispute there was a general alarm of War ; the French Government withdrew their Ambassador, but after a compli- cated negotiation, England gave way and agreed to an arrange- ment; but when the arbitration came to settle the claims of Don Pacifico, it was found he was only entitled to about i-3oth of the sum he originally claimed. He had assessed all his claims thirty times too high. He charged ;^"'i5o for a bedstead worth ^^5; and ^30 for a counterpane worth ;£i ; ^2^ for a pillow-case worth 15s. ; and £10 for a night-shirt worth only los. The jewellery of his wife and daughters he estimated at ;^20oo, whereas he had always lived in an humble way, and was believed never to have been possessed of any jewellery whatever. Thus for this paltry claim. Her Majesty's Navy (the most powerful in Europe) blockaded the Piraeus, Greece was estranged and thrown into the arms of Russia, our friendly relations with France endangered, and, worse than all, the might of Britain used to enforce terms from a weak Power, which England would not have dared to demand from a strong Power, nor tolerated, if asked, by any Nation. THE EIGHTH WAR: KAFFIR WAR. 1846. The absence of a pacific and conciliatory policy towards the aborigines of South Africa, led to a long series of sanguinary wars ; aiiS this system of ceaseless aggression and annexation was, in fact, an exterminating war of races, until the Kafifir race, by the mighty power of England, were swept out of existence on the South African Continent. As a justification for these iniquitous wars against the Kaffirs, it was alleged that they were the aggressors, and the colonists the oppressed sufferers. A more daring and impudent illustration of the wolf and lamb cannot be imagined. In 1806, England had not an acre of land in South Africa; but i6 THE NINTH WAR : KAFFIR WAR. in 1846, when this cruel war began, her dominion extended over 260,000 square miles; and to-day, by aggression and annexation, it amounts to 373,683 square miles. When the Dutch ceded their South African Colony to Great Britain in 1806, the whole of South Africa was the property of the Kaffirs. How has it come into the possession of England ? Not by purchase, for nobody ever heard of our paying for it ; not by fair and honest treaty; not by any principle of righteous acquisition. How then ? By violence, and swindling the rightful owners ; by driving them out, ruthlessly and relentlessly at the edge of the sword, from the inheritance of their fathers. The origin of the war in 1835 arose from this lawless spirit of British aggression, and the Kaffirs were forced into resistance against these encroachments, which finally terminated in the assumption by Great Britain of the whole of the territory beyond the Fish River. In 181 1, England first waged war against the Kaffirs. We took no prisoners; every Kaffir who was caught was killed, until the whole people were driven across the great Fish River. In 1819, another Kaffir war, which resulted in further extension of territory. In 1835, another Kaffir war, on the miserable pretext of cattle stealing; and an army was organised, under the command of an Eng- lish officer, which invaded the Kaffir territory, seized, burnt and slew in every direction. This was a terrible and stern revenge. The origin of the war, under Sir Harry Smith, against the Kaffirs in 1846 was on the absurd pretext that two Kaffirs stole an axe, and when imprisoned were rescued by their own people; and in this war England was of course victorious, and the Kaffirs were driven across the Kei river. THE NINTH WAR: KAFFIR WAR. 1850 TO 1853. In 1850, came the bloodiest struggle in which the Cape Colony ever engaged; it was a kind of sacred war, to which the Kaffirs were roused by the preaching of one of their prophets, and it THE TENTH WAR : IN BURMAH. 1 7 continued for three, if not four years, 1850-51-52-53, but at length the natives submitted to Sir George Cathcart, and Kaffaria became a British dependency. These wars against the KaflSrs in South Africa from 1833 to 1853, must be traced to the aggressive spirit of successive Governments, their violation of good faith, the unwarrantable exactions of the colonists, encroachments upon native territory, insults upon native chiefs, and seizure of cattle and other outrages. From 1833 to 1853 England waged three Kaffir wars, at a cost of ^6,000,000, and a terrible loss of life, estimated at upwards of 80,000 of the Kaffir population. It is a painful truth that throughout the whole of South Africa the British name is associated in the native mind with territorial aggres- sion. War gradually advanced from the west to the east, and from the south to the north. There is nothing black or white, African or European, in the question. Its origin is in the constitution of human nature, lust for conquest, territory, and power, and the result was wasteful expenditure of money, appalling sacrifice of life, and the shame and humihation that. must ever attach to wars of blood-guiltiness. THE TENTH WAR: IN BURMAH. 1852. Hardly had the Kaffir War in South Africa terminated, than England became involved in a war with the Empire of Burmah. In 1 85 1, Lord Dalhousie, the Governor-General of India, was informed that the Burmese Governor of Rangoon had maltreated two English captains, and he immediately ordered that H.M. war ships should be sent to Rangoon to demand compensation, and, in case of refusal, to demand of the King of Burmah the dismissal of the Governor, and, if this was refused, severer measures would be taken. The British Commodore, instead of addressing the Governor of Rangoon, sent the ultimatum direct to the King, who sent a friendly reply, in which he promised to remove the former and to make reparation. 1 8 THE TENTH WAR: IN BURMAH. So far, so good. The new Governor arrived at Rangoon ; and on his arrival the British Commodore sent an officer, who, finding he was asleep, got angry, and demanded that the Governor should be awoke, or worse consequences would ensue. As they could not, or (Jare not awake the Governor, the English officer left in a great rage, and reported to the British Commodore the great outrage to the Flag of England; and thereupon, the Commodore summoned all British subjects to leave Rangoon, seized the Burmese vessels of war, proclaimed the Irrawaddy in a state of blockade, and broke off all further communications; in a word — war. This was the whole offence against Burmah, which led to a long and sanguinary war, arrested commerce, destroyed property, besieged towns, thousands slaughtered, millions spent ; and what for ? To avenge an imaginary affront to the dignity of a sixth-rate British officer by keeping him standing in the sun a quarter of an hour. War ! ruin ! and blood ! was nothing compared with the inexpiable atrocity of keeping a British officer standing in the sun a quarter" of an hour ! To propitiate the British Commodore the King and Government of Burmah tried pacific and conciliatory messages, and offered that a British Resident should be appointed to Rangoon, and he offered also to pay a sum of 7,000 rupees as compensation. And they went further, for finding all these efforts in vain to avert a war, they opened direct communication with Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India ; but, unhappily, Lord Dalhousie sup- ported the Commodore, and sent an ultimatum to the King at Ava that he should make an abject apology to everybody, pay an indem- nity of ten lacs of rupees, and a further sum in compensation for the preparations of war, and that the Governor of Rangoon should a second time be removed. These modest proposals Burmah could not accept, and finding all attempts at conciliation were in vain, she resolved to prepare for the conflict which was inevitable. Then followed hostilities, and the usual glorification of the " spirit," " coolness," " intrepidity," " admirable behaviour " of " our gallant troops." - Rangoon, Dallah, Mortaban, Kassamendive, were taken by the Fleet; and we are treated to the usual description — that the fire was most effective, that the practice of the gunboats against the Burmese caused many casualties, that every shot told, that the enemy suffered great loss by our cannonade — one shell alone causing a THE ELEVENTH WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. 19 terrible explosion : and remember, the day selected for this bloody work was Easter Sunday — the day set, apart to commemorate the Resurrection of the Saviour of Men. Well may Mr. Cobden declare, as he did at the time : " There is neither honour nor glory to be gained when a highly civilized nation arrays its mighty power against a comparatively feeble and ignorant people. " The wars," said Cobden, " got up by a Queen's officer, are carried on at the expense of the people of India. " We place an army of 20,000 men in Burmah, we seize a territory as large as England, and the proceedings attract little notice from the Press and public opinion. The reason is obvious. The bill for the cost of the Burmese War is presented not to us, but to the unhappy ryots of Hindostan. * * « "And not merely the cost of the war, heavy as it will be, but the far more serious burden to be entailed upon India by the permanent occupation of the whole or a large part of the Burmese Empire." THE ELEVENTH WAR: CRIMEAN WAR. 1854-5- At the commencement of the year 1853 the political horizon was without a cloud, when suddenly, like " a bolt from the blue,'' the Eastern Question, which had long been smouldering in the East, burst, and unhappily, closed the long Reign of Peace, which for forty years had shone with conspicuous blessing upon Europe. The Great Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations of 1851^ promoted by the illustrious and lamented Prince Consort " for the purpose of strengthening the bonds of peace and friendship amongst the nations of the earth," and which brought into the great Metropolis of the world men of every race, and clime, and colour, it was fondly hoped would have heralded the dawn of a brighter, a better, because a more peaceful, era; when this little cloud, like the cloud which Gehazi saw, " no bigger than a man's hand," rose from the eastward, and casting its black shadow around, disturbed the calm which had so long reigned, and threatened to burst with a mighty tempest. 20 THE ELEVENTH WAR: CRIMEAN WAR. In this Great Eastern Question was involved the fate and fortunes of the Ottoman Empire ; that Empire which had been for centuries the terror of the East, and the perpetual nightmare of Western Europe. The centre and source of the whole controversy out of which this Eastern complication arose, is to be found in the miserable dispute regarding the Holy Places — the Churches that have been built over those spots in Palestine where the events in our Saviour's history aire supposed to have taken place — viz., the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of Bethlehem, both of which were in the possession of Turkey 5 and the immediate cause of the dispute was that the Star, which had been placed from time immemorial over the altar in the Church of Bethlehem, had mysteriously disappeared. The Latins charged the Greeks with having stolen it, and this miserable squabble was made the pretext for a diplomatic and political quarrel, and eventually became the cause of a great European War. The French Government, to please the Catholics in France and Europe, supported the quarrel of the Latins; not simply for the restoration of the Silver Star, but for a total change in the relations between the Greek and Latin Churches in regard to the Holy Places. In May, 1850, the French Ambassador at Constantinople de- manded of the Sultan of Turkey the possession of the Latin Sanctuaries. The British Ambassador at Constantinople, Lord Stafford de Redcliffe, in a Despatch to Lord Palmerston, May 20, 1850, first sounds the note of alarm, by declaring that the Pope and all the Catholic Powers, Spain, Italy and Austria, support the French demand, and considered that the friends of Turkey " cannot close their eyes to the political consequences which must follow." Against this pretension Russia, as the defender of the Greek Church, protested, through her Ambassador at Constantinople, and justly so, in the words of Lord Clarendon, " That Her Majesty's Government were not insensible to the superior claims of Russia, both as regards the Treaty obligations of Turkey, but the loss of moral influence that Russia would sustain if she were to yield any privileges which the Greek Church had hitherto enjoyed, to the Latin Churches, for which France claimed to be the Protector." In this trying position, Turkey, anxious to please both side^, made concessions to each, but these concessions pleased neither, and France threatened physical force, whilst Russia threatened to withdraw her Ambassador; and as a derniere ^ww/-/ Turkey, to avoid a rupture, THE ELEVENTH WAR: CRIMEAN WAR. .21 agreed to a mixed Commission consisting of (i) Turkey, (i) Greece, and (2) France, and it is no wonder that, so constituted, France was bound to win. The result was, that the Greeks objected, and Russia again interfered, on the ground that it would lead to the Protectorate of France, and to meet the difficulty a second Com- ijiission was formed, composed entirely of Turkish Ulemas and officials, excluding the partisans of both Churches ; and this Com- mission gave its decision that the Latins have no right to claim ex- clusive possession of the Holy Places; and a Firman of the Sultan being issued, a Turkish Bey was sent to Jerusalem to see that it was carried out ; but, unfortunately, it was not acted upon, and Russia -determined, in consequence of this deception and double-dealing of -Turkey, to send Prince Menschikbff on a Special Mission to Con- stantinople, which so aroused the French Government, that they ordered the French fleet to proceed from Toulon to Salamis. Prince MenschikofF was the bearer of two documents : one a personal letter to the Sultan, and the other an official communication containing the demands of Russia ; and these demands were con- sidered arbitrary ; but, having read this official communication, I fail to find in it any audacious demand, and there is no doubt its acceptance or rejection was the turning point in the history of the complications. At one time Turkey was on the point of accepting the demand of Russia ; but alas ! owing to the fatal counsels given to the Sultan by the JBritish Ambassador, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in which he warned hiin of the danger to which his Empire was exposed by its accept- ance ; and to support him in the crisis he promised- the presence of the British War Squadron. In face of such counsel, and such potential power displayed by England, it is no surprise that Turkey rejected Russia's reasonable demand ; a rejection that England alone was responsible for, because Lord Stratford de Redcliife declared in plain words to the Sultan, that he had better incur all the hazards of war than accept Russia's proposals. In consequence of this rejection. Prince MenschikofF left Constan- tinople, and his mission closed, and England and France, wishing to act as mediators, agreed to a Joint Note ; and this Despatch was agreed to by France, England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and .recommended to Turkey as one which she might accept without injwy to her independence or honour. When, however, the Note was sent to Constantinople Turkey con- 22 THE ELEVENTH WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. sidered it was as bad as Prince Menschikoff's former proposals, and proposed certain modifications, which, having been submitted to the respective Governments, were finally agreed to, and returned to Con- stantinople for acceptance ; but the Turkish Council, inspired by the fanaticism and desperation of the old Mahommedan party, fearful that peace would be established, and that they would lose the great oppor- tunity of dragging England and France into a war with their ancient -enemy Russia, came to the extraordinary resolution to reject these reasonable terms of peace and decided in favour of war ; and the result was, the Russians crossed the Pruth, and entered the Prmci- palities, and the English and French fleet anchored in Besika Bay. These acts of war did not suspend the negotiations for peace j but it soon became evident that Turkey, seeing that she had com- mitted England and France in the quarrel, determined to rush into war, in spite of the utmost eiforts of the European Powers. " The Turkish Council," says Lord Stratford de Redcliflfe, " has given its decision for war, and the efforts of the four Powers to obtain a pacific solution, are fruitless." Now just observe the facts : England offers her mediation between Turkey and Russia, and as the friend of Turkey, the British fleet is brought up to the Darda- nelles to support her resistance. England advises Turkey in the most emphatic manner, in consort with France, Austria, and Prussia, not to declare war, but Turkey declared war in the very teeth of her advice. England appeals to Turkey to suspend hostilities whilst further negotiations are pending, and she promises, and breaks that promise, and rushes into war. England warns Turkey, not only that a war will entail great calamities, but that it will eventually lead to the dissolution of her tottering Empire; but she insists on going to war, in face of the warn- ings of England ; and when Turkey does all this, scorns all the declarations of England, England suffered herself to be dragged help- lessly at the tail of the fanatical Turk into the abyss of war. Unfortunately, the public mind in England was a victim to a fanaticism as fierce as the fanaticism of the Turks, in consequence of a frantic hatred of Russia and its Sovereign, which was fanned by the Press, the Platform, and alas ! the Pulpit ! We see, therefore, that the original blunder was committed when the Turks were advised by England to resist, and the second blunder when the Turks were supported in their rejection of the Vienna Note, THE ELEVENTH WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. 23 for the moment that the Four Great Powers, admitted that their recommendations were not of necessity to be accepted by Turkey, they put themselves entirely in the hands of Turkey to be dragged into War. The course taken by Turkey in risking War, was against the strong advice of her Allies, and therefore England ought to have told her from the first, " If you persist in taking your own course, we cannot be involved in the difficulty to which it may give rise, but must leave you to take the consequences of your own acts." Unhappily the Government of Lord Aberdeen and the English Nation were actuated by a bitter hostility to Russia, and they imagined the War was necessary for European freedom, and to cripple the resources of Russia. Nothing could have been more impolitic, or more reprehensible. The aggrandisement of Russia and the "balance of power" were the bugbears raised to justify the War; and in reality it was on this cry that the whole question eventually turned; "but," said Mr. Bright in a great speech delivered in Parliament, "if this phrase '■balance of power ' is always to be an argument for War, the pretence for War will never be wanting, and peace can never be secured." TMs absurd idea of the " balance of power " is a delusion, and we ought to drive it from our minds, and to consider the solemn question of Peace or War on more clear, more definite, and on far higher principles than any that are involved in the '^balance of power." In the Message from the Crown, on the opening of Parliament in 1 854, the Government declared the three great objects of the war for which the efforts and resources of England were to be given. I. To maintain the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire ; 2. To curb the aggression of Russia ; 3. To defend the interests of England. I. To maintain the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. This is to maintain a fierce military despotism, allied with the fanaticism of a brutaUsing religion which teaches its followers to rely solely on the sword, and to disdain all improvements ; ruled by a Sultan who sways the lives and destinies of the people with an absolute power, greater than was ever shewn by any tyrant of ancient times. It is to maintain a nation of men who know nothing about Com- merce, and care as little about its freedom ; who despise Trade, and despise it in others. 24 THE ELEVENTH :WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. It is to maintain, a nation whose " Koran " says : " There is but ,one law, and that law forbids all communication with infidels.'' Such a systeni of Governihent, with such a policy, is nothing but a tyrannical despotism at once sanguinary and lawless. . In my opinion it is not the alliance of England, or the presence of foreign arins on Turkish soil, that can secure the " integrity and inde- pendence of the Ottoman Empire;" but only by a wiser Executive Government, a better financial administration of its affairs, and juster laws. 2. To curb the aggressions of Russia. These are catching words, and they served unhappily to blind the eyes of the English nation thirty years ago. The Russians accused by England forsooth ! of being an aggran- dising Power, that from the day of Pultowa in 1817, to the crossing of the Pruth in 1854, the Government of Russia have been incessantly advancing ! But in the meantime has England been idle ? If during the last century, Russia has advanced, Great Britain has in the same period, enlarged the bounds of Her Dominions. , Surely England, staggering under the weight of her vast Empire, is not the Nation to preach to Russia a sermon on peace, based on the Eighth Commandment ! To resist the aggression of Russia ! You might as well tell Mrs. Partington to keep the Atlantic back with a Mop, or to bid Canute say to the proud waves of the ocean, " Thus far thou shalt go, and no further ! " You cannot dismeniber Russia, nor blot out her name from the Map, nor her history from the records of Europe. Russia will always be there, always powerful, always watchful, and lactuated by the same motives of an advancing civilisation. But supposing for one moment Russia had become possessed of Constantinople, would not the consequences have been favourable to humanity and civilisation ? We may answer with Mr. Cobden, instead of the seraglio of the Sultan, we should have seen the Palace of a Christian Monarch : instead of the harem, the presence of a Christian Empress ; and instead of the chains of the slave, the voices of men and women of exalted birth, and the sound of the footsteps of ambassadors, merchants, and capitalists, from all the Capitals of Europe. Can anyone doubt that if the Government of St. Petersburg had been transferred to the shores of the Bosphorus, that a splendid European Capital would soon have sprung up, in the place of those miserable hovels, which now constitute the Capital of Turkey, fiiat noble THE ELEVENTH WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. 25 edifices would have arisen, learned Societies flourished, Arts and Science prospered, in fact, with her natural beauties and advantages, Constantinople would have become an attractive rendezvous for civilised Europe, that the Christian religion would have improved the condition of the people, that the slave market, which is now polluting the East, centuries after the odious traffic has been banished from the soil of Christian Europe, would have been abolished ? Can anyone doubt, that these and many other beneficent changes would not have been realised, and that the interests of England would not have been imperilled, by curbing the aggressions of civilisation and commerce, by Russia in the East ? The first great disaster of the War, was the destruction of the Turkish Flfeet at Sinope, on the shore of the Black Sea. The Turkish Commander aware of his danger pressed for reinforcements, but none came, and on 30th November, 1853, the Russian Squadron swooped down upon the Turkish Squadron, and after a desperate struggle, the latter was destroyed, and this disaster, forced England and France to send their Naval Squadrons into the Black Sea, to compel every Russian ship to return to Sevastopol, and to resist by force any aggres- sion against Ottoman territory. This was in fact a Declaration of War. England's Ultimatum to Russia was despatched on February 27th, 1854, and at the end of six days, no reply being received, the Declara- tion of War was read, from the steps of the Royal Exchange in the City. The forces of England, under the command of Lord Raglan, and the forces of France, under the command of Marshal St. Arnaud, assembled at Varna in the summer of 1854, and under the cover of the Fleet landed in the Crimea, an invasion which was as great a blunder as was the declaration of War, a blunder of miUtary strategy attributed to the Emperor of the French, but, whoever advised it, it was a stupendous act of military folly. On the 14th September, 1854, the Allied forces disembairked, some 10,000 strong, and on the 19th marched forward to battle, encounter- ing the dense masses of the Russians, under the command of Prince Menschikoff, on the heights of Alma ; and though the soldiers of the Czar fought stubbornly, they could not stand up against the vehement obstinacy of the Allies, and in a few hours the allied victory was won. Had this victory been followed up as it ought to have been, had an immediate advance been made on Sevastopol, not only would this renowned fortress have been taken ere the sun went down, but the disastrous campaign in the Crimea would never have been heard 26 THE ELEVENTH WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. of; and for this second blunder it is said the French commander, Marshall St. Arnaud, was to blame. From the Alma the Allies moved forward to Balaclava, and occupied the heights, and on Oct. 17th the first attack was made on Sevastopol, but it was a month too late, and of course it failed. On Oct. 25th the Russians fiercely attacked the Allies, which is memorable for the famous charge of the Light Brigade ; the charge of the 600, of whom only 198 came back, and of which it may truly be said, " C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas guerre." Then followed the great Battle of Inkermann, on the 5th November, the soldiers' battle, which was the fiercest battle of the war. It would occupy too much space to follow all the dark days of the Crimean campaign, the terrible winter during which more men died by exposure and cold than by the bayonet and bullet ; but I cannot forbear to mention the name of that great heroine of the war, Florence Nightingale, who, in the midst of the horrors of that war, like some " Angel of Mercy" touched by the piercing cry of men perishing with cold, hunger, and disease, went forth to the East, assisted by a little army of chivalrous women, and rendered splendid service, and which laid the f oundation of the Geneva Convention and the noble Army of the Red Cross. At this periodof the War, disaster followed disaster, which the death of Lord Raglan, and the death of the Czar Nicholas of Russia, intensified. During the lull caused by the defeat of the Government by the vote of censure moved by Mr. Roebuck, negotiations for peace were set on foot, and a Conference met at Vienna, but it proved a failure, and the operations in the Crimea were renewed with increased vigour. Desperate efforts were made by Russia to raise the siege of Sevas- topol, but all was unavailing ; and the Allies, bracing themselves up to a great effort, on September 5th, 1855, captured the Malakoff and Redan, which was accompanied by a terrible bombardment from sea and land ; and Sevastopol, after a memorable siege of twelve months, fell, and " great was the fall thereof" With the fall of Sevastopol, the war was practically at an end; and on the 25th February, 1856, a Congress of the Plenipotentiaries of Europe assembled at Paris, and one month afterwards, the Treaty of Peace was signed. Thus closed, as Mr. Bright declared, "that measureless calamity, the Crimean War," a War that involved the death of 900,000 men, and which cost the belligerents, Russia, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Turkey, ;^34o,ooo,ooo sterling. THE TWELFTH WAR.: IN OUDE. 27 THE TWELFTH WAR: IN OUDE. 1856. Thirty years ago, it may truly be said, that England was constantly enacting, in various parts of the world, deeds of arbitrary and high- handed violence; for doing one tenth of which we should deem . ourselves entitled to brand other nations with the strongest language of indignation, and even undertake to inflict sanguinary punishment upon them, as the minister of Divine vengeance. One of these exploits of violence by England was the annexation in 1856 by the armed forces of the Crown of the kingdom of Oude in India. Oude, a kingdom as populous as Belgium, and twice as large in extent of territory, was annexed to the East India Company by the proclamation of Lord Dalhousie, and its ruler deprived of his I'hrone. Troops invaded Oude, and surrounded his capital, but as he offered no resistance, beyond protest, the destruction of an ancient Throne, and the annexation of a rich and populous kingdom, was easily effected. In the proclamation the usual charges of incompetency and corruption were made, but, whatever the faults of the goverment of Oude, it had ever been faithful and true in their friendship with the British nation ; but this fidelity and friendship availed them nothing when the fiat went forth from Leadenhall Street, that the kingdom of Oude must cease to exist. The only defence put forward was, that it was for the good of the natives, but has that not ever been the pretext of every War of an- nexation, whether by England or any other nation ? and this plea of the East India Company and of Lord Dalhousie for annexing Oude, had no better foundation. THE THIRTEENTH WAR: PERSIAN WAR. IN 1857. In 1857 the Governor-General of India, Lord Canning, acting under the authority of Her Majesty's Government, issued a procla- mation, which was tantamount to a declaration of War against Persia. 28 • THE THIRTEENTH WAR : PERSIAN WAR. A hostile fleet, amounting to forty ships of the line and 6,000 fighting men, sailed for the Persian Gulf. Now what was it all about? In the beginning of the century, England made great efforts to establish a predominant influence in Persia, in order to resist {not Russia this time) but a French invasion of India. Sir John Malcolm was sent therefore, to form an alliance with -the Persian Monarch, and he concluded two Treaties with the Shah, one against the Ameer of Afghanistan, and the other against the French, and by the first Treaty England was bound to aid Persia. to recover Khorassan from Afghanistan. Up to 1828 Enghsh influence was paramount in Persia, but when the Shah declared war against Russia in 1828, and was defeated by Marshal Paskiewitch, the Russian General, from that moment English influence steadily declined in Persia. • The English disasters in Afghanistan in 1842, and the defeat of English policy, may also have influenced the Shah of Persia and his Ministers to disregard and practically to reject the advice and inter- ference of England, through its Minister at Teheran ; but, whatever the cause, suffice it to say that, after having committed those monstrous outrages upon Dost Mahommed, the Ameer of Afghanistan, we took him suddenly in our favour and championed the Afghan cause, and the plea put forward was the possession of Herat, which had been for generations a Perso-Afghan quarrel. ■ It was, however, alleged that an infraction of the Treaty of 1853, entered into by England and Persia, was the pretext assigned for this Persian war. But the plea of an infraction of this Treaty in regard to the possession of Herat, was only a pretext on the part of England. The real object was to take violent possession of certain positions on Persian soil, to give England command • of the navigation of the Euphrates, and of the railway which was contemplated in the valley of the Euphrates. The expedition was sent out to the Persian Gulf, and success followed its operations ; Bushire was captured, and after a great loss of life, and a great expenditure of money, the war was brought to a close by a Treaty of Peace, negotiated at Paris, by which Persia with- drew from Herat, and paid compensation for damages inflicted, and gave assurances for her future good conduct, and finally the Prime Minister of the Shah was dismissed from office. Thus, closed a war waged for objects which inight have been .secured without war; a war that cost ;^i,865,435 ; a war, be it THE FOURTEENTH. WAR : MUTINY IN INDIA, 29 remembered, commenced, carried on, and concluded without Parliament having an opportunity to pronounce an opinion on its necessity, justice, or expediency. THE FOURTEENTH WAR: MUTINY IN INDIA. 1857- One of the most appalling catastrophes, appalling in its ferocity and its unspeakable horrors, which has marked the reign of Queen Victoria, and which must be numbered amongst the Wars of Her Majesty's Reign, was the terrible Mutiny in India in 1857. For some years previously, ominous mutterings of discontent had been h eard in the Indian Army, and Sir Charles Napier, during his military Command, did his utmost to convince the authorities that they were sleeping on a thin crust of a volcano, which might at any moment explode into a tremendous conflagration. Various were the reasons assigned for the grave apprehension which threatened to undermine the foundation of English rule in India, chiefly diplomatic and military^the recent annexation of Oude, the interfe rence with the Hindoo system of religion, and the objection felt by the native soldiery to greased cartridges; these and other causes combined to organise the blackest conspiracy and treason against English rule. A deaf ear was turned to these warnings, and even signs of mutiny in the Native Regiments in Bengal were treated very lightly ; when, suddenly, the alarming tidings arrived, on Sunday, loth May, 1857, that Regiment after Regiment had risen in mutiny ; that more than 30,000 men were in revolt ; that Delhi, the ancient Capital of the Moguls, was in possession of the rebels, who had massacred all the Europ eans, and proclaimed the descendant of the Great Mogul as their King. It was at Meerut that the tiger-like ferocity of the Sepoy soldiery was displayed. They fired upon their officers, killed their loyal comrades, broke open the gaol and massacred the European in- habitants. Having done all this, they marched, or rather rushed — for Delhi, burst into the city, swarmed into the precincts of the 30 THE FOURTEENTH WAR : MUTINY IN INDIA. Palace of the King, and proclaimed him Emperor of India, planting the standard of rebellion against EngUsh rule on the battlements of his Palace. They found in one moment a Leader, a Flag, and a Cause, and the mutiny was transfigured into a revolutionary War. When the news of the revolution reached Calcutta, it came with the shock of a thunderbolt from the blue. Fortunately, there was at the head of affairs in India a man with a cool head, a firm will, and a courage that never faltered. If ever the crisis found the man. Lord Canning was the man called for by that crisis in India. Most important, too, Canning was surrounded and supported by brave and able men — Sir John Lawrence, and his brother Sir Henry Lawrence, in the Punjaub, Sir Henry Havelock, Sir James Outram, Sir Colin Campbell, and many others, who, by their intrepidity in the field, and their sagacity in the Council, largely contributed to the safety of our Indian Empire. Canning saw that the right course was to strike at Delhi, the head- quarters of the rebellion ; and he appealed, therefore, for the help of the troops engaged on the Chinese Expedition and the Persian War. There was no time to be lost, for the rebellion broke out at new points^n the Punjaub ; in Oude ; in fact, almost everywhere in the North and the North-Western Provinces of India. Delhi fell, Lucknow was relieved, and Cawnpore was taken ; and this may be considered the final blow in the suppression of the Mutiny, for Delhi and Lucknow were the centres of the movement, and when these strongholds were in the hands of the English the back of the rebellion was broken. On December 20, 1858, Lord Clyde announced to the Governor- General of India that the campaign was at an end, and that the last remnant of the Mutineers were driven hopelessly at bay. " It is an ill wind" verily, " ijiihich blows no good" for one, if not the principal benefit of this terrible Rebellion in India, it pulled down the famous old Corporation, the East India Company, which had arrogated to itself for nearly a century the Government of 250 millions of people. Practically before the Mutiny was crushed, this beaureaucratic but irresponsible Corporation came to an end. Founded in the days of Warren Hastings, nominated partly by the Crown, and partly by the Board of Directors in Leadenhall Street, it gave directions for and controlled absolutely the Government of India. This unparalleled anomaly in the Government of India directly THE FIFTEENTH WAR: THE SECOND CHINA WAR. 31 this crisis arrived was dissolved, for it was felt that England must for the future take the management of her Indian affairs into her own hands, and that the time had come that the dangerous rule of a " Trading Company " must cease. In 1858, an Act for the better Government of India, brought into Parliament by Lord Stanley (the present Lord Derby), provided that all the territories under the Government of the East India Company were to be hereafter vested in Her Majesty the Queen of the Empire, and all the powers of the Company in future were alone to be exercised in her name, and, for the first time in our Indian history, the Viceroy of the Queen was to be supreme in the political and military administration of India. THE FIFTEENTH WAR: THE SECOND CHINA WAR. 1857- In the beginning of the year 1857, England became suddenly involved in a war, the second war with China, which arose from the following circumstances : — In October, 1856, the authorities at Canton boarded a steamer in the river called the " Arrow," on the ground that pirates were on board, one of whom was afterwards identified by a merchant as part of a pirate fleet that had attacked his ship, plundered the cargo, and killed four of the crew. On the day that the " Arrow " was boarded, Mr. Parkes, the Eng- lish Consul in Canton, demanded that the, men should be given up ; and on its refusal, he demanded an apology, which ended with a threat, that if China did not yield in four hours, violent means would be taken. The only ground taken for this haughty demand was, that the "Arrow" was a British vessel, and that the Treaty of 1842 was violated, and the British flag insulted. But was the " Arrow " a British vessel ? She was built by Chinese, owned by Chinese, manned by Chinese, with the exception of one Englishman. How then could she be a British -vessel ? The defence was that she carried the British flag, and pleaded 32 THE FIFTEENTH WAR : THE SECOND CHINA WAR. British protection ; and under this pretence she was licensed to carry on a large smuggling trade in opium, in open violation of the laws of China. Even Sir John Bowring, the British Ambassador at Hong-Kong, acknowledged : " That it appears on exarnination that the ' Arrow ' had no right to hoist the British flag ; the Hcense to do so had expired, from which date, she has not been entitled to protection." And yet, in face of this declaration. Sir John Bowring cooly de- manded from the Chinese Government an apology and an assurance that the British flag should in future be respected. Well might Perronnet Thompson declare in the House of Commons that there was evidence of a foregone conclusion to quarrel with the Chinese ; a wretched and dishonourable subterfuge was got up about a miserable boat. "It was a War,'' cried the honorable gentleman, "for the British Flag, the British Lion, and the British Flag, and evidence had now come there was no British Flag at all." For this tremendous insult to the British Flag, the British Squadron, under command of Admiral Seymour, attacked the river forts at Canton, sunk or burned twenty-three Vessels belonging to the Chinese Navy, and bombarded the City of Canton, crowded with one and a half millions of inhabitants, packed like sheep in a pen. A writer in the Friend of China thus describes the bombardment. " Firing commenced from the Men-of-War, of shot and ball as fast as it could be thrown into the City, and this terrific bombard- ment continued for five hours." "And then followed the next day a second and more terrible bombardment, which by firing shot and shell into the City all night caused widespread ruin and death." If anyone had told Sir John Bowring twenty years before, when he was prominent in philanthropy, and peace, and humanity, that the time would come when he would be the man to direct the bombard- ment with shot and shell of a populous and defenceless commercial City, involving the wholesale slaughter of men and women and children, and that on the most trivial and contemptible excuse ever assigned as a justification of hostilities, he might have exclaimed, " Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?" And yet he did do it, under the blind fanaticism of his officialism. But we will draw the curtain over so pitiable a spectacle, and see the result of the War. By the Treaty of Peace, signed at Tien-sin, 26th June, 1858, it THE SIXTEENTH WAR : THE THIRD CHINA WAR. 33 was agreed that religious toleration should be extended throughout the Empire; Trade protected and a revised Tariff; an English Minister to reside at Pekin ; the promise of a Chinese Ambassador in London ; nine Chinese Ports to be opened to British commerce; the free navi- gation of the Yang-tse-Kiang ; passports granted to British subjects travelling in China ; the suppression of piracy ; and an jndemnity to England ; and, I believe, one more provision — the Chinese bound themselves by solemn obligations not to call Englishmen nick-names — either Barbarians ! Niggers ! or Yankees ! THE SIXTEENTH WAR: THE THIRD CHINA WAR. 1859. Hardly had the ink of the Treaty of Tien-sin become dry, barely had its Provisions become ratified and understood by both Nations, than hostilities were once more declared by England against China in 1859. I will endeavour to state the causes as clearly and as concisely as possible. One of the articles of the late Treaty which closed the " Lorcha Arrow " War, was the right to send an English Ambassador to Pekin, but the Chinese felt such a repugnance to this step that the enforce- ment of the right was postponed. It was necessary, however, for the ratification of the Treaty of Tien- sin that Mr. Bruce, on behalf of England, and M. Bourboulon, on behalf of France, should go to Pekin ; but when they arrived at Shanghai they found the Chinese Commissioner declined to see them until they arrived at Pekin. To make the Embassy imposing, the English and French Am- bassadors were accompanied by an Armed Squadron, twenty Vessels of War and several hundred Marines, to force, if necessary, admission to Pekin. This formidable armament at the mouth of the Peiho, awoke sus- picion and jealousy, and the inevitable result, a refusal to proceed with so menacing a Convoy. What should we say if a French Ambassador, charged with a D 34 THE SIXTEENTH WAR : THE THIRD CHINA WAR. similar duty, declined to land at Dover and come to London by rail, but insisted upon being conveyed up the Thames by a Squadron of French ironclads and gunboats, and anchoring them at the Port of London ? That does not signify. The Chinese must be chastised, the prestige of the British Arms restored at any cost ; the Nations of the East must be taught the absolute invincibility of England. Accordingly, diplomacy once more is drowned in the boom of the Cannon. Rear Admiral Hope is ordered up the Peiho to force his way by violence to Pekin ; but the attempt failed, several of the gunboats were disabled or sunk, 434 officers and men killed or wounded, and the Squadron was obliged to return to Shanghai, and await orders and reinforcements. France and England lost no time in avenging the insult offered, and the defeat sustained by the Allied forces; and Lord Elgin being appointed British Plenipotentiary in China, a powerful Expedition was fitted out under the Chief Command of Sir Hope Grant. Tangchow was attacked and captured, and the whole of the Taku forts were bombarded and occupied. The Chinese Government then proposed to negotiate for Peace, and Admiral Hope proceeded to Tien-sin and occupied it, and Messrs. Parkes and Wade proceeded with the draft of the Convention, but, owing to treachery the negotiations were suspended, and the army advanced to the assault of Pekin and captured it and the Summer Palace of the Emperor, where they obtained an abundant harvest of spoil; and the terms of Peace were accepted and signed at Pekin on the 24th October, i860. Amongst its chief Provisions the Emperor of China made an abject apology ; the British Ambassador was authorised to reside permanently at Pekin ; an indemnity of;^2,7So,ooo was agreed to be paid; the port of Tien-sin opened to trade; and the province of Kwang- tang (Canton) was ceded to England as a dependency of the British Colony of Hong-Kong. THE SEVENTEENTH WAR : IN JAPAN. ^^ THE SEVENTEENTH WAR: IN JAPAN. 1863. It is not possible, said Mr. Richard, for Englishmen to go anywhere without marking their steps with fire and blood; and this remark, if true, has a certain application in the causes of the War with Japan in 1863 British intercourse with Japan shows that, first of all. Englishmen thrust themselves upon them in the teeth of all their strong prejudices, and then compelled them, at the mouth of the Cannon, to enter into a Treaty of Commerce with us ; but, further, they affront their feelings and violate their customs ; and having by these means provoked them, exact from them demands, and in default scatters havoc and ruin amongst them. The War against Japan in 1863 may be traced to these causes, and the incident which provoked this War was as contemptible as it was disgraceful. It appears three English gentlemen and a lady, whose names deserve notoriety — Mr. Richardson, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Marshall, and Mrs. Borrodaile, were riding on the high road leading from Yokohama to Yeddo. At a distance of several miles from Yokohama they met a Pro- cession of Princes, and, as it is customary for all people who meet such Processions to retire at their approach, or to kneel while it passes (neither of which they would do), though they had been warned repeatedly of it, they were attacked, and one of the party killed. The representative of England made a demand for reparation : — ■ 1. An ample apology. 2. The payment of _;^ioo,ooo. 3. The trial and execution of the guilty parties ; and, in the event of refusal, the Admiral of the Fleet on the Eastern Station to take what measures he thought necessary. The Government of Japan conceded two of the demands — the apology and the payment of ;^ioo,ooo; but this not being sufficient, and without attempting any further negotiations, Vice-Admiral Kuper was ordered to enforce the demand. The British Squadron bombarded Kagiosima, with its population of 180,000 souls, and soon the whole Town was in flames, and laid in ruins. The bombardment continued two days. At the end of the first day's operations the ships in the harbour and one half of the Town were in flames, and the following day the bombardment was continued. 36 THE EIGHTEENTH WAR : IN NEW ZEALAND. and the palace of the Prince shelled, and, says the Admiral, " The entire town of Kagiosima is now a mass of ruins." Well might Mr. Cobden, in writing on this barbaric act of the British Admiral, denounce this cruel proceeding : — "Picture," said Mr. Cobden, "this great Commercial Centre reduced in forty-eight hours to a heap of ashes ; try to reaUse the fate of its population, and then ask what great crime they had committed to bring on themselves this havoc and destruction ? " To the shame and confusion of England the answer must be, that this was the way in which English men, under the command of Admirals Kuper and Neale, administer justice for the murder of an individual 10,000 miles away, of which crime the inhabitants of Kagiosima were guiltless of all knowledge and complicity, and after wards the Chief Actors in this outrage on humanity, cooly laid claim to the approbation of the British Nation. THE EIGHTEENTH WAR: IN NEW ZEALAND. 1860-64. A writer in 1864 well observed: "It would be difficult to put one's finger upon a single year within the century when Englishmen were not engaged in shedding human blood." From the day of British Colonization in New Zealand this terrible charge, alas ! is too true. British policy in New Zealand has been to exterminate the noblest aboriginal race which British adventure and British prowess has subjugated; and this fate of the Maories is all the more shocking, when we remember how much Missionaries have done to effect their civilization. What was the cause of the New Zealand War ? It arose out of a purchase of land of 600 acres from one chief, called Teira, which was claimed by another chief, called Kingi ; a tract of land purchased by the Governor of New Zealand. The invalidity of the purchase was generally recognised, and therefore the injustice of the War. A sanguinary struggle in the Province of Taranaki was the result ; and, at its close. Governor Sir George Grey, who had succeeded Governor Brown, ordered that the land should be restored to its lawful THE NINETEENTH WAR : IN ABYSSINIA. 37 owner; but before this act of restitution was done, irreparable mischief had been effected. The New Zealanders had made up their minds that, whatever might be our professions, our intention was slowly but surely to de- spoil them of their right to the soil. The war in 1864 was therefore the sequence of the war in i860, as the Maories considered they were not really defeated ; that they were in possession of Taranaki, which they regarded as a conquest. The result was that, when a military force was sent to resume possession of Taranaki, the military escort were attacked and killed The first shot having been fired. War became inevitable. The War-cry raised in Taranaki was the signal for the tribe of Warikatos, who sympathised with their fellow-countrymen, to rise in rebellion. For a time Auckland was in danger ; but the energy of General Cameron saved it, and confined the War to a narrow limit. The New Zealanders were treated as " rebels,'' taunted as " niggers," and branded as " traitors,'' and threatened with spoliation, and they naturally rose in Arms : and who will blame them, for Eng- land might have ensured their loyalty by a policy of justice and con- ciliation ? The policy of England, under the influence of a Military faction, was to exterminate the Maories, and thus secure Peace ; but it was the Peace of the Tomb, a Peace that could only cover England with dishonour. THE NINETEENTH WAR: IN ABYSSINIA. 1867. The unhappy complication and War in Abyssinia is a striking instance of the tendency of Englishmen to meddle with what does not concern them. It appears that in 1840, Mr. Walter Plowden persuaded Lord Palmerston to appoint him Consul for Abyssinia, and the year following, acting in the name of England, he negotiated a Treaty with Ras-Ali, the Ruler of Gondar, for at that time he was wagin? a War with his rebellious subjects. j& THE NINETEENTH WAR : IN ABYSSINIA. In 1854, Jias-Ak' -WHS overthrown by his son-in-law Theodore, who, of course, repudiated the Treaty the former had made with England, and soon afterwards poor Mr Plowden fell into the hands of the rebels of King Theodore, and was killed. It would have been well at this juncture if the English Government had not appointed a successor, for the uselessness of having Consular relations with this barbaric Monarch had been amply proved ; but notwithstanding the protest of the Ruler of Abyssinia, Capt. Cameron was appointed, who, as it afterwards turned out, was most unfit for the position ; and as proof of it, when King Theodore refused to receive him as Consul, and desired him to leave the Capital, and when Lord Russell, in April, 1863, instructed him to carry out the King's wishes, to return to Massowah and there remain until further orders, Cameron refused to do so, but actually interfered in the public affairs of Abyssinia ; for he sided with the enemies of the King, denounced him as a murderer — which invoked the hostility of the King, and the inevitable result was that he was imprisoned. To secure his release M. Rassam was sent as intercessor, but the King detained everyone who went to him ; and the reason assigned was, that the Abyssinian Monarch having written a courteous letter to the English Government, no notice was taken of it, and in fact it was never answered, for it was subsequently found in the pigeon holes of the Foreign Office, unattended to, and unopened. No doubt the Expedition was conducted with great energy and skill, and it is only just to Lord Napier to admit it was conduc- ted in as humane a spirit as the arbiter of War can secure, no cruelty or plunder having been practised upon the people, and we must all rejoice that the British Consul and the Missionaries were released from their captivity ; but, it must be admitted that they had no business in that barbarous land at all, and but for their folly in going — or the folly of those who sent them — the ;^8,ooo,ooo sterling which that War cost, and the valuable lives lost, now buried in the mountains of Abyssinia, would have been saved. THE TWENTIETH WAR : IN ASHANTEE. 39 THE TWENTIETH WAR: IN ASHANTEE. 1873- The Ashantee War originated, strange as it may sound, in the Straits of Malacca, which is known as the Gate of Commerce between Europe and the China Seas; and which, in 1809, England was asked to surrender to Holland, in order to secure a cession of the Putch territories on the Gold Coast In this cession one would naturally suppose the two parties should have been consulted. First, the natives on the Gold Coast it was proposed to transfer ; and, secondly, the King of Ashantee, whose rights and position at Elmina, and access to the sea, were largely affected. But, though the interests of the Coast Tribes, and of the King of Ashantee, were largely involved, their consent were not obtained. On the contrary, every kind of pretext was made against the transfer by King Koffee Kallali, for, in his letter to the English Government, he used these words : — " I hope your Excellency will not include Elmina in the change, for it is mine by Right." And the Chief of Elmina declared — " On no account will we become English. Elmina is willing to serve under the Dutch flag, and no other." The Convention was signed in 187 1, and the transfer of the Territory was effected in 1872, without either the King of Ashantee having renounced his claim, or the Chiefs of Elmina approved of the cession to English Rule ; and, as a last protest, they sent an Address to the States-General of the Netherlands against the sale of their Territory, and refused to hoist the English flag. The central difficulties were — the Elmina tribute to the King of the Ashantees, the free access to the Coast, and the presence of the Chief of the Elminas in the Territory ; and yet the English Govern- ment, aware of these facts, signed and ratified the Convention without procuring the settlement of either. In January, 1873, news arrived at Cape Coast Castle of the invasion by the Ashantees of the disputed territory, and the War having broken out, it was necessary to alienate the Elminas ; but when the oath of allegiance was tendered them and refused, they were made prisoners and sent to Cape Coast Castle, and the War now became general. Elmina, a town of 10,000 inhabitants, was bombarded and desitroyed. 40 THE ■ TWENTY-FIRST WAR : IN THE TRANSVAAL. and Sir Garnet Wolseley, having taken the chief command, advanced into the Ashantee country. There was the usual slaughter by the Catling gun when oppor- tunity afforded, especially at the Battle oi Amoaful; and eventually Coomassie was reached, bombarded, and destroyed; and General Wolseley, havingwon his "famous Victory," marched back again, bring- ing with him spoils which realised ;^9,ooo, and King Koifee's Umbrella as the principal trophy to lay at the feet of Her Majesty the Queen : a Victory, which cost England the lives of many brave men, and ;^i, 000,000 sterling to achieve ! THE TWENTY-FIRST WAR: IN THE TRANSVAAL. 1877. The Transvaal has passed through many and great difficulties, and the South African Republic has had a rough struggle for existence. There have been fierce and bloody wars between the Dutch of the Transvaal and the Kaffirs for existence, in which acts of savage cruelty were followed by bitter retaliation. There was an attempt to unite the two Republics under one Government, but England interfered, and declared that such pro- ceedings would annul the Conventions of 1852 and 1854. There was a dispute with the Criquas, and England broke the Sand River Treaty. There had been internal dissensions, for the land was rich, and of great extent, and the people few, and there was not that patriotism which induces men to make great sacrifices for their common country. Then, there were internal wars with Secoceni, and frontier wars with Cetywayo, and the English Government interfering; so that there is no doubt the Transvaal has passed through great difficulties, and, to make matters worse, the English Government, professing that it feared something might happen which would endanger the English possessions at the Cape, sent, in 1877, Sir Theophilus Shepstone to investigate the state of affairs, and to advise the Boers. There had been a clamour for annexation from the English THE TWENTY-FIRST WAR : IN THE TRANSVAAL. 4I colonists, but the Boers believed that the Mission of Sir Theophilus Shepstone was a friendly one, and received it in a friendly manner ; and this friendliness was taken as a proof that the Boers desired annexation. Sir Theophilus Shepstone took with him a small escort of mounted police ; but the Boers knew that the entire armed Power of England was at his back, but they did not know that he held a Commission in his pocket which was to be the deathblow to their Independence. Sir Theophilus Shepstone arrived in Praetoria in January, 1877, and in April, in direct defiance of the wishes of the people, he issued a proclamation, arbitrarily annexing a territory as large as France, con- taining a population of 40,000 whites, and 250,000 blacks. When the news reached England, people did not understand it, and very few stood up manfully for the Rights of the Boers ; but, on the contrary, Tories and Liberals, with few noble exceptions, joined hands in the annexation, and sang a chorus of joy over this wanton viola- tion of popular rights. At this time Lord Carnarvon was busy over his scheme for a South African Confederation, and he did not stop to enquire whether the Transvaal Volksvraad sanctioned it. All he wished to know was, that a large proportion of the Boers desired the establishment of Her Majesty's Authority and English Rule. The President of the Boer Republic and the Volksvraad protested against the deed, and a deputation, consisting of Messrs. Kruger, De Toit and Smit, was sent to England to plead for justice for their coun- try, and when I>ord Carnarvon told them that their people desired annexation they were astounded and denied it. The deputation returned, and organised an agitation against. Eng- land, and to counteract it. Sir Theoplilus Shepstone issued a procla- mation to imprison, fine, and punish all opponents ; and when the Deputies held a meeting at Pretoria, to plead for the restoration of their independence, the representative of England directed Cannon upon the Assembly and he called up troops to overawe them. In spite of this, however, the Memorials poured in, signed by d^gi enfranchised men against, and only 2^7 enfranchised men for the annexation. The charge against the Boers was that they had established slavery on their territory ; and that they had practised cruelty towards the natives ; but it was not true. From the date of the Annexation in April, 1877 till 1880, the Boers contented themselves with peaceable protests and petitions, to 42 THE TWENTY-FIRST WAR : IN THE TRANSVAAL. induce the English Government to restore them their Independence. Whilst the Conservatives were in power the injustice was not acknowledged, and as the authors of the Policy of Annexation, retro- cession was impossible ; but in 1880 they read the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, where he said : — " That the annexation of the Transvaal was dishonourable, and should be repudiated," and throughout the Transvaal it was felt that if Mr. Gladstone came into power, the hour of their deliverance was at hand, and they calmly awaited the result. Unfortunately, high as the hopes of the Boers had been raised, the more bitter was their disappointment when they found that the advent of Mr. Gladstone to power in 1880 did not bring them nearer the goal of Independence, for which they were prepared to sacrifice their lives. In 1 88 1, stung by these falsified promises, they flew to arms, and the ill-fated 94th Regiment was attacked and annihilated on its march to Pretoria. Then followed Langs Nek and the disaster at Majuba Hill; the sub- sequent" Conference at O'Neill's Farm, and the negotiations for peace, by which the Transvaal regained their Independence ; a British Resident at Pretoria was accepted, and the payment by the South African Republic of a Debt of ;^ 100,000; which, far from being a humiliation to England, reflect upon her the highest honour, and especially on the righteous statesmanship of the Prime Minister of England, who, in noble language, declared in effect — " That the honour of England does not require the putting down of the rebellion first, in order afterwards to negotiate with the Boers. " The honour of the English nation demands that, without further bloodshed, to expiate the wrong committed in 1877, she should recognize the Independence of the Transvaal, and proclaim her wish to live in friendship with a brave people, that has proved itself worthy to be the pioneers of civilization against the despotisms of Africa." THE TWENTY-SECOND WAR : THE ZULU WAR. 43 THE TWENTY-SECOND WAR: THE ZULU WAR. 1878. In 1878 England was engaged in a strange enterprise in South Africa, for she deliberately, and of malice aforethought, compassed the sub- jugation of the brave Zulu people. England embarked in an aggressive War, in which failure was not to be thought of, but in which the greater the success, the greater the disgrace. Surely every true-born Englishman must feel that this Zulu War was a stain on the honor of England. The War was the direct result of the " spirited foreign policy " of Lord Beaconsfield's Government, and, as a few facts will be necessary, I will endeavour to be just to both sides. The founder of the Zulu dynasty was a sanguinary despot named Chaka, and his successor to the Throne was Dingaan, the terror of the Boers, and he was succeeded by his son Cetywayo, whose military system was undoubtedly a cruel one, based on the exercise of arbitrary military power. When the Transvaal was annexed to England (referred to in the last War), Cetywayo expected that England would have arranged the frontier disputes, which had been for many years a bitter source of contention with the Boers. Unfortunately, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, after his appointment as Administrator of the Transvaal, supported the Boer claim, and to this circumstance and subsequent complications the Zulu War must be attributed. The disputed territory referred to, lay to the eastward of Zululand, and early in 1878 Sir Henry Bulwer, the Lieutenant-Governor of Natal, appointed Mr. Shepstone and the late Colonel Durnford to enquire into the respective claims of the two States, and this Commission met at Rorke's Drift the Delegates from the Transvaal and of the Zulu King. The report of the Commission was submitted to Sir Bartle Frere, who had been sent out to the Cape as High Commissioner, with full powers, but Sir Bartle Frere did not give his award till December, 1878, exactly six months after the decision of the Joint Commission was known ; and when Sir Bartle Frere gave his award, instead of it being a Message of Peace, it was a Declaration of War — for it was accompanied by an ultimatum. The ultimatum contained several demands, (r) That Cetywayo should surrender Sirayo, a powerful Chief, and his two sons, who 44 TUE TWENTY-SECOND WAR : THE ZULU WAR. had committed some petty larceny in Natal. (2) Pay a fine of 500 head of cattle. (3) To disband his army. (4) To agree never to call out his troops for War, except with the permission of the British Government. (5) To permit every man on coming of age to marry. (6) To secure a fair trial to all oifenders. (7) To allow the Missionaries to return. (8) To receive a British Resident at his Capital. Compliance with these eight demands was to be made within thirty days. Had the Zulus seen their way to accede to some of these- demands, no doubt it would have been a gain to civihsation, but surely it was unreasonable to expect them to do so in thirty days ! No nation or people, civilised or uncivilised, could be expected to surrender their Independence, or change their form of Government in Thirty Days ! The King of the Zulus, at the expiration of twenty days, asked for further time to meet these eight demands, but the request was refused, and this refusal was the accelerating cause of the War, for it became inevitable, and accordingly on the 12th January, 1879, 'he British forces crossed the Tugela, and the cruel invasion of Zululand, and an exterminating War against the Zulus commenced. A more deplorable War, a War more discreditable to England, a professedly civilised and Christian nation, can scarcely be imagined; and for this War, and the policy which led up to it, the Government of Lord Beaconsfield paid the penalty, by their well-merited over- throw and expulsion from Power in 1880. It bore its own bitter fruits, the bloody disaster at Isandula ; the terrible sacrifice of human life on both sides, the Zulus alone, estimated at upwards of 20,000, and its consequent results, the reign of terror and of blood in Zululand ; and last but not least the military escapade and sad death of the youthful Napoleon, pierced by the assegais of a people who had never done him, or threatened to do him any harm ; these and many other sickening details brand that War as the most unrighteous, the most inglorious War that defames the honor, and disgraces the Arms of England. THE TWENTY-THIRD WAR : THE AFGHAN WAR. 45 THE TWENTY-THIRD WAR: THE AFGHAN WAR. 1878. The Afghan War, of 1878, arose from the same miserable causes which led to the disastrous Afghan War in 1842, referred to previously, namely, from a frantic fear and hatred of Russia, which afterwards proved to have been a mere phantom. The causes which led to the War of 1842, and the War of 1878, bears a striking resemblance. In 1842, it was urged on by the will of two men. Lord Palmerston in England, and Lord Auckland in India, against the judgment of most experienced Indian Statesmen at home and abroad. In 1878, there can be little doubt that its real promoters were Lord Beaconsfield in England, and Lord Lytton in India, the latter inspired by the former ; and it is no secret that it was utterly opposed by Lord Lawrence, Lord Northbrook, Sir Charles Trevelyan, and many other eminent men of great weight and experience in Indian affairs. Public opinion, unhappily, at home was misled, and public passion inilamed by a reckless distortion of facts — on the one hand, that Russia was prompted by a fixed hostility to England, and of a deliberate design to undermine the foundations of our Indian Empire ; and, on the other hand, by a furious abuse of the Ruler of Afghanistan as a fierce and faithless barbarian, hostile to England, and conspiring with Russia, which, I have no hesitation in saying, was grossly exaggerated. Now, what are the facts ? A great War, and a most deplorable War (which it was in the power of England to have averted had she compelled Turkey to have accepted the decisions of the Conference at Constantinople), had raged from July, 1877, to March, 1878, between Russia and Turkey, and which had resulted, as everybody knew it would result, in the complete over- throw of the Turkish Power, and the march of the armies of Russia up to the gates of Constantinople. At that supreme moment, Lord Beaconsfield, as the Prime Minister of England, bid Russia to stay her march, and in effect said to her : — "Thus far, thou proud wave Romanoff, shalt thou go, and no further," and he followed up his command by (i) ordering the British Fleet to move up to the Dardanelles ; (2) by summoning the military forces of the Crown from India to Malta ; (3) by calling out the Reserves ; (4) and by a vote of ;^6,ooo,ooo sterling, in order to hasten forward the preparations for War. 46 THE TWENTY-THIRD WAR: THE AFGHAN WAR. Everybody believed War was inevitable, and Russia, especially, believed it was inevitable between her and England ; and at this juncture, when our Government and the Press were uttering the loudest blusters against Russia, a Russian Mission was sent to Cabul. Here was the real cause of the Afghan War of 1878, a War as cowardly as it was unjust, and for this simple reason, that England attacked the victim instead of the criminal ; England attacked the helpless and defenceless Afghanistan, rather than the Might and Power of Russia, who was, alike with England, responsible. At this period, 1878, Shere Ali was Ameer of Afghanistan, and Lord Lytton was Governor-General of India. During the period of the twenty years Governor-Generalships of India by Lord Lawrence, Lord Mayo, and Lord Northbrook, England had no serious trouble in Afghanistan, but from the day when Lord Lytton took the reins of Government, these miserable complications began. Lord I>ytton reversed the policy of his predecessor, Lord Northbrook, and moved an armed force into Beloochistan, occupied Quetta, which commands the Bolan Pass, and is on the high road to Candahar, a pohcy which alarmed the Ameer, for it was a direct challenge to the freedom and independence of Afghanistan. This policy was evidently, in the iirst place, intended to pick a quarrel with the Ameer, and in the second place, to enable the English Government, under pretext ol a Russian Embassy to Afghanistan, to seize upon a pretext for War. On the 13th August, 1878, intelligence reached the Indian Government of the arrival of the Russian Embassy at Cabul, and immediately a British Messenger left Peshawer for Cabul, bearing two letters from the Viceroy, one letter asking for permission for a British Mission under Sir Neville Chamberlain to come to Cabul, to discuss with the Ameer important matters, and the other a letter of condolence on the death of the Ameer's son. On the 1 2th September Sir Neville Chamberlain, who was at Peshawer with an escort of 100 sabres and 50 bayonets, ordered Major Cavagnari to move forward, without waiting for the answer and approvalof the Ameer; and on reaching Ali Musjid, the Afghan officer in command, Mahommed Khan, went out to meet him, shook hands with the Major, and in a friendly way informed him, as he had no orders, he could not let him pass, and so, after many expression^ of friendship, the interview terminated. This was considered a serious rebuff to the Government of India, THE TWENTY-THIRD WAR: THE AFGHAN WAR. 47 and it accordingly massed a British force on the frontiers, and on the 2nd November an ultimatum was sent to Cabul which involved the issues of Peace or War. In the meantime a Conference was agreed upon to meet at Peshawer, the Ameer's Minister, Moor Mahommed, and Sir Lewis Pelly, to discuss the question of the admission of British agents to Afghanistan; but, on the 26th of March, the Conference was deferred in consequence of the death of the Afghan Envoy, and, subsequently, on the ground that there was no longer a basis for negotiations, this Conference was finally abandoned at the very time that a fresh Afghan Envoy was on his way to Peshawer, with authority to accept the con- ditions of the British Government, and the Governor-General of India was aware of this. The fact was, the door of conciliation was violently slammed in the face of the Ameer, for it was the foregone conclusion of Lord Lytton, the Governor-General of India, to force on a War in Afghanistan, for the overthrow of the Ameer, and of Russian influence at Cabul, and thereby to secure the ascendancy of English control and power under what Lord Beaconsiield described as the shadow of a '■'■scientific frontier'' A declaration of War being proclaimed by the Viceroy of India, the British troops advanced, captured Ali Musjid, after a feeble resistance, which was followed by successes at Peiwar-Kotal ; and, on the 20th December, Jellabad was entered. The Ameer, Shere Ah, frightened by these victories, fled from Cabul, and sought protection on Russian soil, for he considered resistance hopeless, and before abandoning the country, released from captivity his son Yakoob Khan, and entrusted to him full powers as Regent. Yakoob lost no time in proceeding to the British head- quarters at Gandamuk to make overtures for peace, and on his arrival there, he was received with distinction by the British General, for his succession to the Throne was not disputed, Shere Ali having died of a broken heart at Taskend. On May 26, 1879, a definite Treaty of Peace was signed, which contained conditions for the exclusion of foreign — i.e., Russian — influence from Afghanistan, and a rectification of the frontiers — i.e., the creation of "a scientific frontier " in favour of India. In accordance with the Treaty, a British Resident was appointed, and on the 24th July Sir P. Cavagnari was cordially received at Cabul, accompanied by a squadron of cavalry and a battalion of infantry, under the command of Lieutenant Hamilton, but their 48 THE TWENTY-THIRD WAR : THE AFGHAN WAR. presence in the capital roused the fanatical hostility of the Afghans and on Sept. 3 they were basely betrayed, and cruelly slain after severe fighting. Immediately on the sad news becoming known the British forces were hurried forward to Cabul from the captured fortresses ; and on the 15th October Generals Roberts, Massey, and Baker having fought several stubbornly-contested battles, made a triumphal entry into the capital, taking Yakoob Khan prisoner. For some months after these deplorable events, general anarchy and disorder prevailed throughout Afghanistan, for several aspirants for the vacant Throne appeared in the field, the most powerful of whom was Abdurrahman Khan. At this juncture the General Election in 1880 sealed the fate of the Government of Lord Beaconsiield, and it fell, and this change of administration at home, by the accession of Mr. Gladstone to power, soon caused a change of policy abroad, and as a natural sequence, negotiations for peace and tranquility in Afghanistan were set on foot with Abdurrahman by the new Governor-General of India Marquis of Ripon, but whilst these negotiations were proceeding, the British forces under General Burrows, that were advancing to the relief of Herat, threatened by Yakoob Khan, suffered a crushing defeat by overwhelming forces at Maiwand, his army being practically annhi- lated after a heroic defence, few only escaping the general massacre which followed. General Roberts advanced to the rescue a second time, for the victorious Afghan troops pushed rapidly on to Candahar,and oncoming up with them, attacked and routed them, and these bloody conflicts closed this inglorious War, and opened the way for the pacification of this unhappy country, torn by factions and feuds, the result of British intervention. TWENTY-FOURTH WAR : WAR IN EGYPT. 49 TWENTY-FOURTH WAR: WAR IN EGYPT. A separate article on this War, and of the history of England's intervention in Egypt, appears subsequently in this volume. CONCLUSION. Twenty-four Wars waged by Great Britain during fifty years of Queen Victoria's Reign ! Wars declared and waged by the Royal sanction and authority of Her Majesty the Queen, who solemnly declared on her accession to the Throne in 1837 : — " I rejoice that in ascendmg the Throne I find the country in amity with all Foreign Powers ; and while I faithfully perform the engagements of my Crown, and carefully watch over the in- terests of my subjects, it shall be the constant object of my solicitude to preserve the blessings of peace." During the fifty years Reign of our beloved Queen Victoria we may rejoice that many great and beneficent measures have been placed on the Statute Book of the Realm, legislation that has conferred lustre on the Crown, honour to Parliament, and that has largely tended to the furtherance of the welfare and prosperity of the people. Such was the great act of justice and humanity of Negro Emanci- pation in the Colonies of the Crown, by which, on August ist, 1838, 800,000 of the coloured race passed from a state of human serfdom into the brighter and better land of human freedom. Such was the legislative measure devised and promoted by Rowland Hill for the adoption of a uniform rate of Postage, which in spite of opposition, passed into law January loth, 1846, and that has become, by the enormous impetus to correspondence, a valuable source of revenue to the State, but has also largely extended the fraternal relations of Nations, and thus silently but effectually increased the happiness of millions of the human race. Such was the legislative measure for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, the abolition of that colossal injustice, the Taxes on Food, won after a great free trade struggle, seven years of untiring efforts by 50 CONCLUSION. Cobden, Bright, and Villiers, when one of the greatest Ministers ol England, Sir Robert Peel became a convert, a minority became a majority, and was finally passed into law May 26th, 1846, a great achievement, for it conferred on the toiling millions the boon of un- taxed bread. Such was the important measure for the Repeal of the Excise Duty on Paper, the abolition of the Taxes on Knowledge, one of those great financial measures of reform won by the matchless eloquence of Mr. Gladstone, which became law 15th April, 1861, and thereby opened the avenues of knowledge, of political information and instruction to the great mass of the people, and conferred on the nation the in- estimable blessings of a free and a cheap press. Such was the popular Act for Parliamentary Reform, the enfran- chisement of the people, for securing to them the full possession and the free exercise of their political rights ; a great measure of Con- stitutional Reform, which passed into law August ist, 1867, that has not only conferred the right of admission into the most ancient legislative Assembly in the world, given permanency and security to the Constitution, but has added lustre and dignity to the Crown of England. Such was the legislative measure for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Irish Church, which had long been a discredit and a scandal to England, and that by the wonderful statesmanship and genius of Mr. Gladstone on the 26th July, 187 1, ceased to exist as the established Church of Ireland ; a great work of peace and justice, enabling the Church of Ireland to enter on a new era, an era bright with hope and potent for good, justifying the impressive words of Mr. Bright when he claimed for the measure : "The support of all good and thoughtful people within the bounds of the British Empire, and, above all, the blessing of the Supreme ; for I believe it to be founded on those principles of justice and mercy which are the glorious attributes of His Eternal Reign." Such, too, were the equally great and beneficent Measures, the Repeal of the Navigation Laws, which has thrown open the whole of the navigation of England and her colonies, and thus secured unrestrained commercial intercourse throughout the world ; the Irish Land Bill, which conferred on the tenants of Ireland security of tenure, facility of transfer, and the acquisition and cultivation of land by statute; Elementary Education for England and Wales, which brought education, undivorced from religion, within reach of the CONCLUSION. 51 poor ; the Ballot, which secured protection to the elector in the free exercise of the political franchise ; the University Test Acts, by which all persons, of whatever religious or political creed, were admitted to the Universities on equal terms ; Church Rates Abolition Bill, which substituted the compulsory payment of Church rates for voluntary exercise. These and many other peaceful triumphs, won in the Parliament of England, — that august assembly that has inherited through many generations the character for brilliant and courageous legisla- tion, — have been full of blessing to Great Britain, and to that greater Britain beyond the seas; and combine to mark the Reign of Victoria unequalled for beneficent legislation amongst all the Sovereigns of the House of Brunswick, royal laurels gathered from the field of Peace and not of War, for hath not " Peace her triumphs Thrice more renowned than War?" Whilst however the reign of Queen Victoria will bear favourable comparison with the most illustrious reigns of English sovereigns, and of the most memorable periods of English history, yet it has its dark and gloomy records, for no period has been more remarkable for its sad catalogue of Wars of aggression, annexation of territories, and conquests of people into subjection under British Dominion, not only without their approval but in spite of their most earnest protesta- tions. No other nation except Russia has shewn such a lust for dominion, and this pride of conquest has resulted in great bloodshed, with all the horrors of war in every quarter of the globe, for the path of British conquest, over the four continents of Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, have been stained by blood, for may we not say of the British Ensign : — ' ' It has swept o'er cities of song renowned, Silent they lay in the desert around, It has crossed proud rivers whose tide hath rolled, All dark with the warriors' blood of old." Now what are the lessons which these desolating wars, waged by England, should teach the Statesmen, Parliament, and Government ot England ? Firstly : Non-intervention in the internal affairs of Foreign States, that her ■ policy should, be, as Lord Derby declafed, "entapgling alliances with no nation but friendly relations with all," and which Mr. Cobden well expressed, " as little intercourse betwixt the Govern- ments and as much connection as possible between the people ; " for 5? CONCLUSION. it rests on the unalterable principle, that no nation has any right to interfere by force of arms in the internal affairs of a Sovereign State, and that any Nation that does so interfere, commits an offence against the great principle of National Right and National Existence. * Wheaton and Vattel both concur, that foreign interference in the internal affairs of a Sovereign State is contrary to Natural Law and the fundamental principle of international jurisprudence; and ■f Ferguson asserts "that this is confirmed by the concurring opinions of the most eminent publicists of all ages and all nations." " I maintain," says Ferguson, " that no Government has a right to interfere in the affairs of another Government, and if this principle is not admitted, and above all by all people who enjoy a free constitution, no nation could be in security." Secondly : The abandonment of the " Balance of Power," which has been the most prolific cause of the wars waged by England than any other ; and it may be useful to record them in their order of ■ date. The wars of the Revolution of 1688, which lasted nine years and which terminated in 1697 by the Treaty of Peace of Ryswick, and which cost England ;£36,ooo,ooo. The War of the Spanish Succession, which commenced in 1702, and lasted eleven years, and which terminated in 17 13 by the Treaty of Peace of Utrecht, and cost England _;£'62, 500,000. The War of the Austrian Succession, which commenced in 1739 and lasted nine years, and terminated in 1748 by the Treaty of Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and cost England ^54,000,000. The Seven Years' War, from 1756 to 1763, terminated by the Treaty of Peace at Paris, and cost England _;^i 12,000,000. The American War, which began in 1775, and terminated by the Treaty of Versailles in 1783, and cost England ;^i36,ooo,ooo. The War of the French Revolution, which began in 1783 and lasted nine years, was terminated in 1793 by the Treaty of Paris, and cost England ^^404,000,000. The War against Napoleon Bonaparte, which began in 1803 and lasted twelve years, was terminated in 18 15 by the Treaty of Peace at Paris, and cost England ^1,159,000,000. Lastly: The Crimean War, which began in 1853 and lasted three years, and was terminated in 1856 by the Treaty of Peace at Paris, and cost England ^^69,277^000. * History of the Law of Nations, pp. 80, 88. t Manual of International Law, Vol. i pp. 190, 191. CONCLUSION. 53 These Wars for the Balance of Power in Europe from 1688 to 1854 cost England ^2,093,000,000, which was divided as follows : ;i^i, 222, 000,000 being the amount raised by taxes and paid for in the current financial years by the willing-hearted taxpayer, and ;^88o,ooo,ooo being raised by loans and consolidated into the National Debt— A Terrible Bill of Blood ! These desolating and costly wars, waged by England for the Balance of Power, were organised under the miserable plea of preserving the equilibrium of power, the safety of Dynasties and the Liberties of Europe; and this hobgoblin was the constant burden of Royal speeches, the policy of Statesmen, and the theme of orators for the extension of British dominion, and the defence of Treaties, and has been the flimsy pretext for the organising of colossal Armies and Navies by England and the Continental Powers. ■ Neither justice nor expediency, nor the principles of international law justify the adoption of this policy for maintaining the equilibrium of Europe. All the recognized authorities of the Law of Nations condemn it : — Kluber, Heeren, Wheaton, and Ferguson in his valuable Manual of International Law, volume i, page 180, expressly declares : — " That there is neither for this system of balance of power, nor for the right of intervention which it implies, any foundation in the law of nations ; " and in general terms he declares " It is prompted by selfish considerations and rapacity, from political interests sometimes called Reasons of State, put forth in support of political claims which have nothing to do with Law, and only appeal to the ^ droit de convenance.^ " . In conclusion I cannot do better than quote the opinions of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright, two of the greatest Statesmen, who have adorned by their matchless eloquence the British Parliament, and who have powerfully swayed by their teachings the Councils of the Ministers of the Crown. Mr. Cobden, in one of his masterly articles written at the time of the Crimean War says : — " To secure a diminution of our Government expenditure, England must adopt a foreign policy of peaceful non-interference, instead of sallying forth in search of conquest and rapine to carry bloodshed into every quarter of the earth's surface. " Had England not violated the great moral law, she would not be suffering the penalty inflicted by her own hands, crushed 54 CONCLUSION. beneath a debt so enormous that nothing but her own recuper- ative power could have borne. " Only by renouncing that policy of intervention in the affairs of other States which has been the cause of all her wars, will England be able to avoid financial embarrassment. " The Diplomatists and Ministers of England must be restrained from taking part either by Treaties or protocols in the ever- varying quarrels of Continental Powers." Mr. Bright, in closing one of his powerful speeches delivered in Parliament in opposition to the Crimean War, used these memorable words : — " The past events of our history have taught me that the inter- vention of this country in European Wars is not only un- necessary, but calamitous ; that we have rarely come out of such intervention having succeeded in the objects we fought for ; that a debt of ;^8oo,ooo,ooo sterling has been incurred by the policy which the noble Lord approves,* apparently for no other reason than that it dates from the time of William III. ; and that, not debt alone has been incurred, but that we left Europe at least as much in chains as before a single effort was made by us to rescue her from tyranny. I believe if this country, seventy years ago, had adopted the principle of non-intervention in every case where her interests were not directly and obviously assailed, that she would have been saved from much of the pauperism and brutal crimes by which our Government and people have alike been disgraced. This country might have been a garden, every dwelling might have been of marble, and every person who treads its soil might have been sufiSciently educated. We should indeed have had less of military glory. We might have had neither Trafalgar nor Waterloo, but we should have set the high example of a Christian nation, free in its institutions, courteous and just in its conduct towards all Foreign States, and resting its policy on the unchangeable foundation of Christian morality." * Lord Palmerston. RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. From 1768 to 1886. Before entering upon the policy of Russia in the various States included in the Empire of Turkey, it may be of interest, as well as useful, to enable the reader to form a clear judgment of the crisis, which threatened in 1876, for the fifth time in the past one hundred years, to disturb the peace of Europe, to trace, in the first instance, the history of the rise and career of the Ottoman Empire in Europe ; and secondly, to pass in review the course of events in the East, from the first intervention of Russia in Eastern Affairs in 1768, down to the outbreak of the insurrection in the provinces of Turkey in 1875, and the conclusion of the peace between Russia and Turkey, signed at Berlin July, 1878. It was towards the end of the thirteenth century that Ottoman, a Turkish Emir, laid the foundation-stone of the Turkish Empire in Asia Minor, and allied with other Emirs, invaded the possessions of the Greek Empire, under the feeble reign of Andronicus II., and the successor of Ottoman, Orchan, assuming the title of Sultan in 1358, captured Gallipoli and other fortresses, and thus forced his conquest into Eastern Europe. Amurath I. succeeded Orchan as Sultan, captured Adrianople, and in 1363 Thrace was conquered, and advancing his forces, portions of Macedonia, Servia, Bulgaria, and Roumelia fell under the power of the Ottoman rule. In 1390 he overthrew at Kossova a formidable confederacy from beyond the Danube, estimated at 500,000 warriors, and on the day of the battle he was assassinated, and was succeeded by his son, Bajazet I., who gained a complete victory at Nicopolis over Sigismund, King of Hungary, which completed the conquest of Bulgaria, but in 1400 he was assailed by Tamerlane, and defeated and taken prisoner at the 56 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. battle of Angora, which proved fatal to the further progress of the Ottoman domination for half a century. On the death of Tamerlane in 1405, his vast dominions in Asia and Europe were dismembered, and by the divisions of his Empire> Mahomet regained the Ottoman Throne. Amurath II. succeeded him and restored the Empire to its former splendour, conquered Macedonia and Thessaly, and advanced up to the isthmus of Corinth, and the centre of the Peloponnesus. It was not however until 1453, that the complete conquest of the Greek Empire was secured by the taking of Constantinople under Mahomet II., the son and successor of Amurath II., which destroyed the last relics of the Empire of the Caesars, and this conquest was quickly followed by that of Servia, Bosnia, Albania, and the whole of Greece up to the Morea, as well as the Islands of the Archipelago, and the Turkish Empire thus became firmly established in Europe. From this date the Turkish Empire rapidly acquired new possessions in Asia and Europe, first under Bajazet II., the successor of Mahomet II.,and afterwards under his successor, Selim I., who in 1517 overthrew the powerful Empire of the Mamelukes, who ruled over Egypt, Syria, Palestine, and Arabia, and made Cairo the capital of the Empire of Egypt. Solimanthe Great, who succeeded his father Selim, raised the Turkish Empire to the highest pitch of dominion and power, conquered Moldavia, and Wallachia, and the greater part of Hungary, and he increased the maritime strength of the Empire, by a powerful fleet under Barbarossa the "Grand Admiral," that swept the Mediterranean of all rivals. The decline of the Ottoman Empire, began on the^death of Soliman in 1566, as the successive Sultans surrendered themselves to luxury and effeminacy, and shut up in their Seraglios they left to their Grand Viziers the government of the Empire, so that formerly so formidable, it gradually fell from the summit of its grandeur, and its subsequent history became marked by misfortunes. The first serious interference of Russia in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire took place under the rule of the Empress Catherine II. in 1 768, and of the Sultan Mustafa III., originating in the policy of the dismemberment of Poland by Russia, which involved the two Empires in a sanguinary war on land and sea for several years, and after serious losses on both sides, it was terminated in 1774 by the Treaty of Kainardi which proved most calamitous to the Ottoman Porte, the loss of the Crimea, many important fortresses on the Dnieper, the RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 57 right of Russian navigation in the Turkish Seas, and the independence of the Tartars. For several years the humiliating conditions of this Treaty caused constant friction between these two Powers, and in 1787 under the Sultan Sehm III., this animosity broke out into open war. Austria allied herself with Russia in the struggle, and their united armies poured down with desolating fury upon Turkey, Belgrade was taken, the provinces of Moldavia and Bessarabia, were conquered; but these victories roused the jealousy of England and Prussia, and under their mediation, added to the critical aspect of affairs in Western Europe, Russia agreed to an Armistice, and on January 9th 1792 a definite Treaty of Peace was signed at Jassy in Moldavia, the provisions of the Treaty of Kainardi were confirmed, by which Russia restored to Turkey all her conquests, and the river Dniesta was declared a perpetual frontier between the two Empires. It was also agreed that the Porte should pay an indemnity for the expenses of the war to Russia, of 12,000,000 piastres, but immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty, Russia, to the admiration of the Porte, generously renounced the payment, and the relations of the two Empires were greatly improved thereby, and from this period Turkey advanced in civilisation, and reforms were secured in the administration of the Empire. I'he next serious intervention of Russia in the East, occurred in 1820, when the Greeks, no longer able to endure the brutahty and tyranny of the Ottoman rule, broke out in rebellion against Turkey, and for six years strove hard to regain their independence, during which time the Great Powers maintained an observant neutrality. Russia anxiously watched her opportunity, for she believed the dissolution of the;_©ttoman Empire was at hand, but to the surprise of the Czar Nicholas, and to the dismay of England, the patriotism of the Greeks was not powerful enough against the energy of the Turkish forces, who gradually crushed the Greek insurrection, and recovered their authority and rule. In this crisis the neutrality of Russia failed, and she determined to intervene alone in the struggle between Greek and Moslem, which forced the Government of Mr. Canning to intervene, and to offer an obstinate resistance, and to substitute the joint intervention of the Three Powers, Great Britain, France and Russia, in place of the isolated intervention of Russia, and in the name of Peace they declared war against Turkey, destroyed her armaments, and insisted upon the withdrawal of her garrisons from the Morea. This was one of the last public acts of Canning's political career 58 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. and this intervention in favour of Greece, and to the negotiations which followed, down to the memorable Treaty of the 6th July, 1827, was considered by some an imprudent policy, for it unsettled the Eastern Question, and subsequently involved England in great difficulties. The Duke of Wellington was the plenipotentiary of England to St. Petersburg to negotiate the Treaty which settled the policy of intervention of the Three Great Powers, France, Russia, and England, for the settlement of affairs between Greece and Turkey. Canning did not foresee, when he agreed to that Treaty, the trouble he was preparing for future Governments, and the serious misfortunes it would bring upon the Ottoman Empire. Instead of preventing it produced war, and afforded the pretext for other wars, which no diplomacy of successive Foreign Secretaries of England have been able to avert. Russia did not believe that peace would be the result of the inter- vention of the Three Great Powers in the struggle between Turkey and Greece, and she acceded to the Treaty of 6th July, 1827, knowing that whilst it aimed to maintain peace, it would be the cause of war. The sympathies for the struggling Greeks overpowered the foresight of the Statesman, and had Canning lived to direct the operations of the Allies, the result might 'have been different, but it produced the disaster at Navarino. When therefore the Turkish armies had become victorious over Greece, even up to the Morea, Missolonghi and Athens taken, and the Crescent everywhere triumphant, the Allied Fleets appeared on the scene, checked the operations of the Ottoman Commanders, and destroyed the navy of Turkey at Navarino, a great catastrophe for Turkey, which Lord Brougham declared was a glorious and immortal achievement, and which Lord John Russell characterised as a great victory. But whilst the Whig party rejoiced over this event, the Government of the Duke of Wellington deplored the disaster, and determined to save the Ottoman Empire from the ambitious encroach- ments of Russia. This intervention of the Great Powers, ostensibly for the object of securing peace, but in reality to prevent the isolated action of Russia, failed, as it was bound to fail, in both directions, for instead of peace being secured, the area of the war was widened, and instead of hindering Russian intervention alone, it encouraged and precipitated it, for Russia separated herself from the concert of Europe, and recognising the helplessness of Turkey, on her own responsibility declared war against her. The Ottoman Empire was on the verge of ruin, its long struggle RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 59 with Greece, the anarchy and discontent in her provinces, the destruction of her fleet at Navarino, the blockade of the Dardanelles, the fall of her chief fortresses, both in Europe and Asia, the defeat of her armies everywhere, all had produced a state of hopeless weakness and absolute prostration. The Russian armies were flushed with victory, they had command of the Black Sea, and the passes of the Balkans, Varna and Adrianople were in their hands, and Constantinople was seriously threatened by them; and her success in this campaign of 1829, the forcing of the line of the Balkan, and the capture of Adrianople, naturally excited alarm in the minds of the people of England, but it did not alarm the Opposition, nor softened their hatred of Turkey. At this crisis, 1828, on the death of Canning, the Duke of Welling- ton, whose influence on the Foreign Policy of England was very great, became First Lord of the Treasury, and the Earl of Aberdeen, for the first time, became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and on the meeting of Parliament, Lord Holland attacked the Foreign Minister, Lord Aberdeen, for endeavouring to save the Ottoman Empire, and for opposing the Czar from taking Constantinople, but the Duke of Wellington's Government, who were strongly in favour of maintaining the integrity of the Turkish Empire, seriously contem- plated hostilities against Russia in the event of the capture and occupation of Constantinople, and having secured the alliance of Austria, the British Admiral was ordered under certain eventualities, to seize the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean, and this bold atti- tude, and strong alliance to resist by force any further advance of Russia towards Constantinople, compelled her to halt, and Turkey was not slow in taking advantage of the hesitation of her relentless foe, by proposing negotiations for peace, which being accepted, a Conference of the plenipotentiaries assembled at Adrianople. This Conference led to the Treaty of Adrianople (1829) eminently favourable to Russia, for not only did she acquire considerable acquisitions of territory in Asia, as well as the Delta of the Danube, but she secured the right of interference in the affairs of Turkey, granted her by the Treaty of Kainardji, concessions that were due to the influence of France and Prussia, and which were looked upon as a serious blow to the independence of the Ottoman Empire. The third intervention of Russia in. Eastern Affairs was in 1834 and arose in this instance, it should in justice be stated, not to the initiative of the Government of St. Petersburg, but in response to an earnest appeal from the Sultan and the Porte, to safeguard the 6o RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. interests and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, seriously threatened by the aggressive policy in Syria of Mehemet Ali, the Viceroy of Egypt. This able and energetic man, in return for his military services with the British Forces against Bonaparte, became Viceroy of Egypt in 1806, and from 1811 to 1820 he waged a relentless and exterminating war against the Mamelukes, whom he followed into Nubia and utterly exterminated them, and the Porte jealous of his power, thought to check it by sending him on an expedition against the Wahabis in Arabia, and Mehemet gave the command to his son Ibrahim, who returned victorious, which added to his prestige. He next invaded the Equatorial Provinces and conquered Kordofan, adding still further to the dominions of Turkey, and opening out trade. From 1832 to 1839 Mehemet was in open rupture with his Suzerain, for his conquests and victories had fired his ambition, and by the aid of his son Ibrahim invaded Syria, defeated the Armies of the Porte, took Acre, and advanced to Damascus, became master of Syria ; he then proceeded into Karamonia, and routed the Turkish army under Redschid Pasha, and nothing remained but a movement on Con- stantinople, to dictate the terms of peace to the Sultan. Turkey in this supreme hour of peril, appealed to England, to intervene by her fleet, and this being refused, the Sultan was obliged to rely on the support of Russia, whose fleet anchored in the Bosphorus, and her army occupied Scutari, which led to the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, by which for a period of eight years Syria was surrendered to Mehemet Ali subject to his recognition of the Suzerainty of the Porte, and the Emperor of Russia extended his right of interference in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire, for he made the Sultan his vassal, and closed the Dardanelles to Europe. In 1839 difficulties arose between Turkey and Mehemet Ali, for he refused to pay the Tribute to the Porte, and his great military preparations aroused the hostility of the Sultan Mahmoud, who determined to suffer no longer the rebellious policy of his Egyptian Viceroy, and War was declared against him, which led to the intervention of England, in order to prevent the threatened alliance of Russia with Turkey. Then followed the siege and capture of St. Jean d'Acre, and the invasion by British forces of Syria, that routed the Egyptian army, and the submission of Mehemet to the Sultan being secured, a Treaty of Peace was signed 13th July, 1841, by which Syria was recovered to Turkey, and Mehemet Ali was limited to the viceroyalty of Egypt, RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 6 1 guaranteed a succession to his family, and thus tranquility was once more restored to the East. The fourth intervention of Russia in Eastern affairs, in 1853, which led to the Crimean War, is within the memory of this generation, and the real facts are matters of general knowledge, and their authenticity is indisputable, but it is necessary to set them briefly forth. The centre and source of the whole controversy which led to this intervention of Russia are to be found in the miserable dispute regarding the Holy Places, viz., the Holy Sepulchre and the Church of Bethlehem, both of which were in the possession of Turkey, and the immediate cause of the dispute was that the " Star," which had been placed from time immemorial over the altar in the Church of Bethlehem, had mysteriously disappeared. The Latins charged the Greeks with having stolen it, and this miserable squabble was made the pretext for a diplomatic and political quarrel, and eventually became the cause of a great European War. The French Government, to please the Catholics in France and Europe, supported the quarrel of the members of the Latin Churches, and in May, 1850, the French Ambassador at Constantinople demanded of the Sultan of Turkey, and the Porte, a total change in the relations of the Greek and Latin Churches in regard to the Holy Places. The British Ambassador at Constantinople, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in a despatch to Lord Palmerston, as early as the 20th May 1850, declared that all the Roman Catholic Powers support the French demand, and against this action of the other European Powers, Russia as the defender of the Greek Church protested, and the Porte, anxious to please both sides, made concessions to each, but these concessions not being accepted, France threatened force, and Russia the withdrawal of her Ambassador. To avoid a rupture, an International Commission consisting of Turkey, Greece, and France was appointed, and this Commission gave its decision against France, that the Latins have no right to claim exclusive possession of the Holy Places ; but in conse- quence of the usual procrastination of the Porte to carry out this decision, Russia determined to send Prince Menschikoff on a diplo- matic Mission to Constantinople, which so aroused the French Government, that they ordered the French Fleet to the East. . The diplomatic Mission of Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople failed in its object, mainly in consequence of the influence brouglit to bear upon the Porte by the British Ambassador, against the inter- ference and subsequent action of Russia, and this advice of Lord 62 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. Stratford de Redcliffe was supported by a guarantee that the armed intervention of England would be given to Turkey in her quarrel with Russia. At this crisis the Governments of England and France offered their mediation, and drew up a Joint Note, which was afterwards accepted by Russia, Austria, and Prussia, recommending to Turkey the acceptance of the proposals of Russia with certain modifications, but the Porte, inspired by the fanaticism of the Mohammedan party, rejected these reasonable terms of peace, and decided in favour of War, and immediately the Russians crossed the Pruth, and the allied fleets of England and France anchored in the Dardanelles. Unfortunately the public mind in England was a victim to the fanaticism of frantic hatred to Russia and its Sovereign, as fierce as the fanaticism of thie Turks, for ttie aggrandizement of Russia, against the integrity and independence of Turkey, was the bugbear raised to justify War. On February 27th, 1854, England despatched an ultimatum to Russia, and at the end of six days, no reply having been received, War was declared, and in the message from the Crown on the opening of the English Parliament in 1854 the Government stated that the three great objects of the War were, first, to maintain the Integrity and Independence of the Ottoman Empire, second, to curb the aggression of Russia, and third, to defend the interests of England. Having described in chronological order the various interventions of Russia with what is called the " Integrity and Independence of the Ottoman Empire '' from 1768 to 1854, and the results which followed therefrom, we now arrive at the fifth and last Russian Intervention in Eastern Affairs, and in an endeavour to form a correct judgment of the character and the history of the complications which arose in 1875 and which have been continued down to the present time, there are two leading facts which must not be overlooked, and they are these. 1. Prior to the Crimean War, the Christian populations of the Turkish Provinces in Europe were recognised as being under the protectorate of Russia by the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829, and con- firmed by the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi of 1832 ; but the Treaty of Paris (1856), which followed the Crimean War, changed this, and imposed upon the Great Powers the obligation which had previously been exercised by Russia. 2. In a despatch of Lord John Russell to Sir Henry Bulwer, August 25th, i860, the view of the British Government was thus defined : — RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 63 "From the time of the Treaty of Kainardjiof 1774, up to the Treaty of Paris, 1856, Turkey was fettered in her internal govern- ment by her engagements to Russia. By repeated Treaties and Conventions, by armed interference at one time, and specious protection at another, the Christians of the Turkish Empire were made the subjects of the Czar quite as much as of the Otto- man Porte. « * * The siege of Sevastopol, and the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, converted the exclusive pro- tection of Christians by Russia into an engagement, general in its nature, and respectful to the Sultan in its form, by which it was hoped the lives and properties of the Christian subjects of the Porte would be guaranteed, and their condition gradually improved." From the year 1856 to 1875, when the insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there had long been constant and repeated complaints in regard to the rapacity, injustice, and brutality of the Turkish Government, or its officials. Time after time remonstrances had been made by our own, and other Governments, but to no avail. In 1867, when the late Lord Derby was Prime Minister, and the present Lord Derby was Foreign Secretary, and Mr. Disraeli one of the ruling spirits of the Cabinet, the Cretans broke out into insur- rection, and they were left to the tender mercies of their oppressors, mainly in consequence of the refusal of the British Government to co-operate with the other European Powers to secure redress. In a despatch from the Earl of Clarendon to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, February 18th, 1856, the British Government declares : — " With reference to the question of religious persecutions in Turkey, I have to state to your Excellency that Her Majesty's Govern- ment are of opinion that it might be stroQ||^represented to the Porte that as the Turkish Empire is by tl^y -stipulations to be declared part and parcel of the European sys?em, it iS quite impossible for the Powers of Europe to acquiesce in the continuance in Turkey of a law and a practice which is a standing insult to every other nation in Europe." In a despatch from the Earl of Clarendon to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, September 23rd, 1856, the British Government again declares : — " There can be no doubt that throughout the dominions of the Sultan a feeling of uneasiness prevails among his Christian sub- jects, and a belief that their position and prospects are now 64 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. worse than before the Allies of the Sultan had made such generous and costly sacrifices for his cause, and that up to this moment no bona fide eflFort has been made by the Porte to secure the faithful execution of the late Hatti — Sheriff." In a despatch from Lord John Russell to Sir Henry Bulwer, August 25th, i860, his Lordship declares : — " You must not be surprised that such feelings should be excited, and such reflections made ; nor would it be of any use to con- ceal from the Porte that either the whole system of Ottoman Government must be replaced by one founded on integrity and justice, or the Sultan must prepare himself for the abandonment of his cause by his best and most persevering Allies." In a despatch of the Earl of Derby to the Marquis of Salisbury, the Plenipotentiary of England at the Conference at Constantinople, November ist, 1876, his Lordship declares : — "The whole history of the Ottoman Empire, since it was admitted into the European concert under the engagements of the Treaty of Paris, has proved that the Porte is unable to guarantee the execution of reforms in the Provinces by Turkish officials, who accept them with reluctance, and neglect them with impunity." In the summer of 1875 the insurrection broke out in Bosnia. Prior to the outbreak the Bosnians had been doing what they could to obtain a redress of their wrongs, but in vain, for in the autumn of 1873 a memorial was presented to the Austrian Government by a number of the inhabitants of Bosnia, praying, among other things, "That an impartial Commission, composed partly of Christian subjects of the Sultan, should be sent from Constantinople, for the purpose of inquiry into the state of Christians in Bosnia; and that this Commission should carry on its labours with the support of the signatory Powers to the Treaty of Paris." Earl Granville was Foreign Secretary at the above date, and he wrote to Sir H. Elliot, asking for further information. In the spring of 1874 Mr. Disraeli's Government came into power, and the matter thus passed into other hands ; but one thing is certain, the needed reforms were not carried out, and in the summer of 1875 the population of Bosnia, and also of Herzegovina, broke out into insurrection. The late Lord Russell gave his solution of the Eastern Question at that time with remarkable clearness in a letter to Lord Granville, in which he pointed out the necessity to give some form of inde- pendent Government to the disaffected Provinces of the Turkish RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 65 Empire, with an extension of the Greek frontiers so as to include Epirus and Thessaly. On the 31st January, 1876, Count Andrassy, the Prime Minister for Austria, anxious for a pacific solution, submitted to the Great Powers the famous document known by the Andrassy Note, which summarised the wrongs under which the Christian population of Turkey suffered, and which suggested five proposals. 1. Reforms were essential in the direction of full religious liberty to the Christians. 2. The system of tax-farming to cease. 3. The direct taxes raised to be applied to the use of the Provinces. 4. The establishment of provincial Councils. 5. To secure the execution of reforms, the re-organization of the police. The Andrassy Note was accepted by Russia, Germany, Austria, and Great Britain ; but the weakness of the Andrassy Note was the omission of any real guarantee from the Porte for the carrying out of these reforms, and the result was that the insurgents declared they would not accept such conditions. On the nth May, 1876, the Emperor of Russia arrived in Berlin to confer with the Emperors of Germany and Austria in favour of more stringent measures for the pacification of the East than those indicated in the Andrassy Note ; and the result of those Conferences was the issue of the celebrated " Berlin Memorandum^' which was drawn up on the basis of the reforms indicated in the Andrassy Note. The declarations of the Beriin Memorandum insisted on a suspen- sion of the insurrection for two months, during which time negotiations should proceed ; and, if the armistice should expire without a pacific result, the Great Powers should come to an agreement with a view to prevent the insurrection from spreading. Lord Derby refused to support the Berlin Memorandum because England had not been consulted, and that its demands were un- reasonable ; and this declaration was followed up by the despatch of the English Fleet to Besika Bay, not, as it was alleged, for the purpose of protecting Turkey against external aggression or internal dismemberment, but, in the event of the breaking out of a sanguinary civil war at Constantinople, to protect British subjects and foreigners in general from what was apprehended would be a general massacre. This refusal of England, and demonstration of its Fleet, led practically to the withdrawal of the " Berlin Memorqndum ;" and, despairing of F 66 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. a pacific solution, the Servians and Montenegrins (incited, no doubt, by Russian Panslavists, and supported by Russian gold and Russian officers), soon afterwards declared war against Turkey, which banished all hopes of peace in the East being maintained. Towards the end of April the insurrection, fomented by foreign emissaries, spread to Bulgaria ; but it was characterised by such barbarous atrocities that naturally aroused a storm of public indignation in England against Turkey, and a strong demand was made that England should separate herself from a nation which perpetrated such cruelties; that a stop should be put to Turkish rule in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina ; a demand which com- pelled the Porte to take vigorous measures to stamp out the rebellion. At this crisis, an important declaration was made by Lord Derby, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to a large and influential deputation, organised by Messrs. Richard, O'Neill, and Appleton, which waited upon him at the Foreign Office, introduced by Mr. Bright, when the views and policy of the Government were clearly set forth in the following terms : — "The policy of Her Majesty's Government will be a policy of strict neutrality, except where it may be able to interpose its friendly offices to hasten the close of the war. » * * " We have done what was in our power to prevent this war breaking out. In that we failed. We shall now do what is in our power to keep it within certain limits * * * We shall not intervene, we shall do our utmost, if necessary, to discourage others from inter- vening. " If an opportunity of mediation should offer itself, we shall gladly avail ourselves of it; while we retain, as we are bound to do, our own freedom, and our own independence of action and of judg- ment, we attach quite as much importance as those others with whom we have acted to that general understanding among the great European States, which is the best and surest guarantee of peace." Turkey had now entered on a struggle with Servia and Monte- negro, which threatened the very existence of her Empire ; and the progress of her arms (especially in Servia where the Turkish Army was everywhere victorious) looked favourable for its preservation. But unfortunately for Turkey, in this hour of her victory over her enemies in Servia, Montenegro and Bulgaria, the Russian Ambas- sador, General Ignatieff, presented an ultimatum to the Porte, demanding an immediate armistice, with a view to a Conference for RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 07 the restoration of peace, and this proposal was finally accepted by the Sultan, and by the Great European Powers. Early in November, 1876, a Conference in Constantinople, was finally determined upon, and Russia showed her pacific intentions by the mobilisation of her army, and the issue of a Russian loan for 100 million roubles. The invitations to the Conference at Constantinople were issued by the English Government, and the Marquis of Salisbury (who had succeeded Lord Derby as Foreign Minister) was appointed Pleni^ potentiary for England, and, on his way to Constantinople, he visited Paris, Berlin, Vienna, and Rome, in order to sound, perhaps to influence^ the Governments of France, Germany, Austria, and Italy in favour of a settlement which should maintain the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, subject to the adoption of reforms for the Christian subjects of the Porte. The Conference assembled on the 23rd November, 1876, under the presidency of Safvet Pasha, the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Great Powers of Europe were represented by Germany, Austria, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia, who declared they were actuated by a sincere, wish to arrive at a solution of the great Eastern Question satisfactory to Europe, and to the disaffected Provinces of Turkey. After much deUberation and negotiation, the result of which showed considerable harmony on the part of the representatives of the Great Powers, it was resolved by the Conference that Turkey should be advised to carry out great concessions in the direction of internal reforms throughout the whole of her Empire, as the only means whereby its dismemberment could be averted, and the general peace of Europe maintained. Unfortunately lor Turkey these wise recommendations of the Conference were received by the Ministers of the Sultan with dis- favour and resistance ; and unfortunately, too, for the peace of Europe, the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, France and Austria, and others represented at the Conference, failed in their endeavours to induce Turkey to carry out the recommendations of the Con- stantinople Conference. In consequence of this refusal'by Turkey to adopt these measures of reform, and in consequence of the widespread disturbance and atrocious outrages perpetrated in many of the Turkish Provinces, Russia was not slow in taking advantage of her opportunity, and under the cloak of freedom and reform on behalf of the Slav 68 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. population, she determined, as the Czar declared to the Notables at Moscow, to act independently, and without the sanction or authority of any of the Great Powers, to make a declaration of war against Turkey, and on the 24th of April, 1877, her armies advanced simul- taneously into Asiatic and European Turkey. This declaration of war by Russia was preceded by a Manifesto by the Czar to his faithful and beloved subjects, full of high professions of holy zeal, and religious fervour, for the destinies of the oppressed Christian population of Turkey, and this unctious Manifesto con- cluded as follows : — " Having exhausted our pacific efforts, we are compelled by the haughty obstinacy of the Porte, to proceed to more decisive acts." " A feeling of equity, and of our own dignity enjoins it. " Profoundly convinced of the justice of our cause, and humbly committing ourselves to the grace and help of the Most High, we invoke the blessing of God upon our valiant armies, and give them the order to cross the Turkish frontier." Against this declaration of war by Russia, and the disinterested(!) motives which prompted it, the Ottoman Government appealed to Europe, in language full of scathing condemnation on the policy of Russia. " What are the motives which can justify such a serious determina- tion on the part of the Russian Government ? " Russia has not been able to allege, and in fact she has not alleged, any direct violation of her rights, or any of those causes which, according to International Law, authorises an appeal to arms, " The existing treaties between the two States have been scrupu- lously observed by the Ottoman Government, nowhere more than in Turkey have the moral and material interests of Russian subjects been the objects of such wide and efficacious pro- tection; Russian commerce and navigation have met with no hindrances in the States of H.M. the Sultan ; these and other considerations clearly prove the great value which the Govern- ment of H.M. the Sultan has attached to the maintenance of its friendly relations with that of H.M. the Emperor. * * « " Is Russia authorised or justified to make war in the name of the general peace ; to let loose upon all the Mussulman and Christian peoples of the Ottoman Empire, frightful calamities, in order the better to provide for their welfare ; to place, in short, RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 69 the integrity and independence of the Empire in danger, in order to try to secure its prosperity ? " The Ottoman Government, failing to obtain the peaceful interven- tion of Europe against the war which threatened Turkey, issued a still stronger declaration against Russian intrigue and diplomacy, of which the following are the more important passages : — " Russia, after vainly endeavouring to weaken and humiliate the Ottoman Empire by inflicting foreign tutelage upon it, now seeks by arms to satisfy her political ambition. " She will meet in her path a united people armed for the defence of its soil, for the protection of its homes, for the main- tenance of its own and its Sovereign's rights, and for the inde- pendence of its Fatherland." It placed on high record the following solemn responsibility : — " The Ottoman Government feels itself bound to declare that the Christian population of Herzegovina, and Bosnia, and of Bul- garia, rose in insurrection solely at the instigation of Panslavist Committees, organised and paid by Russia ; that Servia and Montenegro only took up arms against the Sovereign Power through the direct intervention of Russia ; that they never could have sustained the struggle without aid from Russia ; that, in fact, all the ills which for the last two years have scourged their portion of the Empire are due to the action, open or hidden, but always present, of Russia." In burning language this remarkable dispatch thus concludes : — "History will record this unheard-of act, that in our age of enlightenment, of civilization, and of justice, a Great Power carried fire and sword into a neighbouring Empire, because this Empire was of opinion that the same observance should be paid with respect to it, as to others, of international engage- ments, the eternal rules of public law, the independence of its domestic administration, and, above all, the honour and dignity of its people and Sovereign. "It is to defend those sacred principles, and to beat back the most hateful and the most criminal of aggressions, that the Ottoman Army is about to march to meet its assailants, with the whole nation marshalled round its august head, confident in the triumph of the justest of all causes, prepared for any sacrifice, resigned to all kinds of suffering, and ready to fight and die for its independence. May the Most High protect the right." 70 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. This Manifesto was signed by the Ottoman Minister for Foreign Affairs, Safvet Pasha. We now pass from the domain of Conferences, Treaties, and Protocols, with all their solemn declarations and pledges, to the cruel: Arbiter of war, that Moody arena of " the warrior of the battlefield of. confused noise,, and garments rolled in blood," that arena, which.' these two great Empires had chosen for the brutal settlement of this miserable quarrel. The Czar goes forth like his forefathers, to extend the bounds of a despotic Empire, and to widen the area of an intolerant rule. Russia breaks loose from the concert of Europe with a wrench, she takes the law into her own hands, in order that the Provinces, which she declares it is her holy mission to liberate, may be the scenes of havoc and carnage, far worse than all the crimes of Turkish fanaticism. Whilst deprecating, as every man not unduly biassed against Turkey should deprecate, this ambitious and aggressive policy, from its commencement in 1875 to its fatal consummation in 1877, let it not be understood we are therefore an advocate of Turkey. God forbid. We defend neither, but we defend only the cause of Inter- national Peace, and of that which is identical to it — the cause of national right, the true basis ol the Sovereignty of States. Every friend of freedom, every lover of justice, must have been indignant at the abominable atrocities committed in Bulgaria and elsewhere, which aroused Europe so greatly and so justly against Turkey in 1876, and which has been well characterised as Ottoman barbarism. But atrocious as they were can that justify that greater barbarism of Russia, by a declaration of war against Turkey, or is there no other barbarism in Europe besides Ottoman barbarism which would have justified a declaration of war to suppress or punish ? Surely Russia and the Russophiles would do well to remember the withering invective of Christ, when he so suddenly appeased the fury of the multitude, " Let him that is without sin cast the first stone." Surely for those who defend the policy of Russia, because of the massacres in Bulgaria, it would be well to ask whether England her- self was a . model of forbearance or of bloodthirstiness in the sup- pression of the revolt in India in 1857. Like Turkey, India is an Empire conquered by force of arms, and, like the insurrection in Bulgaria, the Indian Mutiny was a widespread and determined revolt against the Conqueror. How did England suppress the insurrection RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 7 1 of her subjects in the Province of Oude ? The Chiefs of the revolt fastened, living, to the mouths of the cannon and blown into the air, not only as a terrible retribution, but to strike terror throughout the Empire ! What, too, shall we say of Russia and of the Government which sways the destiny of the Empire? Europe has not forgotten, nor forgiven, the wicked dismemberment of Poland, nor the appalling massacres which followed, and the crushing for ever of the liberties once breathed by that heroic and patriotic people. We might go from Poland to the Caucasus, from the Caucasus to Central Asia, and array a terrible catalogue against Russia of cruel massacres and writhing oppression inflicted by the conqueror on the conquered. But enough, for it is aidark chapter in the history, and a foul blot on the escutcheon, of the Romanoffs. By such precedents and lights as history offers, we ask the question whether England, whether Russia herself, whether any of the Great Powers in Europe, are dignified examples to be displayed before the Government of Turkey, which we are so often informed is both barbarous and infidel ? Barbarous ! Give the Turk then the lessons and the example of a nobler civilisation. Infidel ! Give him then the lessons and the example of a purer and a holier faith ; but do not let Russia or England, or any other nation, and we might men- tion others, preach to Turkey of civilisation, humanity and religion, when they themselves, under similar trying circumstances, and often with less provocation, failed so sadly to display these rarest of national virtues. Now this war against Turkey by Russia in 1876, was ostensibly a war of coercion, under the pretext of promoting reforms and amelio- rating the condition of the Slavonic Christians. But this ghastly gospel of coercion was a war of invasion and of military occupation which brought not only ruin wherever its bloodstained track was seen, but has placed great, if not insurmountable, obstacles to all progress, all reform, all prosperity and peace, in that most terribly distracted country. Moreover, this war of invasion inevitably changed into the fatal policy of conquest, and excited the envy and aroused the jealousy of the Great European Powers. It was so in 1859 when France invaded Italy, to assist the Italians in driving out Austria from the Quadrilateral, for at the close of the war France claimed the two Italian provinces of Savoy and Nice, and annexed them to the Empire. 72 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. It was SO in 1870, when Prussia loudly proclaimed to Europe at the moment of entering upon the struggle forced upon her by the Government of France, that she renounced all ideas of conquest or national aggrandizement, but when the conflict was over, in spite of this declaration so pompously given, Prussia claimed Alsace and Lorraine, as the purchased price so dearly won of victory, and annexed them to the German Empire. It was so in 1874, when Russia undertook the pacification of Khiva. The Ambassador of Russia at the Court of St. James's, Count Schouva- loff, pledged the sacred word of Russia that no annexation was inten- ded, but within six months of that date General Kauffmann,at the insti- gation of the Government of Russia, utterly ignoring all official declarations to the British Cabinet, and sacred words of honour, crushed the independence of Khiva, and she became a dependency of the Russian Empire. And has not history repeated itself, guided and strengthened by such precedents of international tergiversation ? Does anyone sup- pose that Russia waged this devastating and sanguinary war against Turkey so that she might at its close have nothing to gain and everything to lose ? It was impossible ! That which has been her long-cherished vision, her proud ambition, for genera- tions, which, it is said, was embodied in the will of Peter the Great, and the dream of the Empress Catharine, and which was and is the dream of every Russian General and States- man of the Empire, that which Russia really desires, and which, under the pretext of justice and freedom to the Christian population of Turkey, she will secure, at any peril, was and is territorial aggrandisement, the subjugation of Servia, Roumania Bulgaria, Roumelia, in fact, every rood of territory from the Danube to the Sea of Marmora, and from the Black Sea to the Euxine ; a wider sea-board, the free passage of the Dardanelles, and the posses- sion of Constantinople, the key of Europe and Asia, even though it involves Europe in arms against her. This war in the East might have become war in the West, war on the Danube for Bulgaria might have become war on the Rhine for Alsace and Lorraine, war in Europe might have become war in Asia, and from the smouldering embers of that insurrection in Herze- govina might have been kindled a blaze, a war of races, and a war of religions, that oceans of blood could not have quenched. This military intervention of Russia, therefore, was most calamitous, for it was the harvest of death, not only for the ill-fated and brave soldiers RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 73 of both armies, but also to the innocent victims of the war, the women and children, the aged and the infirm, who perished by thousands from famine and exposure, or by the ruthless massacres of the Cossack and Circassian, who save neither Moslem nor Christian in their wild blind fury for blood. It is unnecessary, however, to refer at length to the dismal record of those military events, which characterised this War; the gathering of the Russian Armies in Europe and Asia, their advance from Bessarabia across the Danube into Bulgaria; and from Alexandropol into Armenia, a great military drama, in which scenes full of thrilling and painful incidents pass before us, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, but always ex- hibiting a ghastly spectacle of mangled humanity, a war of races and creeds developed in all its horror and repulsiveness. Such was the heroic defence for many weary months of Plevna, under Osman Pasha, the terrible struggle in the Shipka Pass, defended with terrible loss by Suleiman Pasha, the siege and capture of Kars, the battles which succeeded it in Armenia, the daring advance of the Russians across the Balkans, in face of the tempests and the snows of winter, the fierce conflicts around Sophia, and in the Rhodope Mountains, and the final struggles to resist the march of the invaders from Adrianople to the shores of the Bosphorus. On the last day of the year 1877 Turkey, in a despatch of great moderation anxious to avoid a further effusion of blood, appealed to the Mediation of England, and to the honor of England her Govern- ment appealed to Russia, whether, enough had not been achieved by the armies of both Empires, to satisfy all questions of Military honor. This appeal was at first unsuccessful ; Russia refused on the ground that she would receive overtures only direct from her vanquished foes, but the appeal of England was not to be denied, backed by the voice of Europe, and by the movement of the British Fleet to the Dardanelles, was firmly pressed, and Russia slowly and sullenly gave way, by consenting to an armistice, and the preliminaries for Peace were accordingly signed at Adrianople on the i8th January, 1878. In the little village of San Stefano, the plenipotentiary for Turkey, Safvet Pasha, and for Russia, General Ignatieff, surrounded with all the pomp and triumphs of a victorious army, deliberated for many anxious weeks over the exacting terms dictated by the Conqueror. The conditions contained in the Treaty of San Stefano, signed on the 3rd March, 1878, sent a shudder through Europe, and 74 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. evoked such a storm of indignation from the public press, and the public voice, that no Cabinet or Government could for a moment withstand. The Great Powers, especially Great Britain, resolutely declared, that whatever Treaty of Peace had been signed at San Stefano, its record was waste paper until it had been submitted to the general sanction of Europe ; in fact that no one of the 29 articles would be allowed to stand without the sanction of the signatures of the Treaty of Paris, Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, and Italy, who were equally interested, equally devoted to the interests of the Ottoman Nation, and its Christian population, as the disinterested Government of Russia. In general terms the Treaty of Stefano was the abolition of every obstacle intervening between Russia and her goal — the possession of Constantinople and the Straits of the Dardanelles, with a paramount influence over Asia Minor. One provision constituted a great Bulgaria, stretching from Servia to the Euxine, and from the Danube to the Egean. Another provision authorised an assembly of the notables of Bulgaria to elect a Prince in the presence of 50,000 Russian soldiers, which practically would have secured the election of her own nominee, for instance, Skoboleff, Dondukoff-Korsakoff, or Dolgourokoff. Another provision authorised Russia to an occupation of Bulgaria by her 50,000 soldiers in arms, to enable her to settle its political administration, which would practically have created Bulgaria into a Vassal State of Russia. Another provision authorised a prolonged occupation of Servia and Montenegro, in order to bring them into a willing subjection, a humiliating submission to the Czar. Another provision cut off for ever from Turkey the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and presented them as a free gift to the Government of Austria-Hungary, as the purchased price of Austro- Hungarian neutrality during the War. Another provision authorised the razing to the ground of all the fortresses on the Danube, and forbad the passage of all ships of war on the Danube except Russian, for the defence of the Principality of Bulgaria. What remained of European Turkey after these divisions and sub- divisions annexed to or brought under the dominion of Russia, con- sisted of a small irregular triangle of territory having Adrianople on the West, and Constantinople on the East. RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 75 Provisions were not forgotten for securing reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the Island of Crete and in the Asiatic provinces of the Turkish Empire. Reforms forsooth ! that were a gross incon- sistency when recommended by Russia who denies every measure of poUtical freedom to the Russian people, but on the contrary who hesitates not to inflict summary punishment; even banishment and death in Siberia, on those champions of freedom who dare to lift their pen and voice on behalf of political liberty. But of all provisions the most arbitrary in the Treaty of San Stefano, the demand for an enormous indemnity was the most exacting. Russia claimed and Turkey bound herself to pay as follows : — 1. 900,000,000 roubles for war expenses. 2. 400,000,000 roubles on account of the damage to the com- merce, the industries and railways of Russia. 3. 100,000,000 roubles for injuries inflicted on the Caucasus. 4. 10,000,000 roubles for damages to Russian subjects. Total 1,410,000,000. roubles. And then follows this remarkable clause : — That taking into consideration the financial embarrassments of Turkey, Russia consents to substitute for the payment of the greater part of the indemnity, several important territorial cessions, of which the following may be mentioned : — The Asiatic provinces of Ardahan, Kars, Batoum, Bayazid, the Sandjaks of Toultcha, including the Delta Islands, and the Isle of Serpents, and deducting these vast territorial annexations, Russia was willing to receive, and Turkey consented by force majeure to pay, 310,000,000 roubles to the Russian exchequer. Then follows in conclusion thisdeclarationofgenerousmoderation: — This Treaty shall be ratified by their Imperial Majesties, The Emperor of Russia, and the Emperor of the Ottomans, at St, Petersburg, within 15 days. Signed at San Stefano 3rd March, 1878. For Russia, For Turkey, Ignatieff. Neildow. Safvet. Sadoullah. Such is a general outline of the Treaty of San Stefano, dictated by disinterested Russia, in the secrecy of a Military Camp, at the close of a relentless war against Turkey, a Treaty that went into the very teeth of all her high professions for ameliorating the condition of the oppressed nationalities of the Balkan States, for its practical effect would have been to have severed Constantinople from the provinces 76 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. left under the Sultan's Government, to have brought the frontiers of a vast Russian State close to the Turkish Capital, to have turned the Egean and the Euxine seas into huge Russian lakes, and thus to have secured for Russia a preponderating influence in the Balkan States, from the Danube to the Dardanelles, and by the violation of every Treaty solemnly contracted, to have set Europe at defiance. Against these exorbitant demands, Europe and the Government of England vehemently protested, despatch succeeded despatch, courier after courier followed one another in quick succession to St. Petersburg, the British Fleet was ordered to move into the Dardanelles, the Indian troops were summoned to Europe, the Parliament voted six millions to prepare for an emergency, and for a time a great crisis arose which seriously threatened to involve England and Russia into a tremendous War. Throughout this prolonged crisis it must be acknowledged that the Statesmen of both Nations did their utmost by their diplomatic skill, their forbearance and patience, to secure a pacific settlement, honorable alike to England and Russia, and satisfactory to Turkey and the provinces under her sway. Happily, at this serious junction of affairs Russia was represented in England by a diplomatist of conspicuous merit. Count Schouvaloff, who with a great devotion to his country and the Government from which he was accredited, combined in a remarkable degree a spirit of concilia- tion, of moderation, of wisdom in counsel, and of energy in action, which largely helped to secure a solution of the delicate and difficult causes in dispute. Finally, after three months of anxious negotiation, and subtle diplomacy, Russia yielded to the will of Europe by consenting to an European Congress to be held at Berlin, to which the Treaty of San Stefano was to be unreservedly submitted for consideration and revision by all the Great European Powers. In the month of June this important Congress assembled at Berlin under the presidency of the Chancellor of the German Empire, Prince Bismarck : a great assembly of the leading statesmen of Europe, Prince GortchakofT for Russia, Count Andrassy for Austria, Count Corti for Italy, M. Waddington for France, Caratheodori Pasha for Turkey, and last, but not least, the venerable and astute Lord Beaconsfield, as the representative for Great Britain. For several weeks this Congress of the Ambassadors of the Great European Powers, deliberated earnestly and anxiously on all the supremely important questions submitted to them for the pacification RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 77 of the East, embracing among many others the defining of the boundaries of Bulgaria, Roumelia, Servia, and Montenegro; the administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Austria ; the recogni-, tion of the sovereign independence of Servia and Roumania ; the granting of complete political, civil, and religious liberty to the populations of every one of the Balkan States ; and the readjustment of the Turkish Empire on assured foundations. To the honour of the eminent Statesmen assembled at that Con- gress, a sincere and resolute determination was apparent to achieve a peaceful issue, and complete harmony prevailed on the many difficult and conflicting high matters of State policy submitted to them for consideration and decision. By the Treaty of Berlin, Bulgaria was constituted an autonomous and tributary principality under the Suzerainty of the Sultan, with a Christian governor, and a National Militia. The Prince of Bulgaria to be freely elected by the population, and confirmed in his election by the Sublime Porte, with the concurrence of the Powers. No member of any one of the Reigning dynasties of the Great European Powers shall be eligible for election to the Throne of Bulgaria, and in case of a vacancy arising, the election of the new Prince shall take place under the same conditions and with the same forms. An assembly of Notables of Bulgaria were to be convoked in the first instance at Tirnova, and after the election of a Prince to the Throne, the Assembly was to elaborate the organic law of the Principality, and pending its elaboration, Bulgaria was to be placed under the Pro- visional Government of Russian Commissioners, assisted by the Consuls of the Great European Powers. Political, Civil, and Religious liberty were to be given to Bulgaria. South of the Balkans a province was created under the name of Eastern Roumelia, placed under the direct political and Military authority of the Sultan of Turkey, but under conditions of adminis- trative autonomy, and ruled by a Christian Governor General. The defence of the land and sea frontiers of Turkey were placed in the absolute possession of the Ottoman Porte, and the maintenance of internal order was to be handed over to local Militia and Native gendarmerie. Separate protocols in the Treaty amply provided for the rectification of the Turco-Greek and Montenegrin frontiers, reforms in the government of Crete, and in Armenia, the occupation of Bosnia and 78 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. Hezregovina by Austria, the neutrality of the port of Batoum, and the tributary relations of Turkey with Servia and Roumania. This great international compact, the Treaty of Berlin, may be truly called a great historical landmark, for it transformed an Empire, removed long-standing causes of discontent, pacified provinces torn by dissension and misrule/ placed barriers between rival forms of bigotry, stopped riaany avenues of foreign intrigue, abridged the Power of a' Despotic Empire, .and gave peace to Europe, which, we may hope, no Government or Riiler will attempt to disturb. It is a matter of history, that the most important provision of the Treaty of San Stefano, that which constituted in the eye of Europe its greatest blot, against which at the Congress of Berlin, the Ambassadors of Great Britain, Lord Beaconsfield and the Marquis of Salisbury, so strongly protested, and which the Ambassadors for Russia, Prince Gortchakoffand Count Schouvaloff, equally strenuously defended, was the creation of a vast Slav State, stretching from the Danube to the Bosphorus, and from the Euxine to the Egean Sea, with the title of a Great Bulgaria, under the control of Russia. After the conclusion of peace in 1878, and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, a Constitution was framed for Eastern Roumelia, by an International Commission appointed by the Great Powers, and Aleko Pasha was chosen by the Porte, as the first Christian Governor-General for a period of five years ; and on the other hand Bulgaria, in accordance with the Treaty, framed its Con- stitution, elected its Assembly and chose its Ruler, approved by the Porte and ratified by the Great Powers, in the person of Prince Alexander of Battenburg. For seven years these two States, with their autonomous and self- governing institutions of Government, under enlightened Christian Rulers, have loyally and faithfully stood by the Treaty of Berlin, they have amply justified their introduction into national life and the enjoyment of free institutions, and they have set a great example to surrounding kingdoms of settled order, peace, and political freedom. In the summer of 1886, however, signs of restlessness appeared among the subjects of Turkey in Macedonia and Albania which extended into Bulgaria and Roumelia, warnings, which were un- heeded, and shewed that a storm was brewing in the Balkans, but few supposed that the Treaty of Berlin was in danger. Suddenly Europe was startled by a popular coup d'etat, by a blood- less Revolution in Roumelia, which deposed the Governor-General, RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 79 overthrew the Government, and proclaimed by acclamations its union with Bulgaria. Whatever may be our opinions in regard to the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin, whether we sympathise or not with the Slavs and Russophiles for the union of Eastern Roumelia with Bulgaria, under a Ruler chosen by the people of the United Provinces yet, it must be acknowledged, there was accomplished by the union of Eastern Roumelia with Bulgaria, a flagrant violation of the Treaty of Berlin, and that the most conspicuous violators, the instigators of all the miserable intrigues which culminated in the Revolution of the i8th September of 1886, which overthrew the Government at Phillip- popolis, deposed the Governor-General, and installed Prince Alex- ander of Bulgaria in his place, was no other, directly and indirectly, than the leaders of the Panslavists, in the pay and under the authority of the Russian Government and the Russian Czar. The origin of the Revolution, and the precise causes which precipita- ted this Union, and especially the motives which compelled Prince Alexander to participate in it, are hazy and difficult to explain. This, it may safely be said, that subsequent to the election of Prince Alexander as Ruler of Bulgaria, and Aleko Pasha as Governor- General of Roumelia in 1878, Russian influence and intrigues widely prevailed on both sides of the Balkans, Russian officers controlled the Bulgarian Army and the Roumelian Militia, and Russian adventurers took the lead in the turbulent politics of the newly-constituted States. In Bulgaria, the unslumbering Russian party, finding that the Sobranje, or National Legislature, was too strong for the promotion of the ulterior designs of Russia, compelled Prince Alexander against his will to dissolve the Parliament, and to elect if possible one more agreeable to the Russian mind ; various Officers of State, and Military Commanders, were dismissed from their responsible positions, and supplanted by men who had the confidence and were prepared to promote the interests of Russia in the internal adminis- tration and external relations of the kingdom. In Roumelia the Russian party were equally active. Aleko Pasha refused to comply with the demands of the Russian Government for the armament of the Militia with Russian rifles, under the command of a Russian General. At the end of 1884 Aleko Pasha's term of office came to an end, and his re-appointment found no favour with the Russian Govern- ment, and his successor Gabriel Pasha, was a willing tool in the hands of Russia for the accomplishment of her sinister designs. So RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. No sooner was Gabriel Pasha the new Governor General enthroned, than he set himself resolutely to work on behalf of Russia, by the dissolution of the National Assembly, and the election of a stout Russophile .majority ; he dismissed the anti-Russian ofiScials, and surrounded himself with men loyal to Russia, and favourable to Russian policy. Here then were all the elements for opposing factions, the necessary fuel for firing an insurrectionary movement, and what wonder was it, that the smouldering embers inevitably burst into a revolutionary flame, fanned in every direction by the gusts of an unpopular and distasteful rule. The crisis arrived, a proclamation influentially signed and widely circulated was issued, calling upon the people everywhere to rise in arms against the Russianised Government, and the country marched rapidly towards Revolution. At various places simultaneous demonstrations were evoked, headed by popular leaders under the popular flag, with the one cry of Union with Bulgaria, the troops fraternised with the revolutionary party, who surrounded the Government House at Phillippopolis, seized without a blow being struck the Governor General, Gabriel Pasha, and the Commander-in-Chief Borthwick Pasha, and conducted them amid loud hurrahs to a place of safety. Events now marched rapidly ; amid great popular enthusiasm the leader of this bloodless revolution Dr. Stransky, was elected President of the Provisional Government, their popular soldier in arms General Nicolaieff was chosen the Commander-in-Chief of the Roumelian Army, and the " reveille " was sounded for a general call to arms, in defence of popular rights and the national cause. To complete this new political edifice, to give the finale to this sudden somersault of executive authority, one step more was necessary the election of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria as Ruler of the United Provinces, and herein constituted the gravamen of his offence in the eyes of the Russian Government, and the real cause of his subsequent deposition. A deputation from the new Provisional Government, proceeded in hot haste to Tirnova, and offered him the Crown of Southern Bulgaria, and without a moment's hesitation he accepted the flattering proposal, and a few days afterwards entered the Capital, Phillippopolis, amid tremendous enthusiasm. Herein was the great offence given to Russia by Prince Alexander, for he had connived and fraternised with the anti-Russian party in RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 8 1 Roumelia, and in Bulgaria he had virtually forestalled an under-hand arrangement between Austria and Russia, agreed upon at the Imperial Conference at Kremsier, whereby the political reconstruction of these two States would have been carried out, at their own time, and in their own way, at one blow. The blow had unexpectedly been struck by the popular will, without the assistance of Russia and Austria, Prince Alexander had become the hero of the day, and Russian diplomacy, and Austrian duplicity were checkmated, and the pride of the two Emperors humbled. Stirring events followed in quick succession this coup tPetat, events which placed Bulgaria and its Ruler in a most trying and painful position, and never, in the records of modern diplomacy, has a- Ruler and his people so nobly and bravely done their duty, and deserved well of Europe. Just imagine for one moment his embarrassed position. Called to occupy the responsible position of Prince and Ruler of Bulgaria, by the unanimous voice and vote of a people that had but recently won by cruel sacrifices their political freedom, he early found himself plunged in constant struggles of rival ambitions, and intriguing factions within Bulgaria, and without, surrounded by enemies on every frontier, who watched him with vigilance and cunning. For no sooner had Roumelia proclaimed her Union with Bulgaria, and become one kingdom, and invited him by one voice to accept the Rulership, than on every hand he was assailed by foes without, and factions within, and the cry seemed to be, all along the line. Compen- sation ! Compensation ! On the north-eastern frontier, Servia, and her restless, ambitious people, who are ever dreaming of the olden times, when their kingdom extended to the Egean Sea, and who seem ever intent on securing Salonica, for the outlet of their commerce and the develop- ment of their power, raised the cry of Compensation, and when all hope from every quarter vanished for securing some extension of territory, Servia blindly and criminally, rushed into war against Bulgaria, No greater or more unprovoked wrong to an unoffending neighbour was ever wrought, by an Alaric or a Buonaparte, and what was the result ? Precisely what was anticipated. The armies of Servia crossed the frontier at four points, and were elated with temporary successes, when Prince Alexander advanced to meet them at the head of his little army of 50,000 men, fighting for freedom, and to drive back the Servian invasion, for the dismember- ment of the new-born State of Bulgaria. G 82 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. At Slivnitza, Glenitz, Widdin, and other battlefields, the Prince and his army astonished both friends and foes alike, by his per- sonal bravery, his generalship, and devotion to the' National cause, and at every point the undisciplined but brave soldiers of Bulgaria and Roumelia hurled back, and scattered in wild confusion the trained Servian warriors, turning defeat into rout, invasion of Bulgaria into invasion of Servia, and a Servian conquest into a Bulgarian victory, which opened up the road to the capital, Belgrade. The Bulgarian nation was roused to enthusiasm, but in the hour of their victory, when Servia lay prostrate at its feet, Austria, who had prompted her to the war, intervened, and demanded a suspension of hostilities and the conclusion, at any cost, of an inglorious peace. Then followed, the uprising of Greece for Compensation, and its ludicrous collapse, after frightening all Europe ; the threatened inter- vention of Turkey, in the assertion of her Suzerainty, and for the de- fence of her territory, so rudely shattered by the march of events in Roumelia; in fact, throughout the whole Balkan peninsula, in Montenegro, in Roumelia, in Macedonia, and in Albania, the one cry seemed to have been, as by Servia, for Compensation, a demand everywhere for territorial annexation. But the greatest enemy of all, the most cruel and implacable, was the Czar of Russia, and the Autocratic Government of which he is the august Head. What could have been more flagrantly unconstitutional than the act of Russia in the deposition of Prince Alexander, by the agency of the paid political emissaries of Russia, the Kankoffs, the Skobeloifs, and the Kaulbars, who planned and executed the midnight seizure in the Bulgarian Capital, and deportation across the Danube into Russian territory, of Prince Alexander, the chosen Ruler of Bulgaria ? What a humiliating recital was that arrest, told with such faithful accuracy by the Press of Europe, of outrage, and of wrong, perpetrated with such cool effrontery by the Russian officers against a brave and chivalrous Prince ! At one time it was believed he was securely safe in the capital, Sofia, crowned, not with the tawdry of a Romanoff Crown, but crowned with exultations, the loud hurrahs of freedom, which echoed and re-echoed throughout Europe, for it would have been the greatest blow ever struck against tyranny and despotism, the grandest^ victory ever won by a people struggling for political liberty, and national RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 83 independence. But alas ! the hopes of every friend of freedom, were rudely shattered, by the telegraphic message of the Czar of Russia to Prince Alexander, at Rustchuk, refusing to recognise the free choice by the Bulgarian Nation, of Prince Alexander, as their Ruler, and compelling him, by his autocratic power, to sign a humiliating and truculent abdication. Disguise it as we may, it cannot be concealed, that for a long period the Throne of Prince Alexander had been seriously menaced by Russia, that he had been signally marked out by the Czar for deposition, in the hope of hastening the destruction of the edifice of Bulgarian Independence, which he had been so zealously building up. That such a fate should have befallen him, that he should have been deposed after so nobly defending his kingdom against Servia, and after carrying out, during seven anxious years, the great pur- pose for which Europe placed him at Sofia, was as unfortunate, as it was unjust. There is no doubt that the dismissal of Prince Alexander, by the Czar, from the Russian army was an undoubted rebuke of the most deliberate kind, for nothing could have done so much to widen and intensify the breach between the Czar and the Prince, as this silly act of personal pique, for by stripping him of this military honour, Russia shewed an unalterable determination to prevent the unifica- tion of Bulgaria with Eastern Roumelia, and to secure his down- fall from 'the Bulgarian Throne, upon which Europe, not Russia, had placed him. The fact is, Bulgaria had not turned out as grateful, and pliable in Russian hands, as Russian ambition desired, and the Prince had not proved so willing an agent of Russia, as she wished to have on the Throne, of an enlarged and emancipated Bulgaria. Moreover, the Czar and his Government perceived that Bulgaria was no longer the submissive State she was supposed to have been whilst under the Ottoman Porte, or at the time that the armies of Russia fought against Turkey for her Independence. Russia found, also, that Bulgaria had new ideas of her own, and with her new-born love of freedom, was very unwilling to be absorbed into the despotism of the Russian Empire. Besides, Bulgaria had proved that she could exist without Russia, and could fight for her freedom and independence without Russian aid, and if she had not increased her territory, she had increased her claims for political liberty, and justified the respect of the European Powers. §4 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. Surely Russia, who only reluctantly consented to the separation of Bulgaria from Roumelia at the Congress of Berhn, should have hailed with delight its fusion with Eastern Roumelia, for if we may credit ofificial declarations, Russia had never been opposed, in principle, to the Union of these two States, and her evident aim therefore seems to have been, in deposing Prince Alexander, to secure a Successor to the Bulgarian Throne, better disposed to further Russian designs in the East. What the final issue of this Imperiahsm will be in the future no one can foretell, but of this we may be certain, that a greaUr outrage on the rights of a free people, a greater violation of the Sovereignty of States, and of international obligations, has never, in the history of nations, been committed, at any rate since Napoleon I. seized, and assassinated the Duke of Enghien. This ambition of Russia to establish peace and order, justice and freedom in Bulgaria by force of arms, may be compared to turning out the Devil by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils ; for it would have made a sabre for the Government of the Nation. The sabre destroys, but not governs ; for government by the sword cannot but bring violence, iniquity, and wrong ; but justice and freedom are the work, and that only, of reason and of peace. War cannot but bring war, as an ancient poet has said, " For what does war, but. endless wars produce ! " Russia may struggle over Freedom's shrine, but she fights for con- quest, for, depend upon it, wars in these days are undertaken for the sake of victory, and for that which victory will bring. War brings de- feat or victory ; victory brings confidence, and confidence is the parent of bold claims. An armed intervention by Russia, for the osten- sible purpose of restoring peace and order in Bulgaria, even if suc- cessful, must inevitably and fatally change into conquest. Conquest of Bulgaria, or of any province in Turkey, however much we may disguise it, will be a war unchained upon Europe, ' ' With its deep, long rivers of blood, And its sad, silent rivers of tears. " England, apparently, has shown an indifference to the integrity and sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, the maintenance of which was once included in the programme of her foreign policy, but will England continue to abjure for ever this ancient rkgime, when invasion of Turkey becomes annexation of its provinces, or dis- RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 85 memberment of the Empire? We shall then hear of an English occupation of Constantinople, which will be followed by Austria occupying Servia, Greece Thessaly, France Egypt ; Germany and Italy, too, will move, all invading some coveted portion of the Turkish Empire, a general scramble for the possession of some cherished interest which they must defend, but enemies in face of one another ; and thus the area of war will be enlarged, a war, which it will be im- possible to foresee the close. It may roll east, and roll west, arresting peaceful industry, distracting commerce, and awake everywhere the fierce fires of an unrelenting fanaticism, which will deluge the world with blood, and overwhelm it with terrible woe. This policy of intervention by Russia in Bulgaria, by force of arms has been most disastrous, not only for the ostensible objects in view, but, above all, in the maintenance of the peace of Europe. In 1828, Russia entered on this same policy of intervention in the affairs of Turkey, of coercion against the Ottoman Porte, and what was the result ? At the close of two years of bloody conflict, destruc- tion of her army by plague, pestilence, and exposure, losing more men thereby than by the sabre and cannon ; and what was worse, the interests of the Christian subjects of Turkey, for whom she professedly waged the war, became far from improved, but greatly damaged by her armed interference. In 1854, Russia pursued this same policy of intervention, by force of arms, in the affairs of Turkey, and the result was, that most calami- tous war in the Crimea, England, France, and Italy allied with Turkey against Russia. Did it do any good ? No ! but it caused incalculable harm, for it was a huge blunder from beginning to end, because, independent of the frightful loss of human lives, esti- mated at one million of men, and the wasteful expenditure of money, equal to three hundred and forty millions sterling, it benefited, not one iota, the condition of the Christian population in Turkey, but riveted still stronger the galling chains of the Mussulman oppression upon them. In 1877, Russia, for the fifth time in a century, pursued this policy of intervention in the East, waged a cruel and sangui- nary war against Turkey, under the pretext of promoting reforms, and ameliorating the condition of the Slavonic Christians, a war that unchained all the hatred, and stirred up all the worst passions of every faith, of every race, and of every creed against one another, Mahomedan against Infidel, Magyar against Slav, Catholic against Greek Church, and Jew against 86 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. Christian; and though in the end she was successful, surely any advantages which she may have reaped cost her very dear. The appalling sacrifice of human life, the immense throng of widows and fatherless children, the grief and anguish of the bereaved ones, the devastation of fair and fertile provinces, the destruction by battle and bombardment of towns and villages ; and, above all, the dire legacy of hatred and the undying thirst for revenge, all these are but a portion of the evils which inevitably followed in her desolating march. Surely the opinion of the civilised world was silently registered against this wicked and cruel enterprise ; surely, history will pronounce that declaration of war as branded with the crime of having aroused the worst, and direst of all conflicts — a religious war. Non-intervention, by force of arms, is the wisest and best poUcy, whether it is England in Egypt, France in Madagascar, Austria in Servia, or Russia in Bulgaria, for it rests on the sound principle of international polity, the inalienable freedom of every Nation to manage its own affairs, and that any Nation which interferes, especially by an armed demonstration of force, in the internal affairs of a Sovereign State, commits an offence, and a crime against the indisputable and sacred principle of National Right, and National Existence. It is evident, therefore, that the time of crusades is past, and, most of all, a crusade by Russia, the oppressor of Poland, and the annexer of Khiva; for crusade is but another name for war, and should ever be deprecated, as it cannot be far removed from wars of conquest, which are utterly opposed to the civilization of the 19th century. But in the crusades of Christian Russia against Mahomedan Turkey, there is this great radical error committed, namely, of supposing that the Ottomain Empire in Europe and in Asia, is inhabited by a homogeneous population. It is just the reverse, for the Ottoman Empire is composed of populations the most diverse and hostile, marked by divisions of race, divisions of religions, and these divisions entangled the one with the other throughout the Empire, and animated the one against the other by the pride and envy of race, and the burning fanaticism of religion. There are the Slavs and the Greeks, the Jews and the Catholics, and, superior to all in numbers and power, are the Mussulmans or Moslems. If we take the three provinces that were in revolt, Bosnia, Herze- govina, and Bulgaria, we find there are several millions of Mussul- RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 87 mans, descendants of the conquering race, an equal number possibly, of Slavs, who are members of the Greek Church, and an equal number of Roman Catholics, whom the Vatican at Rome has_ commanded to be loyal to the Ottoman Porte. If Russia should ever become the Conqueror of these provinces, and annexes one, or all of them to the Russian Empire, she would ally herself with the Slavs of these States, and the result would be, she would oppress the Moslems, the Jews, and the Catholics, to such an extent, that civil war, and chronic insurrection would perpetually distract their prosperity and peace. Is this the way to bring forth order, when it is affirmed the absence of order has been of such terrible consequences ? Is this the way to get harmony in thfe midst of chaos, to introduce justice, and to promote concord between populations, so different and hostile the one to the other ? When Servia, and Roumania, and Montenegro rebelled against the Ottoman Porte, and secured their quasi-independence, as Suzerain States of Turkey, the case was widely different. These provinces contained but a small relative proportion of the Moslem faith and race, and a still smaller proportion of the Roman Catholics and Jews ; all of whom, immediately on their Independence being secured, became expatriated, forcibly or otherwise, and took refuge in the adjoining provinces under the Ottoman rule. Qranted that the Great Powers of Europe befriended their cause, but they never openly aided them in their struggle for Independence, for they won it by their own spirit of freedom, and the alliance of Europe guaranteed their neutrality. The question naturally arises, what is the most effective and practi- cable way of settling the Eastern Question ? It can only be settled by the united voice of Europe, the alliance of England with Russia, of Austria with Prussia, and of France with Italy, by a concerted action urging upon Turkey, in the name of justice and humanity, and above all, in the interests of general peace, to grant and extend the exercise of a benign rule over all her various races and religions throughout her Empire ; and herein she will only be likely to concede a common law and a common right. This only can quench mutual hate, and avert chronic revolution in her midst, and this is the policy that the allied Powers should concert. Whilst reasonable time should be given for the carrying out of important and necessary reforms in all parts of her scattered Empire, yet Europe should also see that Turkey keeps her word. To open every office in the State, be it military or civil, to 88 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. all the children of the Empire, will acknowledge their fellow- citizenship, and to this unity in the civil and military ranks let her grant equality before the law, and in the tribunals of justice, for thus will be inaugurated a great measure of reform, which cannot but bring other concessions of a social and religious character, so essential to the consolidation of all races and religions into one great solidarity. When this great work shall have been accomplished, Europe will have the renown of having brought deliverance to the oppressed, not only to the Christians, but also to the Mussulmans. The insisting by the allied Powers of these possible reforms, which shall be general and just, reforms urged by a united voice, without offensive conditions, without imperious injunctions, and without infringing on the National Sovereignty, such are, we venture to believe, the only real and effective means for settling and solving, justly and permanently, this great Eastern Question. Hi ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. FROM 1839 TO 1889. It is a true saying, that " history repeats itself," and in looking back, and considering the -relations of England and France, and other European Powers, with regard to Egyptian afifairs, and especially the relations of Egypt with its Suzerain the Porte, we find an emphatic fulfilment of this declaration. In 1839, during the administration of Foreign Affairs by Lord Palmerstoh (when it may be said that he exercised great influence in Europe ; an influence, not so much dependent on physical force as on moral power, against an unscrupulous Foreign Policy pursued by one, if not more than one, ambitious Power in Europe), complica- tions in the East, called for the exercise of great courage and con- summate statesmanship. Mehemet AH, the Pasha of Egypt, was ambitious to be considered a Sovereign Ruler, independent of the Sultan, and in 1838 he repudiated the annual tribute to the Porte, assumed the ancient rights of the Sultan, as Caliph and Chief of Islam, interfered in the affairs of Syria and the Holy Places, and by his extensive military and naval preparations, he roused the fears of every statesman in Europe. At this juncture, a crisis arose in the East, intensified by the danger of an armed interference by Russia, under the plea of defending the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, and Lord Palmerston declared to the Turkish Government, with the concurrence of France, that in the event of Mehemet Ali carrying out his ambitious designs, and threatening Constantinople, inter- vention by England on behalf of Turkey might be relied upon. ,2'''^ 9° ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. In the beginning of the year 1839, Turkey took the field with a powerful army, to contend with the Egyptian forces, under the command of Ibrahim Pasha, the eldest son of Mehemet Ali, and the contending forces met at Aleppo, which resulted in the complete defeat of the Turkish General, and was followed by an advance of the Egyptian forces on Constantinople. Unfortunately, Turkey, at this supreme moment in her history, lost her Ruler, Sultan Mahmoud II., one of the ablest of her Sultans, and was succeeded by Abdul Medjid, a youth of seventeen, at a time when the Turkish army was disorganised ; her fleet captured by, or deserted to, Mehemet Ali ; her Government in confusion ; the capital, Constantinople, seething with discontent ; and rebellion triumphant in Syria and Egypt ; and under such a state of things it can be no matter of surprise that, on the one hand, Russia believed her hour was come to carry out her ambitious designs on Constantinople, and that England, and France, on the other hand, despaired of averting the utter collapse of the Turkish Empire. From the first appearance of this difficulty, the policy of England in the East, under Lord Palmerston, never wavered ; its sole object being to crush the rebellion of Mehemet Ali in Egypt, to restore the rule of the Porte in her dominions in Europe and in Asia, and thereby successfully to withstand the aggressions of Russia. Lord Palmerston's resolution was firm and his policy clear, and he was manfully supported by Lord John Russell, and to show his determination, the English Fleet was in readiness in the Mediter- ranean, one part of the Naval Squadron menaced Alexandria, and another portion was anchored off Besika Bay, ready to force the Dardanelles, the" moment the Russian Fleet, or the Egyptian forces approached Constantinople. It is true that the British Cabinet were not united, that the Government had not a strong majority in Parliament, that Lord Holland, who commanded a powerful following, sided with Russia, and did not believe in the regeneration of Turkey, for he sympathised- with the policy of France in favour of Mehemet Ali; but Lord Palmerston was equal to the emergency, and throughout shewed no sign of wavering. A crisis arrived. In the summer of 1839, a Conference of the Five Powers on Eastern Affairs assembled in London, which at the outset, showed a serious difference between France and the other European Powers, on the measures to be adopted for the pacification of the East. ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 9 1 The policy of England had been straightforward from the first, for she regarded Mehemet Ali as a rebel, an4 considered that his overthrow in Syria, the restoration of the Turkish Fleet, and of the provinces he had seized, were the only guarantee for peace ; and Lord Palmerston was of opinion that then, and not until then, could any terms be offered by which Mehemet Ali could retain the rulership of Egypt. Austria supported the English policy, with this exception, that she considered Mehemet Ali should retain the provinces he had won by force of arms, and that at his death they should revert to the Ottoman Empire. France, whilst desirous to maintain the integrity and independence of Turkey, and the suzerainty of the Sultan throughout his Empire, yet wished to recognise Mehemet Ali in his possession of Syria, as a branch of the Turkish Empire, and permit him to rule and defend it in the name of the Sultan, because she considered that the rule of the Sultan was weak, and that the rule of Mehemet Ali would be strong. The Conference closed without any decisive results, for every effort to secure the concert of France with the rest of Europe, completely failed. The next step, the mission of Baron Brunnow to England, marks an interesting incident in European diplomacy, for it showed the subtle and sinister policy of Russia on the one hand, and the clear- sighted and astute statesmanship of England, under the guidance of Lord Palmerston, on the other. This mission of Baron Brunnow to England expressed at the onset, with amusing candour, the gratification of the Emperor Nicholas at the slight differences that existed between England and Russia on the affairs of the East, and complimented Lord Palmer- ston for the distinguishing marks of confidence which he had shewn in the good intentions of the Russian Government, and finally, con- veyed the earnest desire of the Emperor for friendly relations, and co-operation with England. Russia considered that the Sultan was her ally, and the ally also of England ; that Mehemet Ali was a rebel against the Porte, and that all that was necessary to secure peace, was, that they should come to a clear understanding, and that whatever their decision, it would be accepted by Europe. With that object, therefore, Russia proposed that she should give assistance to the Sultan, as the representative of Europe, that the army 92 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. of Russia should be the array of Europe, and that as such they should invade Turkey to prot^ect Constantinople, and on the restoration of peace the Russian forces should retire. This was the proposition, in effect, of the Imperial Government of Russia, as communicated by Baron Brunnow to Lord Palmerston ; this was the magnanimous policy of the Emperor Nicholas, which implied, that England should confine herself to the Mediterranean, and that Russia should have a free hand in the Dardanelles, for the extension of her power and influence in the East. To this disinterested policy of Russia, Lord Palmerston, whilst fully reciprocating the friendly assurances of the Czar, declared that im- mediately a Russian Army entered Turkish territory, or the Russian Fleet entered the Dardanelles, ostensibly to defend the Sultan, a British Fleet would appear before Constantinople, not to threaten Russia, but to maintain the co-equal rights of Russia and England in Turkish Waters, and in defence of the principle of neutrality, that the Dardanelles should not be opened to one, and closed to another European Power. This declaration of Lord Palmerston forced the Czar to yield, and the firmness of the British Minister secured, not only for England, but for. France and Russia, the right to protect Constantinople, and the Sovereignty of the Sultan from a hostile attack, threatened by Mehemet Ali. At this juncture of Eastern Affairs, Louis Philippe reigned in France, and he was believed to be favourable to the English Alliance, but his Ministers, especially his Prime Minister, opposed this Alliance, and supported the policy of Mehemet Ali against the Porte, actuated, it is believed, with the idea of the regeneration of Turkey, through the instrumentality of Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt. France, therefore, whilst agreeing with England in resistance to the aggressions of Russia on Constantinople, under whatsoever plea, differed with her as to the means to be adopted, and considered that the only man capable of successfully resisting Russia, and thereby averting the dissolution of the Turkish Empire, was Mehemet Ali, and from this difference of opinion upon policy, many difficulties arose. Moreover, France still clung to her traditional Egyptian poUcy, inaugurated by Napoleon L in the beginning of the century, and she was jealous and suspicious of English intervention in Egypt, in spite of the declarations by British Statesmen that England's policy was a disinterested one. ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 93 In January 1840, however, a Ministerial Crisis occurred in France, and England hoped that a change of Administration would bring a change of policy ; but this hope was not realised, as the new Ministry was less disposed to withstand Mehemet Ali, than was its predecessor. For twelve months, negotiations were carried on with a view to the pacification of the East, though with no good result, because France, alone, opposed the concerted action of the Great Powers, and in face of this hesitation and vacillation of France, England was forced, reluctantly but resolutely, to come to a decision, and on the 15th July, 1840, a Convention was signed between England, Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Turkey, without the sanction and co-operation of France. By this Convention, the Five Great Powers advised the Ottoman Porte to grant to Mehemet Ali the hereditary rule of Egypt, also the Government of a portion of Syria, and with it the title of Pasha of St. Jean D'Acre, and if these propositions were not accepted by Mehemet Ali in ten days, he should be offered only the Government of Egypt, and . if, at the expiration of ten days further, he refused all terms, then he was given to understand that he would have to abide the issues of War, a War to be waged by the strength of the United European Powers. The terms of this important Convention, signed by Russia, Austria, Prussia, England and Turkey, on being communicated through M. Guizot, the French Ambassador in London, to the Government of France, caused considerable ebullition of feeling throughout France, and the French Press stimulated the national outburst. With a view, however, to allay the excitement in the minds of the French people. Lord Palmerston, from his place in Parliament, made some important statements ; for he declared that England had not isolated France, but that France had isolated herself from the rest of Europe, that she had refused to co-operate with Europe, and that therefore, Europe had been compelled, reluctantly, to act without her. This speech of Lord Palmerston, instead of allaying the excitement in the minds of the French people, caused still further disquietude, for it proved to be pouring oil upon the flames, which in consequence, burned fiercer and fiercer. M. Thiers, the Prime Minister of Louis Philippe, was deeply wounded ; for he had prided himself on the astuteness of his diplomacy, and on his power to force England to adopt his policy. 94 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. and, incensed by this coup de grace, he resolved, if possible, to rouse the temper of the French people into a war against United Europe, and especially against England, and with this object in view, he entered upon extensive military preparations, and hoped thereby to intimidate Lord Palmerston in the carrying out of the policy, which in concert with Europe, he had determined upon. Lord Palmerston, however, was not to be intimidated by the threatening attitude of M. Thiers, nor by the clamour for war of the French people, from the execution of the statesmanlike policy which he had already indicated. The voice of diplomacy was unfortunately now drowned in the boom of the cannon, for in consequence of the refusal by Mehemet Ali of the favourable terms offered to him by the Five Great Powers, and also by the dogged resistance of France to co-operate with Europe, the Admiral of the British Fleet, in conjunction with Austrian and Turkish men-of-war, approached Beyrout, and at the close of four days' bombardment, Suliman Pasha, the Egyptian Commander, surrendered. This was followed up by the storming of Sidon by Napier, who advanced from there into the Lebanon, and defeated Ibrahim Pasha ; but the most brilliant feat of arms, was the assault and capture, by Napier, of the almost impregnable fortress of St. Jean D'Acre, which after a bombardment of three hours, sur- rendered to the British Commander ; the same fortress which Sir Sidney Smith, in 1799, had successfully defended against the assaults of Napoleon I. ■ These important military events roused M. Thiers into action, and he demanded from Louis Philippe authority to call out the military forces of France, and to despatch the French Fleet to Alexandria in support of the pretensions of Mehemet Ali ; but the King, as anxious for peace with England, as his Minister was for war, firmly refused his demands, and thereupon M. Thiers, happily for the general European peace, ceased to be Prime Minister of France, and his successor, M. Guizot, who had always been favourable to the entente cordiak with England, reversed the belligerent policy of his predecessor, and in effect declared, in the words of King Louis Philippe, " As long as I live, there shall be peace between France and England." Thus, by a succession of rapid and victorious military operations, ,,no less than by the vigour of the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston, the opposition and menaces of France were effectually silenced .the ambitious designs of Mehemet Ali were overthrown, the ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 95 authority of the Sultan was restored throughout his dominions, and thereby the threatened outbreak of a great European War in the East, was happily averted. The military operations having now been brought to a conclusion, Mehemet Ali having practically surrendered, the British Admiral, Stopford, in conjunction with Napier, entered into a Convention with him, that, provided in three days he evacuated Syria, and delivered up to the Sultan the Turkish Fleet, he should be maintained in the Government of Egypt, and these terms, being endorsed by the Ottoman Porte, were accepted by him without hesitation, and the policy of Lord Palmerston triumphed. The Treaty of Peace which followed the conclusion of the War, and which was signed 13th July, 1841, was undoubtedly one of the most important International compacts between the Great Powers affecting their relations with the Ottoman Empire in Europe. In the first place, it secured the reconciliation of France with England, and the other co-signatory Powers to the Treaty ; in the second place, it secured the renunciation by Russia of any exclusive ascendancy over Turkey; and lastly, it asserted that the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire were of essential importance to the tranquillity of Europe. The spirit and scope of this Treaty were, in effect, the surrender by Russia of the provisions of the celebrated Treaty of Unkiar- Skelessi, concluded between Russia and Turkey in 1831, which gave to Russia the right of interference in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire, made the Sultan a vassal of the Czar, and closed the Dardanelles to every other European Power. The Treaty, therefore, of 1841, which surperseded the Treaties of Adrianople, of 1829, and of Unkiar-Skelessi, of 1831, it must be admitted, was a great diplomatic achievement, secured by British statesmen, and for this reason ; that it set bounds to the aggressions of Russia in the East, and by placing the Ottoman Empire under the protection of all Europe, it prac- tically declared, that any attempt by Russia on the independence and sovereignty of the Ottoman Porte, in the future, would be a violation by Russia of an honourable engagement, which pledged her to non- interference, under any pretext whatsoever, and chat any infraction by her of the provisions of that Treaty, imposed, ipso facto, on the Four Great Powers, co-signatories with her in the Treaty, a responsibility nay, a right and duty by them, to oppose her by every means in their power. g6 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. Whatever may have been the diverse opinions of the politicians and statesmen of Europe on the merits of the Treaty of the 13th July, 1 84 1, and whatever may have been the great issues of its inter- pretation and application on subsequent events that have transpired in the East, especially those great events which led up to, and pre- cipitated the disastrous Crimean War, of one thing we may be certain the historian, is bound to acknowledge, that the Treaty, if it did not accomplish all that the sagacity of statesmen might have desired for the future, the permanent tranquillity of the East, yet it achieved much for Europe, and averted a great European war. It was, therefore, a Treaty not dictated by the Conqueror to the conquered, and consequently a war Treaty, but it was a Treaty of essentially a pacific character, agreed upon and concluded in the interests of peace, and by the Great European Powers in alliance one with the other, and deserves to be ranked as one of the most im- portant international transactions, achieved by the wisdom and Statesmanship of United Europe. Fifty years ago, as we have described in the preceding pages, Mehemet AH sought to civilise Egypt, when he invaded Syria and occupied the Holy Places, leading his victorious army to within one hundred miles of Constantinople, and thus threatening the existence of the Ottoman Empire, and, as we have shown, he failed in this bold attempt through the intervention of England, for he was defeated by English forces, compelled to retreat, and finally to submit himself to his Suzerain, the Sultan of Turkey. During the remainder of his reign as Khedive, the Sultan received his annual tribute of ;£3So,ooo, and during the successive adminis- trations of the Khedives, Aba Pasha, and Said Pasha, the annual tribute was regularly paid, and tranquillity prevailed in Egypt. EGYPT, FROM 1862 TO 1881. Up to the year 1862, Egypt never borrowed money. In that year the reigning Khedive, Said Pasha, contracted the first debt for Egypt, against the advice and entreaty of his Minister, who threw himself at his feet, warning him that such a measure would be the first step towards the ruin of his country. Truly, he was a great, prophet ! ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 97 Modern civilisation appears to consist, with the Great States of Europe, in having a great National Debt, and too often in repudiat- ing it, and according to the monstrous doctrine of the Financiers of Paris and London, Egypt had to be civilised. France considers that the First Napoleon introduced civilisation into Egypt nearly a century ago, by his invasion and attempted con- quest of Egypt ; but if the slaughter of the Egyptians and Mame- lukes, the seizing of the hidden treasures, and the levying of an indemnity can be called civilisation, then Napoleon was the most barbaric civiliser the world has ever witnessed. Said Pasha was succeeded by Ismail Pasha, who was keenly alive to the necessity of maintaining his semi-independence, won for Egypt by Mehemet Ali. But Ismail Pasha was an extravagant and oppressive Khedive. He threw himself into the hands of European speculators, who advanced the Government of Egypt vast sums of money, at a ruinous discount and rate of interest, and in a few years Ismail Pasha contracted a debt of ,^90,000,000, of which sum only ;£'45, 000,000 was received by the Government at Cairo ; the remaining ;^45, 000,000 finding its way into the coffers and pockets of London and Paris financiers. The gross annual revenue of Eg3T)t, of ;^8, 500,000, was raised by every sort of oppressive taxation upon the people, and of this sum ;^5, 700,000 went to pay the interest on the Loans. It is no wonder, therefore, that Ismail Pasha's financial difficulties pressed heavily upon him, and consequently in 1875, at his earnest request, the Government of Mr. Disraeli, despatched Mr. Stephen Cave to examine into, and report upon Egyptian Finances, and he was compelled to acknowledge that Egypt was in a desperate strait ; that she suffered from the ignorance, dishonesty, and extravagance of the Pashas, bringing her to the verge of ruin ; and he recommended that England should send out a financier, to take employment under the Khedive, as the Chancellor of his Exchequer. Accordingly, Mr. Disraeli appointed Mr. Rivers Wilson, but owing to his scheme being too onerous for Egypt to bear, he was recalled, and soon afterwards, he was succeeded by Mr. Goschen for England, and M. Joubert for France, representing the Bondholders ; and the result of their mission was, to recommend to their respective Govern- ments the appointment of English and French Controllers, to be maintained by England and France; and in 1879 the Marquis of Salisbury, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, gave his H 98 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. consent to the establishment of the Dual Control in Egypt, from which sprang all the subsequent complications. No one can doubt that the Dual Control was estabhshed for the benefit of the Bondholders, to protect the interests, the capital, and the dividends of the Bondholders, who had lent the Khedive ;^9o,ooo,ooo, and that the discontent in Egypt sprang from the operations of the Control. Mr. Seymour-Keay, M.P., in his admirable work on "Spoiling the Egyptians," has shown the frightful oppression practised upon the people of Egypt in order to secure this interest of ;^s,7oo,ooo on the Foreign Loans. He has made it abundantly evident, that for the benefit of European Capitalists, the people of Egypt have been grossly plun- dered by means of a series of financial operations, which has led to nothing less than national bankruptcy and revolution. Thus it was, that Lords Beaconsfield and Salisbury, in concert with France, took the direct responsibility of dictating the internal Government of Egypt, a policy, which has been full of important results to England and Egypt alike. On June 19th, 1879, the Khedive, Ismail Pasha, dismissed his Ministers, and with them the two Controllers of England and France, appointed under the Dual Control ; and in consequence of this action of the Khedive, England and France, supported by the other European Powers, obtained the sanction of the Sultan of Turkey, to instruct their diplomatic representatives at Cairo to pro- ceed to the Khedivate, and call upon the Khedive to abdicate in favour of his nephew. Prince Tewfik ; and the result of this action on the part of England and France was, that shortly afterwards, the Sultan of Turkey signed his Irade deposing Ismail Pasha as Khedive of Egypt. The subsequent troubles which arose in Egypt were, therefore, originally brought about by the direct political intervention of England and France in the internal affairs of Egypt, mainly with the view of regulating her finances, and hence it is perfectly clear that the source and centre of the Rebellion in Egypt, in the first instance, and of the armed intervention of England, which succeeded it, were in consequence and on behalf of the interests of the Bond- holders, i.e., the interests of the people of Egypt have been entirely subordinated to the interests of the foreigners. We will now refer to the subsequent events, consequent on the deposition of Ismail Pasha, and the accession of Prince Tewfik to ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 99 the Throne, events which have proved of such serious importance, not only to England and Egypt, but to Europe in general. EGYPT IN 1881. The year iSSi, opened with every promise of tranquillity in Egypt, the financial difficulties were arranged, and the re-appointment of the English and French Controllers-General, with the rank of Ministers, was considered a guarantee, that the new Law would be respected. On February ist, 1881, this dream. of settled progress and tran- quillity was rudely shaken by a Military Insurrection at Cairo, which seems to have arisen from the financial exigencies into which the reckless expenditure, and reckless borrowing, under Ismail Pasha, had plunged the country, which compelled his successor, Tewfik, from motives of economy, to make great reductions in Egyptian Officers, whilst the Turks and Circassians, who held the higher military posts, were retained in their positions. The Minister of War, Osman-Rifky Pasha, being a Circassian, took the side of his countrymen, and on the occasion of three Arab Colonels protesting against his favouritism, they were arrested, and instantly their regiments rose in rebellion, marched to the prison, forced the guard, released their Colonels, and bore them off in triumph to the Palace, where the Council of Ministers was sitting. To allay the outburst, the Khedive sent his aide-de-camp to the rebels, wlio demanded the reinstatement of the Colonels, and the dis- missal of the Minister of War, Osman-Rifky Pasha, which was eventually granted ; and accordingly Mahomed Samy Pasha was appointed, and the troops fraternised, shouting Long live the Khedive I In consequence of the success of this revolt, the officers of the Army, under the leadership of Arabi Pasha, fearing a reaction from the Government and the Khedive, put themselves in communication with those who were dissatisfied with political affairs in Egypt, and by this means they formed the nucleus of an agitation, which steadily extended itself over a wide area. On July 30th an incident occurred in Alexandria which, trivial in itself, helped to precipitate the threatening crisis. An artillery soldier was accidentally run over, and killed in the lOO ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. Streets of Alexandria, and as the driver was not punished, the populace showed their dissatisfaction, by marching in procession with the body of the dead soldier to the Khedive's Palace. The Khedive promised that justice should be done, which was administered in a peculiar way, for the soldiers who had taken part in the procession were tried by court-martial and punished, whilst the driver was let off scot free. The severity of the punishment increased the excitement in the Army, and a protest, signed by Abdelil Bey, was sent to the Minister of War, and the Khedive, being displeased with the Minister's want of energy in dealing with the matter, dismissed him, and his successor resolved to pursue a more determined attitude towards the leaders of the agitation, and, if possible, to crush it in its infancy. On September 3rd the Khedive left Alexandria for Cairo, the headquarters of the military party, and his first step was to threaten the removal to other quarters of the disaffected 4th Regiment of infantry, of which Arabi was Colonel, and Arabi, on hearing of it, determined to make another military demonstration before the Khedive ; and on September 9th, the Minister of War received a letter from Arabi, stating, that in the afternoon the Army would march to the Square before the Palace, and demand the execution of the following programme : — 1. The dismissal of the Minister. 2. The summoning of the Chamber of Notables. 3. The adoption of the recommendations of the Military Commission. At 3 o'clock the Square was occupied, and surrounded by the rebellious Army, 4,000 strong, besides cavalry and Artillery, under the command of Arabi. Seeing this, the Khedive, accompanied by the English Consul, and his body-guard, advanced to the group of Officers, of which Arabi and Abdelal, on horseback, were the centre, and politely delivered the order, " Get off your horses," which they obeyed, and it was followed by another order, " Sheath your swords," which was also obeyed. The Khedive then demanded of them the reason for all this dis- play of force, and Arabi answered, " that he came in the name of the people to demand the three points of their ' Magna-Charta,' " to which the Khedive replied by saying : — •' Have you forgotten that I am the Khedive and your Master f" to which Arabi answered in the words of the Koran: " The Ruler is he who is just ; he who is not so, is no longer Ruler." ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 10 1 To have carried on this pourparler any longer would have been useless, so the Khedive withdrew to his Palace, under pretext of considering the demands, and after a consultation with the English Consul-General and his Officers, it was agreed that the two first demands should be conceded, and that the third demand should be referred to Constantinople, and on this being announced to the troops a general shout was raised, " Long live the Khedive ! " and Arabi and his fellow officers entered the Palace, to receive pardon for their action, whilst the Army marched off to the Barracks, evidently pleased with the day's bloodless revolution. The singularity of the position at this moment was, that Arabi was supported from Constantinople, whilst the Khedive could not rely on any aid frorri the Sultan. On September 14th, after many anxious days spent in negotiation with the Military, the Khedive, and the Foreign Consuls, Cherif Pasha succeeded in forming the new Ministry, and announced his programme to be to maintain the Anglo-French Control, and to carry out certain Administrative Reforms; and on the 22nd September, the Khedive signed the decrees summoning the Chamber, and thus the new Ministry loyally carried out the conditions made on their accession to Power. It may now be said that the National Party in Egypt, which had long been the dream of visionaries, had become a reality, with a policy, based on a strong hostility to the Control, by Foreigners, of the political and administrative power in Egyptian affairs. On December 25th, the first Session of the Egyptian Parliament was opened by the Khedive, in which he declared his confidence in its wisdom and moderation to respect the Law of Liquidation, and all other international engagements ; and thus ended the eventful year for Egypt, of 1881. EGYPT IN 1882. In the first week of the year 1882, Arabi showed that he was not disposed to play an insignificant part, and his first act was to secure the appointment of Under-Secretary of State for War ; and following close upon it he issued a Manifesto, which appeared in the Times, in which he insisted that the Army was represented, and trusted by 102 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT, the people ; that Egypt was sick of the European Control, and its highly paid and incompetent Officials, and that they should be replaced by Egyptians; in fact, he raised for the first time the cry, Egypt for the Egyptians. In reply to this challenge, the British and French Governments at once addressed to the Khedive an Identic Note, in which they declared their determination, " to ward off, by their united efforts, all causes of external or internal complications which might menace the regime established in Egypt." In other words, they declared their intention "to uphold the Joint Control, established for the benefit of the bondholders." To this challenge the Chamber of Notables claimed the right of regulating the National Budget, and relying on the support of their Suzerain, the Sultan, they resented the interference of England and France in the internal affairs of Egypt, and demanded the abrogation of the Anglo-French Control, imposed upon Egypt in 1879. A deadlock now ensued. Cherif Pasha resigned, Arabi was ad- vanced to the position of War Minister, under the administration of Mahmoud Pasha, and thereupon the English and French Con- trollers threatened to leave Cairo, accompanied by the Consuls, but Sir Edward Malet, the English Consul-General, on being assured that the New Government would faithfully observe all International Obligations, the threat was not carried out. England and France were now alarmed, and Gambetta, First Minister in France, urged on Lord Granville prompt means to stem the tide of Independence and Revolt ; but whilst the English Govern- ment were deliberating upon this proposal, the French Ministry under Gambetta fell, and was replaced by M. De Freycinet, and his policy being opposed to the former, the Chamber of Notables hoped that the divergence of views would hasten their triumph. Arabi, practically, at this moment was Master of the Situation, for he was not only backed by Constantinople, but by all political sec- tions in Egypt itself, and the Khedive and his supporters were powerless to act in opposition to his designs. On March 15th, Arabi was made a Pasha by order of the Sultan, and 17 of his Officers who had supported him, were promoted to the rank of Colonels, and these promotions in the Egyptian Army so exasperated the Circassian Officers that, led by Osman Rifki, they determined to assassinate Arabi, to overthrow Tewfik, and proclaim Ismail, Khedivej but the plot was betrayed, and the instigators were ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. I03 arrested, tried by a secret Court Martial, and sentenced to degrada- tion and exile for life, which was afterwards commuted by the Khedive into striking their names off the roll of the Army, and reducing their pay one half The struggle between the Khedive and his Ministers now assumed an acute character, and in this crisis, England and France resolved to support the authority of the Khedive, and to protect the Europeans from a threatened massacre ; and with this object they ordered two Ironclads to proceed to Alexandria. This changed for a time the aspect of affairs, for the Egyptian Ministers lost no time in presenting themselves at the Palace of the Khedive, and making an abject submission. At Alexandria, however, the presence of the Allied Fleet caused anxiety rather than confidence, and the hostility to the Europeans in the city increased day by day; consequently, the British Consul- General addressed to Lord Granville a warning, " that Alexandria was in danger of being stormed by the Army, and that there was great danger to the Europeans, who would soon be at the mercy of the exasperated soldiery.^' In a fortnight this warning proved to be too true, for on June nth a serious riot broke out in Alexandria, under the guns of the Allied Fleet; the British Consul-General was dragged out of his carriage and severely injured; the Greek Consul was attacked, and many English and French subjects killed. To quell the outbreak, the Khedive, and the various representatives of the European Powers, appealed to Arabi Pasha to guarantee the security of the Europeans throughout Egypt, and accordingly, he at once exerted himself to maintain order and prevent bloodshed, and, assisted by the Sultan's representative. Dervish Pasha, he succeeded, which was to his great credit, as he was accused at the time of being the "Instigator, or the cause of the subsequent Alexandrian massacres.'' In the meantime Arabi, whilst doing his utmost to maintain order in Alexandria, was no less active as the Minister of War, in pushing on preparations to defend Alexandria from attack by the Allied Fleet, and by his orders, the Forts were put in a condition of defence, and long lines of earthworks erected, which were defended by the finest regiments in the Egyptian Army. Against these preparations of defence the Khedive, and the English Admiral in command, protested, but this only induced Arabi to push on the fortifications with all speed, and this refusal to obey the British Admiral, formed the pretext of the latter's active interference. I04 ■ ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. On July 7th, Admiral Beauchamp-Seymour replied by a threat to bombard Alexandria if his request for the evacuation of the Forts, was not comphed with, and three days subsequently, he followed it up by a demand for the surrender of Alexandria, the forts and forti- fications. At nightfall, no answer being received, the British Fleet, consisting of eight Ironclads and five gunboats, manned by 3,539 men, and carrying 102 guns, withdrew from the harbour to take up a line of battle position, whilst the French Fleet, acting on orders frotn Paris, sullenly and silently withdrew to Port Said. At 7 a.m. on the morning of July i ith, the first shot was fired, when the Forts instantly replied, and the action at once rolled all along the line. The first day's bombardment resulted in the destruction, or sur- render of the principal forts, with but little injury to the British Fleet ; and the following day the bombardment was re-opened, but a flag of truce being early displayed, the bombardment ceased, and after some hours delay, for the return of the English envoys, a truce was agreed upon, but when it expired it was found that the entire line of fortifica- tions had been abandoned by Arabi and his troops. Then followed the general outbreak of anarchy in the City of Alexandria ; the prison doors were thrown open, and for two days the work of devastation and massacre continued, during which it is believed that upwards of 2,000 Europeans perished. This barbaric bombardnient of Alexandria, a city of 200,000 inhabitants, one of the ancient centres of civilisation; the city wrapped in flames ; its European population ruthlessly massacred ; a bombardment sanctioned, if not ordered by the Ministers of the Crown, who, two years previously, had achieved a great Political Victory, under the banner of Peace ! Retrenchment ! and Reform ! surely such an act by the British Fleet was not only a great blunder, but it was a tremendous crime, that will remain an indelible blot on the pages of English history. The Navy of England had no more right to take up a line-of- battle position in the harbour at Alexandria, with a hostile intent, than the Navy of Russia, or of any other Maritime Power could claim the right to take up a hostile position within the break-water at Plymouth Sound, on some miserable pretext, of protecting the interests of the Europeans in the town of Plymouth, or of dis- mantling its fortifications, at any rate, without first having made a formal Declaration of War. ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 105 This flagrant violation of Municipal and International Law, by the Government of England, was reprehensible for two reasons : — (i) That at this very time, though Parliament was sitting, its sanction and its authority were neither asked for, nor secured. (2) At this very time a Conference, called by the invitation of England, was actually sitting at Constantinople, for the express purpose of securing the pacific and diplomatic intervention of the Great Powers of Europe in Egyptian affairs. Surely, the Government of England should have been the last, instead of the first, to move by hostile action, without the sanction of this Conference, before it had even formulated its discussions, much less, given its decision. England, therefore, had no right, but com- mitted a great wrong, in disturbing, by the boom of the Cannon, the calm deliberations of this Conference, assembled at Constantinople, and in opening the fire from its formidable Fleet, upon a helpless City, and commercial centre such as Alexandria. England, undoubtedly, was the aggressor, for who will deny, that the Government of Egypt acted within its rights, in erecting fortifi- cations to defend Alexandria ? Before a life was sacrificed, English Men-of-War anchored in Egyptian Waters, and delivered an Ultimatum to the Egyptian Government. This in itself was an act of war, and therefore Eng- land began the war. The massacre of Europeans in Alexandria, was not only subsequent to the arrival of the Fleet and the delivery of the Ultimatum, but it was in consequence of both. The fact is, the Navy of England bombarded Alexandria, not to defend the Suez Canal, which was loo miles away, and was not in any danger, but to re-establish the Dual Control over the revenues of Egypt, and certainly this was an Act of War, not in the interests of the British People, but in the selfish interests of the Bondholders of Europe. Moreover, Egypt was not an independent Nation, the Khedive was not a supreme Ruler. Egypt was a part of the Ottoman Empire, so that no Nation or Government had a right to interfere in its internal affairs, or to make any demands on its Government; and therefore, England should have negotiated only with its Suzerain, the recognised Sultan, at Constantinople, for the Sultan was the Sovereign of Egypt, whilst the authority of the Khedive, was a trust which he received from the Porte, and for which he had to render an account to the Sultan. England committed a three-fold blunder : — I. In breaking up the deliberations of the Conference at Constantinople, and defying the Great Powers there assembled. Io6 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 2. In sending the naval squadron to Alexandria. 3. In bombarding the forts of the city, without a formal declaration of war, ad- dressed to the Sultan, as the Sovereign of Egypt. When the news of the bombardment reached London, several Members of the House of Commons rose, one after the other, to put questions to the Prime Minister as to whom the declaration of war should be addressed, whether to the Sultan, the Khedive, or Arabi Pasha ? Thereupon, Mr. Gladstone made the memorable reply : — " There is no war. The bombardment is a measure of security, a defensive act on the part of the British Fleet." No declaration of war ! !A.nd yet, forsooth, it is estimated that this " defensive act," not only led to the bombardment of an ancient and renowned City, to its almost utter destruction, but alas ! to what subsequently followed : the invasion of Egypt, the occupation of its capital, Cairo, the invasion of the Soudan, and the slaughter of 40,000 of a brave people " struggling to be free."* And yet, " no war ! " Only a " defensive act ! " Well might Mr. Bright declare, in the speech explaining his resig- nation as a member of the Government fpr this barbaric act : — '■ " England violated both the Law of Nations, and the obligations of Treaties ; she broke public faith, and infringed solemn engagements, "t Fifteen days after the bombardment of Alexandria, and the occu- pation of the City by the blue-jackets and Marines, the Government of England practically declared war against the de facto Govern- ment of Egypt, of which Arabi was the Chief ; a declaration of war, which was ratified by Parliament in the Vote of Credit of July 27th, 1882, and orders were immediately given for the despatch of troops from England, India, Malta, Gibraltar, and other foreign garrisons, with which Great Britain resolved to reconquer Egypt for the Khedive, and for his Suzerain, the Sultan of Turkey. For the command of this invading Army of 40,000 men of all ranks. Sir Garnet Wolseley was selected, and he was accompanied by Sir John Adye, Sir Archibald Alison, General Graham, General Drury-Lowe, all tried and trusted Generals of the Empire ; and in addition the Duke of Connaught, for it was thought necessary that * Byron. t The resignation of Mr. Bright as a member of Her Majesty's Government was tendered to Mr. Gladstone, and accepted by him on the 15th July, 1882, and his ex- planations for taking this step were made in Parliament on the 17th July ; but the Fleet was ordered to Alexandria on the 20th May, and the Admiral in Command received his instructions from Her Majesty's Government to open the bombardment on the nth July; and therefore, Mr. Bright must be held responsible for the decisions arrived at in the Councils of Her Majesty's Government, and for the consequences which unhappily followed. ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. I07 the latter, should have an opportunity of receiving his " baptism of fire " in this most inglorious struggle. The Khedive, having issued his decree giving full power to the British General to wage war and occupy Egypt, on the i6th August Sir Garnet Wolseley landed at Alexandria, and on the i8th the troops, having re-embarked, he gave orders for the Ironclads and transports to sail for the seat of war, which by an adroit feint was believed to be Aboukir, but when the sealed despatches were opened at sea it proved to be Port-Said. On the 22nd the army disem- barked, and on the 24th fought their first engagement at Tel-el- Mahutta, and being victorious, pushed on to Kassassin, where on the 28th they won another victory, in which the cavalry of the 7 th Dragoons performed a feat of arms, by charging at night-fall the artillery, infantry, and cavalry of Arabi's army, and throwing them into confusion, with considerable slaughter. The objective point, however, of these military operations, for we must not call it war, was Tel-el-Kebir, a position that Arabi had chosen for his last stand, and which he had strongly fortified, and against this formidable position, Sir Garnet Wolseley, with a fighting force of 1 1,000 infantry, 2,000 sabres, and 60 guns, marched silently forward in the stillness of an Egyptian night. It was a cleverly executed movement ; the forces under Arabi were taken by surprise at early dawn, and almost before a shot was fired from the Egyptian defences, they were scaled, the bayonet went to work, and within twenty minutes of the first rush, Tel-el-Kebir was in the hands of the English ; and on the 14th, after two days' forced marching in a blazing sun. Sir Garnet Wolseley entered Cairo, where, surrounded by his Staff, and supported by the Guards and Highlanders, he formally arrested Arabi, in the name of the Govern- ment of England, against which he had done no wrong. With the fall of Cairo, and the arrest of Arabi, the National move- ment collapsed, and one after another stronghold, Kafr-Dowar, Rosetta, Damietta, and others, surrendered to the arms of England, and Tewfik once more became, hy force majeure, Ruler in Egypt. On the fall of Tel-el-Kebir, and the downfall of the Nations,! Party, all eyes turned for the moment to Arabi Pasha, a prisoner of war in the power of England ; and to the credit of the British Govern- ment, considering the loud cry raised by his enemies for vengeance, they insisted, in spite of Ministerial complications in Egypt, upon his receiving a fair and open trial, not as a criminal, but as a political prisoner against the rul* of the Khedive, to which he was entitled. Io8 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. Arabi was in a position to implicate the Sultan, the ex-Khedive, and other influential persons in Egypt, but Lord Dufferin (who had been despatched by the Government to unravel the tangled skein of Egyptian politics, and to lay a basis for self-government in Egypt), wisely prevented the strange revelations from being made, and advised Arabi, ably defended by Mr. Broadley, of the English Bar, to plead guilty, and trust to the clemency of England. The decision of the Court-Martial was a sentence of death, which was immediately commuted by the Khedive into perpetual exile, and he was accordingly conveyed to Ceylon, where he still remains. Egypt and the Khedive were now delivered, by the armed inter- vention of England from the throes of a Revolution that threatened to overwhelm them, and in the person of Lord Duiferin (one of the ablest, and most experienced Diplomatists of the Crown), England showed her resolution to assist in the great and difficult task of the Te-organisation of the Egyptian Government, that had received so violent a shock, by the widespread Revolution of the National Party. EGYPT IN 1883. It is easy, no doubt, to be " wise after the event," but from the first, the general consensus of opinion has been that one of the greatest blunders amongst the many and sad blunders committed by the Government of Mr. Gladstone in Egyptian affairs, a blunder from which all the disasters in Egjfpt have sprung, was that when Tel-el-Kebir fell, when the Rebellion had collapsed; when Arabi was exiled, and when the Khedive was firmly fixed upon his Throne, with order and tranquillity secured, it would have been true wisdom and statesmanship had the military forces of England evacuated Egypt, and allowed her to tread firmly the path of self-Government, which the continued intervention of England prevented her entering upon. If precedent could have raised a warning voice, surely the in- vasion of Afghanistan in 1839, ^^id its disastrous occupation by the forces of England till 1844, should have guided the deliberations of the English Cabinet to the wise decision of immediate evacuation. If, however, reasons of expediency and policy did not justify immediate evacuation, surely the isolation of England in her wild ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 109 career of intervention in Egypt, the known and felt jealousy, approach- ing almost to the veiled hostility of France, in consequence of our invasion and occupation of Egypt, should have been sufficient, in itself, to have convinced Mr. Gladstone, and his colleagues, of the unwisdom of a prolonged occupation. Between annexation and occupation, there cannot be a middle course, and certainly occupation, without responsibility and control, was an absurd, and, as it afterwards proved, a disastrous policy. Lord Granville, in. January, 1883, declared in his despatch to the Great Powers, the determination of England to retain a British force in Egypt for the restoration of law and order. Could anything be more illogical, or more dangerous, than to shirk the responsibility of controlling, and directing, during that occupation, the internal and external policy of the Government of Egypt ? This was the supreme moment of the crisis in Eg)^t, and from that one false step, committed by the Governrnent of England, under the plea of irresponsibility, must be dated the succession of appalling disasters, and humiliating blunders which marked, nay, which have disgraced, the policy of England in Eg)fpt. To realise fully the position, it is necessary to give the facts re- specting the conquest of the Soudan, and its relations with Egypt, which can be done in a few words. It was under the Khediviate of Mehemet Ali, that his General, Ibrahim Pasha, carried the flag of the " Crescent and the Cross,'' as far as Kordofan and Sennaar, and when (in succession to Mehemet, Ali, Aba Pasha, and Said Pasha) Ismail Pasha became Khedive, the conquest of the Soudan, under the pretext of freedom for the slave, was complete, and Colonel Gordon, afterwards General Gordon, was appointed its first Governor-General. Under the wise and humane rule of this remarkable man, the Soudan was regenerated, and the Soudanese, so long oppressed, looked forward to a brighter, and higher standard of Government, than they had ever enjoyed. But, alas ! for the instability of human affairs. When Ismail fell, Gordon was recalled, and another " King arose in Egypt, that knew not Joseph," And the result was, when Gordon was recalled, the Soudanese were handed over to the rapacity and cruelty of the Circassians, and Bashi-Bazouks, those anti-human species of Eastern barbarism. What wonder is it, then, that when the echoes of freedom reverber- ated to the Equator, when the Soudanese heard of Arabi's heroic stand for liberty at Alexandria, and T,el-el-Kebir, they longed for a.. no ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. deliverer, and that when Ahmed Mahommed unfurled his banner of revolt in the Soudan, they flocked to his standard, as the standard of the long-expected Redeemer of Islam ! It was against this Ahmed Mahommed, commonly called the Mahdi, that in August, 1883, Hicks Pasha, a retired Indian officer, was ordered by the Egyptian Government to advance, and if possible, to suppress the rebellion in the Soudan. Poor Hicks Pasha and his army marched to their doom. On September 9th, at the head of an army of 11,000 men, all told, they started on their ill-fated expedition, suffering under a tropical sun, for two weary months, every conceivable privation, and at last, on November sth, without water, without supphes, and without allies, they were surrounded by the fanatical hosts of the Mahdi, and Hicks Pasha putting himself at the head of his enfeebled force, fell, and his little army was annihilated. Such a victory set the whole Soudan in a blaze ! The charge, then, against the Government of Mr. Gladstone, is this : That when they resolved, as it is generally considered unwisely, on an occupation conditional " on the restoration of peace and order in Egypt," in accordance with the despatch of Lord Granville of January, 1883, that, from whatever cause, they did not rise to the occasion, that they did not realise their full responsibility, and by a firm and strong hand on the reins of Government at Cairo, prevent as they might have prevented, the unspeakable disasters in the Soudan, which subsequently ensued. To put it plainly, duty and policy alike imperatively demanded, that at that supreme crisis, when the Rebellion in the Soudan under the Mahdi assumed serious proportions, the Cabinet of Eng- land, or their responsible advisers in Egypt, should have done one of two things, either, in the exercise of their responsible authority, have kept back Hicks Pasha from that ill-fated expedition, or, im- pressed with its necessity, have so marshalled his forces, and organised the power of succour, that no army of the Soudan, however fanatical, could have overwhelmed it with disaster ; and for this reason. England had practically conquered Egypt, had destroyed the Army of the Nation, had broken up the Government at Cairo. England had, therefore, made herself, de facto, and de jure, the respon- sible Government of the country. England was supreme. None could make her afraid. The Cabinet of England knew, or ought to have known, that the Soudan was in a blaze ; that the Madhi and ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. Ill his embattled hosts were victorious everywhere. The Cabinet of England knew, or ought to have known, that Hicks Pasha was organising an expedition to go forth and meet the invaders ; but with all this knowledge, they gave him no assistance, no advice, no authority, but, wrapping themselves up in the cloak of irresponsibility, they allowed Hicks Pasha and his army of ii,ooo men to go straight to their doom, and fix, irrevocably fix, English occupation, with all its perils, and all its responsibilities in Egypt and the Soudan. EGYPT IN 1884. Events now marched rapidly. The terrible disaster to the army of Hicks Pasha, in the Equatorial Provinces of the Soudan, in the attempt to relieve El-Obeid, was followed by as great a catastrophe in the Eastern Soudan, where Baker Pasha and his scratch army of 3,500 men were completely overwhelmed, in an heroic attempt to relieve Sinkat and Tokar, and in that catastrophe fell, fighting against overwhelming numbers of the Arabs, many brave English officers, Morice Bey, Leslie, Forrester, Walker, Carroll, and others. This defeat of Baker Pasha was followed by the fall of Sinkat, the garrison of which, under the intrepid Commander, sallied out, in the hope of being able to cut their way through, but they were sur- rounded and massacred, and the Commander of Tokar, rather than risk a similar fate, surrendered. These disasters at last compelled the British Government to abandon their policy of "masterly inactivity,'' and "irresponsi- bility," and to adopt a "spirited policy," in order to check the further advance of Osman Digma, who was acting as the Mahdi's lieutenant in the Eastern Soudan. Under the command of General Graham, a large army was there- fore despatched from England in March, 1884, and landing at Suakim, moved forward to encounter the undisciplined hosts of a brave people, " struggling to be free."* At El-Teb and Tamai, two murderous battles were fought, at which not less than 5,000 brave Soudanese bit the dust ; and General Graham and his army, satisfied with their victories, returned home. * Byron. > 112 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. At thk period of the struggle, a cry of despair was heard from Colonel Stewart, the Officer in command at Khartoum, where i i,ooo men and women were in imminent danger of being massacred, and their cry being heard in Downing Street, as well as in Cairo, the British Government resolved to send them a deliverer, in the person of the chivalrous General Gordon, but who, alas ! like poor Hicks Pasha, as events proved, abandoned by the Government, faced bravely his doom. A more painful episode, whilst a more heroic act, than the defence of Khartoum under General Gordon, the pages of history have not recorded. The sad events of that memorable siege, and of the deeply humiliating desertion by the Government of England, of that truly great and good man, is, alas ! too well remembered to require a detailed narrative, but this we must unhesitatingly declare, after a careful study of the whole circumstances of the case, that a heavy responsibility lies on the late principal Advisers of the Crown, for the death of General Gordon, and the wholesale massacre which followed the capture, by treachery, of Khartoum. Can anything be more intelligible, or more emphatic than the onus probandi of that responsibility ? What are the facts? When Gordon, in January, 1884, chivalrously accepted the great trust of saving Khartoum, he also accepted, with the sanction of the British Government, the appointment, conferred upon him by the Khedive, of Governor-General of the Soudan, and on ' his arrival at Khartoum, i8th February, 1884, he was welcomed with enthusiasm in that capacity, and issued a proclamation to that effect. There is no doubt, whatever may have been the original in- structions of the British Government given to General Gordon, or of his original intentions when he accepted the appointment, that when he arrived at Khartoum he considered its safety impossible of accomplishment, so long as the hosts of the Mahdi surrounded him, and that his own troops were not to be relied upon. In such an emergency, no wonder that Gordon, early in the year of 1884, appealed earnestly to the British Government for help, and when that was denied him, what wonder is it, that he appealed to the millionaires of England and America, to equip a sufficient force to send to his rescue ? This was in the month of April, 1884, and why, at this supreme crisis of danger, the British Government maintained so stoical an indifference to his fate, baffles comprehension. ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. II3 They knew he was in peril, that he was fighting against base treachery within, and fierce conflicts without Khartoum, that he was gradually being hemmed in by the hosts of fanatical warriors, like sleuthhounds thirsting for his blood. They knew all this in April, 1884, yet, in spite of his earnest entreaties for help, they allowed May, June, July, and August to roll by, ere they could nerve them- selves up to a brave resolution to send an expedition of relief; and alas ! when that brave little army, which was well described as " an army of heroes,'' under Wolseley and Stewart, fought their way over the burning sands of Africa, through the embattled hosts of the Mahdi, and gained, at last, the banks of the Nile, within touch of Khartoum, they were too late! Too late 1 by three days, in the " haste to the rescue," for Khartoum had fallen, and Gordon was no more ! One more victim of the 40,000 victims that have been sacrificed at the bloody shrine of this most deplorable war ! By the death of poor Gordon, and the surrender of Khartoum, the relief expedition of Lord Wolseley collapsed. This relief expedition had fought sanguinary conflicts at Abu-Klea, Gubat, and Metammeh, it had inflicted heavy losses on the Arabs, whilst it sustained severe losses, especially in officers, and amongst the slain, were Generals Earle, Burnaby, and Stewart. This was a terrible retribution, which did not, however, stop there, for the English people were exasperated at the constant succession of disasters, from the bombardment of Alexandria to the abandon- ment of poor Gordon, brought about, as they believed, by the vacillation of an incapable Administration in Power, and at the General Election of August, 1885, the electors inflicted a crushing defeat, a retribution which it was believed they deserved. EGYPT IN 1885. With the advent of the Marquis of Salisbury to Power in 1885, happily, these revolting scenes of bloodshed ceased, the roar of the cannon was hushed, and the voice of diplomacy was heard, for it was time that — " The pen should supersede the sword, And right, not might, should be the word." The first diplomatic step promoted by the Government of the I 114 ENGLAND, FRANCE,' AND EGYPT. Marquis of Salisbury, was the Mission to Turkey and Egypt of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, and whatever may have been the result of this diplomatic Mission, its spirit and its purpose, deserve the highest praise. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff is no charlatan politician, but an able and skilled diplomatist, who has served England well, in many diplomatic Missions, and especially in that most important and arduous one, after the Russo-Turkish War, in the reorganisation of Eastern Roumelia. There is another reason why this Mission deserves more than a passihg recognition, and it is this : That England, by the action of its Government, at last recognised, what should have been recognised in 1882, and if it had been recognised, the intervention of England in Egypt would never have taken place ; namely, the Suzerainty of the Sultan, and the Sovereignty of the Porte, over the Government and the people of Egypt. ■ In the despatch of the Marquis of Salisbury, addressed to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, dated August 7th, 1885, appointing him Envoy-Extraordinary, and Minister-Plenipotentiary to the Sultan of Turkey on Egyptian affairs, this recognition is fully set forth. " It is the wish of Her Majesty's Government to recognise, in its full significance, the position which is secured to the Sultan, as Sovereign of Egypt, by treaties under instruments, having a force under international law. " Her Majesty's Government are of opinion, that the authority of the Sultan over a large portion of the Mabommedan world, which largely exists under his rule, will be much assured by a due recognition of his legitimate position in Egypt, and on the other hand, they believe it is in the Sultan's power, to contribute materially to the establishment of settled order, and good Government in portions of that country, which have been recently subject to the calamity of armed rebellion. " The general object of your Mission will be. in the first instance, to secure for Eng- land the amount of influence which is necessary for its own Imperial interests, and subject to that condition, to provide a strong and efficient Government, as free as pos- sible from foreign interference. When Sir Henry Drummond Wolff arrived at Constantinople on August 22nd, 1885, the Sultan and his Ministers expressed in the strongest manner their desire to maintain and strengthen the ancient ties of friendship with England, and Sir Henry, in reply, personally assured them that the object of his Mission, was to combine the reorganisation of Egypt, with the recognition of the Sovereign rights of the Sultan, and of the Government of Turkey. After a series of negotiations, extending, over two months, the Anglo-Turkish Convention was signed, on the z6th October, 1885 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. IIS by Said Pasha, the Plenipotentiary appointed by the Porte, and by Sir Henry Drummond Wolif, on behalf of England, by which it was agreed : — ' ' That Turkey and England would respectively send a High Commissioner to Egypt, to consult with the Khedive upon the best means of, (i) TianquiUising the Soudan. (2) The reorganisation of the Egyptian Army. (3) To examine into all the branches of Eastern Administration, and as soon as the two High Commissioners have attained the security of the frontiers, and the stability of the Egyptian Government, they shall report to their respective Governments, who will then proceed to the conclusion of a Convention, for the withdrawal of the troops from Egypt." On the 30th October, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff left Constanti- nople for Cairo, and for a period of nearly two years, in concert with the Turkish Commissioner, Mukhtar Pasha, he laboured to achieve the object of his Mission. Having read every despatch in the numerous Blue Books dealing with his Mission, from the Constantinople despatch of August 7th, 1885, down to the last despatch from Cairo, that has been published, November 29th, 1886, in all 180 despatches, dealing with the negotiations at Constantinople ; with the trade in Eastern Soudan ; Egyptian police ; movements of Soudanese in revolt ; military affairs ; the organisation of the Egyptian Army ; Daira and Domain debts ; Nile ; railways ; judicial organisation ; negotiations with the Soudan- ese for the re-opening of trade ; petroleum deposits ; cotton produc- tion; pacification of Soudan; withdrawal of British troops; irriga- tion of Egypt ; state of affairs at Suakin ; movements of Osman Digna ; position of Lupton Bey, and Slatin Bey ; public works ; advance of dervishes, (and there the published despatches cease), it must generally be admitted that this record is worthy of his Mission, and shows an amount of energy -and hard work, , which might be very suitably imitated to advantage by the Consuls of England, all over the world. In the beginning of 1887, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, having conferred in London with the British Government, returned to Con- stantinople, to submit to the Porte the result of the operations of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and to continue the negotiations set on foot at his previous Mission in 1885. He arrived at Constantinople on the 28th January, 1887, and on the ist February, the Porte appointed the Grand Vizier, and Said Pasha as the two Turkish Commissioners to confer with the British Envoy. II 6 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. The first formal sitting of the Turkish and British Commissioners took place on February 8th, actuated, as they mutually declared, with a sincere desire for the establishment of permanent tranquillity and order in Egypt, and for the welfare and prosperity of its people. At this sitting, Sir Henry Drummond Wolif presented a document which set forth a scheme for the neutralization of Egypt, and for the defence of the Suez Canal ; but this scheme, necessarily implying an International guarantee, was not favourably received by the leading Governments of Europe, and it was withdrawn, and counter-proposals of a very different character were submitted. Negotiations were continued for three months, and finally, on the 23rd May, after many conferences, many despatches, and much labour, the proposed new Convention, consisting of Six Articles, was signed by the English and Turkish Envoys, and the same day, the Draft of the New Con- vention was submitted to the Sultan for his ratification. This proposed Convention was based on the recognition of, and respect for, the rights of the Sultan as Suzerain of Egypt, and naturally gave great satisfaction to the Sultan, Abdul Hamid, for it was accepted by him as an evidence of the friendship of England. On May 26th, an official organ of the Turkish Government, called the Tarik, wrote thus favourably of the Convention : — "The satisfactory termination of the negotiations is due to the moderation and friendliness of both parties, and the good news must be hailed with pleasure on all sides. The Porte's attitude throughout has been steadfastly based on principles of equity and fairness, and these have been fully appreciated by the British Government, which, on its side, has given renewed proof of honesty of purpose respecting the inviolable rights of the Sultan over Egypt ; and it is a duty to recognise such just dealing on the part of Englapd in the question. It serves to renew and strengthen the traditional policy of England towards Turkey, and is a fresh pledge of the great value of the services rendered before, and to be continued in future by a friendly Power, always steadfast in its dealings and consistent in its policy." On June nth the subject was raised in the House of Lords, and in the course of the debate, the Prime Minister indicated generally the character of this Convention : — "We found," said the Marquis of Salisbury, "on our accession to Power, that England's position in Egypt was surrounded with pledges to Europe ; that whilst England disavowed a British Protectorate in Egypt ;' on the other hand, considering the great sacrifices made, immediate evacuation was impossible, and that so long as occupation in Egypt is unrecognised by any Convention with Turkey, and approved by the Great Powers, our presence inspires disquietude throughout Europe." " The Government," said the Marquis of Salisbury, " agreed to the signing by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff of the proposed Convention, because Her Majesty's Govern- ment are desirous to recognise, and maintain the Authority of the Sultan on the one band, and to remove anxiety in Europe on the other hand." ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. II7 The Noble Marquis then indicated the general character of the Convention, the ratification of which by the Sultan, Europe, he declared, was anxiously awaiting, and the following were its main provisions : — \ (i) The neutralization of the Suez Canal, in accordance with previous declarations of Lord Granville, that the Canal shall be absolutely free to all nations, and at all times. (2) The withdrawal of British troops from Egypt, subject to certain conditions, in three years from date of ratification of Convention, and at the end of five years, the right of England to appoint officers for the Egyptian Army, to cease. (3) The conditions referred to are : If there is any internal or external danger in Egypt, when the time for the evacuation arrives, the withdrawal of the British troops to be postponed until that danger is removed. (4) After evacuation, England to have the right to send troops to Egypt, in the event of two contingencies arising, (i) Danger of internal or external disturbance of order. (2) Egypt not fulfilling her International obligations. (5) The Sultan, to have equal rights with England for sending troops to Egypt for its general pacification. (6) No other Nation to have any right to send troops into Egypt. In addition to these six provisions, there are annexes to the Con- vention, dealing with the capitulations, the mixed tribunals, the passage of foreign troops through Egypt in time of war, (should the Suez Canal be interrupted), also on the subject of military and financial reorganisation, and on railways. Unfortunately the Governments of France and Russia, showed resistance to the ratification of this Anglo-Turkish Convention. The first official announcement to the Sultan of this resistance by France and Russia, was made on June 9th, and energetically made, at Constantinople, by the Russian Minister, M. Nelidofif, and by the French Minister, M. Montebello, on the ground, as stated at the time of its being an infringement of the Sultan's Sovereign rights in Egypt. The despatch of the French Government, signed by M. Montebello, under date 27th June, 1887, declared that : " The French Government protests in the most energetic manner, against the Con- vention, which is not only contrary to the political interests of France, and the " Balance of Power " in the Mediterranean, but is also subversive of the authority of the Sultan in Egypt." ^ .^ . , " The French Government will do all in their power to prevent the ratification of the Convention." "In the event of the Sultan rejecting the Convention, France engages to give Turkey support, whatever may be the consequences. In the event of the Sultan ratifying the Convention, France will take every means to safeguard her interests." Il8 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. The opposition of Russia was not so clearly defined, but it was believed she wished to hasten the downfall of the Grand Vizier, Kiamil Pasha, and thus to secure some corresponding advantage for herself, either in Armenia or Bulgaria, in fact, Russia would only give her adhesion, at the price of a gigantic bribe. On the other hand, it was believed France and Russia were not alone in their resistance, but that the Porte itself, was against ratifi- cation, partly from a fear of Mahommedan fanaticism, which is opposed to any foreign occupation of Egypt, under any pretence, and partly from concealed objections of the Porte, to any future occupation of Egypt, by England. Occupation, therefore, was the bHe noir of Russia, that demanded, forsooth, occupation of Bulgaria ! Occupation was the bete noir of France, that has, forsooth, carried out occupation in Tunis, Tonquin, and Madagascar ! Occupation was the bUe noir of Turkey, lest it should become the thin end of the wedge of annexation ! In face of these great and conflicting interests at Constantinople, the Sultan Abdul Hamid, who personally wished to ratify it, was placed in an awkward position, and between this Scylla of France, on the one hand, and the Charybdis of Russia, on the other hand, the Porte resorted to its favourite weapon of procrastination, and seldom has that dangerous weapon of the Government of Constantinople been more dexterously applied, as the following rksumi of the negotiations will show. The British Envoy, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, arrived first in Constantinople in August, 1885, and after four months' negotiation, he succeeded in inducing the Porte to sign the Anglo-Turkish Con- vention, on 25th October, 1885. According to this agreement, Mukhtar Pasha and Sir Henry Drummond Wolff proceeded to Egypt, and for a period of twelve months pursued their investigations. In January, 1887, having finished their investigations, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, returned to Constantinople, to negotiate with the Porte for a Convention, based on the joint recommendations of the Turkish and British Commissioners. After five months' negotiations, they mutually agreed, on the 23rd May, 1887, to its six provisions, and the Porte promised it should be ratified by the Sultan on the 22nd June; then he procrastinated to the 4th July, and again procrastinated to the loth July, and this ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. II9 dangerous procrastination on the part of Turkey, from whatever cause, effectively and finally disposed of the Convention. Nevertheless, whatever may have been, or may be, the intrigues of Russia, the jealousy of France, or the deceptions of Turkey, the policy of England, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt for the future, is unmistakably clear. Recognising the Suzerainty of the Sultan, and the Sovereignty of Turkey in Egypt, recognising, what the greater and lesser Powers in Europe recognise, in spite of the veiled hostiUty of Russia and France, that the policy of England in Egypt is a disinterested policy ; a policy that desires only tranquillity and order in Egypt, the stability of the Throne of the Khedive, and the happiness and welfare of the people; let England, in the future, act up to her professions, fulfil all her declarations, solemnly made to Europe, and although the Con- vention agreed upon at Constantinople has not been ratified, let her carry out in its entirety the conditions under which the occupation by British troops shall cease in Egypt, and by the honourable adop- tion of this compact, England will give to Europe one more evidence, if evidence is wanting, of her faithful observance of international obligations, and a sohd guarantee for the maintenance of the general tranquiUity of Europe. FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. FROM 1787 TO 1887. The serious complications which arose in 1884 between France and China, springing out of the Treaty between Annam and France, signed at Hufe, on the 23rd of August, 1883, and which threatened a war on a gigantic scale, in which not only France and China, but Great Britain and other nations might have become involved, naturally awakened in political and commercial circles the deepest anxiety. In order, however, to arrive at a correct estimate, as well as a sound judgment, upon the " miserable complications " which led to this crisis, and also of the interests and position of China, as affected by the terms of peace demanded by France, it will be necessary that we should, in the first place, give a brief historic account of Annam, and afterwards examine the position assumed by France, upon which her policy was based. The Empire of Annam is situated in what is called the Indo- Chinese Peninsula, and consists, or rather prior to the French annexations of 1862 and 1874, consisted of Cochin-China, Tonquin, Ciampa, and a portion of the province of Laos. Tonquin, which has been for many years the scene of wars and insurrections, is a province which has never been exactly defined, and is bounded on the north by China, on the east by the sea, on the south by the province of Ciampa, and on the west by Annam. The capital is Hanoi or Kecho, or, to use the official language, FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 121 Thun-long-Thun, which signifies the " City of the Red Dragon^' and is a very ancient capital, for it was built as far back as the 7 th century, at which period it was included in the Empire of China, and subsequently, for a long period, it became a separate kingdom under the Dinh dynasty. In the loth century Tonquin was annexed to the Empire of Annam, whose capital was th'en, as is now. Hub. In the 15th century the founder of the Annam dynasty, Leh, delivered the Empire entirely from the domination of China, after a prolonged and frightful struggle, which terminated by a general massacre of the Chinese scattered throughout the whole of the Peninsula. In the course of the last century, French missionaries had sought to establish themselves in Annam, and to propagate the Christian religion ; but their propaganda, sometimes tolerated by the authorities in Annam, and sometimes giving them offence, was not made without difficulties and grave dangers. In 1774 a Revolution, conducted by three brothers called Tayson, overthrew the dynasty of Lfeh, and exterminated all the members, not only of this family, but those of Trinh and Nguybn except one, who was saved by the French missionary, ' Pigneau-de-Behaine, and who claimed the titles of Bishop of Adran, and Vicar Apostolic of Cochin-China. This able missionary gave to the young Prince a good Christian education, and he resolved to re-establish him upon the Throne of his fathers. But all the attempts of the young Pretender being checked, the Bishop of Adran proposed to him to come to Paris, to ask the support of the French Government. FROM 1787 TO 1874. With the young son of Nguybn, Pigneau-de-Behaine, in 1787, started for Europe, and succeeded in concluding with Louis XVI., and the Court at Versailles, a Treaty of Alliance, offensive and defensive. By this Treaty, France agreed to place at the disposition of the Pretender four frigates, and about 2,000 troops. Nguyfen on his side, agreed to surrender to France the Bay and the Peninsula of Tourane, as well as two small adjacent 122 FRANCE, ANN AM, AND CHINA. islands, and to grant full and entire liberty of commerce to France, to the exclusion of foreigners. The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789, which cost Louis XVI. his life, and overthrew the Bourbon dynasty, delayed the carrying out of this project ; but the French missionary, Pigneau, persevered, and succeeded in enrolling many French officers, amongst whom appear the names of Chaigneau; OUivier, Dayot, and Vannier, as well as many hundreds of volunteers of different nationalities. These officers equipped and disciplined an army, and organised an artillery force in Annam, and the following year, 1790, they over- threw the Government of Tayson frlres, and replaced on the throne the heir of the deposed Nguyfen dynasty, under the name of Gia-Loung. This King, Gia-Loung, having defeated his rivals, and recovered the whole of the ancient kingdom of Annam, reigned with prudence and sagacity until 1820. During Gia-Loung's reign it is asserted that he was tolerant towards the missionaries of France, and that he faithfully carried out the Treaty he had signed with Louis XVI. in 1787. But his successor Mina-Mang was intolerant, the missionaries met with great obstacles, many of them were put to death, and finally, in 1838, an edict was issued, declaring that the adoption of Christianity by any of the subjects of Annam would be con- sidered a crime of high treason. In vain France endeavoured, for many years, to obtain repara- tion,, and to secure, what is called, liberty of conscience. In 1847 Tu-Duc ascended the Throne, and at first he showed benevolent intentions, but this did not last long, for in 1848, '51, and '54 he published three edicts, respectively decreeing the pain of death against the missionaries of France, and against the Annamites who refused to abjure Christianity. This it was that, in 1858, under the pretext of protecting the French Christian missionaries, but in reality to extend the influence, the power and territory of France in the East, induced the late Emperor of the French, Napoleon III., to send a Military ex- pedition to Cochin-China, to enforce his Imperial authority, and to defend and extend the honour and prestige of the French arms. The expedition was successful. In September, 1858, the forti- fications of Tourane were carried by assault, and in February of the following year, Saignon and its citadel yielded submission to the conquerors. FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1 23 The result of this expedition was the thin edge of the wedge of French domination in the Indo-Chinese peninsula ; it gave France a considerable addition to her previously acquired colony of Cambodia ; it obtained for her exclusive commercial advantages by the opening of the numerous seaports of Annam ; it gave her, in fact, what she had so long desired, a footing in Asia, and thus largely increased her power and influence in that part of the world. Prior to this period, her position in Cochin-China was limited to the possession of the three provinces of Ha-Tien (Kang-Kao), Tyaon-Dok (Hau-Ghiang), and of Vin-Long (Long-Ho). In con- sequence, however, of the successful campaign in 1859, by the capture of the forts of Tourane and the port of Saignon, she annexed the three adjacent provinces in Cochin-China, Bien-Hoa, (Dong-Nai), Gia-Dinh (Saignon), and Dia-Tuong (Myh-Ho), as well as the Island of Poulp-Condor, south-east of Saignon. These provinces were annexed by conquest, and embodied in a Treaty, signed June 5th, 1862, on the part of France, by Rear Admiral Bonard, and for Annam by the Prime Minister of Tu-Duc. On the exchange of the ratifications, the Treaty was countersigned for France by Drouyn-de-L'Huys, and the late Emperor Napoleon, and for Annam by Tu-Duc, the King of Annam. This Treaty consisted of 1 2 Articles, the most important being the clauses which provide for the absolute cession of the three provinces aforesaid ; the declaration of a French protectorate over the whole kingdom ; an indemnity of 4,000,000 dollars, payable over a period of 10 years, at the rate of 400,000 dollars to be paid annually at Saignon. By Article 9, Annam also agreed to suppress piracy and brig- andage upon the frontiers of the French Colonial Empire of Cochin-China. These advantages and conquests appeared to satisfy the ambi- tions of France for a few years, and affairs settled down quietly until 1873, when a fresh cause of disturbance arose in Tonkin ; partly arising from an insurrection against Tu-Duc, stirred up by the French missionaries, who desired the restoration of the ancient dynasty of Lfeh, by which they hoped to obtain great concessions ; and partly arising from the restless spirit of some French adven- turers, operating on the Song-Koi or Red River, where efforts 124 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. were made by them to open up communications from the Gulf of Tonquin to Hanoi, the Capital, and thence to push through to the Chinese province of Yunnan. The Government of Annam opposed the expedition on its arrival at the mouth of the Song-Koi, first by diplomacy, and that failing, by an armed force ; but the French forces under Dupuis and Millot, in spite of the difficulties raised at Hufe, steamed up the Song-Koi, overcame the obstacles, and accomplished this hazardous and bold enterprise. Whilst the expedition of M. Dupuis was in progress, the French Admiral at Saignon, seeing the importance of opening a line of communication for French commerce, despatched a gunboat, under the command of Lieut. Frangois Garnier, hoping thereby to act as the prot^g^ of* Dupuis and Millot in their enterprise. Unfortunately, as it was unanticipated, this small French force was confronted by the Chinese forces, under the command of a General who it was believed was in the service of Tu-Duc, the King of Annam. China, in fact, defended her vassal, and her sovereignty over Tonquin, which for centuries she had safeguarded, for she felt her influence compromised by the presence of foreigners, and especially by the representative of a Foreign Power at Hanoi, which she was resolved to resist by force. Lieutenant Garnier attacked and captured the fortress of Hanoi, and completely upset for the time the authority of Tu-Duc, and a few weeks afterwards he proceeded to occupy, in the name of France, the adjacent fortresses in the Delta, Haidznong, Nam-Dinh, and 'Nam-Binh ; nominated Governors, and placed his forces at threatened positions, as an assertion of French authority. Poor Garnier had only a few hundred men under his orders, and this bold enterprise cost him dear, for. on returning to succour his forces, which he had left at the capital of Hanoi, and which were attacked, he was assailed by superior numbers, routed, and perished with most of his companions-in-arms. As soon as the sad news reached Saignon, the Governor, Rear- Admiral Duprfe, despatched help to the weakened forces at Hanoi, besieged by the combined army of Annam and China, administered reprisals, and by force majeure reasserted the power of France. The tragic end, however, of poor Garnier and his compatriots gave. FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1 2 5 the coup de grdce to this improvised conquest of Tonquin, for the French Government held back their headstrong Commander, and for a time intervention in Tonquin ceased upon the putting down of the insurrection, of what was believed to be the hired mercenaries of China in Tonquin, against the rule of France in Tonquin. The result was that France, having conquered Annam, King Tu-Duc, alarmed at the advance and success of the French forces, sued for peace ; and a Treaty of Peace was negotiated at Saignon, and signed the isth March, 1874, on the part of France, by Rear-Admiral Dupr^ and for Annam, by the Prime Minister Le Tuan, and Nguyfen-Van-Tuong, the Ambassadors for Annam. This Treaty cancelled by declaration the former Treaty of 1862, and contained twenty-two Articles', the principal clauses of which it may be advisable to give in full, as bearing on the causes of the present war, and its complications. The following is a translation from the original text : — Article II. — His Excellency the President of the French Republic, recognising the sovereignty of the King of Annam and his entire independence as regards every foreign Power, promises him help and assistance, and engages to give him on demand and gratuitously, the necessary support to maintain in his States order and tranquillity, to defend them against all attacks, and to destroy the piracy which desolates some parts of the coast of the kingdom. Article III. — In recognition of this protection. His Majesty the King of Annam engages to conform his foreign policy to that of France, and will in no way depart from the present diplomatic relations. Article V. — His Majesty the King of Annam recognises the full and entire sovereignty of France over all the actual territory occupied by it, and comprised within the following boundaries : — ^At the east the Chinese Sea and the Kingdom of Annam, (Province of Binh-Thuau) ; on the west, the Gulf of Slam ; on the south, the Chinese Sea ; on the north, the Kingdom of Cambodge, and the Kingdom of Annam, (Province of Binh-Thuau). Article VI. — France remits all that remains due to it of the old war indemnity. Article VII. — His Majesty formally engages to repay, with the assistance of the French Government, the remainder of the indemnity due to Spain, amounting to 1,000,000 dollars, (at 072 tael the dollar), and to add to this repayment half of the net revenue from the duties of the ports open to European and American commerce, whatever may be their products in the future. The amount to be placed every year in the Public Treasury of Saignon, to be from thence remitted to the Spanish Govern- ment, and that the receipt of the sum paid be delivered to the Annamite Government. Article XI. — The Annamite Government engages to open for commerce the ports of Thin-Nai, in the province of Binh-Dinh, of Ninh-Hai, in the province of Hai- Druong, the town of Hanoi, and the passage by the river Nhi-Ha from the sea to Yimnan. A contract in addition to this Treaty, and having equal value, will fix the conditions upon which this commerce is to be carried on. The ports of Ninh-Hai and Hanoi, and the passage oif the river Nhi-Ha. will be open as soon as the exchange of ratifications is completed, and even before, if possible ; the town of Thin-Nai will be opened one year after. Other ports and rivers will be ultimately opened to commerce, 126 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. if their number and the itaportance of the established relations prove the usefulness of the measure. Article XII.— They may at the same time navigate and trade between the sea and the Province of Yunnan by the way of Nhi-Ha, upon condition of the agreement being regarded, and that they do not traf&c on the shores of the river between the sea and Hanoi, and between Hanoi and the frontier of China. They will be able freely to choose and engage for their service, interpreters, clerks, workmen, workshops, and servants. Article XX. — In order to insure and facilitate the execution of the clauses and stipulations of the present Treaty, His Excellency the President of the French Republic will one year after its signature nominate a Resident having the rank of Minister to His Majesty the King of Annam. The Resident will be charged to main- tain amicable relations between the contracting parties, and to watch over the conscientious execution of the articles fo the Treaty. The other clauses in the Treaty have reference chiefly to the following subjects of more or less importance, Amnesty, Religious Toleration, Trade and Commerce, Punishment of Criminals, Extra- dition, Consuls, &c. This Treaty was supplemented by a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, into the details of which it is not necessary to enter, as it was based on the aforesaid Treaty of Peace. FROM 1881 TO 1884. We now approach the stirring, but the deplorable events of recent years, events which naturally aroused not only the resist- ance of China; but also the veiled hostility of England, and of the other great Maritime Powers ; and it is not to be wondered at, for this war in Tonquin, and the consequent outbreak of hostilities with China, (which Jules Ferry did not admit was war), created a grave crisis, bristling with great issues to the political and com- mercial interests, and fraught with great dangers to the friendship with France of the great Western Powers. We approach this delicate and critical state of affairs with no feeling of jealousy or hostility to France, for, alas ! England's past Colonial policy reveals much of wrongful usurpation of territory and power, though of later years a juster and more righteous policy has prevailed, as we have seen in the Transvaal, in Afghanistan, and even in Egypt ; but we would approach the question impartially, and in a spirit of justice all round, and animated by this spirit, judged by this standard, examine calmly and dispassionately the causes FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1 27 which led to that deplorable crisis ; because, in order to arrive at a sound judgment, it is necessary to state the truth of these historic events. The first question that presents itself is : — -What right, what object, had France in Tonquin ? The answer is clear ; No right but the brute right of conquest, which confers no right at all ; No object but the extension of dominion, and the development thereby of her Colonial interests. The Treaty of Peace, which was signed at Saignon in 1874, which secured no extension of territory, or of Colonial interests for France in Tonquin, where such great sacrifices of blood and treasure had been made, gave great dissatisfaction to a large section of what may be called, with no disrespect, the Military and Colonial interests in France. Dupuis, whom we have previously referred to, the real author of the war in 1874, as he was also indirectly, the real author of the war in 1 88 1, was especially aggrieved, for he said he was a ruined man, and no sooner was the Treaty signed than he returned to France, and vigorously exerted himself in impressing his wrongs on those in Power. In January, 1880, he so far succeeded that the French Government appointed a Commission of the Chambers to examine into the whole matter, and, rightly or wrongly, that Commission, unfortunately, reported in his favour, that he had an undoubted claim on the two Governments of France and Annam. This was the real cause of the war. No doubt there were under- lying and auxiliary motives, which any Government anxious for a war is always ready to bring forward in justification of a declaration of war ; but they were only the pretexts, not the actual casus belli. The pretexts were iiumerous : 1. The piracy and brigandage, on the frontiers of the French settle- ments, by the wild tribes, commonly called Chinese pirates or Black Flags, and the unwillingness, or inability, of the Government of Annam to fulfil its compact with France, to restrain and punish these marauders. 2. The unsatisfactory reports of the French Consuls at Haiphong and Hanoi. 3. The stagnation of the French trade in the conquered provinces of Cochin-China. Lastly, the declared persecutions of the French subjects, by Annam, on account of their religious convictions. 128 FRANCE, ANN AM, AND CHINA. Moreover, the military party in France, smarting under the humiliation of 1870, were desirous to seek in another hemisphere some compensation for their once paramount influence in Europe ; and fostering these colonial ambitions, a few irresponsible and adventurous men, defeated in their previous enterprise in Tonquin, encouraged the French Government to stake their fame and honor, and to pour out the blood and treasure of France in a war to redress their wrongs. The proposals in favor of decisive action, arrived at by the Com- mission of 1880, was postponed from Cabinet to Cabinet, till Captain Riviere, a brave and vigorous, but an ambitious man, importuned the Government, and finally obtained the direction of the military expedition. Accordingly, and with these objects in view, the Government of Jules Ferry, in 1881, authorised the ill-fated Henri Riviere to pro- ceed to Tonquin, with the following instructions : " (i) To select a spot at the confluence of the Red and Clear Rivers for the estab- lishment of a military station ; (2) having chosen the spot, to demand its cession, which will be refused ; (3) to establish the station in defiance of the Annamites, and to treat as brigands all the Black Flags who offer any opposition." Riviere believed that Annam was too weak to resist him, and that the Tonquinese were anxious to be annexed to France, but in this he was deceived, as the result showed. His exploits closely resemble the career and fate of poor Frangois Gamier in 1872. Hanoi was captured in April, 1882, after five days' fighting, and having captured Hanoi he attacked the important Annam stronghold, Nam-Dinh. The Governor of Nam-Dinh, in replying to Riviere's summons to surrender, sent him this laconic message : " Why do you come here ? If you want to fight, let us fight ! If not, stay away ! " Accordingly, Riviere, acting on superior orders, resolved to fight, and fought, and Nam-Dinh was taken, and following the course adopted by Gamier, he returned to his base at Hanoi, and soon afterwards, May 19, whilst assailing a superior force in a sortie from Hanoi, like poor Garnier, fell mortally wounded, and many of his companions- in-arms perished with him. This sortie and its fatal consequences were caused by the insulting challenge from the Chief of the Black Flags, which Riviere lost no time in accepting. Marching along a narrow defile fringed with bamboos, and at the very spot where Garnier fell in 1872, he was FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. I29 assailed on all sides by an ambuscade. Riviere sounded a retreat but was hard pressed, and in trying to save the mountain cannon, he fell at the head of his column. Then followed the terrible cry, that reverberated throughout France, en revanche I France exploded with wrath, for the sad fate of Riviere and the reverse to the French arms, kindled the military ardour of the French people, and the Prime Minister, De Freycinet, entering the Tribune, re-echoed the national sentiment by uttering the stirring words, which he sent in a telegraphic message to the survivors in Tonquin, that " France will avenge the death of her glorious children.^' No time was lost in despatching reinforcements to the ex- tent of 10,000 men to the East, under the command of General Boufet, to avenge the death of Rivifere, and retrieve the disaster. The fleet bombarded Hufe, the capital of Annam, which was cap- tured, and King Tu-Duc dies from a broken heart, or, as some say, an evil hand killed him, and his son, who succeeds him, loses no time in suing for peace ; and on the 23rd of August, 1884, a Treaty of Peace was signed at Hufe, which gave great umbrage to China, and considering the terms of this Treaty, this was not to be wondered at. The following were its principal provisions : — I. — Payment of War Indemnity. II. — The occupation of the Hue forts by a French garrison until the complete payment of the indemnity. III. — The recall of the Annaraite troops operating in the Delta of the Red River, and these troops to be placed at General Bouet's disposal, in order to pursue the Black Flags. IV. — Confirmation of the French Protectorate over all Annam, already estab- lished in principle by the Treaty of 1874, but with complete guarantees, which were wanting in the latter Treaty. A comparison of these terms of peace with the previous Treaty of 1874 is important. With the exception of Article III, the condi- tions imposed by France on Annam are analogous, and, provided the indemnity was not increased, they are in full accord with the provisions, (at that time unfulfilled), of all the former Treaties. But this Treaty of 1884, gave serious umbrage to China, especially in regard to the second Article, with reference to the occupation of the forts of Hufe and the capital of Annam, until a complete payment of the indemnity ; for in consequence of the im- pecuniosity of the Government of Annam, the Chinese Govern- ment believed it would result in an indefinite occupation, and K. 13° FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. possibly the permanent annexation of the northern provinces, in fact, to bring the whole kingdom of Annam under French rule. We must not lose sight of this, that the policy of France in Cochin-China, Annam, and Tonquin, since 1787, has been a steadily advancing policy of conquest, which China had long regarded with considerable mistrust, and opposed by persistent diplomatic resistance, and therefore it must be generally admitted that the position which China took up in this great quarrel was an unassailable, at any rate a consistent, position. Each Treaty of Peace of France with Annam, negotiated after successive and successful aggressive wars, shows an increase of the French Protectorate, and of annexation of its provinces to France. It was not to be wondered, therefore, that the Chinese Government, whose Sovereignty over Annam was undisputed, viewed with appre- hension, and opposed with a firm hand, the aggrandising policy of France, which threatened to annul the ancient Sovereignty of China over Annam and Tonquin, and thereby to create a French Colonial State, conterminous with Chinese territory. The difficulty of the political situation rested on the flimsy pre- tensions of France to this absolute protectorate over Annam and Tonquin, and in the occupation of tbe capital of these States, until the conditions of the Treaty were fulfilled. Moreover, the Sovereignty claimed by China was not merely of historic interest, but an undisputable fact, and she would not admit the right of France to set up a Protectorate over her vassals ; for a Protectorate practically implied the subjection of the States protected. When Riviere attacked and stormed Hanoi in 1882, it showed the determination of France to establish her authority in Tonquin, (the cradle of Annam's power), in defiance of the Sovereignty of China over Annam, and of her historic claims to be considered as its Suzerain. China, at this turn of events was roused. The king, Tu-Duc, re- cognising the Suzerainty of China, appealed to Pekin, (as he had a right to do), for assistance, and from the first China rendered help to her Vassal, and proved herself absolutely hostile to any scheme of French policy which would crush the independence of Annam and Tonquin, and lower China's dignity, as its Suzerain. Dupuis declared, in 1873, (and no one knew better than he did) that " the Suzerainty of China over Annam, is beyond doubt and question." No stronger proof could possibly have been given that Annam had for long generations, been considered a Vassal of China. FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. I31 than the fact, of the uninterrupted investiture by the Emperor of China of the Sovereign, on his accession to the Throne, and to the Tribute Embassies every four years to Pekin. In 1872, France availed herself of this Suzerainty when she em- ployed Dupuis as the pioneer of the Red River Expedition into Tonquin. The Treaty of 1874 between Annam and France, annihilated at a stroke the rights and prerogatives of China over her Vassal. When this Treaty was communicated to China on June loth, 1875, (a year after the ratification), she protested, and declared, as she has never ceased to declare, that she refused to recognise a Treaty, that infringed upon her rights and authority over a Vassal State ; and this protest was emphatically and repeatedly declared in 1883, by the Ambassador of China to France, the Marquis Tseng. Nor was the claim of Suzerainty and Vassalage the only one, which led China to espouse the cause of her Tributary State. Just as France, would consider an aggressive movement by Ger- many on Belgium an infringement of its neutrality, and a menace to her own safety ; or, as England would consider encroachment by Russia on Afghanistan a violation of Treaty engagement, as well as a menace to India ; on the same grounds, China was roused by the threatened supersession of Annamese authority, by a French Protec- torate, on her Southern Frontier. The substitution of a powerful and militant Nation such as France, for a weak and submissive neighbour, such as Annam, naturally aroused a hostile attitude, and was the main cause of China's threatened declaration of War against France. It was, therefore, no question of Suzerainty, (important as that may have been), but the proximity of a great European Power like France, frontier to frontier with China. The whole question turned on the securing of a neutral zone, for China regarded Tonquin as this most indispensable " buffer " between her and France, and by opposing this plan, France incurred the mortal enmity of China. Considering the undeniable evidence on which the Suzerainty of China over Tonquin and Annam rested ; considering the justice of her demand to secure a neutral zone between her and France, it was surely a question for negotiation, and for which the good offices of a Third Power might have been invoked, to avert the disasters of War. England had no reason to fear alarm or jealousy at the conflict between France and Annam, but when that policy involved a War 132 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. between France and China, the situation was full of peril ; for it must not be forgotten that China is vulnerable only at her ports of Canton, Shanghai, Pekin, Ningpo, Tiengsin, &c., and that no blow could be struck there, which would not be felt in Europe ; and therefore the shock to the Eastern Trade of England and other Great Maritime Powers, would have been most disastrous, and the relations of France with Europe, and even with America would have been strained and seriously embittered. That meant the interruption of all commercial intercourse during the period of hostilities, between China and Europe, and a conse- quent injury, loss, and ruin to a great international commerce. With an export and import .trade with China of ;^4o,ooo,ooo yearly, England had solid interests at stake, and in the interests of civilisation and commerce, it was devoutly hoped that War might have been averted. FROM 1884 TO 1886. France appeared at this juncture " drifting " steadily into a War with China, and military operations were entered upon, although there had been no actual declaration of hostilities between France and China ; for Jules Ferry, the French Premier, following the pre- cedent of England in Egypt, and adopting the memorable words of the late Prime Minister of England, Mr. Gladstone, refused to call the armed intervention of France against China, as a state of War, jus gentium, but only a succession of military operations, truly a dis- tinction without a difference. Nevertheless, the various "military operations" of the French were sanguinary struggles in Tonquin, in order to secure the recognition by China of the Treaty of Hufe of the 23rd August, 1884 ; for they involved the capture of forts, the fierce conflicts with the undis- ciplined hordes of barbarians, called the "Black Flags," and the bombardment, by the. French Fleet, of defenceless Chinese ports and islands, in a word. War. There was the incident at Bac-Le, when General Dugenne, in disobedience to orders from General Millot, imprudently advanced against the Chinese Fortress of Langson, and suffered a serious reverse, and for this violation of his instructions he was superseded. The retreat from Langson, in the early part of 1885, was followed by a policy of en revanche against China, in the bombardment by the FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1 33 French Fleet of Foochow, which involved a serious loss of life to the population of that Chinese port ; and when it is remembered that the impetuous French General Dugenne was responsible for the disaster at Langson, and that the Chinese Commander was free from any blame, in having defended the position, surely this terrible act of reprisal by France against Foochow was far from justifiable. The bombardment of Foochow, was followed by the blockade of the Island of Formosa, and the attack on Keelung, and the Pisca- dores Islands, belonging to China, The result of these combined sea and land " military operations " of France against China, were, after many reverses and serious disasters, eventually victorious, and the conflict threatened gigantic proportions, when, mainly by the good ofiSces of Lord Granville, H.M. Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Marquis Tseng, the Ambassador to Europe for China, an Armistice was agreed to, and on April 3rd certain preliminaries of Peace were signed at Pekin, on the one part by Sir Robert Hart, the British Minister, acting for China, and on the other part, by M. Billot, acting for France. The bases of these preliminaries of Peace were, that France aban- doned all claim for a War indemnity, which she had previously put forward, and demanded only the execution of the other provisions of the Treaty of Hub of 1884. The fact was, both France and China, alarmed at the probable duration, and extent of the area of the War, were anxious for Peace ; and this preliminary Treaty was soon afterwards converted into a definite Treaty of Peace, signed at Pekin, June 9th, 1885, by M. Patenotre, the French Ambassador, and by the Prime Minister of China, Li-Hung-Chang, and eventually ratified by the Emperor of China, and the President of the French Republic. By this Treaty, the Islands of Formosa, Keelung, and the Pisca- dores, were to be evacuated within a month, and Annam was to have no direct diplomatic relations with China, except through the Govern- ment of France. France thus obtained undisputed control over Tonquin and Annam, and both France and China agreed to keep order within their own frontiers, and not to cross their respective borders in pursuit of the disturbers of the peace. But though France had thus been able to avert a prolonged and disastrous War with China, and to obtain from China a recognition of a portion of her demands upon Annam, as originally set forth in the Hufe Treaty of 1884, yet, there devolved upon her, a more 134 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. difficult task, the restoration of order and peace in Annam and, Tonquin, and the consolidation of her recent conquests, which already had cost her very dear. One of the most serious omissions in the Treaty of Peace with China, signed at Pekin, 9th June, 1885 was, that no provision was made for the " Black Flags," as it was important for France, especially at this juncture, to get rid of such dangerous neighbours ; but no arrangement was made, and in consequence she had to face the difficulty of insurrection, and to prepare for a conflict against them, in order to secure a complete pacification of her newly acquired Colony. Moreover, the Government of China should have provided for Liu-Yung-fu, the leader of these guerilla forces, fighting under the Chinese Flag, as well as for his soldiers, if for no other reason, from motives of gratitude, as it was indisputable that they had borne the brunt of the French invasion across the Chinese frontier ; but, unfor- tunately, when the Terms of Peace were under consideration and finally agreed upon, Liu-Yung-fu, and his army of " Black Flags," who fought so heroically for their Suzerain, were forgotten. This Serious omission was soon realised by the French Govern- ment, when it was too late, and consequently there was but one course open to them, to deal vigorously with the unsatisfactory state of affailrs in the newly conquered provinces, by despatching to the East, an Officer of the highest rank, and investing him with com- plete military authority in Annam, as well as Tonquin ; and for this position General De Courcy was selected, and to prevent any chance of difficulty the French Minister at Hub was withdrawn. When General De Courcy arrived in Tonquin, the people were still in arms around the delta of the Red River, and the " Black Flags," with their leader, Liu-Yung-Fu, held the whole of the north- west of Tonquin. Tonquin was in a frightful state, given over to anarchy and rapine, and General De Courcy, instead of directing his efforts in Tonquin, went to Hufe, the capital of Annam, where tolerable order reigned ; for though Tu-Duc was on the Throne, the French officials governed, the usual amount of intrigue went on, no harm was done, and the future of Annam could well have been allowed to rest until peace was restored in Tonquin. General De Courcy's arrival at Hufe with a large escort caused much excitement, which was followed by the attack on his residence, and by an outbreak in the city, but which was ultimately suppressed ; FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1 35 and in the confusion, the King, Tu-Duc, with his body-guard escaped, and became the leader of the Annamite people in revolt, and the centre around whom rallied all the enemies of France in Annam, and the whole country was immediately in a blaze of insurrection. Tu-Duc was the third King France had placed on the Throne of Annam, and it now devolved on General De Courcy to place the fourth on the Throne, and he selected a member of the Royal family who was said to be the son of the late abdicated King,, and who professed to be devoted to the interests of France. Throughout the province of Annam, at this juncture, a fierce per- secution raged, and a ruthless massacre of the native Christians took place for having adopted the French religion and recognised the authority of France. In a few days the work of thirty years of Missionary labour was annihilated, for it is estimated that 24,000 native Christians were murdered, and their Churches, Schools, Orphanages, and Colleges were destroyed, and the few Priests with their followers who escaped to the coast, found refuge under the guns of a French man-of-war, from the deck of which could be seen the blaze of their burning villages. FROM 1886 TO 1887. This insurrection and the massacres which followed, arising it was believed from the blunders committed by General De Courcy, led to his recall in January 1886, and to the appointment of Paul Bert, Minister of Education in the Government of De Freycinet, as his successor, well known as Professor of the Sorbonne in Paris, a distinguished man of Science, probably a Statesman. The appointment of Paul Bert, as the Administrator of Annam and Tonquin, was intended by the Government of M. Freycinet, to inaugurate a more pacific policy in Indo-China, and with this object in view, the triangular administration of affairs, which consisted of a Civil Governor at Hub, a military commander in the Field, and an Admiral of the Naval Squadron in Chinese Waters, was changed, and thenceforward the Civil, Military, and Naval Affairs were to be subordinate to one Administration, under the title of Resident- General at Hub. For. such a responsible position, and at such a grave crisis of 136 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. affairs, Freycinet could not have chosen, and France could not have produced a man more suitable in every way to carry out the new regime than the ex-Minister of Education ; for Paul Bert detested the military policy of his predecessors, he hated bristling bayonets, clanking swords, and the flutter of the red, white, and blue, and he preferred, as he declared on the eve of his departure, a banner with two high sounding words inscribed upon it, which were, " Com- promise ! Administration ! " which meant that markets should be opened and trade developed, in effect that henceforth Tonquin should be governed by the Tonquinese, and Annam by the Annamese. To reduce the population of Annam and Tonquin to submission, and to inspire a reverence for law and order, by a beneficent poUcy such as he desired was truly an heroic mission, but as it subsequently proved, somewhat premature ; for he was going amongst a people, an excited race, who for five years had revelled in rapine and blood- shed, who had fought with the fury and tenacity of tigers, who had butchered rnen, women, and children of their own kith and kin by thousands, simply because they had adopted and recognised the authority and the religion of the conquerors. It was feared, moreover, by the opponents of a conciliatory policy that the result of despatching on such a mission a refined and polished savant, of so high a reputation as the first professor of the French Sorbonne, anxious beyond almost every other con- sideration, to realise his highest aspiration, the establishment in Annam of an Academy and Institute of Learning, that it would be none other than disastrous. On the eve of his departure from France, when he bade at the Lyons station, adieu to his wide circle of friends, his last words seemed to have a faint glimmer of the sad fate that awaited him. ' ' I have always said that when a man has passed the age of 50, and nearly finished his life, it is his duty to consecrate the remainder for the good of others, and there only remains for him the great problem, how to leave the world with honour ; and I am convinced that in following this career I shall close it worthily." These bold and animating words of Paul Bert were almost pro- phetic, and were fully justified in his subsequent official career, as Resident General, for he proved himself an Administrator of broad and enlightened views, and more than justified the choice by the French Government for the position, as a sagacious and energetic Governor. FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1 37 Immediately on his landing at Hanoi he addressed in vigorous language the French merchants and residents in the Colony, reminding them, that with them and them alone, rested its future peace and prosperity ; he issued a proclamation to the Army, extolling their valour and devotion ; and he assured the people of the newly- acquired provinces that their property and interests were secure ; that their ancient customs would be respected ; and to this end he promised them the assembling of a Council of Notables, in order to discuss and advise on public affiairs. During his short-lived Governorship he set an admirable example to his successors, of ceaseless activity for the welfare of the Colony ; for he arranged the finances of Annam and Tonquin ; he organised a system for the collection of taxes and customs, which brought con- siderable relief to the taxpayer and advantage to the State ; he encouraged Municipal government in the chief towns of the pro- vinces ; he strengthened the Native Councils which he found exist- ing, by the exclusion of the Mandarin authority, so that, thereby, the real wishes of the people might be pore fully expressed ; and lastly, he did much to realise one of his brightest hopes, in fact the laudable ambition which impelled him to accept the responsible position, when he thought of the vast good which he would have in his power to do for learning and civilisation, for he laid the foundation of an Academy of Learning, and it is stated that one of his last public appearances at Hanoi was to preside at its opening, and to superintend the first examination of the students. In reviewing, therefore, the career of Paul Bert as the representa- tive of France in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, it may be said that amid all the obstacles that he had to contend with, (and they were almost insuperable to the carrying out of his advanced poUcy), that he proved himself an able administrator, for his record of services amongst the people of the conquered provinces, who had but just emerged from barbarism, and who were filled with a rancorous hostility to the Conquerors, showed that he accomplished much in the direction of order and confidence, in place of the tumult and war that had for so many years reigned rampant. His lamented death in November 1886, arising it is feared from the poisonous malaria of the unhealthy cUmate, was a heavy blow to the work of reorganisation he had inaugurated during the twelve months of his Governorship, and it was keenly felt by all parties in France, especially by the Government of De Freycinet, as an irre- parable loss to the Colony and the Republic. 138 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. The Government of M. De Freycinet found considerable difficulty in securing a suitable and worthy successor to the lamented Resi- dent-General Paul Bert, for the Premier observed : " those to whom I offer it decline, and those who offer themselves, I am obliged to refuse." The appointment was strongly pressed upon the President of the Budget, M. Rouvier, also upon the Prefect of the Department of the Rhone, M. Massicault, but they both refused the honour ; until at last, faiUng to secure a diplomatist in France, the Government offered the post to M. Bihourd, the recently appointed French Resident in Tunis, and he accepted the unenviable position, and left for the East in January 1887. The condition of the Colony, partly arising from the death of Paul Bert, and the serious delay in appointing his successor, became once more distracted by the insurrectionary movements of restless and dissatisfied sections of the population, and compelled the army of occupation to be constantly on the alert. Everywhere throughout both Annam and Tonquin, especially on the frontiers with China, there were serious conflicts ; on the borders of Kwantung, Kwangsi, and Yunnam, where the regular and irregular troops in the pay of China vainly attempted an invasion of the conquered provinces ; also on the frontier of the Upper Black River, the French forces had to contend with the disciplined troops of one of the former kings of Annam, the ex-Regent Thuyet, a rival of the Tu-Duc dynasty ; also on the southern frontier of Annam the French had to oppose an insurrection in the province of Than-Hoa, headed by the deposed King of Annam, who had since his deposition become a source of much trouble. These outbreaks in various parts of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula kept the army of occupation very active, and it was seriously aggravated by the large number of desertions from the loyal native troops, often with their arms and ammunition, who were allured by bribes and other attractions ; so that the rebel forces appeared to be acting on the offensive, concurrently, and by this concerted action they hoped to strike a serious blow against French rule, and in favour of their cherished independence. FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 1 39 A RETROSPECT. Such then are the details, the saddening details, of French inter- vention in Tonquin, and its inevitable results, the threatened hostilities with China, which, happily, by the diplomatic efforts of Lord Gran- ville and the Marquis Tseng, have not assumed serious proportions. From the first outbreak of the insurrection in the French provinces of Indo-China in the year 1881, down to its partial suppression in 1886, (although since 1886 a state of unrest and unsettlement has shown itself, of chronic rebellion against the French authority, in the conquered provinces), a period of five years, Administration has succeeded Administration in France with amazing and unparalleled rapidity ; changes of Governments at home, and changes of Diplo- matists abroad, brought about mainly by extravagant Budgets, in consequence of the enormous votes of credit for the war in Indo- China, and also in consequence of the military reverses and disasters in Annam and Tonquin, and the unpopularity which these combined causes have inevitably created on the body politic in France. In 1 88 1, when the war practically began, or when the first miUtary expedition of Henri Rivifere was determined upon, Jules Ferry was Premier, and Barthelemy St. Hilaire Foreign Minister, and the diplo- matic representative of France in Indo-Cliina was M. Thompson. On the 13th May, 1881, the Government of Jules Ferry were defeated in the Chamber, at the close of a debate raised by M. Gambetta on the war in Tunis, which was really a vote of want of confidence ; and, as a consequence, Leon Gambetta was compelled to take office as Premier, and De Freycinet became Foreign Minister; but it was a short-lived Administration, for on an adverse vote on the question of scrutin de lists, or scrutin (farrondissement, Gambetta resigned, and was succeeded as Premier by De Freycinet, who retained the Portfolio for Foreign Affairs. Before the close of the year the Government of De Freycinet were defeated on the thorny question of Egyptian Affairs, on a vote of credit for meeting the expenses necessitated by the military prepara- tions of intervention in Egypt, and De Freycinet was compelled to resign. It was during the Administration of De Freycinet that Henri Rivifere, whilst in command of his forces in Annam, was killed, and General Boufet was appointed as his military successor, whilst M. 14° FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. Thomson was superseded by M. Harmand as Civil Administrator, but in consequence of differences arising between them, on Oct. 22, 1883, General Bouet was recalled, and Admiral Courbet was appointed to take the sole direction of affairs. De Freycinet was succeeded by the Government of M. Duclerc, but it was a short-lived Administration, as it ruled in a stormy period, arising out of the pretensions of Prince Napoleon, which forced the Government to take legislative action against the various pretenders to the Throne, and in the beginning of 1883 M. Duclerc was succeeded by M. Fallieres, who held the dual position of Premier and Foreign Minister. In 1883 the Ministry of M. Fallieres resigned, arising from the defeat in the Senate, which rejected the Expulsion Bill directed against the Orleanist Princes, and Jules Ferry for a second time was called upon to form an Administration, taking the position of Premier, whilst Challemel-Lacour became Foreign Minister. In Annam quarrels arose between the military and naval authori- ties, and M. Harmand was superseded by M. Champeaux, whose limit of authority was restricted to Annam, whilst Admiral Courbet was entrusted with unfettered control in Tonquin. In 1884 the Foreign Minister, Challemel-Lacour, resigned, and Jules Ferry combined the two offices of Premier and Foreign Affairs. His first step was to change the officials in the East, for he removed Admiral Courbet from the Tonquin command, and appointed General Millot ; whilst M. Champeaux, the Civil Adminis- trator in Annam, was replaced by M. Tricon ; and before the close of 1884 M. Tricon was superseded by M. Patenotre, and General Millot by General Briere de Lisle. In 1885 the Government of Jules Ferry, after having remained in power two years and one month, were defeated on the vexed question of the Tonquin war, the military reverse of General Dugenne before Langson causing great excitement, and a revulsion of feeling against Jules Ferry that forced him to resign, and he was succeeded by Henri Brisson as Premier, and in Foreign Affairs by De Freycinet. Jules Ferry was not responsible, for the disaster at Langson for, as it subsequently proved, it was the error of General Briere de Lisle, who was in supreme command, and accordingly, the Govern- ment of Henri Brisson recalled him, and appointed General de Courcy to succeed him, but with considerably enlarged powers in civil and miUtary affairs. FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. I4I In 1886 the Government of Henri Brisson were in their turn defeated on the Tonquin question, on the vote of credit for the prosecution of the war, as they were opposed to an evacuation poHcy ; and De Freycinet for a second time was compelled to form an Administration, taking the dual position of Premier and Foreign Minister, and he determined on a change of policy in Tonquin. General De Courcy was recalled, and Paul Bert, the Minister of Education, was induced to accept the position, and upon his un- timely death, M. Bihourd succeeded him. In 1887, three Administrations succeeded one another in France; first De Freycinet's Government resigned on the Budgets proposals, upon which an amendment was carried for a reduction of ^1,143,000 for the salaries of the sous prefects, and M. Goblet became Premier, with M. Flourens as Foreign Minister ; secondly M. Goblet was defeated, likewise on the Budget proposals, the Cabinet being opposed by the Budget Commission, who were in favour of retrench- ment, which the Ministry resisted, and M. Rouvier became Premier, whilst M. Flourens retained the portfolio of Foreign Affairs ; and, lastly, the Government of M. Rouvier were compelled to resign on the adverse vote upon the question of the Decoration Scandals, with which M. Wilson was involved, and which brought about the fall of M. Grevy as President of the Republic. M. Rouvier was succeeded by M. Tiraud, as Premier, and for a third time M. Flourens became Foreign Minister. In 1888, the Government of M. Tiraud were involved in the con- fusion of the Boulanger disputes ; and on the question of the Revision of the Constitution, raised by M. Clemenceau, they, resisted, and were defeated, and M. Floquet became Premier, and M. Goblet Minister for Foreign Affairs. Thus in the comparatively brief period of eight years there has been twelve Administrations in France; and upon each and all of these successive twelve Administrations have devolved the trying and onerous responsibility of dealing with the military and civil affairs in Tonquin and Annam ; a responsibility rendered especially difficult in consequence of the widespread unpopularity in France of this miser- able struggle ; and the strongest proof of the unpopularity of the war is to be found in the political reverses and changes in the personnel of the Governments of the Republic during the continuance of the crisis. In Indo-China, partly in consequence of these political events in France, and partly arising from defeats and failures, there have also 142 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. been perpetual changes in the personnel of the military and civil departments. During the most critical period of the war, nineteen civil and military officers have successively exercised supreme com- mand, either in Annam or Tonquin. At the beginning of the trouble independent officers were appointed to the two departments, and this arrangement proving unsatisfactory, one officer held supreme command in both departments, at one period a civil officer having full control, and at another period a military officer exercising it. These constant changes in administration, and the petty jealousies that they created, have largely increased the difficulties of France in the direction of a pacific and solid settlement of affairs in the two conquered provinces. The policy and ambition of France has been for a century, (nay for centuries), as it has been shown, and is now as strong as ever, to extend her Colonial Empire, which, in itself, is a laudable ambition, as it is laudable for Germany in Africa, for Holland in the East, for Portugal at 4:he Cape, for England in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada, or of any other Maritime Power. France has a great and powerful Navy, and a Marine as brave as they are patriotic ; her people have a great spirit of enterprise, and are anxious to seek their prosperity in foreign climes, and by so doing to advance and consolidate the Colonial greatness of their country. But it is a fatal error, based on a wrong view of an extended policy of colonisation, to suppose that trade and commerce will follow the flag, or march in the track of territorial acquisitions, and that a Colonial Empire, founded on a policy of fraud and force will prosper, or secure a peaceful and prosperous future. If France could have succeeded in introducing the blessings of civilisation, of commerce, of order and tranquillity into the whole of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, and by that means have opened up a highway to the densely-populated and fertile regions of South- Western China, Surely England and China, the two nations that have the largest interest in the development of trade, would be the chief gainers ; but valuable as these interests are, there are interests more valuable, and to a civilised and highly enlightened Power like France, interests which ought not to be disregarded : the rights of free Nationalities, the territorial rights of an aboriginal people, respect for Treaties, and above all a high regard for the independence, and Sovereignty of States. The policy of intervention and annexation pursued by France in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula is a direct and flagrant violation of FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 143 territorial rights and of national Sovereignty, which rest on the in- disputable principle of national right and national existence. No true friend of France can witness without regret the de- velopment under a Republic of a restless and adventurous colonial policy founded on force, a policy which cannot promote the real interests of France. The Government of the Republic, whose watchwords are Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality, should have been strong enough to resist the clamour for cheap military glory, and to consider the true interests of the Republic of Peace. French honour was not from the first involved in Tonquin. ,_ The glory of the French arms cannot surely have been promoted by an expedition against these miserable barbarians. Everyone must acknowledge that the first necessity for France, at present, lies in the consolidation of her Government, and the recovery by wise statesmanship of her rightful position and influence in Europe. It is of little avail that France should be able to establish herself in Tunis, to make an attack on Madagascar, to distribute flags to the tribes on the Congo, to annex an Eastern State, or to plunge into a war with China, if in Europe she is still forced to watch every movement of Germany with bated breath, and to shape her foreign policy in obedience to her great rival. An Empire, whether Imperial, Monarchical, Republican, or Colonial founded on force in defiance of all laws, moral, or divine, " Wading through slaughter to a Throne," " And shut the gates of mercy on mankind," » can never stand, as history has proved, because it is not founded on the affections or confidence of the people, nor on the immutable principle of righteousness and justice. * Byron. S E R V I A, AND HER RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. HER EARLY HISTORY. Servia has a very ancient history under the nomenclature of Moesia, with a record as remote as 277, B.C. when it was peopled by Thra- cians and Gauls, and 200 years subsequently, 75 B.C., it was sub- jugated by the Romans. In, the middle of the seventh century the Servians,* a Sclavonic tribe that for centuries occupied a territory co-extensive with Prussia of the present day, being attacked by the Goths and Visigoths, migrated to the Roman territory south of the Danube, which was ceded to them by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, and established themselves in Mcesia, Thrace, Macedonia, Thessally, and Epirus, and giving their own name to the country, founded the kingdom of Servia ; the northern portion of the territory was occupied by the Serbs, and the southern portion by the Croats, but they were one nation. They were a Christian people, and the only distinction between the Croats and Servians was, that the former acknowledged the ritual and supremacy of Rome, whilst the latter adopted the faith of the Eastern Church ; but they had one language, and possessed a vernacular, a mixture of various races, which still survives, and is considered to be the most harmonious of the Sclavonic dialects, and according to Niebiihr, it is the most perfect in grammatical structure of any of the modern languages of Europe. * Serb is a Sclavonian word derived from Serp, a sickle, and Serbians implies an agriculLural people. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 145 The Servians acknowledged the supremacy of the Byzantine Emperor HeracUus, subject to the right of choosing their own Chiefs and Rulers, but during the declining years of the Roman Empire in the East, the increasing powers of the Rulers of Servia, and the ever enlarging boundaries of the territory which they governed, were objects of disquiet at the seat of the Empire at Constantinople, and the cause of frequent wars, which weakened still more the decayed Empire of the East, and on the death of Heraclius the Servfans refused to recognise their vassalage to the Byzantine Emperor, and practically succeeded in establishing their national independence. In the tenth century a jealous rivalry sprang up between the ancient kingdoms of Bulgaria and Servia,* and the former intrigued by encouraging rival Pretenders to the Servian Throne. In 924 war broke out between them, which was disastrous to both nations, for the Byzantine Emperor took advantage of their mutual exhaus- tion by war, and easily subjected Bulgaria and Servia to the supre- macy, once more, of the Eastern Empire. The Servians did not suffer for many years the supremacy of the Eastern Empire, for in a few years they regained their independ- ence under the heroic Voyolav, and in the twelfth century they became reunited into one State under Stefan Nemanya, who not only closed the internecine war, but overthrew all foreign influence. FROM 1356 TO 1717. In the middle of the fourteenth century the Empire of Servia, under its Ruler, Stefan-Dooshan the Mighty, the grandson of Stefan Nemanya, was acknowledged to be an extensive and powerful State, for it extended from the Adriatic to the Black Sea, and arnongst the countries which recognised its rule were Bosnia, Mace- donia, Albania, Epirus, Dalmatia, Thessaly, and Bulgaria. Stefan-Dooshan assumed the Imperial title of Czar, and the alliance and influence of Servia was sought by the most power- ful Sovereigns of Europe, and his reign, from 1333 to 1356, was the most glorious period of Servian history and of her national inde- pendence. Actuated, however, by an unbridled ambition, the * Exactly nine centuries subsequently history repeated itself. In 1886 Servia, jealous of Bulgaria, intrigued, and finally attacked Bulgaria, and, but for the interven- tion of Austria Bulgaria would have subjected Servia by a victorious war. L 146 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. Emperor Stefan-Dooshan, soon after his accession to the Throne, advanced into Hungary and defeated Louis I., which he followed up by the subjection of Bosnia, Albania, and subsequently Roumelia ^nd Bulgaria, which he considered as subject to his rule, for he claimed the title of Emperor of the Roumelians, and the " Mace- donian Christ-loving Czar." This was " the glory that preceded. Servian decay," for in 1356, whilst at the head of a victorious army, determined on the conquest of Constantinople, he suddenly died at Deabolis, in Albania; and when he died the Empire became a chaos, for it was distracted by a succession of struggles between Voyvodas and Voyvodas, and between Voyvodas and the people for the possession of supreme power, and in this chaotic confusion it became an easy prey to the capacious maw of the Moslem hordes. In 1389 a determined effort was made by an alhance of Servia with Hungary, to resist the progress of the Mahomedan arms, and on the plains of Kossovo, in Albania, the rival armies of the two Empires met, the Servians under the command of Lazar, the suc- cessor of Dooshan, and the Turks under the command of the Sultan Amurath II., and at this great battle the Turkish arms were vic- torious, and the subjugation of Servia was completed. For upwards of a century, from the date of the catastrophe at Kossovo, the Servians were able to maintain a monarchical system of Government, under the rule of native Princes, but in spite of every effort made by their Princes in alliance with Hungary, and the Osmanli, to preserve their ancient independent Monarchy, Servia and her Empire succumbed to the thraldom of the Ottoman power. This happened in 1459, and from this period the Servian Empire of /' Dooshan the Mighty " crumpled and fell, and she became a free State subject to a despotic Power, to whom she paid an annual tribute, and at the end of the fifteenth century the Ottoman Porte subdivided the territory of Servia into Turkish Pashaliks, subject to the Sovereign authority of the Sultan Mahmoud. After this complete overthrow of the Empire of Servia in the fifteenth century the bravest and boldest of her people withdrew from their fatherland, and found an asylum of liberty in the moun- tain fastnesses of Montenegro, (commonly called the Black Moun- tain), where they resolved to struggle for the defence of their national freedom and independence ; and the Ottoman Porte soon found to their cost that whilst the armies of the Sultan were able to overrun and conquer the territory of Servia, they were powerless to efface or stifle the patriotic spirit of the Servians in favour of freedom. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1 47 In this heroic struggle amid the rocky mountains of Montenegro, the Servian refugees, uniting with the brave Montenegrins, displayed in a wonderful manner great and unexampled instances of undaunted heroism, and unflinching self-denial, such as the history of any people cannot record. For centuries the heroes of Servia withstood successfully year after year the Ottoman legions amongst the jagged rocks of Montenegro, and in this tremendous struggle they cheerfully surrendered their peaceful occupations, and the comforts of social life, to watch day by day against attack from their common foes, shrinking from no sacrifice, and suffering severely from constant exposure to the frost and storms of winter, and the terrible pangs of hunger. Thus, for four centuries the patriotic Servians struggled like martyrs upon the almost impregnable crags of the rocky mountains of Montenegro on behalf of their country's independence, displaying not only a marvellous courage before the overwhelming numbers of their ancient Turkish foes, but also an unwavering endurance and patience, amid the insuperable obstacles incident to the conflict on a rock-bound soil. At the same period, the Servians of Austria, who had fled across the Servian frontiers from the oppressive Ottoman domination, struggled bravely to keep alive the holy fire of national freedom, and under their heroic Chiefs they withstood heroically, and often successfully, the barbarous Moslem invasions, and nobly defended their soil and their freedom against the armies of Turkey. Leopold I., the enlightened Ruler and Emperor of Austria, cordially welcomed the expatriated Servians into Austrian territory, and guaranteed them, by proclamation, an asylum from oppression and persecution, and also that their civil and religious liberties should be fully secured by the special edicts of the Empire. Relying on these Imperial assurances, the Servians of Carinthia, and Carniola, and of the valley of the Save, in 1689, abandoned- the Ottoman rule for'the Austrian protectorate, and in 1691 it was esti- mated that 40,000 patriotic Servians, accompanied by Arsenius, the venerable High Priest of their National Church, crossed the frontiers into Hungary and Slavonia, and passed under Austrian rule ; and in return for the national liberties and the civil and religious freedom granted and guaranteed by Treaties, they entered under the leader- ship of their Voyvoda, Branskovics, the army of the Austrian Empire, ready to withstand, shoulder to shoulder, with the soldiers of Austria, any further aggressions of their Moslem conquerors. 148 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. The Servians of Austria, who settled in parts of Hungary and Slavonia after the disaster at Kossovo, faithfully fulfilled the en- gagements into which they entered by the Treaties of 1690, 1691, and 1695 ; for they not only reinforced the armies of Austria with "brave soldiers and brilliant officers," but, as admitted by historians devoted to the Etaipire, they . loyally defended, when the occasion arose, the Austrian frontiers against the invasion of the Ottoman armies, and cheerfully and lavishly poured out their life-blood in defence of the Empire against the vaulting ambition of Mahomedan power ; and by these great sacrifices they rendered signal services to the Throne of the Hapsburgs, and saved the Austrian Empire, in critical periods of its history, from what appeared to be an inevitable dismemberment. But how were these services and sacrifices, so freely rendered by the Servians to Austria and Hungary, recompensed ? History, alas ! proves that since the Treaty of Sistova, the policy of Austria has been a black record of perfidy, cruelty, and wrong, for which, happily, there are few similar parallels to be found in European relations. We have referred to the events which characterised the settlement of the Servian race in Montenegro and Austria, after the disaster at Kossovo in 1356, through successive centuries, and we will now return to the terrible experiences and the cruel sufferings of the Servians vs^ho were unwilling or unable to leave Servia, and who remained subject to the oppressive Turkish domination, They constituted the greater proportion of the entire Servian race, and their history, after the overthrow of Servian independence, in 1356, is a sad and revolting record of the atrocious rule of the Ottoman Empire. For four cehturies they were exposed to the most cruel .sufferings, bravely and patiently borne, and the description given by their historians of those cruelties and sufferings, is unutterably painful to contemplate, as it is too horrible to attempt to describe. Their Turkish oppressors seemed to have revelled in the most revolting and detestable crimes, that the base wickedness of the dehumanised mind of the Turk could possibly conceive or execute. These monstrous atrocities were perpetrated by the Moslem sol- diery on the unoff'ending Servian race, without respect to sex, age, or condition, unrestrained by their officers, and unpunished by the ruling authorities and Governors of the Provinces, but what is more shock- ing, sanctioned, if not authorised, by them. The details are too horrible to describe, for they were the proto- type of those terrible Bulgarian actrocities, in 1876, that shocked the SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1 49 conscience of the civilised world during the dark days of the expiring rule of the Turks in that ill-fated province of Bulgaria, but they were intensified fourfold by the barbarism of the earlier centuries of Turkish misrule. And it is a remarkable, but no less an undoubted historic fact, that notwithstanding the cruelty of their barbarous oppressors, Austria and Turkey, endured for four centuries without any ray of hope for redress, or of any intervention of civilised Europe, outraged by these atrocious horrors, that the Servian nation survived ; that their ceaseless energy and indomitable spirit, unsubdued and uncon- quered, rose with majestic force, and won, eventually, for that heroic people a great and glorious victory over all their foes, whether of the Austrian, the Russian, or the Ottoman power; a noble victory in favour of an emancipated Servia, and of a dearly-won national inde- pendence. The history of that remarkable struggle, with its strange fluctua- tions of victory and defeat, constitutes a memorable record, worthy of being held in everlasting remembrance by the descendants of the entire Servian race, because it proves unmistakably, that this struggle was victorious in proportion only, as they were separated from the treacherous and false alliance of Austrian intervention, or Russian guardianship, and relied solely on their instinctive yearnings for deliverance from the thraldom of their oppressors, and put forth their own strength, unassisted from without, for its glorious achieve- ment. An outline, briefly traced, of the successive steps which led up to that memorable triumph will be necessary, as well as of interest, to appreciate fully the precarious position of Servia at the present time. We have seen how for nearly four centuries, from 1356 to 17 1 7, the Turks remained masters of the position ; how under their atrocious rule, whenever and wherever administered, Servia suffered, not so much from the central authority at Constantinople, but from the petty tyranny of the officers of the Government, the Pashas of the provinces and their officials ; how, under these Pashas, turbulent troops robbed and insulted the unfortunate inhabitants, and cruelties the most atrocious were perpetrated from motives of plunder and passion, whilst to every remonstrance which reached Constantinople, the excuse was made that such deeds were committed, not by the direction or the sanction of the Ottoman Porte, but in defiance of its wishes, though whether from powerlessness or connivance the Porte made no attempt to check, or to punish the miscreants. 15° SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. FROM 1717 TO 1860. At the beginning of the last century, However, an attempt was made to overthrow this grinding Ottoman tyranny, and Servia passed through the fiery ordeal of successive conflicts, and change suc- ceeded change with their ever-varying scenes of terror and of suffering In 1717, Prince Eugene of Savoy, at the head of an Austrian army, besieged and captured Belgrade, and overran the whole of Servia, with the result that in the following year, Servia was ceded to the Austrian Empire. In 1739, in consequence of a victorious war waged by Turkey, she again occupied Servia, and by the Treaty of Peace which followed, its capital, Belgrade, was guaranteed to the Turks. In 1788, an Austrian Army pnder the famous Marshal Loudon, recaptured Belgrade, which however, in 1791, by the Treaty of Sistova, was restored to Turkey. In these fierce struggles waged between Austria and Turkey for supremacy in Servia, it was natural that the various Servian races, wherever scattered, rallied to the Austrian banners, and in the brief intervals of Austrian successes, they faintly and partially reahsed their ancient dreams of freedom. But, alas ! that freedom was short-Uved, for no sooner was the fortune of war reversed, and the unrestful ambition of Turkey had triumphed and driven the Austrian forces across the Save, than inevitably and irretrievably the Servians, abandoned by their professed deliverers, fell an easy prey to the dastardly revenge of their hateful Moslem conquerors. We now approach a series of remarkable events in the history of Servia, a turning point in her tragical and chequered history, events the most memorable, because they were the inauguration of a brighter and a happier era in her melancholy career of defeats, disasters, and degradations. Servia had suffered long and horribly from Turkish oppression, without the faintest hope of deliverance, and she had proved by painful experience that the domination of Austria brought her but little mitigation of suffering and sorrow, for it was characterised by the basest treachery, unworthy of a great and enhghtened civilised State, such as the Austria-Hungarian Empire proudly boasts of claiming for herself in Europe. Servia and her people had good grounds to refuse and disown the paternal government of the House of Hapsburg, for its record SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 151 for centuries had been misgovernment and harsh oppression^ not far removed from the misgovernment and oppressive rule of the de scendants of Mahomet. The Austrian occupation of Servia brought with it a subjection of all her ancient liberties, for on the one hand, the defenceless and helpless population suffered from the exactions inflicted by the vic- torious armies ; and, on the other hand, from the execrable tyranny and religious persecutions imposed by a conquering Power, whose policy was directly hostile to the aspirations of a people who had aforetime realised the blessings of political and civil liberty, and who looked forward with high hopes for its full restoration. Moreover, other causes were not wanting to rouse the Servians into action for the overthrow of the harsh rule of the Ottoman Porte, and also to emancipate herself from the dangerous alliance with the Austria-Hungarian Government. That alliance was a dearly- purchased one, ever and anon made subservient for their religious subjection to the Church of Rome, and these proselytising efforts were directed, not only for the apostacy of the Servians that formed an integral part of the Austrian Empire, but also against the Servian nation itself, wherever brought by the fortunes of war under Austrian domination. In consequence, therefore, of such an accumulation of real and bitter wrongs, inflicted on their suffering race by their inexorable conquerors, the Austrians on the western, and the Moslems on the eastern frontiers, and patiently borne during the many centuries of their chequered history, without any hope of united action or reform, it was natural, nay, inevitable, that with their strong aspirations for national freedom, that they should make a suprenie effort to throw off the heavy yoke of their oppressors, and, rising superior to all the insuperable obstacles before them, try to regain once more their- ancient and dearly-cherished independence. Relying on their undeniable and inalienable rights ; confident, in their unfaltering courage to be able to obtain them, the whole nation of Servia, in the beginning of this century, united them- selves in a solid phalanx, or, to use a familiar phrase, rose en masse in the great struggle for her popular liberties, and for her com- plete emancipation from Turkish tyranny and oppression. The difficulties which beset their path were overwhelming, suffi- cient to have appalled the most resolute of patriots, and crushed the most fiery patriotism into the dust ; but one and all having taken the solemn oath, to die, rather than to place themselves at the mercy of 152 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA* the enemy of liberty, they were undaunted by danger, and not afraid to perish, for "Their bosoms burn'd anew, With thy unquenched beam, Lost Liberty."* Surrounded on every hand by their sullen and hereditary foes, the fanatical and unrelenting enemy of liberty, the Government of Turkey, whose military forces occupied all the fortresses and fortified towns in Servia, where they had abundant supplies of war material, the Servians were driven from every vantage ground, and compelled to retreat into the recesses of the mountains, or to seek shelter in the primeval forests, without supplies, almost without arms and ammunitions of war, for it was said, that their artillery, instead of being iron or steel, were made of wood, hollowed out of the trunks of trees, with which they waged the unequal struggle in the defence of their country's freedom. The oppression exercised by the Turks had filled the most in- accessible parts of the country with desperate men, and they con- ceived the design of delivering their country under a chieftain named George Petrovics, or, according to the Turkish expression, Kara- Georges, or supreme leader of the people ; and in 1806 10,000 peasants under his command totally defeated the armies of Turkey at Deligrad, Mishar, and eventually Belgrade fell before their on- slaughts; and thus, after an heroic struggle of eight years, Kara- Georges, in 181 2, succeeded in achieving the independence of his country, and secured the emancipation from Turkey of the greater part of the present Kingdom of Servia, which was confirmed by the Treaty of Bucharest in 181 2. Kara-Georges was not born in the purple, but belonged to that class who are born to win. He was a peasant, and he became a hero, by his native valour and indomitable will ; and when he died his mantle fell on Milosh, and to these men Servia owes the inde- pendence of her people and kingdom. Unfortunately, owing to the campaign of Napoleon I. against Russia, in 1 81 2, their freedom, so dearly won, was lost for a brief inter- val; for at that time Russia was the only Christian Power favourable to Servia, and her reverses from the aggressions of France ' enabled the Turks to reconquer the country. The manner in which this was accomplished is a remarkable episode in history, an illustration of the duplicity and crafty policy of an unscrupulous diplomacy, worthy only of Themistocles, as the sequel shows. Napoleon urged Turkey to invade Russia from the south, whilst he • Byron. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA, 153 invaded her from the west, and thereupon the Czar adopted a master-stroke policy. He made peace with Turkey, and by a secret Treaty, authorised her to reconquer Servia. Hounded on by Russia, the troops of the SubUme Porte flooded Servia, and acted in that "sublime" manner that usually characterises the troops of that " sublime " Power, for they crushed during a period of ten years the Uberties of the Servians, ten years darkened by scenes of fiendish revenge and cruelty, too horrible to describe. All these atrocities, instead of breaking the spirit of the Servian nation, aroused the people to a more determined effort to recover the independence which they had previously and briefly enjoyed. In her hour of darkness Providence raised up a deliverer to Servia in the person of Prince Milosh Obrenovics, one of the commanders of Kara-Georges, and one of the most powerful of the Voyvodas, who raised the standard of revolt in the village of Takova. The whole country rose into a tumultuous insurrection, and after a pro- tracted struggle the Servians won a series of brilliant victories, with the result that the Turks were driven out of the Principality, and the country once more freed from Turkish rule. This rapid success gave to the Commander-in-Chief, Prince Milosh, a decisive authority, and in 1817 he was elected Ruler and Hereditary Prince of Servia, confirmed by the Hatti-Cheriff of the Sultan, and ratified by the Treaty of Ackerman, of 7th October, 1826. Milosh was unhappily a Despot, to whom, notwithstanding, his countrymen look back with grateful recollection, for he first made his country independent, and then saved her from dismemberment. In 1839, the unpopularity of Prince Milosh led to his abdication, and he was succeeded by his eldest son, Milan, and on his death, one month after his accession, his younger brother, Michel, became Prince. In 1842 Michel became unpopular, for he was too much of a patriot to satisfy Russia, and he was forced to follow the example of his father, Milosh, and retire. Russia thereupon proposed that Alexander Kara-Georgevics, the son of the popular hero and liberator of Servia, should succeed him, and no opposition being made he became Ruler. For a time the rule of Prince Kara-Georgevics was popular, and the country made great advances in every direction, but the moment he displayed a partiality, or was supposed to display a partiality, for Austria, intrigue and insurrection displayed itself in Belgrade, t54 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. and from this and other causes, his popularity waned. In Decem- ber, 1858, the Skuptschina, in General Assembly, determined to restore the hereditary dynasty of Obrenovics, and compelled Kafa- Georgevics to abdicate. Prince Milosh, the former ruler of Servia, who abdicated in 1839, was summoned from his retirement at Bucharest to occupy the Throne ; but he was old and infirm, and he survived his recall litde more than a twelvemonth. At his death, in i860, Prince Michel, his only surviving son, succeeded for a second time, by virtue of the law of hereditary succession, as Prince of Servia, under the title of " Obrenovics " the Third. FROM 1860 TO 1875. Thus was the general emancipation of Servia obtained, confirmed from time to time by the following diplomatic Conventions which' recognised her national independence, and secured her full political, civil, and religious freedom, liberty of legislation, com- merce, and navigation : — 1. The 8th Article of the Treaty of Bucharest, in 181 2. 2. The sth Article of the Treaty of Akerman, in 1826. 3. The 6th Article of the Treaty of Adrianople, in 1829. 4. Five Hatti-Cheriffs, issued by the Sultan respectively in 1829, 1830, 1833, 1838,, and 1853. 5. The 17th, i8th, 28th, and 29th Articles of the Treaty of Paris, in 1856. The Government of Prince Michel was composed principally of men whose domestic and foreign policy were alike hostile to the free institutions of Servia and her freedom from foreign control, their political antecedents being associated with constant oppression of the people, and the disastrous influence exercised by the diplomacy of the great European Powers. Whilst on the accession of the Prince to the Throne, he declared by Proclamation hrs intention to safeguard and extend the constitu- tional liberties, won by Servia, after great heroic struggles, his Ministers, who wielded arbitrary power, reversed these solemn declara- tions to the nation ; for they abolished the most valuable securities of liberty, such as free municipal institutions, the sovereign powers of the National Assembly, free elections, and free public instruction. They proscribed the Press, prosecuted its proprietors and writers, made judges dependent on the will of the Ministers, threatened with death all who resisted their authority and decrees, and finally SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 155 invested themselves with despotic power to legislate for the country, against the voice and will of the people, and, by a system of whole- sale corruption, forced the Skuptschina to become subservient to their views. Such a corrupt administration of power and legislation struck at the foundations of public morality and Constitutional Government ; financial burdens, and extraordinary taxes were imposed, and the financial deficit year by year accumulated. The people of Servia naturally resisted these abuses, and the system of Government which produced them, and they appealed to the patriotism of the Prince, as their chosen and popular Ruler, to interpose his Sovereign authority in favour of the national rights. In order to rally" the nation to a sense of the imminent peril of its democratic institutions, the National party, whose only aim was to organise their hard-won independence on a solid and enduring basis, freed from the evil designs of corrupt political adventurers, decided to publish a political journal, whereby they hoped to arouse the popular will in favour of defending liberty against the oppressors. The Ministers, in the exercise of their arbitrary power, proscribed its publication and prosecuted its pro- moters ; and in consequence of this high-handed action by the sup- pression of free thought, and its free expression, the leaders of the people resolved to transfer the agitation by the Press to Switzerland, and to issue at Geneva the suppressed journal, printed in two languages, under the name of " Sloboda " in Servian, and " La Liberty " in French. Its programme may be summarised in these terms : — A strenuous advocacy of the first principles of national liberty, which were proclaimed by the National Assembly in 1858, in favour of a liberal constitution ; a full extended franchise ; free municipal institutions ; a free press ; liberty of conscience and education ; and other great reforms, which could only save Servia from political degradation, and raise her to an equality with Free-governed States, and thus enable her to march steadily but firmly towards the attain- ment of a higher civilisation. Throughout this serious crisis in Servia the Ministers of Prince Michel adopted a policy of exasperation, which encouraged the rising tide of popular discontent, and aroused the hostility that existed between them and the people. Their first step was to prohibit the circulation in Servia of the national journal, the " Sloboda,'' and subsequently they assailed 156 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. the Patriotic Association of the Servian Liberals, who had united themselves under the banner of the " Omladina," as the champions for the national regeneration of the nation and the emancipation of the Government from foreign diplomacy, and from the miserable plots of men who were traitors to the Throne and the Constitution. Prince Michel, true to his coronation oath, to the Constitution of 1858, and to the ancient liberalism of the Obrenovitch dynasty, bravely and loyally opposed the despotic and illegal action of the Prime Minister Garashanine and his colleagues, for he was of opinion that it was a treasonable conspiracy against the nation, a declaration of war against the patriotism of his people, and to popular Government. His warm sympathies with the cause of " Omladina, " unfortu- nately, cost him his life, for, in consequence, it is believed, of the liberal professions of the Prince, from motives of revenge, lest the concessions he had foreshadowed should be adopted, and also as the result of a dark conspiracy in favour of the re-establishment of the Prince Kara-Georgevics on the Throne of Servia, Prince Michel was struck down by an assassin's hand. This heinous crime filled Servia with horror, and all political parties were aghast at so dastardly a deed of unwarrantable regicide. The National party of Servia were basely charged by their enemies with complicity in this abominable crime, but they indig- nantly resented so foul an aspersion, and gave forcible expression to their abhorrence of the assassination. Whoever may have been responsible, (and the perpetrators were not unknown), its result was to create an immense revulsion of feeling against the Kara-Georgevics pretensions, and in favour of the Obrenovics party, and especially in favour of Prince Milan, the nephew of the late Ruler, as successor to the Throne. The leading men of the National party supported the candidature of Prince Milan, and in 1868 the National Assembly proclaimed him the successor to the vacant Throne, as Obrenovics .IV., and the dynasty became firmly consolidated. Prince Milan Obrenovics IV., (the same Prince who has recently abdicated the Throne), on his accession was a minor, and it was necessary to appoint a Regency of three members, who were chosen by the National Assembly, sitting at Belgrade. It unanimously adopted a resolution, which was expressive of the popular indigna- tion against the Government of Ristics, on the ground of it being morally and legally responsible, not only for the assassination of the late Prince Michel, but also for the disastrous events which it SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1 57 precipitated; and it also declared the determination of the nation for the full realisation of the liberal programme adopted by the Skuptschina in 1858, and that no Ministry would be acceptable to the representatives of the people, or worthy of the confidence of the Prince, that refused to sanction the reforms guaranteed by the Royal Proclamation. The Government of Ristics, that had so long and arbitrarily resisted the national will, and whose policy had greatly imperilled the triumph of liberal ideas, and the national independence itself, was happily overthrown ; and with the accession of a reformed Administration, composed of the ablest and most enlightened men of the National party, there was hope for Reform, Progress, and Liberty, The first step in the direction of political reform taken by the new Ministry, was to secure the abolition of the illegal Constitution of 1838, which had been forced on Servia by Turkey, for it was a Constitution that destroyed its national autonomy. The Constitution of 1838 had been rejected by the Skuptschina in 1858, and therefore as soon as the new National Assembly had assembled in 1869, for a second time, and by a unanimous vote it was swept away, and replaced by a new Constitution, by which the power of the State was vested in three Departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial ; and its basis was that the Legisla- tive power belonged to the Skuptschina and the Prince ; which practically declared that Servia should be a limited Constitutional Monarchy, a Government of the Ruler and by the Parliament com- bined. The National Assemblies were divided into Minor and Superior ; the Minor composed of two-thirds of the representatives chosen by the people, and one-third of the Deputies, chosen by the Prince. The Superior Assembly was composed only of the Deputies, elected by the people, and their number was four times as large as the Minor Assembly. The Prince was recognised as the First Estate of the Realm, with an hereditary succession. On the death of the reigning Prince the succession to the Throne to pass only to the male heirs, and, in the event of no male heirs, to the male offspring of Prince Milosh, but *ith this condition, that the Skuptschina should decide as to the most suitable of the aspirants to ascend the Throne. To the Prince belonged the power of convoking and dissolving the National Assembly, and the right of veto on its legislation, with ■158 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. the condition that whilst he could refuse assent to laws passed by the Skuptschina, he could make no change in the existing laws or statutes recognised in the Constitution, and that formed its National Charter. As the head of the State and the Army, he exercised the right of selecting his Ministers and officers, the appointment of judges, and all other officers of State ; and in civil and criminal jurisprudence he dispensed the clemency of the Crown towards criminals and offenders of the law. At the same time the Prince governed through his Ministers, who were responsible forhis political acts, and in Foreign Affairs he acted as the representative of the Nation in the negotiation of Treaties, in the declaration of war, and the conclusion or mainten- ance of peace. The great principles of religious equality, and liberty of con- science, were accepted, by which the free exercise of worship and religious profession were guaranteed ; Civil freedom, the equality of all citizens before the law, were also recognised ; and that none should be deprived of their civil rights or personal property, and that for all private property absorbed by the State for the public service, the owner should receive a just compensation. Every subject of Servia had the right of liberty of the Press and freedom of speech granted to him, within the prescribed limits of loyalty to the Constitution, the Crown, and the King. The establishment of municipal institutions, and of a national militia, measures of finance, a uniform system of taxation, these, and many others, constituted the chief reforms, and received their authority and force by the legislation of the National Assembly, convoked in 1870. Servia had now entered on her career of national independence and prosperity, won after centuries of cruel sacrifices, and for an interval of five years, order and tranquillity prevailed within and with- out her frontiers, and under the dynasty of Obrenovics in the person of Prince Milan, Servia made great progress in Civilisation and Freedom THE SERVO-TURKISH WAR, 1875. The next event in Servian history which claims notice, was her armed intervention in 1875 on behalf of the liberation of the provinces of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Bulgaria from Turkish rule. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 159 and in favour of their national independence, and this intervention involved her in hostilities with her ancient foe, the Ottoman Porte. The causes which led to that intervention, and to the conflict which subsequently took place, have been described in the preceding chapter on " Russia, Bulgaria, and Turkey," and it will, therefore, only be necessary, in order to preserve the continuity of Servian history, to quote the following passages from this chapter having reference to the subject : — Prior to the Crimean War the Christian populations of the Turkish Provinces in Europe were recognised as being under the Protectorate of Russia by the Treaty of Adrianople of 1829, and confirmed by the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi of 1832 ; but the Treaty of Paris (1B56) which followed the Crimean War, changed this, and imposed upon the Great Powers the obligation which had previously been exercised by Russia. From the year 1856 to 187s, when the insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there had long been constant and repeated complaints in regard to the rapacity, injustice, and brutality of the Turkish Government or its officials. Time after time remonstrances had been made by our own and other Governments, but to no avail. In the summer of 1875 the insurrection broke out in Bosnia. Prior to the outbreak, the Bosnians had been doing what they could to obtain a redress of their wrongs, but in vain, for in the autumn of 1873 a memorial was presented to the Austrian Govern- ment by a number of the inhabitants of Bosnia, praying, among other things, ' ' That an impartial Commission, composed partly of Christian subjects of the Sultan, should be sent from Constantinople for the purpose of inquiry into the state of Christians in Bosnia, and that this commission should carry on its labours with the support of the Signatory Powers to the Treaty of Paris." Towards the end of April, the insurrection, fomented by foreign emissaries, spread to Bulgaria ; but it was characterised by such barbarous atrocities that naturally aroused a storm of public indignation in England against Turkey, and a strong demand was made that England should separate herself from a nation which perpetrated such cruelties, that a. stop should be put to Turkish rule in Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina ; a demand which compelled the Porte to take vigorous measures to stamp out the rebellion. . . • • . The sympathy felt by the Servians for their brothers who still remained under the Turkish yoke was naturally great, for the relations between them were close, as they spoke the same language, and cherished the same aspirations for freedom. Servia had, in the meantime, increased the danger of the situation by a note of warning, addressed in the first instance to the Great Powers, and subsequently to the Porte, and when the Russian General Tchernaief offered his services to her, Servia believed that " the hour and the man had arrived," and at once proclaimed her . l6o SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. intention to join her arms to those of Bosnia and Herzegovina to secure the liberation of the Slavonic, Christians from the rule of Turkey, and simultaneously with the declaration of War on the part of Turkey, the warlike Prince of Montenegro entered the field in the same cause. At the beginning of the struggle, the Servians were victorious, but in spite of excellent Generalship, they were eventually defeated at every point, at Belina, Zaicar, and at Alexinatz, and were forced to retreat, and when Abdul Kerim, the Commander of the Turkish Forces, approached the capital Belgrade, Prince Milan summoned the foreign Consuls to secure their intervention, and a cessation of hostilities. By the peace which followed, Servia, although com- pletely worsted in the campaign, lost not a stone of her fortresses, nor an acre of her soil, neither had she even to pay a war indemnity, and when the subsequent great struggle in the following year, 1877, between Turkey and Russia was terminated, the claims of Servia, and the sacrifices of her people in the previous struggle, were abundantly satisfied by the Treaty of Berlin of 1878. The following are the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin relating to Servia : — " Article 31. — Les Hautes Parties Contractantes reconnaissent I'ind^pendance de la Principaute de Serbie en la rattachant aux conditions exposSes dans I'article suivant. "Article 32, — En Serbie la distinction des croyances rdigieuses et des confessions ne pourra toe oppos^e a personne comme un motif d'exclusion ou d'incapacit^ en ce qui concerne la jouissance des droits civilset politiques, 1' admission aux emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, ou I'exercice des difffirentes professions et industries, dans quelque locality que ce soit. La liberty et la pratique ext^rieure de tous les cultes seront assurfies a tous les ressortissants de la Serbie aussi bien qu'aux strangers, et aucune entrave ne pourra §tre apportee soit a I'organisation hi^rarchique des diff^rentes communions soit a leurs rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels. "Article 33. — Les nouvelles frontieres de la Serbie sont fix^es ainsi qu'il suit. . . " Article 34. — Jusqu'a la conclusion de nouveaux arrangements rien ne sera change en Serbie aux conditions actuelles des relations coramerciales de la Principaute avec les pays Strangers. Aucun droit de transit ne sera prelev6 sur les marchandises traversant la Serbie. Les immunit^s et privileges des sujets Strangers, ainsi que les droits de juridiction et de protection consulaires tels qu'ils existent aujourd'hui, resteront en pleine vigueur, tant qu'ils n'auront pas et^ modifies d'un commun accord entre la Principaute et les Puissances interess^es. " Article 35. — La Principaute de Serbie est substitute pour sa part aux engagements que la Sublime Porte a contractus tant envers I'Autriche-Hongrie qu'envers la com- pagnie pour I'exploitation des chemins de fer de la Tiurquie d'Europe par rapport a I'achevement et au raccordement, ainsi qu'a I'exploitation des lignes feiTfes a con- struire sur le territoire nouvellement acquis par lar Principaute. Les conventions necessaires pour r^gler ces questions seront conclues imnifidiatement aprte la signa- ture du present Traite entre I'Autriche-Hongrie, la Porte, la Serbie, et, dans les limites de sa competence, la Principaute de Bulgarie. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1 6 I ' ' Article 36. — Les Musulmans qui possSdent des propri^tfe dans les territoires annexes a la Serbie, et qui voudraient fixer leur rfoidence hors de la Principaut^, pourront y conserrer leurs immeubles en les affermant ou en les faisant administrer par des tiers. Une Commission Turco-Serbe sera charg^e de r^gler, dans le d^lai de trois annees, toutes les affaires relatives au mode d'aliSnation, d'exploitation, ou d'usage, pour le compte de la Sublime Porte, des propri^tfe de I'Etat et des fondations pieuses (vacouf), ainsi que les questions relatives aux int^rdts des particuliers qui pourraient s'y trouver engages. "Article 37. — Jusqu'a la conclusion d'un traits entre la Turquie et la Serbie, les sujets Serbes voyageant ou s^journant dans I'Empire Ottoman seront trait^s suivant les principes g^neraux du droit international. " Article 38. — Les troupes Serbes seront tenues d'ivacuer dans le d61ai de 15 jours, a partir de la signature du pr^ient Trait^, le territoire non compris dans les nouvelles limites de la Principaute. "Article 39. — Le tribut de la Serbie sera capitalist et les representants des Puis- sances a Constantinople fixeront le taux de cette capitalisation d'accord avec la Sub- lime Porte. La Serbie devant supporter une partie de la dette publique Ottomane pour les njuveaux territoires quilui sont attribufe par le present Traite, les lepr^sentants a Constantinople en determineront le montant, de concert avec la Sublime Porte, sur une base Equitable." SERVO-BULGARIAN WAR, 1886. For a period of nine years, consequent on the satisfactory character of the Treaty of Berlin, Servia and the new-born States of Bulgaria and Roumelia, that had entered into the enjoyment of national life, and free institutions, amply justified the decisions of the Berlin Con- gress of 1878, for they proved, by settled order and peace, worthy of the political freedom conferred upon them by the wisdom of the statesmanship of United Europe. We will now quote from the previous chapter on " Bulgaria, Russia, and Turkey," in regard to the events which subsequently followed. In the summer of 1886, signs of restlessness appeared among the subjects of Turkey in Macedonia and Albania, which extended into Bulgaria and Roumelia, and showed that a storm was brewing in the Balkans, but few supposed that the Treaty of Berlin was in danger. Suddenly Europe was startled by a popular coup d'etat, a bloodless revolution in Roumelia, which deposed the Governor-General, overthrew the Government, and proclaimed by acclamation its union with Bulgaria. • • No sooner had Roumelia proclaimed her union with Bulgaria and become one kingdom, and invited Prince Alexander, by one voice, to accept the Rulership, than on every hand he was assailed by foes without and factions within, and the cry seemed to be all along the Une, Compensation ! Compensation ! M t62 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. On the north-eastern frontier, Servia, and her restless, ambitious people, who are ever dreaming of the ancient days, when their kingdom extended to the Egean Sea, and who seem ever intent on securing Salonica, for the outlet of their commerce and the development of their power, raised the cry of Compensation, and when all hope from every quarter vanished for securing some extension of territory, she blindly and criminally rushed into war against Bulgaria. No greater or more unprovoked wrong to an unoffending neighbour was ever wrought ,by an Alaric or a Bonaparte, and what was the result ? Precisely what they deserved. Crossing the frontier at four points, and elated with temporary successes. Prince Alexander advanced to meet them at the head of his little army of 50,000 men, fighting for freedom, and to drive back the invasion for the dismemberment of the new-born State of Bulgaria. At Slivnitza, Glenitz, Widdin, and other battle-fields, the Prince astonished both friends and foes alike by his personal bravery, his generalship, and devotion to the National cause, and at every point the undisciplined, but brave soldiers of Bulgaria and Roumelia hurled back and scattered into wild confusion the trained Servian warriors, turning defeat into rout, invasion of Bulgaria into invasion of Servia, and a Servian conquest of Macedonia into a Bulgarian victory which opened up the road to the capital, Belgrade. The Bulgarian nation was roused to enthusiasm, but in the hour of their victory, when Servia lay prostrate at her feet, Austria, who had prompted her to the ' war, intervened and demanded a suspension of hostilities, and the conclusion at any cost of an inglorious peace. After much tedious negotiation, a Treaty of Peace between Servia and Bulgaria was signed March 3rd, 1887, at Bucharest, which con- ■sisted of one clause only ; simply declaring that from the date of the signature of the Treaty, " peace is restored between the kingdom of Servia and the principality of Bulgaria;" the original words *' friendly relations" were struck out by the desire of Servia, who declared that the omission of the words was intended by her as a protest against Bulgaria for her poHcy in Eastern Roumelia. After the conclusion of peace the Premier, M. Garashanine, continued as Prime Minister for some time, notwithstanding the universal condemnation which was passed upon him by leading men and the Press generally, for the frivolous way in which he had rushed into the conflict with Bulgaria ; for the result of this plunge not only ruined his reputation as a Statesman, but it brought Servia to the verge of ruin, emptied the Treasury of its resources, added _;£2,6oo,ooo to the Public Debt ; whilst the people were impover- ished by war contributions, requisitions, and all the indirect losses, which war brings in its train; and especially the military prestige of Servia was compromised, and the sympathies of Europe alienated. It is not surprising, therefore, that under all these circumstances neither of the political parties in Servia were inclined to assume the responsibilities of Government, and the situation became so perilous SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1 63 to the State that the King applied, although very unwillingly, to M. Ristitch, the Liberal Leader, to undertake the formation of a Ministry, as he had long been identified with a Philo-Russian policy, and was not friendly to Austrian influence. The policy of M. Ristitch was, moreover, too pacific for King Milan, for the former was in favour of a large reduction in the War Budget, and a policy of disarmament to secure it ; and he was, therefore, obliged to resign, and the former Premier, Garashanine, reinstated. As he was in a minority in the 'Legislative Chambers, it was necessary in order to obtain a majority for his policy to dissolve the Skupt- schina and appeal to the country. The result of the elections was the return of 58 Ministerialists, and 75 members of the Opposition ; and, in order to obtain a majority for the New Premier, the King, in virtue of the right conferred upon him by the Constitution of 1858, selected 45 additional members as supporters of the Ministry, and thus a majority for the new Government was secured. From this period to the end of the year, a secret agitation was carried on against King Milan by the pretender to the throne, Kara- Georgevitch, with the cordial approval of his father-in-law Prince Nicholas of Montenegro, and secretly supported by Russia. Moreover, M. Garashanine, the author of the Servo-Bulgarian War, had become more unpopular, mainly through his reckless ■expenditure of the public funds, and although he had a majority in the Skuptschina, due not to the choice of the people but to the favour of the Crown, the King naturally felt that his favourite Minister could not much longer be continued as Premier without danger to the Monarchy ; but it was difficult to find another States- man whose policy would be favourable to the dynasty and its traditions, and who would be willing to face the rising discontent throughout the country in its support. The Premiership was pressed upon Christitch, but he declined ; and there was no other alternative but to recall M. Ristitch to power. M. Ristitch is called a Servian Chauvinist, whose political pro- gramme is the union under the sceptre of King Milan of all the territories, formerly belonging to the empire of Servia, or at the present time inhabited by the Sclavonic race in Eastern Europe. As this would involve the aimexation of territories in the possession of Austria, King Milan, as the prdtege of Austria, could not support him ; and, moreover, M. Ristitch was supposed to side with Russia, and he found in the Queen Nathalie a warm supporter. The accession of Ristitch to power was received with enthusiasm 164 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. by the people, with shouts of " Long live Ristitch and Russia t Down with Garashanine and Austria." In order to strengthen his position, one of his first acts was ta order a General Election for the National Assembly. At this time the state of affairs was far from satisfactory. The King, who had with great skill and energy played off each party in the State against each ' other, now felt that his Royal power was slipping from his- hands, and that he was gradually becoming powerless and unpopular. His formidable adversary was his Royal Consort, Queen Nathalie^ who had pursued a policy of her own, and had become more and more alienated from her Royal husband. The Premier, Ristitch, who is considered one of the most en- lightened statesmen in Servia, was under the stigma of the disastrous, war in 1877 against Turkey, and Garashanine was equally un- popular in consequence of the still more disastrous war in 1886 against Bulgaria. The result of the elections was remarkable, for not a single Pro- gressist or adherent of M. Garashanine obtained a seat in the Skuptschina ; whilst the Liberals, or adherents of Ristitch, were beaten by the Radicals under the leadership of Gruitch ; and thus neither the Premier or the ex-Premier obtained a majority. It was impossible that such a confused stage of affairs could continue; for the Radicals under Gruitch grew bolder in their demands, and Ristitch had not the power to resist them, much as he would have wished; whilst King Milan, who disliked an^ denounced the Radicals, most of whom were peasants, was compelled to interpose in the conflict, and for a time the Radicals, in deference to the King, ceased their opposition, for the King warned them that Panslavism and a Philo-Russian policy is opposed to the interests of Servia, and of those who wish to see her restored to her former position as a great Danubian State. At length the inevitable split between the Liberals and Radicals, took place; Ristitch, no longer able to withstand the Radical policy, resigned, and Gruitch, a prominent adherent of Russia, was appointed Premier, and his colleagues in the Government consisted of the most active members of the Radical party; to counteract their Philo-Russian proclivities the King retained as his representative in the Cabinet M. Franassovitch, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was supposed to be a warm adherent of the Austrian alliance. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 165 Thus, after eighteen years in Opposition, the Radicals, whose pohcy is anti-dynastic, and probably revolutionary, came into power. SERVIAN POLITICS IN 1888.. The year 1888 began with preparations for another General Election, and the result of the Elections, which was declared in March, showed an overwhelming majority for the Government, as it obtained 133 seats, and the Liberals only 15. The- King thus gained his object, but in the following month he came into conflict with the Radical Ministry and the Radical majority, on a question of military organization, for he refused to sanction the New Army Bill, which led to the resignation of M. Gruitch, .and the King summoned M. Christitch to become Premier. The first act of M. Christitch was to dissolve the Skuptchina, and soon afterwards a Conspiracy was discovered at Belgrade, having for its aim, to dethrone King Milan, and proclaim Kara-Georgevitch the protege of Russia, as his successor to the Throne. Arrests followed its discovery, and for the moment the revolution was averted. At this period the Queen Nathalie and her son Alexander were at Wiesbaden, where she had been sent after her expulsion from Servia by the Royal edict, and the King now determined on a divorce which the Government of M. Gruitch had opposed. M. Christitch consented to apply for a divorce to the synod of Belgrade, and eventually October 24th, 1888, it was obtained on the ground of unconquerable mutual aversion and danger to the -ServiaH State. King Milan determined to divert the public attention from the sentence of divorce pronounced by the Metropolitan Archbishop Theodosius, and in this he cleverly succeeded. Two days after the sentence of divorce was published, the King issued a proclamation declaring the necessity for a new Constitution. The announce- ment that the Constitution of Servia was to be revised, naturally took friends and foes by surprise, but when the Commission was appointed, consisting of all the political parties. Progressists, Liberals, and Radicals, represented by their respective leaders, Garashanine Ristitch, and Gruitch, thus guaranteeing that every section of ■opinion would be represented, the excitement was allayed. l66 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. This Commission soon drafted the New Constitution for Servia„ which generally decreed individual liberty, and freedom of the Press ;. placed all religious sects on an equal footing ; granted the suffrage to all men paying 15 francs a year in taxes; rendered all classes of the community eligible to serve as Deputies ; provided for the establishment of only one Legislative Chamber, three fourths of whose members were to be elected, while the remaining fourth to consist of Councillors of State, Bishops, Judges, and retired Generals. It left to the King the prerogative of declaring War and of making. Peace, and of summoning or dissolving the Skuptschina at his- pleasure. The Russian enemies of King Milan, were determined that matters, should not be peaceably settled, as it was desired, between the King and his subjects, if they could help it, and the question with them was, whether the Radical leaders should take their instructions, from Russia, from Austria, or from the King of Servia. The leaders of the Radicals M. M. Gruitch, Horvatovich and Pirotchanatz. were no friends to the King, for the two former were opposed to Austria, and they took their stand on the ground that so long as. Austria occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina, the extension of the Servian territory by Austrian help or approval was impossible, and that only by the alliance of Russia, could the Empire of Stephen Dooshan " the Mighty," be realised. The Liberals and Radicals of Servia, on the other hand, turned to- Prince N icholas of Montenegro and to his son-in-law Kara-Georgevitch^ the Pretender to the Servian Throne, to precipitate the struggle,, backed by the power of Russia, for the restoration of the Servian Empire, to its ancient position, from the Danube to the Egean Sea. The Panslavists of Russia encouraged this vain ambition by induc- ing their allies in Servia to believe that if King Milan were deposed, and the Obrenovitch Dynasty overthrown, Servia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro, united under the Dynasty of Kara-Georgevitch would join with Russia in the tremendous task of breaking up the Austro- Hungarian Empire, and re-establishing a great Slav Empire in the South-east of Europe ; but they left out of the calculation or ignored the probability that Austria and her European Allies might probably defeat Russia, in this bold enterprise. King Milan was swayed by the conviction that the one ambition of Russia was to depose him from the Throne and to overthrow the dynastry of Obrenovitch, and that the Radical and Liberal leaders. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 167 under the leadership of Gruitch and Taussonvitch would assist her in that scheme ; and for the reason, that the peasants desired to be independent of Austria, of whom they have a deep distrust, and they believe, that if Servia is ever to become progressive and prosperous that she must be independent of both Austria and Russia. They detest the prospect of becoming Russian subjects, under the rule of the Czar, and are not willing to risk the dire calamities, that would inevitably follow from such an unnatural alliance with a despotic Power such as Russia. ABDICATION OF KING MILAN, 1889. At the beginning of the year 1889, the political embarrassments of Servia continued, for she was in the awkward position of a country with a brand new Constitution, and with practically no Executive Government, except the King. The last Government of M. Cristics never had a Parliamentary majority, and when it appealed to the nation, as time after time previous Administrations had done, its supporters were scattered to the winds. In this dilemma, holding office until its successors were appointed, and the choice of their successors resting with the King, and the King either unwilling or unable to appoint them, the country was involved in a serious constitutional crisis. The hesitation of King Milan was not to be wondered at. The Radicals were supreme in the Assembly, and their rank and file were severely hostile to him. Many, or most of them, were supporters of a Russian alliance, which the King repudiated, and of the Queen Nathalie, whom he had divorced. Even had he been wilKng to tender to them the seals of office, and they had been willing to accept the responsibility, they would have made their accession to power not only bitter to his soul, but also degrading to his Royalty ; for their first step would have been to insist on his accepting as one of his Ministers, an ancient foe, Kara-Georgevics, the Pretender to the Throne, and the J>ro/Sge of Russia. To accept this humiliation Servia would have Austria to reckon with, and threats from that quarter the King dare not despise, so that between the Scylla, Russia, on the one hand, and the Charybdis, Austria, on the other, it was not surprising that he should take holiday to the Riviera, and obtain a little fresh air on the Mediterranean. ibS .SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. At length, on the 22nd February, 1889, disheartened and dis- mayed on every hand, overwhelmed by the fierce strife of political warfare, the intrigues of Russia, the threats of Austria, and troubles arising from the divorce and expulsion of his Queen,- King Milan hurled his abdication like a thunderbolt at the-Throne of Servia, and it is not too much to say that this act of amazing recklessness created a profound sensation throughout Europe. His first step was to appoint as Regents Ristitch, Protitch, and General Belimarkovitch, to exercise the Royal prerogative for a period of five and a half years, and at the expiration of this period his son Alexander will have obtained his majority ; and the Regents, in the exercise of their authority, entrusted the Radical leader, M. Tausannovitch, with the task of forming the Govern- ment. The act of abdication was described by an eye-witness at Bel- grade as extremely impressive. His Majesty, with visible emotion, read the document to the Ministers, State ofificials, and officers, and to the members of the Diplomatic Body, and, having concluded, His Majesty knelt down before his son Alexander, a youth but 13 years of age, and, in the presence of the Arch-Priest, solemnly took the oath of allegiance to the new King, which was likewise done by the Regents and officers, and subsequently the army. FUTURE PROSPECTS OF SERVIA. To indicate the probable consequences, in the dim and distant future, of this portentous event on the 'fortunes of Servia, or of the future, policy of Austria, Russia, and Turkey, is a difficult and delicate task. Russian influence, will, of course, be enormously increased, and Austrian influence greatly weakened. In Servia, as is well known, both Liberals and Radicals are supporters of Russia, and of the claims of the Pretender Kara-Georgevics to the Throne ; whilst the Progressist party, to whom the former are opposed, favour the Austrian alliance, and this party, which include the ablest and the most famous statesmen and politicians in Servia, have been well-nigh effaced in pubKc life on account of their sympathies with Austria. Of one thing we may be certain, that the recognition of the Prince Kara-Georgevics as King of Servia, if Russian policy should secure a triumph, would be fatal to the prestige of Austria-Hungary SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 169 in the Balkan Peninsula, and would certainly be followed by decisive events. Russia has long dissembled her displeasure at the independence of Servia. She knows perfectly well that Servia is her only dangerous rival in the Balkan Peninsula. She has always tried, since the beginning of the century, when she forced Kara-Georgevics out of the country, and hottnded on the Turks to invasion, to keep Servia under her power. The charge made against Servia by Russia is, that she has sold herself to Austria, and that King Milan was a pensioner of the Austrian Empire ; but such a charge comes with a bad grace from Russian lips. We all know that Montenegro is an ally of Russia, and that Prince Nicholas is much indebted to her sympathy and support. If, there- fore. Prince Nicholas of Montenegro has allied himself to Russia, why is King Milan unworthy to reign because he has allied himself to Austria ? But the charge is false, for King Milan, it is believed, is wealthy, and is independent of either Austria or Russia. The real cause of Russia's sorrow and hate is not that King Milan allied himself to the Emperor of Austria, but that he was not an ally of the Czar of Russia. The dynasty of Obrenovitch has twice been proclaimed the here- ditary ruling House of Servia. This has never been the case with the Kara-Georgevics family, and if the Servians were polled as to which dynasty they would have to rule over them, Kara-Georgevitch or Obrenovitch, they would, almost to a man, vote for the dynasty of Obrenovitch. Every step in Servian progress is connected with the Obrenovitch dynasty. The liberation of the country from the Turks, the evacuation of Belgrade and other fortresses by the Ottoman troops, the independence of the country, the extension of its territory, the making of its railways, all of these are the beneficent results of the Obrenovitch rule. If we turn to the other side of the picture, and ask what the Kara-Georgevics family have done for Servia, we find that Black George, the only great man that family ever produced, deserted his country in the hour of danger in 1812, and thus sacrificed every claim he had upon her gratitude. Can Servia therefore look forward to the restoration of the Kara- Georgevics dynasty, even though the present Pretender is a son-in- law of Prince Nicholas, and an ally of Russia ? 170 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. To do the Radicals of Servia justice, the accession of Kara- Georgevic to the throne would have caused considerable dissatis- faction, for they did not wish to effect any change of rulers, but to abolish rulers altogether — in fact what they aimed at was not a Restoration, but a Revolution. In 1883, Russia received two diplomatic checks, the one in Bul- garia, and the other in Servia : the former when Prince Alexander determined to reign as a constitutional Prince and to dispense with Russian advisers, and the latter, by the defeat of the Panslavist agitation, when they appealed to arms to overturn the Throne of King Milan. Had they succeeded in overturning the Throne they would not only have enthroned the Kara-Georgevics dynasty, but they would have reduced Servia to the humiliating position of dependence upon Russia. It is because the Servians have ever been a brave and independ- ent race, because they bear upon their standards the proud words, "The East for the Eastern people," that Russia endeavoured to resist her upward path to independence. The Government of St. Petersburg have for their policy : " Not the East for Eastern people, but the East must either be subject to Russia, or become the prey to endless strife and discord." The Christians of the East are gradually opening their eyes to the designs of Russia. A Federation of free Balkan States may belong to the politics of the future, but it will assuredly come ; and when that day arrives, and when the Slavs of the South are no longer divided ' by petty jealousies, and ancient feuds are forgotten, then there will be in the Balkan Peninsula, tranquillity and concord. The Russian Government have always looked on the Servians, Montenegrins, and Bulgarians as pawns, to be moved at will on the political chessboard. It has regarded the Balkan Peninsula as its own preserve, and has done its best to keep it isolated from the rest of Europe. The other great Powers have only too effect- ually played into the hands of Russia, but at the Berlin Congress in 1878 a sounder policy ^ffa.s established, for the independence of Servia was recognised. Freed from the last trammels of Turkish rule, Servia was able to carry out the construction of railways, the establishment of a national Constitution and of a national literature, each of which great reforms being condemned by Russia, on the ground that railways in Servia would connect the Balkan Peninsula with Western civilisation, open outlets for her commerce, and would play into the hands of Austria ; and she declared against a nation a SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 171 literature, because it was treason to the Slav cause ; and she opposed the establishment of the Servian Constitution, because it was a dangerous innovation. In fact, every step taken by Servia in the path of progress has roused the resentment or suspicion of Russia, intent only on her selfish policy in the East. Servia has no wish to take part in " la haute politique." All that she asks from Russia and Europe is to be let alone to develop her own resources. There is no fear of her tranquillity being dis- turbed by any great Power save Russia, who in her last attempt failed, as she will in the future. Russia emphatically represents brute force on the European stage. She is a real power ; one that has to be reckoned with, but need not be feared. Looking back on Servian history, we find that Russian strength has only served to inspire the Serbs to fresh efforts, first to secure their independence, and then to push on in the path of civilisation and progress. The Servians have but to be true to their country, and they will be left free and undisturbed to work out their own political salvation. Should there be any Power so ambitious as to attempt to annex the country, or even by violent means to change her form of Govern- ment, that Power will have to encounter not only the resistance of Servia, but of Western Europe. The Kingdom of Servia has a surer guarantee than any that can be given by Kings or Cabinets. She has the guarantee of her own people, and of European public opinion. Russia has yet to learn that one may be a Slav without cherishing any dreams of a universal Slav Empire, that one may be a staunch friend to the cause of Christian emancipation in the East, without being a friend to her despotic Government. Should Russia ever attempt to assert her dominion or political influence over the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula, we may be certain that however disunited the Governments of Europe may be to-day, they will always be united in resisting her advance upon Constan- tinople, and, if need be, they will say, and that in no faltering terms :— " Hitherto shalt thou go, but no further ; and here," (on the riverain of the Danube), " shalt thy proud waves be stayed." THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION AND GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. EARLY HISTORY. The island of Newfoundland has not a very clear or definite history. Discovered in 1497 by a Venetian Jean Cabot, for a long period it served as a refuge for the adventurers of all nations, es- pecially from the old world, who were bold enough to cross the ocean on any adventurous enterprise. The ancient and historic rights of France cover a period of nearly four centuries. In 1525, Francis I. sent Verazini to unfurl the French flag upon Newfoundland, and as the result of his visit he declared its annexation to France. In 1534, another Frenchman, Jacques Cartier, explored the greater part of Newfoundland, and on his return to Europe he gave such a bright report of its resources that he returned in 1540 to Newfoundland with a large number of his countrymen to found a French colony. ■ Towards the middle of the 17 th century, another body of French fishermen landed, and founded a French colony at the port of Plaisance,* situated on one of the peninsulas in the southern part of the island. In 1687, Louis XIV., King of France, gave the French colonists of Newfoundland a garrison of fifty men, and placed a Commandant at the head of the colony, of which Plaisance became the chief place, until the Treaty of Utrecht in 17 13. * Placentia. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 73 The relations of England with Newfoundland, although they are not quite so far remote as those of France, yet they have been of a more important and intimate character. In 1583 Sir Humphrey Gilbert, acting under a Commission from Queen Elizabeth, formally took possession of Newfoundland, on behalf of the English Sovereign, but on the return voyage, the ex- pedition was scattered and overwhelmed by a storm, and the Com- mander perished. In 1 62 1 Sir George Calvert, who subsequently became Lord Baltimore, settled and colonised on the peninsula in the south-east portion of the island, which he constituted a province, under the name of Avalon, and this title it still retaitis. From 1583 down to the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, Great Britain steadily and firmly established her rule and dominion over New- foundland, as shown by several Measures of Administration, such as the granting by the Crown of portions of territory to English Colonists for cultivation ; the establishing of Courts of Justice ; the issuing of Commissions of Authority for fishing operations ; the Rules and procedure for the good Government of the Colony; and the en- couragement generally to Settlers for the Colonisation of the Island. In 1698 the Parliament of England passed an Act which recog- nised the various Regulations, Commissions, and Procedures that had been provisionally in operation, and thereby brought within the sphere of English Legislation the whole of the dominions of New- foundland, applicable to its rivers, its waters, and the islands surrounding it. The British Sovereignty established under the authority of Queen Elizabeth in 1583, and subsequently consolidated by the Act of the Imperial Legislature of 1 698, was recognised by France, and as proof thereof, in 1635, during the reign of Charles I., the French applied for, and obtained permission of the English Government to carry on fishing operations in the waters of Newfoundland, and also to dry their fish on the shores of the Island, and for this concession from England the French fishermen agreed to pay to the Colonial Authorities a duty of five per cent, on the market value of their produce. In consequence of this concession, made by King Charles I. of England, the fishermen of France annually visited Newfoundland to prosecute the cod fishery, and they limited their fishing operations to the Northern portion of the Island, which was called Le Petit Nord, and also on the Southern coast-line, especially in the Bay of 174 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. Placentia, where they estabhshed the town of Placentia, for it pos- sessed a harbour admirably adapted for commercial and fishing operations. In 1637 letters patent were granted by the Crown to the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Holland, and Sir David Kirke, by which King Charles I. conferred important conces- sions in Newfoundland, which permitted them to levy from foreign fishermen a tribute for all fish taken in the seas, and rivers in and around Newfoundland, and at the time of these rights being granted, the following declaration was made : That all other Kings, Princes, ^nd Potentates, their heirs, allies, and subjects, may know our, (the King's), just and undoubted right and interest in, and to the said Continent Island and region of Newfoundland, and in and to all and every the islands, seas, and places, to the same belonging. In 1662, shortly after the restoration of the Monarchy in England, •certain subjects of France, availing themselves of the confusion aris- ing from the political state of affairs in England, at a time when the relations of the two Countries in Europe were pacific, provoked serious disturbances in Newfoundland, raised fortifications at Pla- centia, forced the Enghsh Colonists from their settlements, and pro- claimed over the whole of Newfoundland the Sovereignty of France. In 1666, war having broken out between England and France, mili- tary operations were carried on at Placentia, and other parts of the Island, and for a time the encroachments of France were widely extended ; but this exercise of French Sovereignty was but tempor- ary, for by the Treaty of Peace concluded between England and France, at Breda, on the 21st July, 1667, France was compelled to withdraw all her pretensions of Sovereignty in Newfoundland, and to surrender to Great Britain, all the fortresses, islands, or whatever portion of Newfoundland that she had annexed prior to the signing ■of this Treaty. From this period Great Britain claimed and exercised unchallenged dominion over Newfoundland, for not only did King Charles II. confirm the letters patent of 1637 and 1661 granted by his Royal predecessor, but in 1670 he made an Order in Council, granting additional powers for regulating the Newfoundland fishery, and the first Article of that Act of the Royal prerogative authorised the subjects of England to fish in all waters and to dry their fish on shore ^n any part of Newfoundland "as fully and as freely as any of the subjects of his Royal predecessors ; " and by Article II. it was declared : THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 75 That no alien or stranger be permitted to take bait, or fish in any of the rivers, lakes, creeks, harbours, or roads in Newfoundland between Cape Race or Cape Bona Vista, or in any of the islands thereunto adjoining. Soon after the accession of William III. to the throne of England, war was declared between England and France, arising from the jealousy and the ill-feeling evinced by King Louis XIV. of France consequent on the deposition and banishment of James II., and in that declaration of war of the 7th May, 1689, the following paragraph appeared. " It is not long since the French took licences from the English Governor of Newfoundland to fish in the seas upon that coast, and paid a tribute for such licences as an acknowledgment of the sole right of the Crown of England to that island ; and yet of late the encroachments of the French upon our said island, and our subjects trade and fishery, have been more like the invasions of an enemy than becoming friends, who enjoyed the advantages of that trade only by permission." By the Treaty of Ryswick of 1697, which terminated the war of the Revolution, the supremacy of the Crown of England was firmly established over Newfoundland. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. The island of Newfoundland is situated at the mouth of the river St. Lawrence, by which it may be said to form an immense lake of water called the Gulf of St. Lawrence, with two outlets to the Atlantic, the one north by the Straits of Belle Isle, the other south between Cape Breton Island, and Cape Ray. The island has tTie form of a great triangle, and is 370 miles in length, and 290 miles in breadth, aijd covers not less than 400 leagues of coast-line, 1,200 miles, deeply indented, especially on the eastern and the northern shores. The appearance of its coasts is sad and mournful, yet grand in its sadness; the lands are high, and rather sombre, without verdure, and the sea breaks with fury upon its desolate cliffs. In the interior, nature is beautiful, but savage in its beauty, consisting of umbrageous lakes, innumerable torrents, which rush impetuous to the sea, impenetrable forests of fir and of birch abound, and as the traveller leaves the coasts, his march is a 1 76 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. painful solitude ; everywhere it appears a profound silence, for not a house, nor a person is to be met with. The climate has been described as a cast-iron climate ; the fine days are rare, even in the months of July and August, and the fog seems to obscure everything. The character of the country harmonises with the heavens above that illumine it, for the horizons are pale and severe, and the rays of the sun are rarely felt or seen in Newfoundland. From October to April the ground is covered with snow, and the bays are surrounded by ice. In February the ice-packs of the BafHn Seas descend, and, following in the track of the Polar current, they gather together on the coasts of Newfoundland, crush them- selves into huge masses, and form around th-e island dangerous breakers and rocks, that remain there far into the months of June and July. Enormous blocks of ice, known under the name of icebergs, finish the devastating work of the ice-packs. Some of them scatter them- selves at the entrance of the harbours, and sometimes render them unapproachable, and some remain in sight of the shores, as an ice- bound rampart of defence, or are forced to the windward, by the strong current of winds. At the present time, the population of Newfoundland is 200,000, to be found principally upon the western and southern coasts, for with the exception of St. John's, the seat of Government, the bays and harbours present in reality but a concentration, more or less im- portant, of traders and of fishers. Until very recent years, the inhabitants of Newfoundland have known no other means of subsistence and no other industry than the fisheries of the seal in the last days of winter upon the ice-packs ; and during the summer season that of the codfish, the herring, the capelin, and squid, in its adjacent waters. In 1859, however, a discovery was made of copper and lead mines, which at one time promised an element of future prosperity for the island, but the difficulties raised by French Treaty rights, have prac- tically blocked the way for their development. ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON. At the south of the island of Newfoundland, and separated from it by a channel of 2 1 miles, are the small islands of St. Pierre, and Miquelon, which are the possessions of France. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION* 1 77 These two islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, ceded to France by England more than a century ago, are all that now remains to France of her once valuable possessions on the continent of North America. The isle of St. Pierre is in reality but a rock, beaten by all winds, without vegetation, and culture, hidden under the snow during the winter, and lost in the fog during a great part of the summer. The greatest width of St. Pierre does not exceed 7 kilometres, or 4}^ miles, and upon the eastern portion of the island it has a natural harbour, safe-guarded from the winds, and in that sheltered position is built the little town of St. Pierre. Its population has no other occupation than that of the fisheries ; «ach one mingles in it, without distinction of age or of sex, and even •children who can scarcely walk wield the " turlutte," the fishing line peculiar to St. Pierre. The isle of Miquelon, its neighbour, is larger, and less barren ; but is far from an assured refuge against bad weather, for it is a dangerous rock, where shipwrecks frequently occur ; without light- houses, and fog signals, it is "d bon droit Vipouvante " for the hapless ships of all nations, and it is therefore called " le cimetiire des i&timens." The French colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon consists of about ■6,000 souls, who live a melancholy life, for the winters are interminable, and the cold rigorous. Great storms follow one another, with tre- mendous violence, shaking the houses, and beating on the countenances of those exposed to the storms, an icy rain, a sort of hoar frost, well- known in the island under the name of "pundrin." In this inclement season, not a vessel is seen in the bay, all is mournful and silent, so that one may suppose the people are asleep under the snow. The communication with the mother country France takes the route by the way of Halifax, but it is slow and often interrupted, and but for the submarine telegraph whjch unites the island to Newfound- land, the inhabitants would live at St. Pierre and Miquelon during the entire months of the winter in a profound oblivion of the outer •world. THE SHOALS. To the south of Newfoundland, starting from 50° 40 west of the meridian, are a succession of shoals, over and around which the N 1 78 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. depth of the sea varies from 30 to 100 metres, equal to from 35 to no yards in depth. The French Rear-Admiral Clou6 is of opinion, that these plateaux in the ocean, are the direct result of the Gulf Stream which flows towards the Northern Atlantic, in the line of an arc of the circle. On arriving at the banks of Newfoundland it turns to the westward and meets the cold current of water which descends from the BaflSn Seas, and thence takes a course along the shores of Labrador and New- foundland. This cold current of water which descends from the north brings in its course, during a greater part of the year, a large number of im- mense mountains of ice, rudely and wildly detached from the Arctic zone, and the contact of these huge icebergs with the hot water of the Gulf Stream dissolves the former, and scatters its heterogeneous mass of stones and solid material, and this " debris " mingling with other elements, have from distant ages without ceasing, become over- whelmed in the depths of ocean, and have led steadily during the past centuries to the formation of these numerous shoals. Each of these plateaux in the ocean, have a distinct title, and they are very numerous, the principal of which are the Great Shoal, the Green Shoal, the St. Pierre Shoal, and they form a group which appear as if they were linked with the mainland of Newfoundland, whereas they are separated by deep channels of water. The Shoals de Misaine, d'Arteinon, le Banquereau, de Sable, du Canseau, and others are more easily approached from the mainland of Nova Scotia. On these extensive shoals the codfish finds a rendezvous, and its fecundity is extraordinary, as it is said that millions of eggs are annually deposited upon them. TREATY OF UTRECHT, 1713. The Treaty of Utrecht, 17 13, by which England obtained from France Nova Scotia and the island of Newfoundland, secured to France the right to fish, and dry the fish upon an extent of 200 leagues, or 700 miles of the coast-line of Newfoundland, comprised between Cape Bonavista, on the east coast, and thence passing northward to Point Riche. It may be useful to recapitulate the clauses of the Treaty of Utrecht of 17 13, referring to this subject. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 179 Article XIII. The island called Newfoundland, with the adjacent islands, shall from this time forward belong of right wholly to Great Britain ; and to that end the town and fortress of Placentia, and whatever other places in the said island are in the possession of the French, shall be yielded and given up, within seven months from the exchange of the ratification of this Treaty, or sooner, if possible, by the most Christian King, to those who have a commission from the Queen of Great Britain for that purpose. Nor shall the most Christian King, his heirs and successors, or any of their subjects, at any time hereafter, lay claim to any right to the said island or islands, or to any part of it or them. Moreover, it shall not be lawful for the subjects of France to fortify any place in the said island of Newfoundland, or to erect any buildings there, besides stages made of boards and huts necessary and usual for drying of fish, or to resort to the said island beyond the time necessary for fishing and drying of fish. But it shall be allowed to the subjects of France to catch fish, and to dry them on land, in that part only, and in no other besides that, of the said island of Newfoundland which stretches from the place called Cape Bonavista to the northern point of the said island, and from thence, running down by the western side, reaches as far as the place called Point Riche. But the island called Cape Breton, as also all others, both in the mouth of the River St. Lawrence and in the gulf of the same name, shall hereafter belong of right to the French, and the most Christian King shall have all manner of liberty to fortify any place or places there. It may be remarked, that in 17 13 there existed no population upon that portion of the coast of Newfoundland reserved to the French fishermen by this Treaty of Utrecht. The coast was deserted, and therefore concurrent rights were impossible, inasmuch as the exclu- sive right to fish, and to dry the fish, was " s'imposait de lui-mime," and therefore it was not necessary to specify in the Treaty the concurrent rights of the Newfoundlanders. It should be observed also that by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, France came at the same time into possession of Cape Breton and other islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the period which elapsed from 17 13 to 1763 was advantageous for the French fisheries, because supported upon the island of Cape Breton, where she built Louisburg, the French fisheries became firmly established in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and extended to the coast of Newfoundland, where they gave occupation to not less than 16,000 French fishermen during the period referred to. TREATY OF PARIS, 1763. The Treaty of Paris of 1763 ruined the bright hopes that had been raised in the breasts of the French people for the extension and de- velopment of the French colonies of North America, for England wrested from France, Canada, the Island of Cape Breton, and all the l8o THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. islands on the coasts and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence ; but France retained the possession of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, on condition that she did not raise any fortifications upon them. The following are the 5th and 6th Articles of the Treaty of Paris of 1763 referred to : — Article The subjects of France shall have the liberty of fishing and drying on a part of the coasts of the island of Newfoundland, such as it is specified in the 13th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, which article is renewed and confirmed by the present Treaty ( except what relates to the island of Cape Breton, as well as to the other islands and ' coasts in the mouth and in the gulf of St. Lawrence) ; and his Britannic Majesty con- sents to leave to the subjects of the most Christian King the liberty of fishing in the gulf of St. Lawrence on condition that the subjects of France do not exercise the said fishery but at the distance of three leagues from all the coasts belonging to Great Britain, as well those of the continent as those of the islands situated in the said gulf of St. Lawrence. And as what relates to the fishery on the coast of the sland of Cape Breton out of the said gulf, the subjects of the most Christian King shall not be permitted to exercise the said fishery but at the distance of fifteen leagues from the coast of the island of Cape Breton, and the fishery on the coasts of Nova Scotia or Arcadia, and everywhere else out of the said gulf, shall remain on the foot- ing of former treaties. Article VI. The King of Great Britain cedes the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon in full right to his most Christian Majesty, to serve as a shelter to the French fisherman ; and his said most Christian Majesty engages not to fortify the said islands, to erect no buildings upon them, but merely for the convenience of the fishery ; and to keep upon them a guard of fifty men only for the police. There was therefore no modification made by this Treaty with the exercise of the French rights to fish on the coast of Newfoundland ; and it was considered sufficient to restate the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. From 1763 to 1783, some disputes arose on the subject of the concurrent rights, and of the claims made by French fishermen ■upon the Newfoundlanders in regard to the fisheries on the shores at Cape Bonavista. The population of Newfoundland had increased, and English families had profited by the confusion arising from the great war be- tween England and France, and the consequent damage to the French fisheries, that the former established themselves upon the coast-line referred to in the Treaty. France considered that it was necessary she should demand the expulsion of the English intruders, or adopt the alternative course and renounce the validity of her rights, and the British Government got over the difficulty by proposing that France should surrender her THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. l8l fishing rights on the littoral, from Cape Bonavista to Cape St. John, and receive in exchange an equivalent of coast-line from Cape St. John to Cape Ray, where her rights might be exercised on the con- ditions contained in the Treaty of Utrecht of 17 13. TREATY OF VERSAILLES, 1783. The result of these negotiations between England and France was a declaration in the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, as follows : — Article IV. His Majesty the King of Great Britain is maintained in his right to the island of Newfoundland, and to the adjacent islands, as the whole were assured to him by the 13th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht ; excepting the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are ceded in full right by the present Treaty to his most Christian Majesty. Article V. His Majesty the most Christian King, in order to prevent the quarrels which have hitherto arisen between the two nations of England and France, consents to renounce the right of fishing, which belongs to him in virtue of the aforesaid article of the Treaty of Utrecht, from Cape Bonavista to Cape St. John, situated on the eastern coast of Newfoundland, in fifty degrees north latitude ; and his Majesty the King of Great Britain consents, on his part, that the fishery assigned to the subjects of his most Christian Majesty, beginning at the said Cape St. John, passing to the north, and descending by the western coast of the island of Newfoundland, shall extend to the place called Cape Ray, situated in forty-seven degrees fifty minutes latitude. The French fishermen shall enjoy the fishery which is assigned to them by the present article, as they had the right to enjoy that which was assigned to them by the Treaty of Utrecht. Artie te VI. With regard to the fishery in the gulf of St. Lawrence, the French shall continue to exercise it, conformably to the 5th Article of the Treaty of Paris. Accompanying this Treaty of Versailles of 1783, his Britannic Majesty George III., in consequence of the demands by the French Government, made the following important declaration : — Declaration of His Britannic Majesty. The King, having entirely agreed with his most Christian Majesty upon the articles of the definite treaty, will seek every means which shall not only insure the execution thereof, with his accustomed good faith and punctuality, and will besides give, on his part, all possible efficacy to the principles which shall prevent even the least foundation of dispute for the future. To this end, and in order that the fishermen of the two nations may not give cause for daily quarrels, his Britannic Majesty will take the most positive measures for preventing his subjects from interrupting in any manner, by their competition, the fishery of the French, during the temporary exercise of it which is granted to them upon the coasts of the islands of Newfoundland ; but he will, for this purpose, cause 1 82 ..THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. , the fixed settlements which shall be formed there to be removed. His Britannic Majesty will give orders that the French fishermen be not incommoded in cutting the wood necessary for the repair of their scaffolds, huts, and fishing vessels. The .13th Article of the Treaty of Utrecht, and the method of carrying on the fishery, which has at all times been acknowledged, shall be the plan upon which the fishery shall be carried on there. It shall not be deviated from by either party, the French fishermen building only their scaffolds, confining themselves only to the repair of their fishing vessels, and not wintering there ; the subjects of his Britannic Majesty, on their part, not molesting in any manner the French fishermen during their fishing, nor injuring their scaffolds during their absence. The King of Great' Britain, in ceding the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon to France, regards them as ceded for the purpose of serving as a. real shelter to the French fishermen, and in full confidence that these possessions will not become an object of jealousy between the two nations, and that the fishery between the said islands and that of Newfoundland shall be limited to the middle of the channel. Given at Versailles, the 3rd Sept. , 1783. (L,s.) Manchester. And this declaration was responded to by a counter declaration of his Majesty the King of France, Louis XVI., as follows : — ■ Counter Declaration of His Most Christian Majesty. The principles which have guided the King in the whole course of the negotia- tions which preceded the re-establishment of peace, must have convinced the King of Great Britain that his Majesty has had no other design than to render it solid and lasting by preventing, as much as possible, in the four quarters of the world, every subject of discussion and quarrel. The King of Great Britain undoubtedly places too much confidence in the upright- ness of his Majesty's intentions not to rely upon his constant attention to prevent the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon from becoming an object of jealousy between the two nations. As to the fishery on the coasts of Newfoundland, which has been the object of the new arrangements settled by the two Sovereigns, upon this matter it is sufficiently ascertained by the sth Article of the Treaty of the Peace signed this day, and by the declaration liliewise delivered to-day by his Britannic Majesty's Ambassador Extra- ordinary and Plenipotentiary; and his Majesty declares that he is fully satisfied on this head. In regard to the fishery between the island of Newfoundland and those of St. Pierre and 'Miquelon, it is not to be carried on by either party but to the middle of the channel ; and his Majesty will give the most positive orders that the French fishermen shall not go beyond this Une. His Majesty is firmly persuaded that the King of Great Britain will give like orders to the English fishermen. Given at Versailles, the 3rd of Sept. , 1783. (l.s.) Gravier de Vergennes. SUBSEQUENT TREATIES. The Treaty of Amiens of 1805 made no alteration of the declara- tion contained in the Treaty of Versailles of 1783. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 83 The preliminaries of the " <^th Vendhniaire an X," ist January, 1792, declared that the fishery rights of France on the Newfound- land coast shall be maintained as they existed before the war, with the exception of some verbal modifications which appeared necessary, but it altered in no important particular the provisions of the Treaty of 1783. The Treaties of Paris, 30th May, 1814, and 30th November, 1815, re-established the state of things recognised on the ist January, 1792, and the following are the clauses in the Treaties of 18 14 and 1815 :— Treaty of Paris — 1814. Article VIII. His Britannic Majesty, stipulating for himself and his allies, engages to restore to his most Christian Majesty, within the term which shall be hereafter fixed, the colonies, fisheries, factories, and establishments of every kind which were possessed by France on the ist January, 1792, in the seas and on the continents of America, Africa, and Asia, with the exception, however, of the islands of Tobago and St. Lucie, and the Isle of France and its dependencies, especially Rodrigues and Les Schelles, which several colonies and possessions his most Christian Majesty cedes in full right and sovereignty to his Britannic Majesty, and also the portion of St. Domingo ceded to France by the Treaty of Basle, and which his most Christian Majesty restores in full right and sovereignty to his Catholic Majesty. Article XIII. The French right of fishery upon the Great Bank of Newfoundland, upon the coasts of the island of that name, and of the adjacent islands in the gulf of St. Lawrence, shall be replaced upon the footing in which it stood in 1792. Treaty of Paris— iSiS- Article XI. The Treaty of Paris, of the 13th May, 1814, and the final act of the Congress of Vienna, of the 9th of June, 1815, are confirmed, and shall be maintained in all such enactments which shall not have been modified by the articles of the present Treaty. Consequently France takes her stand, as she has previously done, on the Treaties of Utrecht'of 1713, of Paris of 1763, of Versailles of 1783, of ist January, 1792, of Amiens of 1805, of Paris of 1814, and 1815. Such is the origin of the French right to fish on the shores of Newfoundland, such are the bases upon which it rests ; nothing has happened since that day, to diminish, or to modify them in principle. The text of the Treaties has not ceased, however, to be the object of interpretations the most diverse, by the Governments of England and France, and of the Legislature of Newfoundland. 184 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. FRENCH FISHING INDUSTRY. The French fishing industry on the shores of Newfoundland divides itself into three categories : — 1. The fisheries on the shoals. 2. The fisheries on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. 3. The fisheries on the shore line of Newfoundland. The fisheries upon the shoals, belong to the open sea, and there- fore are open to all nations, and in this industry France is brought vis-a-vis with England and Newfoundland from a commercial point of view, as its chief customer of the bait, wherewith to prosecute the cod fishery. The fisheries of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are prose- cuted in the French waters, and therefore they are confined to the French jurisdiction, and in no way concern, except as regards bait,, either the Newfoundland or the English interests. The French fisheries upon the coast line of Newfoundland, on what is called the littoral Anglais, reserved or guaranteed to France by successive Treaties, previously referred to, present a character that are totally distinct in their exercise from the fisheries on the shoals, and on the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. These fisheries of France, over the whole ground referred to, employed at one time, it is estimated, 9,000 sailors, and brought upwards of twenty millions of francs to the French commerce, and it is no wonder, therefore, that France considers the Newfoundland fisheries as one of the most Valuable nurseries for her commerce, and possibly an important rendezvous for her Navy, and it is for these objects especially that the French nation has made great sacrifices to protect them, and also has paid large subventions to extend and develop them. Further, the French Government has for many years, in order to encourage the fishing industry, granted premiums to the shipowners engaged in the Newfoundland fishing trade; for instance, the shipowner who dries the fish upon the strand of St. Pierre or on the coast of Newfoundland, is held to have the right to the premium of 50 francs per man ; if his vessel has a tonnage, say of 200 tons, or beyond that, she would be manned by not less than 50 men ; if 150 tonnage, say not less than 30 men; and if 100 tonnage, say not less than 20 men, so that whether 200 or 150 or 100 tonnage, the owner, on the basis of a premium of 50 francs per man, secures a premium of 2,550, or 1,550, or 1,000 francs respec- tively, as the case may be. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 85 In some cases the vessels despatched from the various ports of France are equipped with secheries, or drying and salting apparatus on board, and in these cases the shipowners have the right only to a premium of 30 francs per man. It is estimated that during the fishing season, a vessel of 200 tonnage is able to take from 1,000 to 1,500 codfish a day ; and in the best seasons, the value of a good day's haul reaches to, and sometimes exceeds, the sum of 2,000 francs a day, and, with such results, a French fisherman, mateldt banquier, can earn, during the fishing season about 1,000 francs, equivalent to £,i,o. Formerly, the French shipowners despatched in the month of April of each year about 60 ships to the fisheries of Newfoundland, manned on an average by 3,000 men, and the greater part of this fleet took up its position in the harbours or the bays of the littoral Anglais, reserved or guaranteed by Treaty with France. These harbours and bays, according to their importance, contain one or more fishing grounds, more or less valued on account of the quantity of the fish which is to be found, and in consequence of the frequent quarrels amongst the Frenchmen for possession of these fishing grounds, they are classed in three series, and the French vessels corresponding to these series, and this system is arranged by drawing lots amongst the shipowners. As soon as a French vessel arrives at its allotted position, it is partially disarmed of its crew, for some of them are sent to the shoals, some are retained at the bays or harbours, provided their equipments on board will permit of this arrangement. The French fishermen thus takes possession of their temporary home on Newfoundland territory, equipped with the fishing gear, the stores, and provisions for the season. Around of the hangar, or platform where the codfish is prepared for the purpose of exportation, may be seen the residence of the captain, who is recognised as the arbiter of all disputes, the cabins for the sailors, the small shops or depots, the cajot, or vat, where the liver oil of the codfish is extracted and prepared for sale. During the operations of the fishing season nothing is more varied and picturesque than the appearance of these harbours. Some are situated upon the most arid and desolate parts of the coast line, where the waves beat furiously and render fishing difficult, and there the French fishermen spend dreary days, and at the close of the season they depart for home without regret. At other places, sheltered from the storm by surrounding hills, 1 86 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHER V^ QUESTION. encircled with woods, with their rivers and streams pouring into the bay, the harbours present a picturesque and attractive scene, which adds a charm to the life of the fishermen. Twice or thrice a month the occupied harbours are visited by the French men-of-war that are despatched each year by the Navy department for the surveillance of the fisheries, and the duty of the commanding officer is to inspect the fishing grounds, to listen to complaints, to repress acts of undiscipline, and generally to see and report that the state of things around Newfoundland is conformable to the rights secured by Treaty. THE POLITICAL SITUATION. We will now refer to the nature of the political situation which exists at Newfoundland, and of the difficulties that for many years have perplexed the two Governments of France and England, and that are now the object of their serious attention. The question at issue is similar in its character to that which arose in 1783, when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, but it has become infinitely more complex, and for many years the two Nations have endeavoured to secure a settlement ; but all their efforts have been ' unavailing, as not one step has been made in that direction. France maintains that by the Treaties of Utrecht of 17 13, of Paris of 1763, and especially by the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, that she secured, in the first place, the right to fish upon the coast of Newfoundland, from Cape Ray to' Cape St. John ; in the second place, that this right is exclusive and absolute on the coast line defined by the Treaties aforesaid ; and lastly she denies the concurrent fishing rights over this portion of the littoral Anglais, that are maintained by the Newfoundlanders, and this position assumed by France, she seems determined to safeguard with a jealous eye. On the other side of the question, England considers that the Treaties imply not a prohibition to the Colonists, but an obligation imposed upon her not to hinder France from fishing operations ; or, in other words, England demands the right for the Colonists to fish upon all the points of the coast that France has the right by Treaty to prose- cute the fishery, subject to one condition, that no injury is inflicted on the French operations. These Treaties, or rather the interpretation of them, have, for upwards of 100 years, been the cause of chronic controversy between THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTIOIJ. 1 87 Great Britain and France ; and, further, that for a period of 47 years, from the year 1844 to 1891, no less than eight Commissions have been appointed, and a large number of Special Missions organised, besides a considerable amount of negotiations and correspondence carried on in order to arrive at a settlement of this vexed Newfound- land fishery question. All these efforts of diplomacy have proved of no avail, arising on the one hand from the sturdy spirit of independence and patriotism of the Newfoundlanders, and the obstinate determination of the French on the other hand, to maintain their hold on the Waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and on the north and west coast line of Newfoundland ; the fragments remaining to France of their once famous Colonial possessions on the North American continent. In order that we may be able to form a correct estimate, and a sound judgment on the whole case, we will now briefly refer to these various Commissions and negotiations which have been undertaken, from 1844 to 18.91, for the purpose of arriving at a satisfactory basis for settlement. In the remarkable and able Despatch which the Right Honourable the Earl of Derby, H.M. Colonial Minister in 1884, addressed to the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir John Glover, will be found a com- prehensive statement of the whole question, and the following extracts may be given from this Despatch. NEGOTIATIONS IN 1844 In the year 1844 the French Government proposed negotiations to be held in Lon- don, and previous to opening them it vi^as determined to appoint a British and French Commissioner in Newfoundland to report upon the question. Captain Fabvre, commander of the French naval station, and Mr. Thomas, Presi- dent of the Chamber of Commerce at Newfoundland, were, in consequence, appointed by their respective Governments, On the 30th July 1844 Mr. Thomas made his report to the Governor. In this re- port he suggested, with regard to the French claim of "exclusive rights," that the respective fishermen of both nations should be kept separate and distinct in their fishing places. He also suggested the extension of the French fishery limits to the Belle Isle North, and made suggestions with regard to the sale of bait to French Fishermen. This report resulted in negotiations being held in Paris in the month of March 1846. The British Commissioner, Sir A. Perrier, was authorised to offer, in exchange for the French cession of all rights between Cape Ray and Bonne Bay, the following con- cessions : — Admission of exclusive right of fishery from Bonne Bay to Cape St. John, going round by the north. Exclusive right of French fishery, drying, and curing at Belle Isle North. Permission for English fishermen to sell bait at St Pierre. 1 88 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. At preliminary conferences held in Newfoundland, these measures had nearly been agreed to by Mr. Thomas and Captain Fabvre ; but Captain Fabvre was desirous of retaining for France, in addition to the exclusive rights above mentioned, her right of fishing, curing fish, &c., at Cod Roy, Red Island, Port-i-Port, and Lark Harbour, and to acquire for the French a ' ' concurrent " right of fishery on the coast of Lab- rador. The instructions, however, to the French Commissioner did not admit of his negotiating on the above-mentioned principles, and as no new propositions were brought forward by the French Government up to the month of May 1847, the nego- tiations fell through. NEGOTIATIONS IN 1851. On the application of the French Government in 1851 negotiations were renewed. Sir A. Perrier being again directed to proceed to Paris to act as British Commissioner, M. de Bon being appointed on the part of France. The British Commissioner was instructed to invite proposals from the French Commissioner such as might form a starting-point in the negotiations. M. de Bon accordingly proposed, on the part of France, to admit the right of British subjects to inhabit the Bay of St. George, or, in other terms, to give up the exclusive right of fishery in that bay, to which they considered themselves entitled by the Treaty of 1783. In return for this concession he demanded : — I. The right to purchase and fish tor bait (herring and capelin) on the south coast of Newfoundland, without re.striction. :i. The right to fish durmg two months of the year (without curing or drying on shore) on that part of the coast of Labrador situated between the Isles Vertes and the Isles St. Modeste, both included ; and 3. The right of fishery at Belle Isle North, in the Straits, which the French Commissioner asserted was enjoyed by the French up to 1841, without any demur on the part of Great Britain. The concessions demanded by the French negotiator v^ere not considered admis- sible, and the British Commissioner, in order to overcome the difficulties arising out of the claim of Great Britain to a concurrent right of fishery, suggested that the ques- tion would be best settled if the rights of the fishermen of the two nations were kept separate and distinct. In order to carry out this suggestion, he proposed that the French rights should be made exclusive as against British subjects from Cape St. John to some point on the western coast, such as Cape Verte (Green Point, to the north of Bonne Bay) ; the French, on the other hand, to renounce their right altogether on the remainder of the coast, which would be that part where the British had been in the habit of carrying on the herring fishery and other fisheries incidental to the require- ments of a fixed population. The French negotiator offered no objection to the plan of recognising the French " exclusive right " on a diminished extent of coast ; but he contended for the reten- tion of a " concurrent right " on that portion of the coast on which their exclusive claim might be renounced, and for other advantages as well, such as admission, con- currently with British fishermen, to the fisheries of Labrador and the North Belle Isle, and to the "bait fishery" on the southern coast, all of which, he maintained, were necessary, as an equivalent for admitting British subjects to a free "concurrent right " on the lower portion of the western coast. The British Commissioner was disposed to accept the demands of the French so far as to extend the French fishery to North Belle Isle, and also to remove all restric- tions on the purchase of " bait," on condition that the French should entirely renounce their rights between Cape Verte and Cape Ray ; and in June 1855 he for- THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 89 ■warded to the Foreign Office the above suggestions in the form of a counter proposal to those which had been made by France. Mr. Labouchere, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, concurred in the adoption of the British negotiator's project of a " compromise " as the basis of negotiation to be offered to the French Government. It corresponded, he believed, with the views of the Colonial authorities ; deprived neither nation of any advantage of real value ; and there would only be a reciprocal abandonment of barren rights and useless or nominal restrictions ; and he prepared a draft treaty which might be substituted for the whole of the existing engagements on the Newfoundland Fisheries question. NEGOTIATIONS IN 1856. The negotiations were continued in the year 1856 by Captain Pigeard, who arrived in London in the month of July of that year, and by Mr. Merivale, the Under Secre- tary of State for the Colonies. The basis of these negotiations was founded upon the counter proposals made by Sir A. Perrier, and also upon the draft of the treaty proposed by Mr. Labouchere. The negotiations finally terminated by the signature of a Convention in London on the 17th January, 1857. According to the stipulations of this Convention an exclusive right of fishery and the use of the strand for fishery purposes was conceded to the French from Cape St. John, on the east coast of Newfoundland, to the Quirpon Islands, and from the Quirpon Islands, on the north coast, to Cape Norman, on the west coast, in and upon the following five fishery harbours, namely, P6rt-au-Choix, Small Harbour, Port-a- Port, Red Island, and Cod Roy Island, to extend, as regarded these five harbours, to a radius of three marine miles in all directions from the centre of each such harbour. On other parts of the west coast (the five harbours excepted) British subjects were to enjoy a "concurrent" right of fishing with French subjects, but French subjects were to have the exclusive use of the strand for fishery purposes from Cape Norman to Rock Point, in the Bay of Islands, north of the River Humber, in addition to the strand of the reserved harbours. A " concurrent " right of fishing was also granted to French subjects on the coast of Labrador, from Blanc Sablon to Cape Charles, and of North Belle Isle. With regard to the question of fixed establishments, the Convention of 1857 stipu- lated that no British buildings or inclosures should be erected or maintained on the strand reserved for French exclusive use. It was provided, however, that buildings ■which had stood for five successive seasons previous to the date of the Convention, without objection on the part of the French Government, should not be liable to removal without equitable compensation to the owners from the French Government. By the Convention a limited right of jurisdiction was conceded to the French, and French naval officers were to have the power to enforce the French exclusive rights of fishing by the expulsion of vessels or boats attempting concurrent fishing, in the case of there being no British cruising vessel in sight or made known to be present within a distance of five marine miles. French naval officers were hkewise entitled to take such measures as occasion might require to put French fishermen in possession of any portion of the strand of which their exclusive use for fishery purposes was recognised Ijy the Convention, It will thus be seen that, according to the terms of the Convention of 1857, France would have obtained an exclusive right of fishery on the northern extremity and north-eastern coast of Newfoundland, and also on five points on the western coast of the island. The ratifications of the Convention were exchanged in London, 23rd January, 1857, and the two Governments seemed to be in agreement. igo THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. When, however, information reached St. John's, in Newfoundland, of the details of the preliminaries, seditious cries were raised against the Queen of England, the English flag was fastened to the tail of a horse, and marched through the streets, and the Governor of New- foundland was insulted by the people at his residence. The local Parliament was indignant, and at one of its sittings positively refused to adhere to the Convention. The Government of Her Majesty, in presence of this manifesta- tion, informed the French Commissioners that the proposed Con- vention would have to be abandoned, as the sanction of the Parlia- ment of St. John's was indispensable to the negotiations, and that England could not go against the opinion manifested by the Parlia- ment of Newfoundland. The French Government naturally complained of this decision, for they considered that the review of a Treaty whose signatories were England and France, ought not to be submitted to the ratification of the Legislature of a British colony, and, moreover, that the decision or action of the Parliament at Newfoundland cannot release the mother country from its engagements. This attempt by England and France to arrive at a satisfactory settlement by conciliation and negotiation, unfortunately had no other result than to demonstrate the hostile sentiments of the Legis- . lature of Newfoundland with regard to the French fisheries, and the preponderating influence of Colonial opinion upon the policy of England. During the fishing campaign of 1858 the fishermen of Newfound- land were warned by the French captains that any exercise of fishing on the coast line, permitted to France by Treaty, will be formally for- bidden the following year by the French naval authorities, and in consequence of this action the English Government were alarmed, and fearing the result from such a retaliatory measure, they put for- ward a proposition for a Parliamentary enquiry at Newfoundland, and this proposition was agreed to by the French Government. NEGOTIATIONS IN 1859. This enquiry was confided to a mixed Commission, that assem- bled in Newfoundland on the ist May, 1859. France was represented by M. le Montaignac de Chauvance, Commander of the French naval division at Newfoundland, and THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. IQI by M. de Gobineau, first secretary of the French Ambassador ; and the delegates of England were Mr. Kent, the Colonial Secretary of Newfoundland," and Captain Dunlop, Commander of the British man- of-war, Tartar. The Commissioners of the two nations inspected together the harbours of the coast, interrogated the fishermen, in English or in French, according to their nationality, and they met alternately on board the French gunboat, Le Gassendi, and the British man-of- war, the Tartar ; and at each meeting a prods-verbal was drawn up in the two languages, and when the Commission had examined the contents and approved the translations they signed the document. The labours of this enquiry terminated 29th August, 1859, on board the French gunboat, Le Gassendi, and its result was, that a profound study of the texts of the Treaties of Utrecht, Paris, and Versailles, and an examination of the diverse interpretations which England and France had placed upon them, confirmed the French delegates in the opinion that the rights of France were exclusive and absolute, and that they secured a wider application than was. generally believed. Therefore the French Government were induced to believe their rights were unassailable, that they were easy to maintain, and there was no occasion, in order to secure a respect for those rights, to enter on a course of concessions with England that would in the least imperil them. MM. de Montaignac de Chauyance and Gobineau estimated the population established upon the coast line for fishing, by Treaty with France, at 3,000 souls, and that during a period of the past 20- years it had doubled. This mixed Commission drew up as its conclusions the following: propositions : — I. An organisation in common with a lopal police should be appointed to regu- late the differences between the English and the French fishermen. n. Complete liberty for the fishermen of the two nations to buy and sell bait, with this restriction, that from the 20th October to the ist April following, it will be considered a close time for the herring. In the month of March, i860, the report of the Commission was placed before their respective Governments, and was considered as suitable to serve the basis of an amicable arrangement ; but again difficulties were raised by a movement of hostility displayed at St. John's. Thus' the inquiry of 1859 had no other result than to maintain 192 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. the status quo ; but the records it has left of its investigations are clear upon the state of things in Newfoundland, that it seemed hopeless to be able to conciliate the French interests with those of the population of Newfoundland, who seemed intent on resisting every step for arriving at a settlement. NEGOTIATIONS IN 1866. In 1866 the English Government, dissatisfied with a state of things •so contrary to the interests of the colony of Newfoundland, resolved to leave it to the Parliament of St. John's to furnish bases for negotiations, and afterwards to submit the conclusions arrived at to the British Government, and also a copy to be placed in the bands of the Commandant of the French station at Newfoundland, M. Lapelin, for submission to the French Government. The Parliament of St. John's accepted these proposals, and in its Session of 1867 adopted five propositions which are important on two grounds ; first, that they were the unanimous conclusions arrived at "by Newfoundland, and secondly that they were intended to serve as a basis for negotiations between the two Governments of England and France. The propositions were as follows : — I. — Nomination of a raixetl Commission, composed of representatives of Newfound- land, England, and France, having a thorough knowledge of all the affairs relating to the fisheries of Newfoundland. 2. — The fishing establishments are recognised to exist at St. George's Bay> at Cape Ray, at the Isles Bay, at Bonne Bay, and at the Bay Blanche, and are to be protected. 3. — ^The mixed Commission must not suppress or injure the interests of the French fishermen on the littoral granted to them by Treaty ; permission to be given under certain conditions for the erection of French fishing establishments ; any fishing establishment removed, an indemnity shall be paid, provided they have been built over a period of five years, but no indemnity shall be claimed for the suppression of the buildings which shall have been built without the consent of the mixed Commission. 4. — The mixed Commission shall fix the period of time within which the French shall be obliged to build their fishing establishments. The Colonists, shall have the exclusive right to the salmon and other fish of the rivers, wherever found. 5. —The "littoral" zone allotted by Treaties to the French fishermen shall be clearlv defined, and the construction of establishments shall be determined and the mineral interests of the Newfoundlanders of the littoral zone protected. Judging by these propositions it would appear that the Parliament of Newfoundland declared in 1867, in clear and emphatic terms, the THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 93 right to construct fishing establishments upon the reserved French ground, and to utilise the shore line for their railway and mineral interests, and claimed the right to grant railway or mining concessions upon any portion of the littoral zone reserved to France, provided that no injury was inflicted on the French Fisheries. Under no circumstances were the French to be permitted to fish either at Belle Isle, or on the coast of Labrador ; and the only con- cession which was made to the French, *as the right to purchase freely the bait upon the Newfoundland coast at the period when the fishing of the capelin and of the herring is permitted, viz., from April to October. Generally, the resolutions declared that the rights of the Newfound- landers for fishing upon the reserved French ground were not to be opposed by France, and that they should not be hindered or disturbed in their fishing upon any part of the coast where the French have no concurrent fishing rights. NEGOTIATIONS IN 1874. In 1874, negotiations were again renewed with the French Govern- ment, England appointing Admiral Miller, and France appointing Captain de Boissoudy, and these negotiations were continued with various interruptions for three years, 1874, '75, and '76. The Premier of Newfoundland, Sir Francis Carter, came to Europe to assist in the negotiations, and the five propositions drawn up as a basis of settlement were in this instance submitted to the House of Assembly, and Legislative Council of Newfoundland ; but the French Government opposed the conclusions arrived at, and the negotiations terminated with no good result. The arrangement originally contemplated on this occasion was founded on resolutions, dated the 23rd April, 1874, adopted by the Newfoundland House of Assembly, and concurred in by the Legislative Council, and it embraced the following stipulations : — I. — The establishment of a Joint Naval Commission to taie cognizance only of such matters as related to the fisheries ; and, in case of disagreement, reference to be made to the respective Governments, all other questions to be dealt with by com- petent authorities. 2. — ^That the existing British Settlements in St. George's Bay, Cod Roy, and Bay of Islands, Bonne Bay, dnd White Bay should remain undisturbed, and no interruption to be made by the French to fishing by the British in those bays, O 194 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. nor interference with their buildings and enclosures there, nor with any erections or buildings on any part of the coast where the French enjoy a temporary right of fishery which did not actually interfere with the fishery privileges of the French, as should be determined by the Commissioners ; nor were British subjects to be molested in fishing on any part where they did not actually interrupt the French by their competition. 3. — That no building or enclosure which had been erected for five years should be removed as interfering with the French fishery privileges without compensation to be determined on by the Commissioners; but no compensation to be payable for any such building or enclosure hereafter erected without the consent of the Commissioners. 4. — That the Commissioners should determine the limit or boundary line to which the French might prosecute their fishery, the British having the exclusive right of salmon and all other fishing in rivers. 5. — That the breadth of strand of which the French should have the right of temporary use for fishery purposes should be defined ; thus removing objections to grants of land for all purposes beyond the boundary so to be defined, and within the same for mining purposes ; right being reserved to the British Government to erect on such strand works of a military or other public character, and to the British subjects for wharves and buildings necessary for mining, trading, and other purposes apart from the fishery in places selected with permission of Commissioners. NEGOTIATIONS IN 1881. After an interval of five years, fresh negotiations were entered upon by means of a Joint Commission, which was appointed in 1881. Admiral Pierre representing France, Admiral Miller, England, and Sir William Whiteway, the Premier of Newfoundland, representing that Colony. The basis of arrangement arrived at, which was drawn up by the British Commissioner, and approved by the Government of New- foundland, and which it was hoped would have offered to the French Government a satisfactory solution, consented in the appointment of a Demarcation Commission, and a Fishery Commission ; the former to define the coast line for the exercise by the French of the rights conceded to them by Treaty, to deal with the harbours, and bays at the service of the French, the erection of wharves, and buildings ; and the latter to supervise the operations under the agreement of the English and French fishermen with power to punish offenders. The French Government opposing the joint occupation by British and French of the harbours, and the joint operations on the fishing ground, rejected the Convention. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 95 NEGOTIATIONS IN 1884. The eighth Commission was appointed by the Governments of England and France in December, 1883, and the Commissioners for England were Mr. Francis Clare Ford, (now H.M. Ambassador at Madrid) and Mr. Edmund Burke Pennell ; and for France, M. Jagerschmidt and Captain Bigrel. This Joint Commission met in Paris on January 23rd, 1884, and on the 26th April concluded their labours, when the Convention was signed by the British and French Commissioners, subject to the approval of their respective Governments, and also subject to the ratification of the Colonial Government and Legislature of New- foundland. At this ■ date, 1883, the Right Hon. the Earl of Derby was H.M. Minister of the Colonies, and his lordship is deserving of the highest praise for the broad and generous policy he displayed in those intricate negotiations, and especially for the comprehensive Despatch of June 1 2th, 1884, addressed to the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir John Glover, on the subject ; a document of great value, and which should be carefully studied by French and Englishmen alike, in order to obtain a right appreciation of the whole controversy.* This Convention contained 19 articles or clauses, and may be summed up as follows : — I. — The claim of France to an exclusive right of fishing, not recognised, but on the contrary, the recognition of the concurrent rights of England to the coast line, of the French limit of the " littoral Anglais," from Cape St. John to Cape Ray, under conditions of not interfering with or molesting the French in the exercise of their fishing industry. 2. — ^That the claim of France to the right of fishing in rivers except at the " embouchures" not recognised, and the practice of barring rivers prohibited. 3. That the settlements of French fishing establishments on the French limit of coast line, is not permissible under any existing Treaties, but v\rhilst making this declaration, a concession was made herein to France of an ex fast facto character, that all fixed settlements, fishing or otherwise, at present existing vrithin the limits of the coast line over which the French have Treaty rights shall not be disturbed. The British Government, before approving of this Convention, submitted it to the consideration of the Newfoundland Government and Legislative Council, and the British Commissioners, Messrs. Ford and Pennell, proceeded to Newfoundland on the 17 th June, 1884, for the purpose of presenting it to the Government at St. John's. In the interval, the Government of Mr,. Gladstone had been suc- ceeded by the Government of the Marquis of Salisbury, and upon his * Referred to previously, at page 187. 196 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. lordship and colleagues devolved the duty of considering the modi- fications proposed in the Convention by the Government of New- foundland. On the 14th November, 1885, the Convention containing the modifications proposed by the Newfoundland Government was approved by the joint Commission, and signed by the Commissioners, and was submitted to the respective Governments of Great Britain and France for their ratification. The Marquis of Salisbury, H.M. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the 12th December, 1885, addressed a Despatch to the British Commissioners, Sir Clare Ford and Mr. Pennell, on the subject of the amended Convention signed by them at S. John's, and the following extract from that Despatch may be given, as it conveys in brief terms the views of H.M. Government, prior to the rejection of the Convention by the Legislature of Newfoundland : — The controversy between Great Britain and France concerning the Newfoundland fisheries has been carried on for more than 100 years. It may be said, indeed, to date back to a period considerably anterior to the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, by which it was hoped that a lasting solution of the question would have been effected. Differences of opinion arose, however, almost immediately afterwards, with regard to the proper construction of the new Treaty stipulations deaUng with the French rights of fishery, and, as time went on, the question became still further compUcated by the increase of the fixed population on that part of the shore where these privileges were exercised. The matter was first brought before the Foreign Office by a. Despatch from Count Sebastiani to Lord Palmerston in 1836; but formal nego- tiations were not opened till ten years later, in 1846 ; which resulted, eleven years later, in 1857, in the signing of a Convention between England and France, by which it was hoped that all difficulties would be adjusted. But it fell to the ground through the opposition of the Newfoundland Legislature, and attempts of a similar character which were made in 1859-60, 1868, 1874, and i88i, have, for various reasons, proved equally abortive. The actual negotiations in which you have recently been engaged have extended over a period of nearly two years, and your labours in connection with this important question having now come to a close, I avail myself of the opportunity to express to you my entire approval of the manner in which you have performed the duties intrusted to you, and my high appreciation of the tact and abiUty you have displayed in the conduct of these long and delicate negotiations. I trust that the new " Arrangement " which you have concluded, will be found to afford a practical solution of the many difficulties surrounding the question of the Newfoundland fisheries, and that it will provide a satisfactory means of settlement of the constantly recurring disagreements between British and French subjects in Newfoundland, which have for so many years formed the subject of corres- pondence between the two Governments concerned, whilst at the same time I beheve that it will satisfy the legitimate needs of the inhabitants of the coast of Newfoundland, and allow of the development of the agricultural and mineral resources of the Colony. If these anticipations should be realised the object sought by the two countries will have been attained. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 19? The rejection of the Convention by the Legislature of Newfound- land was mainly in consequence of Article xvii. of the Treaty, which was as follows : French fishermen shall have the right to purchase bait, both herring and capelin, on shore or at sea, on the shores of Newfoundland, free from all duty or restrictions, subsequent to the 5th of April in each year, and up to the close of the fishing season. And also objection was taken to Article ix., on the ground that considerable power was given to the French Naval authorities stationed at Newfoundland, in the absence of British cruisers, against British subjects, whom the French fishermen might consider were infringing on their fishing rights. The Article on this subject was as follows : On a complaint being made by French fishermen or on a demand being made by them with a view to their being enabled to exercise their right of fishing, the com- manders of the English cruisers shall oppose, and, in case of no English cruiser being in Hgkt, the cOTnmanders of the French cruisers Tnay oppose every fishing operation of British subjects which may interrupt the industry of such French fisher^nen ; tkey shall remove the boats or ships causing the obstruction to such industry. The action of the Legislature and Government of Newfoundland in refusing to ratify this Convention was disappointing, considering that in the first Convention signed by the English and French Commissioners at Paris, 26th April, 1884, they raised no objection so far as we know, to either Articles ix. or xvii., neither were the British Commissioners, Messrs. Ford and Pennell, who were in personal communication with the Government of St. John's, informed of any difficulty that would be raised against either of these Articles in the Convention. In a Despatch addressed by the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir J. H. Glover, to the Earl of Derby, H.M. Minister of the Colonies, dated July i6th, 1884, he stated that : Your Lordship will observe that my Ministers desire two modifications in the proposed scheme, namely : — facilities for the export of minerals from harbours not tinted red on the map, and that the French Guardians should be Umited to one family in each harbour. His Excellency enclosed a copy of the resolutions on the subject, adopted by the Government of Newfoundland, which contains the following important declaration : The Council are convinced that the Legislature, as well as the Executive, in entering upon this important question, will be animated by a desire to meet as far as possible the views of her Majesty's Government regarding a satisfactory igS THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. settlement, and they believe that the acceptance of the modifications abore sug- gested would tend materially to commend the arrangement to the favourable consideration of both Houses. In consequence, therefore, of the request made by the Government of Newfoundland, for a modification of the Convention, signed 26th April, 1884, an exchange of diplomatic notes took place between the Governments of England and France, and after considerable efforts on both sides had been made to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement on these two subjects, the result was that the de- mands of the Government of Newfoundland were substantially conceded. The Commissioners for England and France assembled for a second time at Paris for the purpose of considering the proposed modifications in the Convention, and the result of their deliberations was, that on the 14th November, 1885, they were instructed by their respective Governments to sign the second Convention containing several new Clauses, having reference to the only two subjects raised by the Newfoundland Government, first with regard to mining operation, wharves, and railway buildings, and secondly in regard to the number of French Officials in the harbours for the guardianship of the French fishing establishments. In the Despatch of H.M. Minister of the Colonies the Right Hon. F. A. Stanley, M.P. (who had succeeded, on the change of the Administration, the Right Hon. the Earl of Derby), addressed to the Governor of Newfoundland, after reviewing in a lucid manner the course and character of the negotiations, he observes in con- clusion : Her Majesty's Government trust that the efforts which have been made in the course of the recent negotiations to arrive at such a settlement of the fishery question as would admit of the development of the resources of the Colony of Newfoundland on those parts of the coast where the French have fishery rights, whilst at the same time in no way curtailing the existing fishery rights of either British or French subjects on those coasts, will be duly appreciated by the Government and Legislature of Newfoundland. This amended Convention entered into by the Governments of Great Britain and France, on its receipt by the Newfoundland Government, was duly presented to the Legislative Council, and House of Assembly, and a Joint Select Committee was appointed by the two latter bodies to examine and report thereupon, and in March, 1887, it presented the following resolutions for the consider- ation of the Legislature : — THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION, 1 99 I. Whereas her Majesty's Government have recognised in the most solemn manner the jurisdiction of the Government of this Colony over the coastal fisheries and territory of Newfoundland and its dependencies, and have acknowledged that the said fisheries and territory cannot be alienated except with the consent of the Local Legislature, and have, by the despatch accompanying the arrangement of 1885, made between France and Great Britain concerning that part of our coast whereon the French have certain fishery privileges, further recognised as essential to the validity of the said arrangement its ratification by our Local Legislature. ■^. Whereas the arrangement would place the French in possession of the principal harbours between Cape Ray and Cape John, to the practical exclusion of British fish- ermen from any of the fishing privileges of that coast. 3. Whereas the same arrangement gives jurisdiction to commanders of French cruisers in matters criminal as well as civil, to the disregarding of those principles and procedures to which as British subjects we are accustomed and entitled in tribunals of justice. 4. Whereas the French fisheries on our coasts are sustained and stimulated by an enormous bounty from the French Government to the French fishermen, and our people are in consequence unduly burdened in their competition in foreign markets, to the almost complete exclusion of their fish products from the said markets. J. Whereas the proposed arrangement seeks to assert, perpetuate, and legalise a claim to the purchasing of bait by the French in all the ports of this Colony without any reservation of power on the part of the Colony to restrict them by local legisla- tion. 6. Whereas the great decline of late years of the inshore fishery of this Colony has necessitated the turning of our attention to the Bank fishery, and the economising of the supply of bait fishes, in which ample proof of a marked decadence has been shown within the past few years. 7. Whereas the power of restricting the supply of bait on our coasts to nations competing with our people in an industry which is the staple support of the Colony is vital to the commercial existence of this country, which relies principally on its fisheries for the maintenance of its population. 8. Whereas no acceptable equivalent is ceded to this Colony for those large and important concessions proposed to be made by us to the French by this arrange- ment. Be it therefore Resolved, — That for the reasons hereinbefore set forth, and by virtue of -that constitutional right which has been so often and so clearly admitted by her Majesty's Government to exist in the Legislature of this Colony, We do consider it our bounden duty, in the interests of her Majesty's loyal subjects in Newfoundland and elsewhere, to respectfully decline to assent to the arrangement now proposed for our ratification. (Here follow the Signatures.) The operating cause of the refusal by the Parliament of Newfound- land to accept or approve of the Anglo-French Convention of 1885, appears to have been, that in the interval of its signature at Paris on the 14th November, 1885, to the arrival of the Commissioners with the Convention at St. John's, a General Election had taken place in Newfoundland, and the result was, that it showed a strong opposition to the Convention, and the Government that had practically nego- tiated and accepted it, were swept out of place and power ; and the 200 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. new Administration, of which Mr. Thorburn was Premier, not being responsible for the action of its predecessors, felt themselves justified and compelled, for the reasons stated in the resolutions aforesaid,, in rejecting the Convention. The French Government were naturally surprised and displeased at the bold and hostile attitude assumed by the Government and Legislature of Newfoundland towards "this solemn agreement," arrived at after so much effort and sacrifice by England and France, and therefore they conveyed to the English Government in an important Despatch, dated June 21st, 1886, their intentions in somewhat vigorous terms. M. De Freycinet declared : That in these circumstances he could not prolong the tolerant attitude we have hitherto observed, and that the facts now brought to our knowledge compel us to look exclusively to the assertion of our Rights within the limits prescribed by the Treaties. Accordingly the Legislature of Newfoundland became alarmed, and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject of the capture and sale of bait, and on May 17th, 1886, they reported that as the possession of, fresh bait was essential to the prosecution of the cod-fishery, and that as the French bounties to their fishermen practically destroyed the Foreign trade of the Colony, an Act should be passed to prohibit the sale and exportation of bait to the French, except under special licence, and on 1 8th May, the Act, containing eight clauses, was passed by the House of Assembly, and also by the Legislative Council, to come into operation on the 31st December following. The Governor of Newfoundland, Sir G. William Des Voeux, having refused to give assent to this Bill, the Colonial Government appointed a Commissioner, Sir Ambrose Shea, to proceed to England for the purpose of urging upon H.M. Government the vital impor- tance of the measure for the interests of the Colony ; and on January 14th, 1887, the Governor addressed an important Despatch to the Colonial Minister in which he urged at considerable length reasons in favour of its approval and signature by her Majesty the Queen, but notwithstanding this urgent recommendation of the Governor, the petition of the Legislature, together with the representations of the Commissioner, Sir Ambrose Shea, the British Cabinet were unable to advise its confirmation by her Majesty, and the Minister of the Colonies, Sir Henry Holland (now Lord Knutsford), in a Despatch of 3rd February, 1887, set forth the reasons for that refusal. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 201 The Colonial Legislature, undaunted by this refusal, at the com- mencement of the Session of 1887 passed unanimously by both Houses the rejected Measure of the previous year, and appointed two Commissioners, the Premier of Newfoundland and Sir Ambrose Shea, to proceed to England in order to make urgent representations to H.M. Government in its favour, and an address, signed by the Speaker of the House of Assembly, was forwarded to H.M. Secretary of State for the Colonies, which set forth the following, amongst other reasons, in favour of its receiving the Royal assent : Within the last three years, the great increase in the French fisheries has gone far beyond the requirements of their home markets ; and we find them meeting us in Spain, Italy, and other European countries, and with the bounty equal to 60 per cent. of the value of the fish, they are fast supplanting us ; the reduced value of our staple industry from this cause already repressnting a fairly estimated sum of ^£'250,000 per annum, under conditions that menace us with a still more serious decline. In these facts, our change of view of the bait trafi@c is but too well warranted, and we have abundant reason for the application of the remedy provided in the Bait Act. In furnishing our rivals with bait, we promote the evils we have to contend with, and our only course is to terminate this suicidal traffic. In consequence of these active measures taken by the Government of Newfoundland, and the representations of its Commissioners, the British Government advised her Majesty to sanction the Act, and on the 19th July, r887, an Order in Council was sent to the Governor of Newfoundland, for bringing the Act into force after the close of the fishing season of that year. THE LOBSTER DIFFICULTY French Protest against British Factories. Following up the vigorous Despatch of the French Government of June 2ist,. 1886, for the securing of the Treaty rights of France, M. Waddington, the French Ambassador, addressed a Despatch to the British Government on 25th August, requesting the removal of English lobster factories at Port-i-Port situated on the reserved French shore line, and on the 20th September, Count D'Aubigny informed the British Government that seven more lobster factories had been erected on the French shore line, and that he was instructed by the Prime Minister De Freycinet to renew the protest of the 25th August laslf against the continued infraction of the rights conferred on France by Treaties, 202 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. For twelve months, or thereabouts, these protests .of the French Government were several times repeated, not only as regards lobster factories, but also on account of the cod traps that the fishermen of the Colony had set in various bays and harbours, and all efforts on the part of the Colonial Minister' to induce the Newfoundland Government to meet the urgent demands of France seemed to have been unavailing. The Colonial Minister, before taking further action, instructed the Admiralty on July 28th, 1887, in consequence of the demands of the French Government, to obtain in a separate tabular form the full particulars of the British lobster factories from Cape St. John to Cape Ray, and on August 30th this return was received at the Colonial Office, and showed that there were in all twelve British lobster factories established on that portion of the coast line referred to, at the two largest of which it was estimated that the average catch per day of lobsters amounted in one case to 7,000, and in the other 3,000, and that the industry found employment on an average from 40 to 50 men at each factory, independent of the tin- ning of lobsters by women and children. On October 6th, 1887, M. Flourens, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, instructed the French Ambassador to inform the British Government that further lobster factories at Bonne Bay had been erected, and demanded their removal ; and again on the 2nd September, 1888, a long Despatch was addressed by M. Waddington to the Marquis of Salisbury in consequence of the establishment by Mr. Shearer, a native of Nova Scotia, of a lobster factory near Point Riche on the French shore line, and requesting that it be closed. In reply to this and other French Despatches on the subject, the Marquis of Salisbury stated that H.M. Government were unable to assent to the position taken up by the French Government, and that this position was much complicated by the erection of the French lobster factories, which his Lordship considered were in " violation of the expressed provisions of the Treaty, and of the Sovereign rights of the British Crown." The French Government answered the Despatch of Lord Salisbury on the 15th December, and entered into an examination of the prin- cipal Articles of the Treaties relating to French rights in Newfound- land, and contended that " Fish applies to all the products of the sea, and, therefore, that France has not only the right for the fish- ing of lobsters, but also that of preparing them on the sgj t for sale,'' and on these grounds they insisted on the closing of Mr. Shearer's factory. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 203 The protest and demand of the French Government was renewed on March isth, 1889, and they pressed the British Cabinet to give a decision ; and accordingly the Marquis of Sahsbury on March 28th repHed, that as regards the "question whether Crustacea are fish within the provisions and intentions of the Treaties affecting the French rights of fishery on the Coast of Newfoundland, is one upon which the two Governments are divided in opinion ; '' and if it were admitted that French fishermen are entitled to fish for lobsters in Newfoundland waters, yet to establish French lobster factories on the shore is contrary to the terms of the Treaties, and finally that as regards Shearer's lobster factory, H.M. Government adhered to their former declarations. England protests against French Lobster Factories. Simultaneously with the protest of the French Government in 1886 and 1887, agains the erection of British lobster factories from Cape St. John to Cape Ray, the British Government also protested against the erection of French lobster factories over the same ground. As early as August 2nd, 1886, the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir G. Des Voeux informed the Colonial Minister, Lord Granville, that a factory for canning lobsters had been established by the French at Port-au-Choix, on the north-west coast of Newfoundland, and he forwarded a petition from the Chamber of Commerce at St. John's for its removal, on the ground that it was a breach of Treaty stipula- tion, and on November 24th, in consequence of additional French lobster factories having been erected at Harbour Island, the Colonial Minister, the Earl of Iddesleigh, made representations to the French Government and urged their removal. In July, 1888, the Governor of Newfoundland informed Lord Knutsford that a French war-ship had arrived in Blanche Bay, and ordered the removal of an English lobster factory, and in its place the erection of a French factory, on the ground that the French Government had conferred an exclusive right to the latter to fish for lobsters in that locality for five years ; and on the 7th July the Marquis of Salisbury instructed the French Ambassador at Paris to ask the French Government to put a stop to such proceedings. On the 30th October the French Government, through M. Goblet, replied by admitting that the facts were correctly stated, and further added that the lobster establishments erected in Blanche Bay were in accordance with Treaty rights ; to which the Marquis of Salisbury replied that the grant by the French Government to a French Com- 204 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. pany of an exclusive licence to fish for lobsters in the locality for the term of five years, is in the opinion of H.M. Government "an assumption of territorial rights in derogation of the Sovereignty of the British Crown, and unwarranted by the Treaty." The French Government, on the i6th of February, acknowledged the Marquis of Salisbury's Despatch by maintaining the French position " as an unrestricted right of fishing, as well as the use of the coast for the preparation of the produce of such fishing" an opinion which Lord Knutsford, on March 14th, informed the Marquis of Salisbury, that in the judgment of the Legal Advisers of the Crown, could not be sustained. A NEW DEPARTURE. An important departure in policy by the British Government appears to have taken place at this date, for on the 28th March, 1889, the Minister for the Colonies, Lord Knutsford, informed the Governor of Newfoundland, Sir Terence O'Brien, that H.M. Govern- ment were of opinion that the best solution of the difficulty in regard to the establishments of British and French lobster factories on the coasts of Newfoundland to which the French Treaty rights extend, would be to come to an arrangement with the French Government that the factories of both countries should be allowed in places and under conditions jointly approved by' the British and French Naval Commanders on the Station. The Marquis of Salisbury, in a Despatch to the Colonial Office on May loth, 1889, was of opinion that there were three different con- tentions in regard to the fishery disputes, and his lordship was therefore of opinion that in consequence of the conflicting views held by France, Newfoundland, and England, as to the exact verbal construction of the Treaties, and as to the intentions of the States- men who, more than a century ago, negotiated them, that the best and only course would be to obtain a decision by an impartial Arbitration, and he therefore proposed to Lord Knutsford a settle- ment of the question by that procedure, confined to the following two subjects : I. Whether the taking and preserving of lobsters can be properly considered as included in the terms of the Treaties which give to the French the liberty of fishing and drying fish on certain specified parts of the coast. u. Whether the lobster-traps set by British subjects along the coast can be said to interfere with French fishing operations in such a manner and to such extent as to constitute an infraction of the Treaties. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 205 The Marquis of Salisbury further observed : There may be said to be three different contentions in regard to this matter. The French Government hold that the Treaties secure to them the fullest rights of fishery and preserving of fish along this portion of the coast, including the catching and canning of lobsters, to the exclusion of British fishermen, whose operations, if permitted at all, are to cease at once upon notice from the French. They equally contend that British subjects are debarred from erecting factories or settlements of any kind along the shore, and the only limitation which they admit of their own rights, as above stated, is that the establishments erected by French citizens for preserving offish shall not be permanent buildings. Her Majesty's Government have not attempted to claim that under the terms of the Declaration of Versailles of 1783, British subjects have the right of erecting lobster- canning factories immediately on the Treaty Shore, but they contend that the French themselves have no right to erect such establishments, nor do they admit that the catching of lobsters is included within the fishery rights secured to the French by Treaty. They maintain, moreover, that British subjects have the right both of catch- ing lobsters and of other fishery along and off the Treaty Shore, except in cases where it can be proved that their operations actually interfere with French fishing. Finally, the Colonial Legislature and the inhabitants on the coast not only claim the rights of fishery for themselves and the hmitation of French rights as contended for by Her Majesty's Government and set forth above, but they regard it as an intolerable grievance, and as contrary to the intention of the Treaties, that any restriction should be placed upon the establishment of factories on the shore, except the sole condition that they are not actively to interfere with the fisheries and temporary fish-curing establishments of the French. They point to the fact that these lobster fisheries and lobster-canning establishments have existed up to 1886 without remonstrance on the part of the French as conclusive proof that they do not constitute such an interference. The Colonial Minister, Lord Knutsford, concurred generally in the views and proposals of the Prime Minister, and suggested that in the first place it would be advisable to consult the French Government, and accordingly the Prime Minister addressed a Despatch to the British Ambassador at Paris, Lord Lytton, stating that in conversation with the French Ambassador, M. Waddington, the French Govern- ment were wilUng to accept a reference of the lobster, fisheries dis- pute to Arbitration, provided that the Government of Newfoundland would give an assurance to abide by the decision. As already stated, a proposition was made on the 28th March, by the Colonial Minister, to the Government of Newfoundland, to which a reply was anxiously looked for, and on the 30th October Sir Terence O'Brien, the Governor of the Colony, informed Lord Knutsford that his proposals had been rejected, and in consequence thereof H.M. Government decided that the proposal of Arbitration should not be formally made to the French Government, until they had had an op- portunity of discussing the whole fishery question with the Prime Minister of Newfoundland, especially as his arrival in England was expected in the course of the following year. 2o6 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. THE MODUS VIVENDI. In consequence of the action of the Colonial Government refus- ing the proposals of H.M. Government contained in the Despatch of the 28th March, 1889 ; and also the postponement of the reference to Arbitration of the lobster question, (for the proposition had actually been made to France), and especially owing to the serious difficulties that had arisen in Newfoundland on the subject of the English and French Lobster Factories, erected at various points of the' reserved Coast Line, the French Government addressed a communication to the Marquis of Salisbury in favour of a "Modus Vivendi," which should be temporary in its character, pending the settlement of the difficulty, and for special application during the coming fishing season, and the following were the bases of the proposed plan : * ' Without France demanding at once a new examination of the legality of the installation of British Lobster Factories on the ' French Shore,' it shall be understood that there shall be no modification in the positions occupied by these establishments on the ist July, 1889." On the other hand, no new concessions of fishery of lobsters shall be accorded this year by the French Government on the fishing grounds occupied by British subjects previously to ist July, 1889. Whenever any case of competition may arise in respect of Lobster Fishery between the French and British fishermen, the Commanders of the two naval stations shall proceed on the spot to a provisional delimitation of the Lobster Fishery Grounds, having regard to the situations acquired by the two parties. This proposition of France and the details of the arrangement were communicated by telegraph on 28th January, 1890 to the Governor of Newfoundland, and after an interchange of messages, the Colonial Government whilst strongly contesting the French claims to lobster fishing, accepted the proposal for a "Modus Vivendi," for the fishing season of 1890 only, but on this condition, that the French fishermen do not establish any further lobster factories on the coast, and provided also that the retrospective eifect of the proposals should be to the ist January, 1890, instead of ist July, 1889. However favourable H.M. Government may have been, as they acknowledged they were, to the modifications of the plan, as desired by Newfoundland, yet they could not guarantee their acceptance by France, and unfortunately when the amended " Modus Vivendi " was submitted for approval to the French Government, they were unable to accept it in the amended form, but to meet the objections THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 207 raised by the Newfoundland Government, the following clause was added with the approval of the French Government : " No Lobster Fisheries which were not in operation on the ist July, 1889, shall be permitted, unless by the joint consent of the British and French Senior Naval Officers on the station. In consideration of each new Lobster Fishery so permitted, it shall be open to the fishermen of the other country to establish a new Lobster Fishery on some spot to be similarly settled by joint agreement between the Naval Commanders." When, however, this modified " Modus Vivendi," was communi- cated by Lord Knutsford, on March 1 2th, to the Colonial Govern- ment, within three days of its receipt, the Parliament of Newfound- land unanimously condemned the arrangement, and on the 14th inst. the Governor of the Colony telegraphed as follows to H.M. Colonial Minister : ' ' My Ministers strongly protest against what would in modus vivendi appear to be admission of concurrent rights of Lobster Fishing, and are of opinion that this arrangement would be prejudicial to position of Newfoundland in future negociations. They further contend that Imperial Government should bear expense of losses of those who have established factories since date ist July. They consider that as this modus ■vivendi has been concluded without their concurrence it is not for them to advise as to giving notice to those whom it may affect." The following day the Governor also forwarded by telegraph the following message : " Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament last night in identic terms emphatically protesting against modus ■vivendi as being prejudicial to British fishing and territorial rights, and being contrary to assurances of Her Majesty's Government that right of fishing should not be interfered with without consent of Colonial Legisla- ture ; further, that this arrangement is objectionable as indicating admission of non- existent concurrent rights on the coast." The rejection by the Legislature of Newfoundland, of the " Modus Vivendi " for the fishing season of 1890, on the ground that it re- cognised the concurrent rights of France to lobster fishing in the Bays and Harbours of Newfoundland, which they considered goes far beyond their Treaty Rights, and they feared that this recognition, even for the brief interval of one fishing season, might be pre- judicial in any future negotiations to the fishing interests of the Colony. This result was disappointing, and as unexpected to H.M. Govern- ment, as it was to the Government of France, especially when it is borne in mind the concessions made by the French Government, at he request of England, to meet the objections raised by the Legisla- 2o8 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. ture of Newfoundland to the original scheme proposed under the " Modus Vivendi." It will be remembered that the basis of that scheme was amended by the insertion of a clause in order to meet the views of the Government of Newfoundland, and the effect of this clause was to prevent the erection of any further French Lobster Factories on the Coast of Newfoundland. In a Despatch from the Governor of Newfoundland, received at the Colonial Office on April 17th, 1890, the Joint Committee of the Legislature agreed to accept the modus vivendi, on the terms pro- posed in Lord Knutsford's Despatch of the 8th February, to the effect that equal right would be granted to both France and England, and that lobster factories, if closed at one position on the coast, could, with the sanction of the joint Naval Commanders, be removed to another position. With this proviso, the Government of !^^ew- foundland were willing to meet the wishes of H.M. Government, and the Marquis of Salisbury concurred in this arrangement ; but unfor- tunately, the French Government were unable to agree to any modi- fication of the modus vivendi, on the ground that it had been proclaimed at all the French ports of departure, and this decision was telegraphed to the Governor of Newfoundland on May 2nd, and consequently the terms of the modus vivendi, as finally adopted between England and France, had to be enforced by her Majesty's Government. The state of affairs in Newfoundland had now become critical. Indignation meetings had been held, at which resolutions of a revolutionary character had been adopted ; lobster factories at St. George's Bay were seized by the British Commander, Sir Baldwin Walker, and closed ; coUisions of English and French fishermen took place at Port-k-Port, which resulted in the destruction of the fishing nets of the Colonists ; and an address from both Houses of the Colonial Legislature had been adopted to H.M. the Queen, in which occurs the following important passage : " The Secretary of State for the Colonies asks if we are prepared to submit the question of the lobster fishery to Arbitration ? After a careful perusal of the Treaties bearing on this matter, we find that there is certainly no question for arbitration. A similar proposition applied to Great Britain would be for the French to claim a right to take salmon in the Tees or the Tay, and for your Majesty to submit such claim to Arbitration. " With respect to the lobster industry, this colony will be satisfied with nothing short of the immediate removal of every French lobster factory from the shores of Newfoundland ; and all our efforts will be directed to the accomplishment of this object." THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 209 ARBITRATION PROPOSALS. This critical state of affairs induced the Government of New- foundland to consider the desirability of proposing a reference of the difficulties to some system of Arbitration, and accordingly, on 21st July, 1890, the Prime Minister, Sir William Whiteway, addressed a Despatch to Lord Knutsford to the following effect : That all matters in difference as regards the construction and true meaning of the . Treaties, and what breaches thereof have been committed by the people of either nation, and all matters in difference in relation thereto, be submitted to the Arbitra- ment of five Arbitrators, one to be named by her Majesty's Government, one by the Newfoundland Government, two by the French Government, and one by . The award of a majority to be binding ; that upon the true position being clearly ascertained, and the full rights of each nation defined, the same Arbitrators proceed to a valuation of the rights of the French as regards the fisheries, and upon the coast between Cape Raye and Cape St. John, and determine the compensation to be made to the French for a surrender of those rights, which surrender upon the one hand, and compensation upon the other, be carried out. That the same Arbitrators determine as regards the abrogation or reduction of the bounties by the French, and the conces- sion of the privilege of purchasing bait fishes on the coast of Newfoundland on an equitable basis, with a view to the prosecution of the fisheries, without injury or prejudice to the people of either nation. This approach by the Colonial Government, for the first time during these complications, towards an amicable reference, encouraged the Marquis of Salisbury to address, on 24th September, 1890, an important Despatch to Lord Lytton, for communication to the French Government, in which he declared that : " Arbitration appears now to be the only method to which resort can be had, if a plain and authoritative definition is required of the extent and nature of the rights secured to France by the Treaties ; and with respect, at least, to some of these, we have received the assurance that the French Government is not unwilling to have recourse to this method of ad- justment." The British Ambassador at Paris informed Lord Salisbury, on the 26th September, that he had submitted to M. Ribot the proposals, and tliat he regretted to say that the French Minister was of opinion that they could not be regarded as acceptable, although he considered that a permanent settlement of the Newfoundland Fishery Question by means of Arbitration, under conditions less restricted than those indicated by the Marquis of Salisbury, were worthy of consideration, and he promised to communicate further the views of the French Government. p 2IO THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. Accordingly, on the 29th October, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed a wilhngness to come to some agreement with her Majesty's Government, either by Arbitration, or on the basis of the terms of settlement proposed in the rejected Convention of 1885, and the following is an extract from his Excellency's Despatch : In view of these various considerations, and notwithstanding the sincere desire of the French Government to prevent difficulties, always regrettable in themselves, they do not feel justified in acceding to the proposals made to therh to exchange their rights either for a money payment or for certain faciUties with regard to the purchase of bait. The Government of the Republic are, however, quite prepared to consider such other conditions of an agreement as may be submitted to them, whether they approximate to the bases of the scheme drawn up in 1885, or whether they contem- plate an eventual resort to Arbitration, in conformity with the preliminary opinions' already exchanged on the subject between the two Governments. On the 17th November the Marquis of Salisbury, having had an opportunity of consultation with the Delegates from Newfoundland, again approached the French Government with the following propositions : That in consideration of a good Bait Bill, and a sum of money to be afterwards agreed upon, the French Government should abandon all their special lights on the shores or in the territorial waters of Newfoundland, and should also discontinue the practice of giving a bounty on fish not consumed in French territory. And on the 29th November, the French Ambassador in London replied that these proposals were not favourably received by the French Government, and Lord Knutsford addressed the Governor of Newfoundland the following Despatch on the subject : "In pursuance of the wish of the Delegates from Newfoundland who were lately in England, her Majesty's Government have proposed to the French Government to accept a pecuniary indemnity and a statutory permission to purchase bait as a con- sideration for renouncing their alleged rights upon the coast and territorial waters of Newfoundland, and abolishing the bounty upon all fish not consumed in French dominions. These proposals have not been accepted. The Government of France intimate that for the settlement of the question they are willing to proceed either by agreement on the lines of the Convention of 1885, or by Arbitration. Her Majesty's Government are willing to take whichever of these courses may be preferred by the colony. But either course will probably occupy a considerable time. An agreement requires lengthened negotiation, and unless a very large discretion indeed is given to the Arbitrator, the preparations for submission to Arbitration must be lengthy. A renewal of the modus viveiidi so as to give time for further action is therefore indis- pensable. But after what has taken place, to renew it would he ifseless, unless statutory force is given to its provisions. I very earnestly press upon your Govern- ment to procure the necessary legislation ; the power of her Majesty's Government to bring this controversy to a satisfactory conclusion will be seriously diminished by a refusal." THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 211 To this Despatch, Sir Terence O'Brien repHed as follows : ' ' Ministers desire to call the attetuion of her Majesty's Government to the re- rejection by the colony of the arrangement of 1885 as constituting a reply to the second proposal of the French Government for a settlement based upon that arrange- ment. With respect to the proposal for a settlement by Arbitration, if it is upon the basis proposed by delegates in July last, my Ministers assent ; if otherwise, they wish for information as to the meaning oif the phrase "settlement by Arbitration." My Government cannot assent to any Arbitration which does not include withdrawal of the French from the coast ; that the granting of facilities for procuring bait be con- sidered only with the modification of bounties. Whilst my Ministers recognise the necessity for sufficient time being allowed for complete negotiations after they take definite form, they beg to remind her Majesty's Government of the emphatic protests made by them, the Legislature, and the public, as well as by the delegates, against the modus vivendi, as being most hostile to interests of colony, and they are net, therefore, prepared to give legislative sanction to the modus vivendi," H.M. Government were now placed in an embarrassing position, for on the one hand the Government of Newfoundland had refused to recognise the modus vivendi agreed upon between England and France for the temporary fishing operations during 1890, and on the other hand, they had practically refused a reference to Arbitra- tion of any portion of the fishery dispute, unless that reference em- braced the wider question, viz., the withdrawal of the French from the coast-line of Newfoundland, and, therefore, it is not to be wondered at that in view of this persistent policy of resistance adopted by the Government and Parliament of Newfoundland, H.M. Government have been compelled to appeal to the intervention of the Imperial Parliament to enable them to carry out a policy towards Newfoundland of conciliation and of justice, in accordance with what they consider to be the obligations of Great Britain with the Government of France. The following extract from a Despatch, from the Marquis of Sahsbury, addressed to Lord Knutsford, 19th January, 1891, a copy of which was sent to the Governor of New- foundland, conveys the views and intentions of H.M. Government : The existence of some French rights, whatever their exact interpretation may be, is a matter of absolute certainty. The signature of England has been pledged again and again to their acknowledgment. They cannot be repudiated so long as the bind- ing force of any Treaty obligations made in the past is admitted. The honour of England is committed to the acceptance of them, and the nation certainly would never consent to a breach with France incurred in the support of what would be a plain infraction of Treaty right. It is quite conceivable that the Colonial Ministers should dislike to incur any responsibility in support of Treaty rights which they have no interest in upholding, and the cogency of which may be imperfectly understood by the popidation of Newfound- land. But their refusal to give us their co-operation in the matter does not reUeve this country from the obligations which it has incurred. 212 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. Lord Salisbury considers that her Majesty's Government must take the shortest and plainest method of ascertaining what our international engagements in this matter are, and of carrying those engagements into effect.* It appears to him that no time should now be lost in making proposals to the French Government which may lead to Arbitra- tion upon, at all events, the most urgent of the matters which are in contest between them. It is hardly to be hoped that this process can be complete before the ensuing fishing season commences. It may be therefore necessary to conclude some inter- mediate arrangement, which probably would follow the lines of the arrangement made last year, omitting those portions of it which have become inapplicable through the lapse of time. It will be necessary to apply to Parliament to obtain the powers for giving effect to any such arrangement ; as it appears from the course of legal proceed- ings that there is at least doubt whether our officers, in taking steps for that purpose, would be adequately protected against an action at law. The statute of the fifth year of George IV. 's reign, which unfortunately was allowed to lapse, will probably furnish the best model for legislation upon this point, as it only aims at securing the perform- ance of international obligations, and does not interfere with the internal affairs of the island. " In accordance with this Despatch, on the 19th March, 1891, Lord Knutsford introduced into the House of Lords, a Bill to revive cer- tain powers, which were vested in the Crown, by the Act of 28 George III., for securing the performance of Treaties which Great Britian has contracted with Foreign Powers. This Act lapsed in 1834, and it is proposed to re-introduce it, and thus enable H.M. Government to give such orders and instructions to the Governor of Newfound- land or to the Naval Commander on the coast, for the purpose of en- forcing the provisions of the Treaties of Utrecht, Paris, and Ver- sailles, which reserved certain Fishing rights of France along the coast of Newfoundland ; in other words to enforce the provisions of the modus Vivendi agreed upon between England and France during the Fishing season of 1891. In the meantime the reference to Arbitration of the Lobster Fishery Question will be prosecuted by England and France, for on the nth March, an agreement was signed at London, on the one part for England by the Marquis of Salisbury, and on the other part for France by M. Waddington, and the following are the provisions of this Anglo-French Agreement. I. — The Commission of Arbitration shall judge and decide all the questions of principle which shall be submitted to it by either Government, or by their Delegates, concerning the catching and preparation of lobsters on the above-mentioned portion of the coasts of Newfoundland. 2. — The two Governments engage, in so far as each may be concerned, to execute the decisions of the Commission of Arbitration. 3. — The modus Vivendi of 1890 relative to the catching and preparation of lobsters is renewed purely and simply for the fishery season of i8gi . 4. — ^As soon as the questions relative to the catching and preparation of lobsters shall have been decided by the Commission, it may take cognisance of other sub- THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 213 sidiary questions relative to the fisheries on the above-mentioned portion of the coasts of Newfoundland, and upon the text of which the two Governments shall have pre- viously come to an agreement. S- — The Commission of Arbitration shall be composed: ( I- ) — Of three SpeciaUsts or Jurisconsults designated by common consent by the two Governments. (2.) — Of two Delegates of each country, who shall be the authorised channels of communication between the two Governments and the other Arbitrators. 6. — The Commission of Arbitration thus formed of seven members shall decide by majority of votes and without appeal. 7. — -It shall meet as soon as possible. The last published Despatch is addressed by the Marquis of Salis- bury to M. Waddington, which declares that H.M. Government and the Government of the French Republic have designated by common consent the following three Arbitrators : — I. — M. de Martens, Professor of International Law, at the Univer- sity of St. Petersburg. 2. — M. Rivier, Consul General of Switzerland at Brussels, President of the Institute of International Law. 3. — M. Gram, formerly member of the Supreme Court of Norway. For the best interests of the Colony, and the maintenance of the friendly relations of England and France, we cordially desire a satis- factory issue of the labours of this Arbitration, and especially that it may lead up to the settlement of all the diiferences between France and Newfoundland, by a similar reference to Arbitration. GENERAL REVIEW OF THE QUESTION. In this history of the hitherto unfruitful negotiations that have been so persistently prosecuted, from 1844 to 1891, by the Govern- ments of France and England, to arrive, if possible, at a satisfactory settlement of the intricate questions in dispute between Newfound- land and France, there are two facts which stand out prominently firstly, the resolute efforts, backed by a sincere desire on the part of successive Governments of Great Britain to secure, by diplomatic means, an amicable and solid settlement with France of this New- foundland fishery question ; and on th^ other hand, the opposition, we will not say unjustifiable opposition, but at any rate the persis- tent opposition, with which the people and Parliament of Newfound- land, have on nearly every occasion met the laudable and, so far as we are able to judge, the favourable proposals, recommended by H.M. Government. 214 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. This, prima facie, appears to be one of the most extraordinary episodes in the history of the relations of a mighty Empire, such as Great Britain, with the smallest, and the weakest, of her Colonial dependencies. This episode is memorable and unique in history for this reason, that it is not, and has not been, a struggle by the. Newfoundlanders through insurrection or war, (such as the pages of history too often record, of an heroic people struggling by force of arms against the despotism of its Suzerain), but it is, and has been, a firm and uncompromising resistance by Newfoundland against the encroachments of France, against the attempts of a powerful European State, to weaken and to strangle its industrial and commercial life, and what is far more serious, to destroy the territorial and maritime Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colony of Newfoundland. If this action of Newfoundland for the past forty-five years, has been extraordinary in resisting the negotiations, and in rejecting the various Conventions, promoted and agreed upon by Great Britain and France for the settlement of this territorial question, (for we must look upon it as a territorial rather than as a commercial question in dispute), yet, on the other hand, it has been constitutional, and in accordance with its Treaty rights, and as proof thereof, we will cite the charter granted by the Government of England to Newfoundland, 26th March, 1857, and it is as follows : " That the rights enjoyed by the Community of Newfoundland are not to be ceded or exchanged without their consent, and that the constitutional mode of submitting measures for that consent, is by laying them before the Colonial Legislature. " And further : ' ' That the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by her Majesty's Government as the essential preliminary to any modification of these territorial or maritime rights. " And in the exercise of that constitutional right, the Legislature of Newfoundland, immediately on being informed by a telegraphic message that a teinporary modus vivendi, for a period of twelve months had been concluded on the 14th March, 1890, between Great Britain and France, relative to the questions in dispute, they adopted the following resolution : • ' ' That the commencement, continuation, and conclusion of the negotiations for the ' modus vivendi ' without the knowledge and consent of the community or Legis- lature were in direct violation of our constitutional rights, and of the particular en- gagement with the people of Newfoundland which her Majesty's Government volun- tarily made ; against which violation we record our most earnest protest, and to which we as a free people will never consent." THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 2lS And again, as previously referred to, when the renewal of the Modus Vivendi of March 12th, 1891, for another period of twelve months, became necessary and was pressed for the acceptance of the Government of Newfoundland ; the Colonial Parliament, following the precedent of last year, and supported by the Charter of its Con- stitutional rights, again refused to sanction any legislation in its favour, and therefore, H.M. Government, in order to enable the Naval authorities to carry out the modus Vivendi oi 1891, without being liable for an action at law in the Colony, have applied to ParHament for the necessary powers for its enforcement. The questions at issue between Newfoundland and France, and therefore between Great Britain and France, are of supreme importance, because they not only involve the future prosperity of the Colony, but what, perhaps, is of more momentous im- portance, they jeopardise, so long as the questions in dispute are unsettled, the friendly relations which it is so necessary to maintain between Great Britain and France. These questions at issue strike at the very foundation of the territorial and maritime rights of the inhabitants of the Colony of Newfoundland; in a territorial sense extending inland from the coast, it may be one, two, or even three miles, just as the French authorities and the French fishermen may consider favourable to their fishing interests ; and in a maritime sense, extending over the immense area of. 700 miles, more than one half of the littoral of Newfoundland. Consider for a moment the last incident recently enacted in St. George's Bay on the west coast of Newfoundland, as it is a forcible illustration of the overt action by France, by its Naval power for the eriforcement of its so-called Treaty rights. What are the facts of the case ? The Newfoundlanders, peace- fully exercising their fishing industry, and firmly relying on their own Sovereign and independent rights, were suddenly called upon, by a French vessel of war, the Andre, at anchor in St. George's Bay, to take up their nets, and to cease from their fishing operations ; and subsequently a French officer in naval uniform is despatched from the Andre to the mainland, and gives peremptory instructions forbidding in the future any interruption to the French fishing operations, and ordered the fishing establishments of the Colonists to be taken down. 2l6 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. The British man-o'-war, the Emerald, commanded by Sir Baldwin Walker, was present in the Bay when this extraordinary incident took place, and when the people, assembled in public meeting to protest against this overt act, and appealed for protection from the English man-o'-war, the officer in command Sir Baldwin Walker, refused to interfere, or if he did interfere it was in support of the action of the French officer. This incident is but a succession of similar incidents, equally deplorable, enacted by the Naval Power of France over the littoral permitted for French fishing operations ; for on repeated occasions, when Newfoundland vessels have been engaged in the various harbours and bays on the West Coast of Newfoundland, or have been suspected by the French Naval Authorities to have been engaged in fishing operations, they have been commanded to cease operations, to weigh anchor, and leave the harbours or bays, and it is not to be wondered at that such commands, given under the cover of the guns of a French man-o'-war should be vigorously pro- tested against by the Colonists. Under such circumstances as these there can be no security of title, no right of occupation or possession for the Newfoundlanders of any kind whatsoever on the territory within which the French have fishing rights; and the practical effect of the open vindication of these claims raised by France must be an insuperable obstacle to the development of the resources of Newfoundland, for the result has inevitably been the locking up of what is believed to be rich resources in agriculture, in mineral, and in forest wealth, over the most valuable part of Newfoundland. It is a well-known fact that English and Americans have been wil- ling to invest capital for the development of the mineral resources in Newfoundland, but the action of France in regard to her Treaty rights have been always an insuperable obstacle, and these valuable enterprises have been put aside to the great injury of the Colony. To such an extent have the English rights of Sovereignty been challenged by France, that the Government of Newfoundland and the Imperial Government at home, have been prevented to carry out a project for the building of a railway across Newfoundland, because the terminus at St. George's Bay on the west coast would have been within the limits of what are called the French Treaty rights. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 21 7 MISSION OF THE DELEGATES FROM NEWFOUNDLAND IN 1890. Now we are tolerably aware of the position taken up by Great Britain and France on this Newfoundland Fishery Question, but what is the position taken by the people and Legislature of New- foundland, and what are the reasons that have led them successively and successfully to resist the various Anglo-French Conventions for the settlement of the difficulty ? Last year a Special Delegation, sent, not from the responsible Government, but from the people and Parliament of Newfoundland, enabled us to obtain some valuable information, and to form an impartial judgment on the whole question from a Newfoundland point of view, the point of view that England should endeavour to approach the controversy. The people of Newfoundland, through the delegates, declare they are weary of waiting, and weary of the repeated failures of all diplomatic efforts, and therefore they determined to bring before the people of England, by this delegation, their grievances, or, to use their own words, the cruel hardships which Britain's most ancient Colony has suffered long, convinced that no Government will be able to grapple with the difficulty by the only way that it should be grappled with, unless the public conscience of England is roused to a sense of the injuries inflicted on a loyal portion of the British Empire, and the public judgment convinced that the claims made by Newfoundland are wholly right and just. The first question that we asked the Newfoundland Delegation, and the question that will naturally occur to every unbiassed mind, . how is it that every attempt at negotiation, and every Anglo-French Convention based upon them from 1844 to 1885, have signally failed to secure a basis of settlement ? And how is it that each and all of these Anglo-French Conventions have been rejected by the people, the Parliament, and the Government of Newfoundland, when finally submitted to them for their approval ? Their reply was this : These various Commissions, in the first place, were purely Anglo-French Commissions, determined upon and appointed, ab initio, without the knowledge or co-operation of the responsible authorities in Newfoundland, and often in face of their protestations; and that, with the exception of the last Com- mission of 1884-5, they were practically unacquainted with the whole 2l8 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. controversy, and out of touch with the opinions of the Newfound- landers, on the question ; Commissions composed, in most instances, if not always, by military and naval men, who often brought to the discussion of the question those Iihperial considerations represented by the words, Civis Romanus Sum. And, on the other hand, the results of the labours of the Com- missions, and the terms of the Articles and Protocols of the Conven- tions left untouched, or at the most dealt inadequately with the more serious matters in dispute, those vital questions for the Colony, of its territorial Sovereignty, that placed it in imminent peril. By the rigid enforcement of the assumed French rights over the territory of Newfoundland, which France maintains has been guaranteed to her for fishing operations by Treaties, the Colonists declare that they are prohibited thereby from constructing any building whatsoever, or of making any road or thoroughfare ; and further, that they are prevented from purchasing or entering upon the occupation of a single rood of land within the three miles area of the coast line ; in fact, according to the interpretation by France of the Treaties, the territory is French, and not English, and the subjects of England in Newfoundland must be amenable to the law of France, and to any action which she may take to enforce her assumed rights. The position, therefore, taken up by the Newfoundlanders, in regard to the interpretation and application of the Treaties is this, that the so- called French rights, either for the use of the waters, or for the occupation of the territory, are strictly limited to the actual fishery rights under the Treaties. That is to say, that there should be in the first place no exclusive " French rights," but concurrent rights by the Newfoundlanders, with no limitation to its exercise by the English colonists, but an absolute right of fishing upon the waters or in the harbours, surrounding the territory of Newfoundland. On the contrary, the French fisherman considers, and this view is supported by the Government of France, that he has an absolute right to fish wherever he pleases, that the 700 miles of coast line of Newfoundland, and of its shores, rippled by the waters, is always open to him to carry on his fishing operations, and that there is no limit whatsoever to his right of selection, nor of action. The Frenchmen, backed up by the naval power of France on the spot, which in its action is supported by the authority of the Ministers of the French Government, boldly declares against any permanent occupation by British subjects of any part of the reserved ground, for any purpose whatever, because it would be an interrup- THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 2 19 tion to him in the exercise of his fishing rights under Treaty engagements. Again, and in a special manner, contended for by the colonists of Newfoundland there is no legal tribunal, no Court of Appeal, for the determination of the whole question, and the worst part of the judicial business is this, that neither France nor England have been willing, for a period of 2 7 7 years, to accept each other's interpretation of the Treaties. It is somewhat remarkable that in this age of constitutional freedom, and passion for judicial legislation everywhere, especially in England, that the arbitrament of these interminable and vexatious disputes between France and Newfoundland should be decided, not by legal and judicial tribunals in Newfoundland, not by the Privy Council, not by the Colonial Office, or the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but by the arbitrament of a Naval Tribunal, composed of British and French officers alone, ignorant of International Law, it may be hostile to the aspirations of the people, and to the honourable traditions of France and England, in favour of a just and generous policy to subject races. Finally the people and Parliament of Newfoundland declare that any solution of the present difficulties, whether by Arbitration, Joint Com- . missions, or other international arrangements, by which the spirit or letter of the Treaties from 1713 to 1815 are maintained, will in their opinion be an absolute failure ; that the obligations under these Treaties will keep alive disputes at every point, increasing in number, and intensifying in bitterness ; that the hardships inflicted thereby upon the people of Newfoundland have become intolerable, that the utmost bounds of endurance on their part have been reached ; and that there is but one way of escape, one solution, that as these Treaties cannot be mended, they must be ended, and a termination put to these so-called French Treaty Rights, out of which all these suffer- ings, losses, and troubles have arisen. And in terminating these French Treaty Rights, they do not for a moment propose that they should be terminated or repudiated with- out fair and reasonable compensation to France, for they admit that France has certain rights under them ; and that to terminate them will require concessions and cosnpensation on the part of England. 220 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. THE DELEGATION OF 1891. This year another Delegation from Newfoundland, appointed, in response to an invitation from H.M. Government, by the Colonial Parliament, consisting of the following gentlemen : — Sir WilHam Whiteway, Premier; the Hon. G. H. Emerson, Speaker of the House of Assembly ; the Hon. A. W. Han^ey and James Stuart Pitts, Members of the Legislative Council ; and A. Morine, Member of the House of Assembly, arrived in London on the 20th April, 1891. They have been appointed for the purpose of submitting the views of the Colonial Government, to the Parliament of England, in anticipation of the special Legislation proposed in regard to the renewal of the modus vivendi, recommended by H.M. Government, being adopted by the two Houses of Parliament. This Delegation being more influential and official than that of last year, its action and declarations, are therefore, more weighty, and deserve, as they will obtain, the serious attention of the Parlia- ment and Government of England. Whether by pre-arrangement or by accident, we will not stop to enquire, the Address from the Government and Joint Legislatures of Newfoundland, entrusted to the Delegates for presentation to the Imperial Parliament, was telegraphed from New York on the 17th April, and appeared in the columns of the Times on the following day, and as this Address represents the calm and deliberate judgment of the Executive of the Colony, we submit its full text, which is as follows : — " We the legislative Council of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland beg leave to approach your honourable Parliament, and to appeal for your protection and sup- port under circumstances which have filled the minds of all classes of this country with profound anxiety and dismay. ' " Your honourable House may be aware that the old-time difficulties, consequent upon the Treaties of Great Britain and France on the subject of the Newfoundland fisheries, have of late years assumed an unaccustomed gravity producing a painful and ceaseless agitation among our people. " Two delegates have proceeded from this country during the last year to represent to Her Majesty's Goverment the exorbitant claims of the French under the alleged sanction of the Treaties referred to, and, further, to point out the injustice wrought upon the natives of Newfoundland. Their efforts for redress have been so far unsuc- cessful, and we are now confronted with a ne^y evil essentially more intolerable than any of those with which experience has rendered us so famihar. We refer to the pro- posal of Her Majesty's Government, by the Bill now before your honourable Parlia- ment, to re-enact the Act George IV., cap. 51, for the better conductor Treaties between Great Britain and France respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries, which Act expired in 1834. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 221 ' ' This Act embodied provisions of an arbitrary and oppressive character, wliolly repugnant to those principles of liberty and justice which are held to be the basis of modern British legislation. They conferred upon the officers of Her Majesty's ships the duties of a protective service, and intrusted them with the settlement of Treaty disputes, with powers of summary adjudication independent of all those restrictions and safeguards which British law has devised for the defence of the inherent rights of the British subjects. These powers extended to the most severe penal inflictions and were beyond all appeal, and when it is remembered that they were exercised by persons unacquainted with legal procedure, whose peculiar training and habits of thought and action were dictated by an unquestioning submission to decrees, it must be manifest that extreme hardship and injustice were the frequent inevitable results. " It may be alleged that while the Act in question was yet upon the Statute-booli it had been allowed to lapse into comparative desuetude, so incompatible with modem civilisation would have been the application of this barbarous law. Unhappily the record of the years 1877, 1888, and 1889 gives instances of its enforcement, under assumed authority, with disastrous consequences to the property and industry of some of Her Majesty's subjects engaged in tlie fisheries of Newfoundland. We submit that this law cannot possibly be rendered applicable to the circumstances which it is designed to meet. All the social and general conditions of Newfoundland, particu- larly those parts of the coasts affected by international Treaties, have undergone a radical and complete change in the many years that have elapsed since the law was under consideration. There was then no resident population in those localities, which have been long since settled in considerable numbers ; while trade from various sources of employment has become developed, and yields its contributions to the Customs revenue. "Several years ago Her Majesty's Government confirmed the occupation of the coast by acceding to the desire of the residents for representation in the House of Assembly, and for the appointment of magistrates and poUce. They are periodically visited by the Supreme Court of Circuit ; they have regular communication with the rest of the country and vrith Canada by mail and passenger steamers. In a word, they have all the ordinary institutions of civil life. The permanence of their position being thus conclusively assiured and recognised, it can hardly be necessary to point out vrith what cruel severity and with what destructive effect the proposed law will operate upon the trade and industries, and upon every other appreciable interest of this section ' ' The loyal inhabitants of this whole dependency of the British Crown would, therefore, most earnestly implore your honourable House, by all its honoured and revered traditions, to desist from inflicting upon the, people of this country the calamity of such an enactment as that now under contemplation. ' ' We would remind your honourable House that her Majesty's Government and France lately agreed upon Arbitration respecting the Newfoundland fisheries, such tribunal proposing to deal with one question only — the recent question of the lobster fishery. This partial proceeding has been decided upon, not only without reference to the Newfoundland Government, but against their emphatic protest. We, on the part of the colony, beg to present an equally emphatic protest against the course adopted iti direct violation of the principles of that constitutional form of government which it is our privilege to possess. "We would, in conclusion, respectfully invoke the aid of your honourable House for protection of the Treaty rights of Newfoundland against the demand of the French for exclusive fishery, including lobster fishing, on those portions of the coast where they hold acknowledged privileges. The rights of British subjects have on several occa- sions been declared, and the pretensions of the French disallowed by some of the 222 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. ablest statesmen of Great Britain, notably Lord Palmerston, and only last year by the Marquis of Salisbury. We feel that your honourable House will recognise the justice of our prayer, and that the definitions of those high authorities shall not continue to be mere theoretic pronouncements which France is permitted to contravene ; but that they shall be carried out in their time significance to their full practical effect. On the 23rd April, the House of Lords was the scene of unusual interest, as their Lordships had consented to receive at the Bar of that august Assembly the Delegates from Newfoundland, and, in view of the earnest desire- on the part of the Colonial Parliament, to hear objections which they entertain against the Bill proposed by H.M. Government for the enforcement of the modus vivendiior 1891. The Petition, or Address above referred to, having been presented and read by Lord Dunraven, who from the first has evinced con- siderable interest in the mission of the Delegation, his Lordship moved that Sir William Whiteway, Prime Minister and Attorney Geiieral of the Colony, be heard in propria persona in support of the Petition, and this proposition having been seconded by H.M. Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Knutsford, it was agreed to nemine contradicente. The Delegates having advanced to the Bar, their spokesman. Sir William Whiteway, delivered an exhaustive speech to their Lordships, which set forth the objections, and the reasons for them, held by Newfoundland, not only to the special legislation for the enforcement of the modus vivendi, but also to the reference by Arbitration decided upon for the settlement of the lobster difficulty, and moreover, against the whole policy, from first to last adopted by the Imperial Government towards Newfound- land. SIR W. WHITEWAY'S SPEECH REVIEWED. This speech of the Prime Minister of Newfoundland must be con- sidered as the last contribution, may we not say the ultimatum, from the Government of the Colony to H.M. Government, and therefore, it demands, as it no doubt will receive, the close and serious atten- tion of the people and Parliament of England, and on this account, if for no other reason, we are bound to examine carefully its scope and character. At the outset, Sir William Whiteway referred to the Treaty of Paris, 1763, and the Treaty of Versailles, 1783, and recom- mended attention to Article VI. of the former Treaty, and Article IV. of the latter Treaty, which restored to France the fishing rights under the Treaty of Utrecht of 17 13, and, as will be seen at THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 223 page 8, Article XIII. of that Treaty, conferred on France the right to fish, and dry the fish on land from Cape Bonavista to Cape Riche, and this right by Article V. of the Treaty of Versailles of 1783, was renewed, from Cape St. John to Cape Ray. The legislation by the Imperial Parliament, five years subsequently in 1788, and which was especially emphasized by Sir William White- way, is of great importance, because it not only was the first Act passed by the Imperial Government to define more clearly the Treaty obligations of England of 1713, 1763, and 1783, (when their in- terpretations were more clearly understood than at the present time), but it also proves unmistakably, that the rights conferred on France by these Treaties, and subsequently confirmed by the successive Treaties of 1792, 1802, and 1814-1815, were absolute and exclusive, and that the concurrent rights of British subjects were not recognised, but, on the contrary excluded, as is clearly set forth in the' Act of 1788, which was as follows : — Section /. ' ' It shall and may be lawful for His Majesty, his heirs and successors, by advice of Council, from time to time, to give such orders and instructions to the Governor of Newfoundland, or to any officer or officers on that station, as he or they shall deem proper or necessary to fulfil the purposes of the definitive Treaty and declaration afore- said ; and, if it shall be necessary to that end, to give orders and instructions to the Governor, or other officer or officers aforesaid, to remove or cause to be removed any stages, fiakes, train vats, or other works whatever, for the purpose of carrying on fishery, erected by His Majesty's subjects on that part of the coast of Newfoundland which lies between Cape St. John passing to the north, and descending by the western coast of the said island to the place called Cape Raye, and also all ships, vessels, and boats belonging to His Majesty's subjects which shall be found within the limits aforesaid ; and also, in case of refusal to depart from within the limits aforesaid, to compel any of His Majesty's subjects to depart from thence, any law, custom, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. Section II. ' ' And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any person or persons shall refuse, upon requisition made by the Governor, or any officer or officers acting under him, in pursuance of His Majesty's orders or instructions as aforesaid, to depart from within the limits aforesaid, or otherwise to conform to such requisition and directions as such Governor or other officer as aforesaid shall make or give for the purposes aforesaid, every such person or persons so refusing, or otherwise offending against the same, shall forfeit the sum of ;^2oo, to be recovered in the Court of Session or Court of Vice-Admiralty in the said island of Newfoundland, or by bill, plaint, or information in any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster ; one moiety of such penalty to belong to His Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the other moiety to such person or perspns as shall sue or prosecute for the same ; provided always that every such suit or prosecution, if the same is commenced in Newfoundland, shall be commenced within three months, and if commenced in anv of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster, within 12 months, from the time of the commission of such offence. " 224 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. Sir William Whiteway referred to the above sections of the Act of 1788, and admitted that the rights of France for fishing operations were exclusive at that time, and for some time afterwards ; but he is of opinion that no subsequent legislation renewed this Act of 1788, and that, therefore, its operation ceased by the lapse of time. That opinion is, however, not held by France, and she brings forward in support of her position, several important declarations of Statesmen, and Jurisconsults^ which, in justice to her, should not be altogether ignored. We find that in 1802, Admiral Gambler, the Governor of New- foundland, declared that all the fishing establishments ought to be destroyed without distinction, and that all British subjects are com- pelled to remove them; and 22 years later, in 1824, the Imperial Parliament prolonged for a period of five years the powers conferred upon the Crown, by the afore-mentioned Act, of 1788. In 1835, the Law Advisers of the Crown were consulted by H.M. Government, whether, by the terms of the Treaties, British subjects were permitted to share with the French the right to fish upon the reserved coast-line; and they declared, that in their opinion, the French have the exclusive right to fish on that part of the coast of Newfoundland, from Cape St. John to Cape Ray. In 1837, H.M. Government again invited the attention of the Attorney-General to give, de nouveau, an opinion on the same subject, and the following was his declaration : — ' ' If there really existed within the limits of the districts in question, a space entirely sufficient so that the fishermen of both nations might fish therein without coming in contact with each other, we are inclined to thinic that this country is not bound to pre- vent its subjects from fishing there. It seems, however, from the report of Admiral Halkett, that this is difficult to carry out, and we think that, according to the real bearing or extent of the Treaty and to the declaration, British subjects are excluded from the right of fishing there, if they cannot do it without interfering with French fishing. It would appear, therefore, that from 17 13 to 1838, France has claimed, under these Treaties, the exclusive right, and has exercised it, of fishing operations over her reserved ground, and that right has been recognised by the Imperial Parliament on more than one occasion ; and also that H.M. Government, acting on the legal opinions of the Law Advisers of the Crown, have so interpreted and applied the Act of 1788. It is since 1838, that from some cause which is not apparent, this exclusive right contended for by France, has been allowed gradually to be considered by the Colonists THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 225 as one of sufferance only, or rather as a right concurrent for French, and British subjects. The next .subject dealt with by Sir William Whiteway, referred to the objections raised by the Colony against the proposed Legislation for the enforcement of the modus vivendi of 1891, and herein he observes, that these objections are on the ground that it was introduced into the Imperial Parliament, before the Government or the Legislature of Newfoundland had an op- portunity to consider it ; and he further adds, that neither this pro- posed Act, nor any other Act, has ever been submitted to the Colonial Government for their approval, as he considers it ought to have been, in accordance with the Constitution granted to Newfound- land by Charter. Now this objection cannot be sustained, for when last year the modus vivendi proposed by France to England, was sub- mitted to the Colonial Government, on the 28th, January, 1890, and they promised to accept it temporarily, provided certain amendments were accepted, and on the 12th March, when these amendments were accepted by France and England it was submitted for a second time to the Colonial Legislature for their final approval, when it was rejected. It would appear, judging by the objections brought forward by Sir William Whiteway, at considerable length, that the Colonial Govern- ment overlook the fact, that the modus vivendi for 1891, for which special legislation is necessary, is in the first place but temporary ; and secondly, that it is forced on H.M. Government in consequence of the serious difficulties that have arisen on the subject of Lobster fishing and lobster establishments, difficulties, mainly, if not entirely created by the Bait Act, passed by the Colonial Legislature. CONCLUDING REMARKS. The position taken up by Newfoundland on this subject of the modus vivendi, and of the necessary special legislation to give it the authority of law, as well as of the scheme of Arbitration proposed by H.M. Government, and accepted by France, for the settlement of this Lobster difficulty, is undoubtedly an untenable one ; and the alleged reasons in support of this position prove, the more they are carefully examined, that England has a very hard nut to crack in this Newfoundland embroglio, which unless speedily and effectually dis- posed of, may prove perilous to the peace and prosperity of the Colony. Q 226 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. The opposition of the Colony to the Arbitration Commission which has been appointed, is regrettable, and the reasons alleged for this opposition by Sir William Whiteway are unreasonable, for he de- clares that a " piecemeal settlement " by Arbitration is strongly to be deprecated, and that no Arbitration will be acceptable to the Colony that does not include all the questions arising under the Treaties. Whilst we sympathise with the Prime Minister of Newfound- land in his desire to have all the questions in dispute between Newfoundland and France referred for settlement to Arbitration, yet we cannot agree with him in the opinion that because England and France have agreed to refer the Lobster diflSculty only, which really is the crux of the complications, to Arbitration, therefore it is desirable to have no Arbitration whatever. The Government of Newfoundland surely are aware, that H.M. Government have endeavoured strenuously and most praiseworthily, as the Despatches testify, to influence the Government of France to accept the wider proposals of a reference to Arbitration of all the questions in dispute, as for instance in the Despatch of ist July, 1890, addressed by Sir William Whiteway to H.M. Government, and having failed in that direction, they took another step, referred to in the Despatch of the Marquis of Salisbury, of the 17th November, 1890, which was as follows ; — ' ' That in consideration of a good Bait Bill, and a sum of money to be afterwards agreed upon, the French Government should abandon all their special rights on the shores or in the territorial waters of Newfoundland, and should also discontinue the practice of giving a bounty on fish not consumed in French territory. For a second time H.M. Government failed to secure the approval of France, and undaunted by these refusals, they again approached the French Government, and the result was the acceptance by France of a reference to Arbitration of the Lobster difficulty, in the first instance, and by Clause IV. in the Anglo-French Agreement, signed in London on the nth March, 1890, it is more than probable, that the other remaining questions of difference will be considered. That Clause we quote again, and it is as follows : — ' ' As soon as the question relative to the catching and preparation of lobsters shall have been decided by the Commission, it may take cognisance of other subsidiary questions relative to the fisheries on the above mentioned portion of the coasts of New- foundland, and upon the text of which the two Governments shall have previously come to an agreement." The acceptance by the French Government of the proposal of H.M. Government, for a reference of the one vexed question of the Lobster difficulty to a Court of Arbitration, composed of eminent THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 227 Jurisconsults, such as Frederick da Martens, of St. Petersburg, M. Rivier, of Switzerland, and M. Gram, of Holland, so eminently impartial and judicial in their character, should be looked upon and accepted by the Government of Newfoundland, as a great concession from France, considering the resolute position which she has taken up and maintained, for a periofi of at least two centuries ; and further as a great moral victory achieved by H.M. Government on behalf of the Colony. Moreover, it could hardly be expected that the Statesmen and Par- liament of the Republic of France could give their consent, without grave consideration, and hesitation, to the sweeping proposals of the Government of Newfoundland for a reference, en bloc, of the numerous and perplexing questions that have for so lengthened a period agitated, may we not say convulsed to its very centre, the Colony ; for these questions in dispute affect keenly the ancient traditions of France, reaching as far back as the isth and 1 6th centuries, and especially the honourable fulfilment of the celebrated Treaties, negotiated after great and sanguinary wars between Great Britain and France, that resulted in tremendous territorial sacrifices by France on the North American Continent, of which Newfoundland was not the least important. It must also be borne in mind, that the principle and practice of Arbitration, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, is a pro- cedure of modern origin, and is looked upon as of a novel and innovating character by a Nation such as France, whose career and history for many centuries, has been bound up, and associated with a policy oi force majeure for the arbitrament of her national differences, and for the enforcement of her international rights ; and therefore, the Statesmen of France of to-day, consider that they are entering on newly-trodden ground, that they are accepting a policy that hitherto has not found its way into the conscience and mind of the French people, neither received a willing ear in the Courts and Councils of the Republic. Under these circumstances, and on these grounds, it seems reason- able, nay imperative, that H.M. Government should appreciate the advances made by France towards a pacific settlement, and that they have been willing to accept in good faith this proposal, as one of a tentative character, as a move in the right direction, in the belief and hope that it may prove a stepping-stone for the ultimate adjudication of all the other conflicting subjects, that have so long barred the road to the peace, progress, and prosperity of Newfoundland. 228 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. The Colonial Government do not appear to have realised the nature or extent of the, difficulties of Her Majesty's Government, in their negotiations with France, for the settlement of the various ques- tions in dispute ; or, if they have realised them, they evidently have not fully recognised the ceaseless efforts of the present, and past Administrations of the Mother Country, to unravel the tangled skein of Anglo-French relations with Newfoundland, extending over the lengthened period of one hundred and seventy-eight years, and even to a still more remote period. The various and complex questions that at the present time claim anxious attention in regard to Newfoundland, the Statesmen of France and England are not in any way responsible for, as they are the legacies bequeathed from the deplorable wars, waged by the two Nations from 1689 to 181 5 ; wars, fomented by jealousy, and fanned by an insatiable thirst for territorial aggrandisement ; wars, that the Treaties of Ryswick, Utrecht, Paris, and Versailles mark, not only in a conspicuous manner the conquests that were achieved, but also display the blundering statesmanship of a Castlereagh and a' Boling- broke, who were responsible for the Articles, and Protocols of these Treaties, and these blunders and laches, England and France are to-day called upon to remedy, and, if possible, for ever to re- move. Under such circumstances we would venture to urge on the Parlia- ment and Government of Newfoundland, now that they are within measurable distance of an honourable and enduring settlement of the vexed questions in dispute with France, to exercise patience, moderation, and wisdom ; and especially, to rely with an unshaken trust, and an undiminished loyalty on the courage and patriotism of the Parliament and Statesmen of England, to arrive at a modus Vivendi with the Republic of France, which shall satisfy the reason- able anticipations of the Colony, for a freer and wider industrial and commercial life, and at the same time to secure for her the fruition of those higher aspirations for territorial and maritime freedom, under the agis of the Sovereignty of England. -noaooQoaa» ijj II A POSTSCRIPT. The discovery of the North American territories is generally be- lieved to have been due to Europeans of the Latin race, but the fact is, those of Scandinavian extraction were the real discoverers. Briefly summarised, we may observe that, following the incidental narrations of Icelandic and Norwegian records, it is undeniable that from their shores quitted the earliest voyagers to North America. Crantz, in his History of Greenland, says : — • " 'Tis probable those Indians al present about Newfoundland, who ai-e so different in their shape and manner of living from the other Americans, may be descended from some Icelanders," &c. Further research, in regard to the discovery of Newfoundland by Jean Cabot in 1497, proves that his expedition was promoted on behalf of the English Monarch, Henry VII., and, therefore, clearly demonstrates that England's claim of possession of Newfoundland has been anterior to that of all other nations. In support of this ancient right we are confirmed by the following authorities : — Rees' Encyclopedia, published in 1819, says: — "John Cabot, encouraged in this attempt (discovery of unknown lands) by the discoveries of Columbus, who returned from his expedition in 1493, obtained in 1495 letters patent from King Henry VII. , empowering him and his three sons to discover, conquer, and settle lands then unknown ; in recompense of which they were to be in- vested with many privileges. " The King, however, reserved to himself one-fifth part of the neat profits, and instructed them to return from their voyage into the port of Bristol. Accordingly, in the following year, he prepared for two expeditions, and obtained the King's permis- sion to take up six ships of 200 tons burden and under,' in any harbours of the realm, and to engage a sufRcient number of mariners. His Majesty was at the expense of fitting one ship at Bristol, and the merchants of that city and of London added three or four small vessels, freighted with suitable commodities. " With this fleet, John Cabot, and his son Sebastian, set sail in the spring of 1497, and pursued their course till the 24th June, when they discovered the land of " Baccalos," (Terra de Baccaleus, or Cod-Land), so called from the fish which they found in great abundance on its coast, but now known by the name of Newfoundland. R ^30 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. "Another adjoining island they called St. John, probably from the Saint's day on which it was discovered. "On this island, as they supposed it to be, which was the South-west part of New- foundland, they found inhabitants who were clothed with the skins of beasts, and who used bows, arrows, pikes, darts, wooden clubs, and slings. " Three of these natives were brought with them to England." The Encyclopcedia Metropolitana, published in 1845, says : — " Whatever may have been the diversity of opinion as to priority of discovery (of the New Worlds), there is and can be none in regard to another, and, to English- men, a more important fact, that We.stern America was discovered for England by Giovanni Gabeto, or, as he is more generally known, John Cabot, and his sons, before Columbus discovered the Southern continent of that vast hemisphere. "That celebrated Venetian, who had fixed his residence in Bristol, had little difficulty in prevailing on Henry VII. to grant him and his sons a commission for the discovery of new regions in the West, and to equip a vessel for that purpose. ****** * " In March, 1495, that is, rather less than two years after the return of Columbus from the first voyage, Cabot obtained his patent. It empowered him to take posses- sion, in the English Monarch's name, of any countries unknown to Christian sove- reigns, to place the English flag on their hills and towers, to open an exclusive traffic with the inhabitants, free from all Custom House duties, on the condition of his paying into the Royal treasure a fifth of all the gold and silver he might acquire, and the same proportion of all his profits in trade. " In May, 1497, he embarked at Bristol with his second son, Sebastian, whose name is greater than his own, in the vessel provided for him by the King, and accom. panied by four smaller vessels, which the merchants of that city had the courage to equip. ' ' Resolving to avoid the track taken by Columbus, he steered in a westerly direction, and soon discovered the Isles of Newfoundland and St. John's. "In this voyage he seems to have landed only twice on the. two islands, from which he brought away three of the natives, and some of the botanical productions." Crantz, describing Columbus's visit, says : — " The English would not long remain idle spectators of these important transac- tions, Henry VII., in 1497, sent out Sebastian Cabot to seek a passage to the East Indies, N.W. above America. Cabot discovered the whole coast of North America and Newfoundland, which the English took possession of, and planted many fine Colonies, which, by industrious cultivation and traffic have acquired to the Crown more durable power and more inexhaustible opulence than the mines of Mexico and Peru. The story of the two Venetians of note, Nicholas and Antony Zcni, having been there in 1389, has, since that time, as no intelligence could be had, been counted a fiction." THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 23 1 Morse, in his American Gazetteer, published at Boston, New Eng- land, in 1798, says: — "Great Britaia derived her claim to North America from the first discovery by Sebastian Cabot, in the name of Henry VII. of England, 1497. The country was, in general, called Newfoundland. Northward, Britain might have extended h,er claims to the Pole. Old Barclay, in his Universal Traveller, published in London, 1735, says :— ' ' Sebastian Cabotti, a Venetian, being much addicted to the Study of Navigation, well skilled in Cosmography, found means to lay his proposal for a shorter passage to the East Indies before Hemy VII., who, approving, gave orders for fitting out two ships. Cabot saw, about the soth deg. North Latitude, that which is now well known by the name of Newfoundland ; and took three of the natives, who lived with him in England a long time." Henry VII. granted, March 5th, 1496, his first patent, says Stow, to, "John Gabote, Citizen of Venice, Lewes, Sebastian, and Santius, his sonnes." The Cabots are found resident at Bristol, and the son, Sebastian, it is clear, was born there, and, about the age of four, was taken to, or was at, Venice, of which his father was a native, but is, soon after, found again in his natal city, Bristol, and several local records contain mention of himself and other members of the family. The King's patent stipulated that the two vessels, one named The Matthew, which he furnished the means of equipping, should quit and return to none other Port than that of Bristol. The voyage began upon St. John the Baptist's Day, June 24th, 1497, and the return was made upon August the 6th. Thus " Cabot saw the American Continent, (North), before Columbus, or Amerigo Vespucci." It is clear, that, in the Chart which Sebastian Cabot afterwards published, but which is now lost, that his mention of the " New Isle " of St. John, meant Newfoundland, as no other land can be affirmed as within the line laid down. We have seen, above, that Cabot brought three natives to England, and it is an ascertained fact, that, in the West Porch of the Church of St. Mary-de-Redcliffe, (the most magnificent Parish Church in Erlgland), remains the rib of a cow- whale, supposed to have been there placed by Cabot, in 1497, as a trophy of his dis- covery of Newfoundland. In the accounts of Henry VII.'s Privy Purse is found this entry which can refer to no subject but Sebastian Cabot : — 232 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION ' ' August loth, 1497. Gave to him that found the New Isle, ;£ 10. Quoting from the Universal Traveller, we find that, "The next expedition was by a certain Canon of St. Paul's, whose name is not known, who went, in 1527, with two ships, one cast away about Labrador, and the other landed not far from Cape Breton, supposed to be in Newfoijndland." "In 1536, Mr. Hore, of Ldndon, set out thither with two ships, the Trinity and the Minion, with a company of izo. So great were their sufferings that they slew one, upon whom they repasted, and a French ship accidently came, which they seized, and, being well provided of victuals, reached England. Complaint being made to Henry VIII. , the King,, having found the extremity his subjects had been in, would not punish them, but, out of his own money, paid the French men all they demanded, and sent them home well pleased. In the reign of Edward VI., an Act was passed, exempting the traders to Newfoundland, for fishing, from all duties or taxes to sail thither to fish." "In 1597, Chas. Leish axii Abraham Van Hernick, London merchants, fitted out the Hopewell a.nd the Chancewell for an expedition towards Newfoundland," "In 1610, Mr. Guy, of Bristol, having writ, in 1609, a treatise toncerning the importance of a Colony in Newfoundland, {vfhere the English had continued Jishin^), prompted the Earl of Northampton to procure a patent from James I. of this island, (signed April 29th, i5io), and that nobleman, in partnership with Guy, and a fleet, sent the projector, who was appointed Governor." Afterwards, the same nobleman, the Earl of Pembroke, and others, formed a Syndicate, for the working of the fisheries within the area. OLIVER CROMWELL'S ACTION. It is well known, that Cromwell, who never lost an opportunity of establishing English power abroad, in 1651, obtained that great Act — which ought never to have been so extensively repealed — known as " The Navigation Laws," obviously, to prevent the occurrence of such claims as France now makes in Newfoundland. One clause is : — ' ' To prevent for the time to come, and to hinder the carrying over of any such persons as are enemies to the Commonwealth, or that may prove dangerous to any of the English Plantations in America, the Pariiament doth forbid and prohibit all ships of any foreign nation whatsoever to come to, or trade in, or traffic with, any of the Enghsh Plantations in America, or any islands, ports, or places thereof, which are planted by. and in possession of, the people of this Commonwealth, without licence first had and obtained from the Parliament or Council of State." Barclay, in his Universal Traveller, says : — " We find also, that when Sir Antony Shirley went with his six ships, in 1596, and had taken Cavalos, in the Bay of Honduras, he ' sailed for Newfoundland to get recruits of men and provisions.' " THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 233 FRANCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND. The claims of France to the use of this island's materiel are those only which by the negligence of England, or the blundering of English statesmen, have been, in the course of ages, acquired ; and, are not, so far as they go, of an innate or original nature ; that is, they are not, per se, those of _^rsi coming. Following " Barclay's " Narration, the references therein being verifiable, we may summarise the facts as follows : — It is clear, that the Queen Regent pf France, in 1524, while her son, Francis I. was a minor, commissioned a Florentine, named Verazzini, to secure as much territory in North America, " from the North to the South Seas," for " the Court of France,'' as he could. In 1534, we find the celebrated expedition of Jacques Cartier sent out to Newfoundland. Cartier's account is the most valued Ameri- can work which has ever appeared. In 1525, Cartier, with three ships, again quitted St. Malos, his native port, reaching Newfound- land in 49 days. The next French effort was that of 1542, under General and Admiral De La Roche (these two offices were in those days often combined). This was followed by that of an able naval officer, Samuel De Champlain, in 1603. Henry IV. made the leader. Governor of Canada, where he remained for 32 years, founding Quebec, and establishing a trading company. His name is preserved in the magnificent lake so called. His narrative, preserved in the Collections of Voyages, by Harris, Pynson, and others, is one of lasting interest. In 1676, Father Hennipin, a Franciscan monk, quitted France with a large company, and under' Jesuit auspices, established Missions in Canada. ♦ The " Journal " bearing his name is valuable. It must ever be remembered that entire dependence upon French narrations of matters referring to Canada and Newfoundland cannot be placed, as it has long been proved that they are often incorrect, both in map and text. Captain Carter, in his travels, gives, from his own observation and experience in Cariada, (where he fought against the French, and in which country he resided many years, and whose account was, after most careful enquiry at home, found by the Government to be a correct description), many examples of our assertion. In 1679, Mons, De La Salle quitted France with a well sup- 234 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. plied fleet, and became stationed as Governor at Niagara, where he found, as his predecessor in office a year or two, the Sieur De La Motte, the companion of Father Hennipin. De La Salle in 1684 and '87 is found cruising in the Bay of Mexico. It is quite clear, that the efforts of the French were, as previously stated, chiefly made in the portions of North and South America, apart from the Isle of Newfoundland, which last-named was not, by them, at the first, con- sidered as an appanage of France. Secure footing in Canada was chiefly aimed at. In the work Book of Days it is stated : — ".It is little known that it was mainly by the advice of Benjamin Franklin that the English Government resolved to conquer Canada, and, for that purpose, sent out Wolfe's Expedition." THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. The Maritime Canal of the Isthmus of Suez, whether considered in its political or scientific character, must ever be regarded as one of the greatest triumphs of the Nineteenth Century, for it has largely accelerated the cause of civilisation, the march of commerce and of industry to enrich the world. ITS EARLY HISTORY. The achievement of Ferdinand de Lesseps was not the first attempt to unite the Mediterranean and Red Seas, for geologists are of opinion, that a water way had, at some remote period, passed through the Isthmus of Suez. The Egyptians of antiquity were celebrated for their great engineering works, and their favourite form of operations were Canals, the remains of which have been found, and are still to be traced, in different parts of Egypt. According to Champollion, a complete water-way from sea to sea was achieved by Sesostris about 1300 b.c. ; and Herodotus ascribes its construction to Nechos, son of Psammetichus, 600 b.c. ; whilst other ancient writers assign the honour to Darius, King of Persia. Its course ran from Suez to Tagaziz, a distance of ninety-two miles, and is described by Herodotus as wide enough to carry two vessels abreast ; while Strabo, who lived before the Christian Era, states, it was 150 feet wide and very deep, and that he saw it covered with vessels; Plutarch also refers to Cleopatra, after the Battle of Actium, passing through it with her vessels. At a subsequent period it became choked with sand, and was restored by Trajan, a.d. iio, but was again rendered useless from the same cause, until Amrou, the Arab General of the Khalif s 236 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. Omar, repaired it, and named it, " The Canal of the Commander of the Faithful ; " under which title it continued to be used for over a century, when an Arab chief, whose appellatives ran to the prodigious length of, Mohammed Ben-Ali-Ben-Abou-Thaleb, and he having revolted against the reigning Khalif, whose appellatives were still more ponderous, Abou-dja-far Abdoullah-Ben-Moham-Med-el- Mauson, caused it to be blocked up, a.d. 767. Napoleon Buonaparte, while in Egypt in 1798, conceived the great idea, after his temporary conquest of Egypt, of securing com- munications from Europe to Asia by the Isthmus of Suez, and thus be enabled to conquer India. He sent Le Pfere, and a Commission of Engineers, to decide on the best means of carrying out the scheme, but as their report declared that the waters of the Mediterranean were a considerable distance below the level of tlje waters of the Red Sea, and, that to construct such a water-way between the two continents would flood the whole country ; the project was aban- doned, until 1852, when its famous modern projector, Ferdinand de Lesseps, unearthed at Alexandria the researches of Le Pbre, and the Commission of Napoleon. THE SCHEME OF M. DE LESSEPS. The idea of piercing the Isthmus of Suez first presented itself to Ferdinand de Lesseps in the year 1831, when he was Consul for France at Tunis. At that date he visited Alexandria, and made the acquaintance of the French Consul, M. Mirault, who interested him in the subject, by placing before him Le Pfere's Report on the " Project of the Canal," which referred to the various attempts that had been made to solve the problem, from the days of Pharaoh to those of Napoleon Buonaparte. From this date, 1831, and for a period of 2 1 years, the subject claimed his constant thought and study, and in 1852 he drew up a Scheme for its construction, which he forwarded to Abbas Pasha, the Viceroy of Egypt, for his considera- tion, but it was not favourably received, for Abbas Pasha was a weak and dissolute Ruler, and for two years M. de Lesseps was obliged to abandon his project until a more favourable time. Eventually, in 1854, after the violent death of Abbas, Mohammed Said Pasha, son of Mehemet Ali, became Viceroy, and this change in the Government of Egypt was favourable to the designs of M. de THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 237 Lesseps, as he had known Said Pasha at the time when the latter lived under the paternal government of Mehemet Ali. Encouraged by the remembrance of his friendly relations with the new Viceroy, Said Pasha, he addressed him a letter of con- gratulation on his accession to the Viceroyalty, and the result was, an invitation was sent him to meet the Viceroy at Alexandria, where he arrived on the 7th November, 1854, and endeavoured to inspire him with the noble ambition which at one time was warmly supported by his father, Mehemet Ali. Said Pasha responded to this appeal, and replied in these words : — " I am satisfied ; and I accept your scheme. We shall arrange all the details during our journey to Cairo. But understand it is settled, and you may count upon me." The project being thus approved by the Viceroy, forthwith M. de Lesseps entered upon the preliminary investigations for its construc- tion, and he was greatly assisted at this early stage by several talented engineers, amongst whom we may mention Mougel Bey and Linant Bey, whose services Said Pasha placed at his disposal, and who cordially associated themselves with his new-born scheme. With them he proceeded to the Isthmus of Suez, and drew up an elabo- rate scheme, fixing the direction of the Canal, with the details for its execution and the probable cost. To insure success, he determined to form the "Compagnie Universelle," and to asso- ciate in the partnership, capitalists of all countries, and to interest in its success the whole world ; and thus, by anticipating political difficulties, to smpothe the way for their removal. ■ The most delicate question at the outset arose from the relations of the Pasha with his Suzerain, the Sultan of Turkey, as to the actual powers of the Pasha for granting concessions to M. de Lesseps, and to what extent the authorisation of the Sultan was necessary for the concessions granted. The Council of the Porte were consulted on this subject, which declared that the Hatti-Cheriff of 1 84 1 conferred on the Pasha the right to act on that occasion in accordance with his own views; and, accordingly, by a Firman dated the 30th November, 1854, Said Pasha sanctioned the formation of the " Compagnie Universelle '' for piercing the Isthmus of Suez by the Maritime Canal, accessible to the navigation of all nations ; and, by this Firman, a concession was granted to M. de Lesseps, having a duration of ninety-nine years, at the end of s* 238 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. which period, 1954, the Egyptian Government will enter upon the full possession of this great work. The following is the full text of the Act of Concession of the Viceroy of Egypt : — Acte de Concession du Vice-Roi (t£gypte pour la Construction et T Exploitation du Canal Maritime de Suez et D'ipendances entre la Mer MyiterranU et la Mer Rouge. — Caire, le 30 Novembre, 1854. Notre ami M. Ferdinand de Lesseps ayant appele notre attention sur les avantages qui rfisulteraient pour I'Egypte de la jonction de la Mer Mediterranee et de la Mer Rouge par une voie navigable pour les grands navires, et nous ayant fait connaitre la possibilite de constituer, a cat effet, une Compagnie formee de capitalistes de toutes les nations, nous avons accuelli les combinaisons qu'il nous a soumises, et lui avons donne, par ces presentes, pouvoir exclusif de constituer et de dinger une Compagnie Universelle pour le percement de I'Isthme de Suez et I'exploitation d'un Canal entre les deux mers, avec faculte .d'entreprendre ou de faire entreprendre tous travaux et constructions,' a la charge par la Compagnie de donner prealablement toute indemnite aux particuliers en cas d'expropriation pour cause d'utilite publique ; le tout dans les limites et avec les conditions et charges determinees dans les Articles qui suivent. Article i''. — M. Ferdinand de Lesseps constituera une Compagnie, dont nous lui confions la direction, sous le nom de Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez, pour le percement de I'Isthme de Suez, I'exploitation d'un passage propre a la grande navigation, la fondation ou I'appropriation de deux entrees suffisantes, I'une sur la Mediterranee, I'autre sur la Mer Rouge, et I'etablissement d'un ou de deux ports. Art. 2. — Le Dfrecteur de la Compagnie sera toujours nomme par le Gouverne- ment Egyptien, et choisi, autant que possible, parmi les actionnaires les plus interesses dans I'entreprise. Art. 3. — La duree de la Concession est de quatre-vingt-dix-neuf ans, a partir du jour de I'ouverture du Canal des deux mers. Art. 4. — Les travaux seront executes aux frais exclusifs de la Compagnie, a. laquelle tous les terrains necessaires n'appartenant pas i des particuliers seront concedes a titre gratuit. Les fortifications que le Gouvernement jugera a propos d'^tablir ne seront point a la charge de la Compagnie. Art. 5. — Le Gouvernement Egyptien recevra annuellement de la Compagnie 15 pour cent des bfe^fices nets resultant du bilan de la Societe, sans prejudice des interSts et dividendes revenant aux actions qu'il se reserve de prendre pour son compte lors de leur emission et sans aucune garantie de sa part dans I'ex^cution des travaux ni dans les operations de la Compagnie. Le reste des benefices nets sera rdparti ainsi qu'il suit : — 75 pour cent au profit de la Compagnie ; 10 pour cent au profit des merabres fondateurs. Art. 6. — Les tarifs des droits de passage du Canal de Suez, concertes entre la Compagnie et le Vice-Roi d'ilgypte et per9us par les agents de la Compagnie,- seront toujours ^gaux pour toutes les nations, aucun avantage particulier ne pouvant jamais Stre stipule au profit exclusif d'aucune d'elles. THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 239 Art. 7. — Dans le cas oil la Compagnie jugerait necessaire de rattacher par une voie navigable le Nil au passage direct de I'Isthme, et dans celui ou le Canal Maritime suivrait un trace indirect desservi par I'eau du Nil, le Gouvernement Egyptien abandonnerait a la Compagnie les terrains du domaine public aujourd'hui incultes qui seraient arroses et cultives h. ses frais ou par ses soins. La Compagnie jouira, sans impots, des dits terrains pendant dix ans, a partir du jour de I'ouverture du Canal ; durant les quatre-vingt-neuf ans qui resteront a s'ecouler jusqu'a I'expiration de la Concession, elle payera la dime au Gouverne- ment Egyptien ; aprfes quoi, elle ne pourra continuer a jouir des terrains ci-dessus mentionnes qu'autant qu'elle payera au dit Gouvernement un Impot egal a celui qui sera affecte aux terrains de meme nature. Art. 8. — Pour eviter toute difificulte au sujet des terrains qui seront aban- donnes k la Compagnie concessionnaire, un plan dresse par M. Linant Bey, notre Commissaire Ingenieur aupres de la Compagnie, indiquera les terrains con- cedes, tant pour la traversle, et les etabUssements du Canal Maritime et du Canal d'Alimentation derive du Nil, que pour les exploitations de culture, conforme- ment aux stipulations de 1' Article 7. II est, en outre, entendu que toute speculation est, des k present, interdite sur les terrains du domaine public a conceder, et que les terrains appartenant anterieurement a des particuliers, et que les proprietaires voudront plus tard faire arroser par les eaux du Canal d'Alimentation execute aux frais de la Compagnie, payeront une redevance de . . . . par feddan cultive (ou une redevance fixee amiablement entre le Gouvernement Egyptien et la Compagnie). Art. 9. — II est enfin accorde a la Compagnie concessionnaire la faculte d'extraire de mines et carrieres appartenant au domaine public, sans payer de droits, tous les materiaux necessaires aux travaux du Canal et aux constructions qui en dependront, de meme qu'elle jouira de la lib're entree de toutes les machines et materiaux qu'elle fera venir de I'etranger pour I'exploitation de sa Concession. Art. 10. — A I'expiration de la Concession, le Gouvernement Egyptian sera substitute a la Compagnie, jouira sans reserve de tous ses droits et entrera en pleine possession du Canal des deux mers et de tous ses etabUssements qui en dependront. Un arrangement amiable ou par arbitrage determinera I'indemnite a allouer a la Compagnie pour 1' abandon de son materiel et des objets mobiliers. Art. II. — Les Statuts de la Societe nous seront ulterieurement soumis par le Directeur de la Compagnie et devront ^tre revitus de notre approbation. Les modifications qui pourraient etre introduites plus tard devront prealablement recevoir notre sanction. Les dits Statuts mentionneront les noms des fondateurs dont nous nous reservons d'approuver la liste. Cette liste comprendra les personnes dont les travaux, les etudes, les soins ou les capitaux auront anterieure- ment contribue a I'execution de la grande entreprise du Canal de Suez. Art. 12. — Nous promettons enfin notre bon et loyal concours et celui de tous les fonctionnaires de I'Egypte pour faciliter I'execution et I'exploitation des presents pouvoirs. Cachet du Vice-Roi. Cain, le 30 Noxiembre, 1854. 240 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. The Viceroy, nevertheless, judged it prudent to insert in the Decree, a provision, reserving to himself the right to secure the express authorisation of the Porte, and on this being secured, the works were to commence forthwith. The promoters of the enterprise were charged by the Viceroy to go in. his name to Constantinople, to settle with the Sultan and his Ministers. They found the Imperial Government favourably disposed to give the mandate that they asked for ; but Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Ambassador for England at Constantinople, and whose influence was powerful with the Council of the Porte, secured a delay, alleging that he was obliged to wait for the instructions from London. At this period, considerable opposition was shown by influential circles in England, which was reflected by the adverse criticism of the English Press, a,nd the resistance of the British Government to the sanction of the Sultan. The Decree of the Sultan was conse- quently postponed, and the Envoys of the Viceroy, after an audience with the Sultan, returned to Cairo, bringing with them a letter of the Grand Vizier, in which the Turkish Prime Minister expressed his cordial sympathy for the success of the Maritime Canal, whose utility, he declared, was recognised by the Ottoman Government. In consequence of the delay in the issuing of the necessary authorisation by the Porte for the prosecution of the works of the Company, it was resolved to send a Scientific International Com- mission into Egypt, which should examine the plans and estimates, and prepare a prods verbal, which was indispensable to the financial organisation of the Company. This Report, dated 30th April, 1855, was submitted to the Viceroy, who approved generally of the scheme and of the ■ specifications j and on the sth January, 1856, he granted a second Act of Concession, authorising that the capital of the Com- pany should be fixed at 200,000,000 francs, distributed into 400,000 shares : he conceded to the Company the ownership of the land bordering both sides of the Maritime Canal, and of the Fresh-water Canal, which also had been deter- mined upon; and he engaged to furnish for the execution of the works, the ouvriers or fellahs necessary, who should be requisitioned by compulsory labour {corvies), after the system adopted in Egypt for all works of public utility. To induce the Viceroy to give a vigorous support to the new- THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 241 born scheme, he was guaranteed 15 per cent, upon the annual revenue of the Company, as by the XVIII. Article. ' ' Toutefois, en raison des concessions de terrains et autres avantages accordes a la Compagnie par les Articles qui precedent, nous reservons, au profit du Gouvernement Egyptien, un prelevement de 15 pour cent, sur les benefices nets de chacjue annee, arretes et r^partis par I'Assemblee Generale des Actionnaires." The concessionnaire, Ferdinand de Lesseps, thus strengthened by the support of the Viceroy ftf Egypt, and the adhesion of scientific men, whose inquiries and reports had been published, deter- mined to visit the different countries of Europe, personally to address himself to leading Statesmen, to impress upon them the pacific character of the enterprise ; and, also, to interest capitalists, men of commerce, and of industry in his great Scheme, and to point out to them the advantages to be secured by its realisation. During the Spring of 1857 he proceeded to the principal ports and industrial centres of England, Ireland, and Scotland, with most gratifying results, and having visited Egypt and Constantinople, he returned to France to organise definitely the Company, and, all being ready, on the sth November, 1858, the subscription for the capital of 200,000,000 francs was opened at Paris, and closed the 30th of the same month ; and it is interesting to notice the various nations who united in the subscription, and of the part belonging to each of them. Shares. France 207,111 Egypt 96,517 Austria 51,246 Russia England United States Spain Holland Tunis Sardinia 24,174 5,°8S S,ooo 4,046 2,615 1,714 1,353 398,861 Shares. Brought torward 398,861 Switzerland ... Belgium Tuscany Two Sicilies . . . Roman States Prussia Denmark Portugal Sweden 460 324 176 97 54 15 7 5 Total 400,000 France, where the subscription found a great support, was inscribed for more than one-half of the shares, divided between 242 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 23,300 persons; Egypt, represented by the Viceroy personally, came next. This practical manifestation of Europe and America in the fortunes of the Company excited the ill-will of the opponents to the Canal, and certain organs of the English press ironically pitied the subscribers, and even went so far as to declare the business a manifest robbery, whilst, in Parliament, speeches were delivered, notably, by Lord Palmerston, condemning the whole enterprise, under the cloak of an affected anxiety "for Turkey.* Nevertheless, to the credit of the English merchants and ship- owners, they emphatically protested by resolutions at. Public meet- ings against the opinions put forth by Lord Palmerston, and declared that the Maritime Canal of Egypt would be favourable to the com- merce and to the interests of England, a declaration which its sub- sequent history has amply justified. Confident, therefore, in the realisation of his work, the President of the Company, Ferdinand de Lesseps, assisted by a Council of Administration and of Works, concluded an agreement with a con- tractor, Mr. Harden, for the execution of the preparatory works and the furnishing of the material, and on the 2Sth April, 1859, surrounded by a staff of 150 workmen and employh, and of the Engineers, MM. Mongel Bey, De Montaut, Laroche, Larouse, Ferdinand de Lesseps gave the first blow with the pickaxe upon the beach of P^luse. The site of the future port, which had been chosen from the considerations that we have indicated, was selected, and the name of Port Said given to it, in virtue of the deep interest taken by the Khddive, Mohammed Said. From this date the operations at the Canal proceeded with •vigour, in face of the innumerable difficulties that had to be con- quered from the beginning, to establish their first settlements in the desert, into the details of which we need not enter. The service of the compulsory labour (corvee) was regularly made, as companies of corvhs arrived in sufficient numbers from the various provinces of Egypt ; for the first month, working upon the dockyard, superintended by inspectors, who directed the service, and organised the ambulances ; whilst from the warehouses were dis- tributed the food at its net cost, and in this way securing as much * Lord Palmerston's opposition was encouraged also by the adverse opinions of Robert Stephenson, C.E., the Member for Whitby, and a son of the eminent Engineer, George Stephenson^ THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 243 as possible the welfare of the labourers. Thousands of voluntary workmen, chiefly Arabs, recruited the staff of the Company's employ'es, and, by uniting themselves with the European workmen, the best results were obtained, so that by the month of April, 1862, the foundation-stone of the town of Timsah was laid upon the sides of the lake. By the i8th November, 1862, the entire length of the channel had been excavated from the level of the sea to the entrance of El-Guisr, thus permitting the waters of Lake Menzaleh to pour in for the first time upon the dry foundations of the Canal to Lake Timsah, and the waters were even carried much further towards Suez, overflowing upon the entire distance of the ground that the waters of the Canal had to pass through, whilst the Fresh-water Canal was likewise forced towards Suez. On the 1 8th January, 1863, the Khedive, Mohammed Said Pasha, suddenly died, and the same day, Ismail Pasha, the youngest son of Mehemet Ali^ was proclaimed at Cairo, Viceroy of Egypt. This event naturally awakened considerable anxiety, for although at this period the works of the Canal had been pushed on with activity, yet the actual situation of the Company, owing to the absence of the Firman of the Porte, was still precarious, and the leaders of the enterprise foresaw a crisis, which, at any time, might burst upon them. THE OPPOSITION OF TURKEY. On the 6th April, 1863, a Despatch was forwarded from Constan- tinople to the representative of the Sublime Porte at Paris, which appeared in all the Journals, declaring, that notwithstanding the abolition of the compulsory labour {corvk) in the whole Empire, in- cluding Egypt, the works of the Maritime Canal, had, by the means of this regime, been thus far prosecuted ; and, in the second place, that, by the Act of Concession, the Company would be able to claim on the two sides of the Canal important territory, comprising on the Eastern side, the frontier of Syria, and that this state of things was seriously opposed. Coijsequently, the Sublime Porte subordi- nated its consent and the issue of its Decree, until the solution of the three following questions: i. The Stipulation for the neutrality of the Canal, a. The Abolition of the forced labour. 3. The surrender by the Company of the clause relating to the property of the Fresh-water Canal, and also the concession of the territory which bordered the two Canals. 244 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. This unexpected Despatch caused an excitement, which showed itself by a heavy fall in the value of the shares of the Canal. The Viceroy of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, at this juncture, appointed Nubar Pasha, as Envoy Extraordinary, to proceed to Paris, and on his arrival he published an opinion of three eminent French lawyers upon the rights of the Company, to which the latter replied by a judicial action against Nubar Pasha. The attention of the French Government was at once invoked to interests so grave as those which were threatened, as it had been successfully invoked four years previously ; and their high intervention was again solicited in order to deliver the Company from so great a danger. On the ist March, 1864, the subscribers met in extraordinary Assembly, and unanimously approved of the action taken by the Viceroy of Egypt, to submit the difficulty to the Arbitration of the Emperor of the French, in the hope of securing the amicable adjustment of all the questions in dispute. THE ARBITRATION OF NAPOLEON III. The Emperor Napoleon III. promptly accepted the rdle of Arbi- trator, and no time was lost in proceeding to the Arbitration, for two days subsequently the Commission was duly constituted, under the presidency of M. Thouvenel, with whom were, MM. Mallet, Suin, Gonin, and Duvergier, and forthwith they entered on their searching inquiry. Their investigations continued four months, and on the 6th July, 1864, an Arbitral decision was given, signed by the Emperor, to the following effect : — That the concessions made by the late Khddive, Mohammed Said Pasha, in November, 1854, and January, 1856, were to be binding on both parties ; that, in consequence of the withdrawal of the com- pulsory labour, the cost of the works would be increased, and there- fore, the Viceroy should pay an indemnity of ;^i, 520,000, payable in fifteen annual instalments ; that, the company should cede to the Viceroy the Fresh-water Canals, reserving only the right of passage through them ; that, the Viceroy should pay ;i^4oo,ooo for the cost of the construction of the said Canals, and _;^24o,ooo as compensa- tion for the tolls which the Company thereby relinquished ; that the Company should retain only such lands along the line of the Mari- time Canal, as might be necessary for the care and maintenance of the said Canal ; that the Company should cede to the Viceroy their THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 245 title to all lands capable of cultivation, by means of irrigation from the Fresh-water Canals, and for which the Viceroy should pay ;^i, 200,000. , By this Arbitration of Napoleon III., the total of the indemnities payable by the Egyptian Government for the surrender by the Suez Canal Company, of the concessions granted them, under the Firmans of Mohammed Said, and Ismail Pasha, respectively, were as follows : — 1. Indemnity for the substitution of European employes and machinery, for the Egyptian and Arab ouvriers, 38,000,000 francs. 2. Indemnity for the retrocession of the land bordering on the Canal, 30,000,000 francs. 3. Indemnity for the rights surrendered upon the Fresh- water Canal, 6,000,000 francs. 4. Reimbursement of expenses for the works on the Fresh-water Canal, 10,000,000 francs. These indemnities made a total of 84,000,000 francs, equal to ;^3,36o,ooo. The Indemnity, No. i, of 38,000,000 francs, payable in twelve half-yearly instalments, the first payable ist November, 1864; the last, on the ist May, 1870. The Indemnities, Nos. 2 and 3, of 30,000,000 francs and of 6,000,000 francs, respectively, payable in ten instalments, the first payable ist November, 1870, and the last, 1st of November, 1879. The Reimbursement, No. 4, of the 10,000,000 francs, on the completion of the Works. The terms of the Arbitration were embodied in a Convention between the Viceroy and the Company, the terms of which were precisely the same as the terms of the Emperor Napoleon's Arbi- tration; and this Convention being acceptable to the Porte, the long-promised Firman of the Sultan, which, had been delayed for twelve years, was despatched to the Khddive, which recognised the "Compagnie Universelle " for the piercing of the Isthmus of Suez, and also approved of the agreements, amended under the aforesaid Arbitration, entered into by the Kh^divial Government of Egypt, with Ferdinand de Lesseps, for the construction of the Canal. The following is the text of the Firman of the Sultan : — " Monillustre Vizir, Ismail Pacha, Vice-Roi d &gypte, ayant rang de Grand Vizir, dlcori de FOsmaniS et du Medjidieh de premiire classe, en brillant : " La realisation du grand oeuvre destine a donner des nouvelles facility au commerce et a la navigation par le percement d'un canal entre la Mediterranee 246 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. et la Mer Rouge etant I'un des evenements les plus desirables de ce siecle de science et de progres, des conferences ont eu lieu depuis un certain temps avec la Compagnie qui demande a executer c travail, et elles viennent d'abouter d'une fa^on conforme, pour le present et pour I'avenir, aux droits sacres de 1» Porte comme a ceux du Gouvernement Egyptien. Le contrat dont ci-apres la teneur des articles en traduction, a ete dress^ et signe par le Gouvernement Egyptien con- jointement avce le representant de la Compagnie ; il a ete soumis k notre sanc- tion Imperiale, et apres I'avoir lu, nous lui avons donne notre acceptation. "Le present Firman, fimane de notre Divan Imperial, est rendu a cet effet, que nous donnons notre autorisation souveraine a I'execution du Canal par la dite Compagnie aux conditions stipulees dans ce contrat comme aussi au reglement des tous les accessoires selon ce contrat et les actes et conventions y inscrits et designes qui en font partie integrante. " Donne le 2 Zelhidje, 1282, 19 Mars, 1866." THE OPENING OF THE CANAL. This arrangement having been satisfactorily concluded, the posi- tion of the Company was unassailable, and they accordingly resumed their suspended labours, and the works were rapidly pushed forward, and in November, 1869, the last great cutting at Chalouf being completed, preparations were made on a scale worthy of the great event, for the inaugural ceremony of the opening. For Ferdinand de Lesseps, who had manfully struggled for many years, from 1854 to 1869, to carry through this great engineering enterprise, the opening ceremonial was a noble reward for all his efforts, a consummation that he might justly be proud of, for it was an enterprise as stupendous in its conception and execution, as it was destined to be beneficent in its far-reaching results. The construction of the Maritime Canal of Suez, from sea to sea, 92 miles in length, 100 yards in width, and 26 feet in depth, was no longer to be considered a problem, as it had now received a satisfactory solution. Ferdinand de Lesseps had achieved an immense triumph over obstacles that had, throughout the centuries of remote antiquity, baffled the Sovereigns of the dynasties of the Pharaohs and Ptolemies, and, herein, he had proved himself to be a "man of genius." On Tuesday, the i6th November, 1869, the eventful day so long looked forward to, the ceremony of inaugurating the opening, was performed in the presence of the representatives of several of the THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 247 European Powers, assembled on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea to take part in the auspicious proceedings. Port Said presented an animated appearance on this eventful day. On the Quai Eugenie, in front of the numerous villas over- looking the Mediterranean, whose waves have for ages ceaselessly rolled against the sandy ramparts of Pdluse, a carpeted platform was erected to a height of fifteen feet, covered with a canopy and decorated with the ensigns of all nations, and nearer the shore were two more platforms, tastefully decorated with flags; prominent amongst which were the banner of the Moslem, of the Crescent and Star, and that of the banner of the Cross, surmounted by the flags of Christendom. Assembled in the centre of the larger platform were the most dis- tinguished visitors, the Khedive, Ismail Pasha, attired in a military blue uniform, resplendent with gold lace, wearing the riband of green, and his sword, the hilt set with dazzling jewels ; the Emperor of Austria, in his snow-white uniform and scarlet pantaloons, wearing on his cocked hat the Imperial plume of green ; the Crown Prince of Prussia, in his military attire, a worthy scion of the House of Hohenzollern ; the Crown Prince of Holland, and Prince William of Hesse; and, of the gentler sex, Eugenie, the Empress of the French, dressed in lavender silk fringed with white, wearing a black feather on her hat, and, with her, the Princess of Holland. Behind this galaxy of royalty and beauty stood the celebrated African warrior, Abd-el-Kader, attired in his native costume; and, near him, the British Ambassador to the Porte, and Colonel Stanton, the British Minister to the Khedive, and other distinguished members of the Diplomatic Body. There were present also, Lord Houghton, Lord Carysfort, Lord Alfred Paget, Sir Stafford Northcote, Bart, M.P., George Elliot, M.P., Henry Edwardes, M.P., E. T. Gourley, M.P., W. H. Gregory, M.P., C. Lyttelton, M.P., the Mayor of Manchester, (Mr. Greaves), the Hon. Spencer Ponsonby, W. H. Russell, LL.D., Sir Samuel Parker, Sir John Hawkshaw, F.R.S., John Pender, J. S. Wright, and Thomas Lloyd of Birmingham, &c. ; also, several Naval and Military Officers in the British Service. The first to break silence amongst this brilliant assemblage was the venerable Sheik of the Moslem faith, who, stepping to the edge of the platform from which waved the Crescent of Mahomet, 248 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. unfolded a huge scroll, from which he read aloud in a voice barely heard above the roar of the distant billows rolling on the sandy beach. At this moment the illustrious personages advanced to the front, and, bare-headed, listened attentively to the prayer of the Patriarchal Moslem, as he invoked the blessing of the Almighty upon the great enterprise, and upon those whose skill and genius had brought it to a successful issue. A procession of the Clergy of Christian Churches, headed by the Archbishop of Alexandria, Monsignor Bailer, supported by his ecclesiastical brethren, and acolytes carrying in their hands lighted candles, slowly marched through the dense crowd of spectators and took up a position on the platform specially prepared for their reception. Monsignor Baiier then stepped forward, and, in a voice resonant and far-reach- ing, delivered a powerful oration, full of pathos and eloquence : — " He declared that History would record that day as the most memorable, not only of the Nineteenth century, but almost of the world. The work which had been said to be impossible had been accomplished. There was no longer an Old World and a New. "Turning to the East, he hailed the splendid radiant region, the mother of our race, the nurse of civilisation, and the cradle of our faith. Turning to the West, he apostrophised the Old Europe from which had come new life to man- kind. The material aspect of the Canal, important and interesting as it was, with a glorious future, must not be permitted to make us lose sight of the grand relations of the work to civilisation and to the happiness of mankind. " He rendered homage to the Ruler, who had by his liberal policy encouraged the enterprise, and Egypt would call him her regenerator, and History would inscribe his name on the noble roll of the benefactors of humanity. In the Land of the Pharaohs he had struck off the fetters of ancient prejudices, and he had seen in the country, which was famous for its ancient grandeur and for the evidences of its old glories, a work which would do far more for the happiness of the whole human family. " A very charming passage was devoted to the man to whom so much was due, whose genius, fortitude, and almost superhuman energy, contending against innumerable obstacles had carried him through years of difficulty and toil to such a glorious end, compared him to Christopher Columbus, and said that his name would henceforth be inscribed among the names of those who had, like the Genoese Navigator, conferred inestimable benefits on mankind ; and, in conclu- sion, he made a most feeling and tender allusion to those who had fallen, in the course of the work, victims in the campaign of civilisation, who had given their lives to the accomplishment of that for which ages to come would bless them. "Then, in a peroration full of eloquence and power, with face upturned to Heaven, he invoked the Blessing of the Most High." At the conclusion of this stirring harangue, the music sounded, THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 249 the cannon boomed, and the shouts of a vast multitude rent the air, while the distinguished visitors, headed by the Emperor of Austria, arm-in-arm with the Empress of the French, followed by the Khddive, Ismail Pasha, the Prince of Holland, Abd-el-Kader, and all the other notabilities, marched from the pavilions to the Harbour, and embarked on board of their respective bateaux de vapeur, in readiness to take a prorninent part in the morrow's proceedings. Punctually at 8.0 the following morning (Wednesday the 17th) the French steamer Aigle, having on board the Empress Eugenie and her escort, left Port Said, and steamed slowly into the Canal, quickly followed by the Austrian, Prussian, and Dutch Royal yachts. Their order was as follows : — The Aigle, French Imperial yacht ; The Greip, Austrian Imperial yacht ; A Prussian frigate, with the Crown Prince on board ; A Swedish yacht, with Prince Oscar of Sweden on board ; A Russian War Ship, with Grand Duke Michael on board ; A Russian Ad- miral ship ; A Dutch gunboat, with Prince and Princess of Holland ; The Psyche, English Despatch Boat, with the English Ambassador from Constantinople ; also Swedish, English, Austrian, and French yachts ; An Austrian Lloyd steamer ; Les Messageries Imperiales steamer ; and Russian, Italian, American, and Egyptian ships. In all, a fleet of forty vessels entered the Isthmus the first day of its opening, and passed through the Canal without experiencing any serious accident or delay. Slowly the Aigle glided through the Canal, watched eagerly, with lively emotions, by the crowds on the shores as she safely passed the winding turns of the Canal, and when at last her masts were seen by the vast concourse assembled around Lake Timsah, and she ploughed her way through the waters of the Lake, there arose a loud burst of cheering and the roar of cannon ; an outburst of enthusiasm, not only because she was the first steamer that had passed from Port Said to Ismailia, but, also, becaus(; the Aigle was carrying the Imperial Consort of Napoleon HI., and the Empress of the Nation that claimed Ferdinand de Lesseps as its citizen ; and the subject of an Emperor, who, with his people had, through all the fluctuations of the enterprise, been loyal and unwavering. This first section of the Canal was accomplished by the Aigle, and the flotilla of vessels that followed her, in a passage of twelve hours, and, by sunset, they were all securely moored in the waters of 2 so THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ, Lake Timsah, amid general rejoicing. Upon the following day, the 19th, the whole of the Imperial squadron of steamers, yachts, and vessels of various nations, proceeded on the next stage of their passage, and at night anchored at the Bitter Lakes, and, next morning, steamed onwards to Port Suez, which they reached at ii.o of the 20th: The Official Journal, at Paris, thus refers to this successful achievement : — ' ' The Canal has been traversed from end to end, without hindrance, and the Imperial yacht Aigle, after a splendid passage, now lies at her moorings in the Red Sea. Thus are realised the great hopes which were entertained of this great undertaking, the joining of the two Seas." THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE CANAL. Soon after the opening of the Canal, it was rumoured, that the Directors of the Company were embarrassed from want of funds, and serious misgivings arose, lest such might imperil the credit and the success of the enterprise. It is desirable, therefore, that we should here refer to the financial history of the Company. As previously stated, the Capital subscribed in November, 1858,10 the " Compagnie Universelle " was ^^8,000,000, equal to 200,000,000 francs, divisible into 400,000 shares of ;^2o, equal to 500 francs per share. This Capital of ;£'8,ooo,ooo carried the Company smoothly along up to 1867, to meet the necessary outlay in the construction of the Canal ; and, in that year, having exhausted the funds at their disposal, the Directors determined to increase the Capital account by an addition of ^^4,000,000, equal to 100,000,000 francs. This loan was practically a first mortgage on the revenue of the Company, guaranteed in Bonds of the deno- mination of ;^i2, equal to 300 francs per Bond, carrying interest at i2|per cent., and the Bonds were repayable at the expiration of a period of 50 years, at the price of redemption at ;^2o per Bond. The amount subscribed to this loan, notwithstanding that the interest and redemption were placed on the most favourable terms, amounted to less than one-half of the total amount asked for, viz., ;^i, 143,687. In this dilemma, the Directors appealed to the French Government to enable them to obtain the unsubscribed capital, and, it is not to be wondered at, considering the deep THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 25 1 interest that France had from the first taken in the enterprise, and her anxiety that its complete execution should not be delayed nor imperilled, that this appeal was not in vain, and that they determined to sanction the issue of Bonds reimbursable under a system, of what is called Lottery drawings. This Lottery loan, secured by what was undoubtedly an Imperial guarantee, was im- mediately launched, and the whole sum required of ;^2,856,3i3, was eagerly taken up by French contributors. In 1869, the financial state of the Company, judging from the Balance-sheet presented to the Shareholders, was still a cause of grave anxiety and embarrassment, for it showed that whilst ;^i2,28o,ooo had been received on Capital account, yet there had been incurred on Expenditure account the sum of ;^i8,i44,ooo, which showed a deficit on balance, of ;^5, 864,000. Against this deficit, there were certain uncalled up Balances due to the Company, by which the Directors endeavoured to show an equilibrium : firstly, the indemnity of ;^3,36o,ooo, payable by the Khddive, Ismail Pasha, in accordance with the decision given by Napoleon III. under the Arbitration decision of 1864; secondly, a sum of ;^75o,ooo, which had been placed in reserve and invested in the funds ; and thirdly, a large number of calculated receipts from various sources ; and, by adding these, supplemental funds payable, or to be paid within a specified period, they would amount in all to ;^5, 860,000, equivalent to the actual deficit. But this squaring of the accounts, and securing what was termed a financial equi- librium, appeared very well on paper, but it gave no practical relief to the Company, because the Khddive was not in a position, however much he may have been disposed, to advance the whole amount of the award under the Arbitration of 1864, before its maturity ; and so, therefore, in order to avert a disaster, an arrange- ment was entered into with Ismail Pasha for the transfer of the coupons of his Bonds and Shares, to the Company. At the general meeting of the shareholders held in July, 187 1, Ferdinand de Lesseps stated, that the balance on Profit and Loss account was still large, amounting to ,^^7 5 0,000, and it was, there- fore, resolved to have recourse to a loan of a nominal amount of ;£'i, 000,000, in 200,000 Bonds of ;£^ each, and to raise this sum in the same way and on the same conditions as the last loan of 1867, in order that it might have a similar attraction for the investor. T 252 THE MARITIME CAKfAL OF SUEZ. Under this arrangement the Bonds were fixed at ;^s per Bond, bearing interest at 8 per cent., to be repaid over a period of thirty years, by annual Lottery drawings, and to be issued at the price of jQi\. per Bond, thus therefore at a discount of 20 per cent. In June, 1874, the Company was, for the third time since the opening of the Canal, placed in financial difficulties, arising from the non-payment of the half-yearly coupons during 187 1, 1872, 1873, and 1874; and to meet the complaints of the dissatisfied share- holders, a financial operation was executed, by which the total amount payable for the seven half years' interest due to the shareholders of ;^i, 400,000 was capitalised. To meet this sum, script, corresponding to the number of shares, was issued to the shareholders in lieu of their unpaid coupons, viz., 400,000 of script, repayable in forty years, at the price of issue of 85 francs, equal to, say £z 7s- 6d. ENGLAND BUYS THE KHEDIVE'S SHARES. So far back as 1870, Ismail Pasha had expressed a wish to dispose of his shares in the Canal, as he appears to have conversed with the Consul-General of England on the subject, and to have informed him that he was in favour of the' formation of a new Company under English management and control, as the only way, not only to place its finances on a sound basis, but also to develop the general navigation of the Canal. Her Majesty's Consul-General communicated this conversation to Lord Granville, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the proposal meeting with his approval, he instructed Colonel Stanton to collect all the information in regard to the financial position of the Company, and this investigation showed that the financial position of the Company was far from satisfactory. Considerable opposition was shown by Ferdinand de Lesseps to this proposal, because he was naturally adverse to the manage- ment and control of the Canal passing from France to England ; yet, as an alternative scheme, he suggested to the Khddive, that the Canal should be made International, that it should be purchased by the Maritime Powers of Europe, and this proposition was supported by M. Thiers, on behalf of the French Government. The Khedive was not in favour of this arrangement, and he was strengthened in THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 253 his opposition by the firm refusal of his Suzerain the Porte, as shown by a Despatch sent by Server Pasha, addressed to Musurus Pasha, Turkish Ambassador in London, for communication to the British Government, in which the following passage occurs ; — " The Sublime Porte could not admit, even in principle, the sale of the Canal, or the creation of an International Administration on its own territory. " The Sublime Porte will never bring itself to agree to such a modification.'' This Despatch of the Porte discouraged, for a time, at least, any further negotiations, if they can be called negotiations, as they appear to have been strictly confined to pourparlers, having this double object in view — help to the Khddive and the Suez Canal Company from the financial distress which threatened them. The critical position of affairs could not be concealed from the public eye, and during the years of 1873 and 1874 various rumours were afloat, and in influential quarters it was stated that the French ambassador in London, Le Due de la Rochefaucauld, had discussed the question with the Foreign Minister, the Earl of Derby, that the latter had expressed an opinion in favour of the Maritime Powers acquiring the possession of the Canal ; but still nothing definite was declared, and the negotiations dragged along, d la Porte, at a weary pace. Suddenly, however, as it were, " a bolt from the blue," on the 5th November, 1875, the British Government were startled by a report from an authoritative source, that there was a movement in France, represented by a strong body of French capitalists, to acquire from the Khddive his shares and interest in the Canal, on such liberal terms, as would place his financial affairs on a firm basis. A telegraphic Despatch was immediately sent by the Earl of Derby, the Foreign Minister, to Major-General Stanton as follows ; — " Her Majesty's Governnient have received information that a combination of French capitalists are offering to buy from the Khedive his interest in the Suez Canal, and that His Highness's difficulties are such that it is thought possible he may consent. " I have, therefore, to instruct you to ascertain whether there is any truth in this report. "Derby." The report proved to be well-founded, as on tTie i8th November, Major-General Stanton informed the British Foreign Minister, by tele- graph, that Nubar Pasha admitted the Khedive was in urgent need of ;!r3,ooo,ooo to ;^4,ooo,ooo, if possible, by the 30th November, and 254 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. that the French combination formed for the purpose of raising this large sum, consisted of the Socidte Gdn^rale and the Anglo- Egyptian Bank ; and, that, if the Khedive's proposal was accepted it was proposed to issue Treasury Bonds for the loan, secured on the Canal shares held by the Khedive. Upon further telegraphic instructions from the Foreign Minister, the English Consul-General at Cairo proceeded to the Palace of the Khddive, to convey to him the views of the British Government, which considered that it was of great importance to England that the Viceroy's interest in the Suez Canal should not' fall into the hands of a Foreign Power; and, that "Her Majesty's, Government were disposed to purchase the Khddive's shares, provided satisfactory terms could be arranged." In reply to this communication, the Khedive expressed his acknowledgments, that he had every reason to look upon England as the sincere friend of the Egyptian Govern- ment, and that he would prefer seeing the interests of Egypt in the Suez Canal transferred to England, rather than to any other country. In the meantime, the French Government had evidently got an inkling of the determination of England to secure possession of the Khedive's shares, so they, therefore, instructed the French Chargi d' Affaires in London, M. Gavard, to proceed to the Foreign Office, and inform Lord Derby of the intention of the Khedive to dispose of his shares to a French Syndicate, and to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government would have any objection to such a transac- tion. The surprise and chagrin of the French Government can be better conceived than described, by the bold and straightforward declarations of Lord Derby ; as his Lordship assured the French Minister, " that the interests of England in the maintenance and proper management of the Canal, forming as it did a portion of the highway between England and her Indian possessions, were much greater than that of any other European nation ;" and, therefore, "the Khedive, in parting with the shares which he now possessed in the Suez Canal Company," to a French combination, would, in his Lordship's opinion, "surrender an important means of in- fluencing the measures taken by the Company and its staff, and as such, England could not look upon such a transaction with in- difference." Three days after this conference at the Foreign Office, between THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 255 Lord Derby and the Chargi d' Affaires, M. Gavard, the Khedive informed the English Consul-General at Cairo, Major-General Stanton, that he had fully determined to give Her Majesty's Govern- ment the first refusal of his interest in the Suez Canal, amounting to 177,642 shares, which he fixed at the sum of 100,000,000 francs. The British Consul-General lost no time in advising Lord Derby of this definite proposal, and on the 25th, the following Despatch, was sent, on behalf of the British Government, to Major-General Stanton : — "Foreign Office, " November 2<„ 1875. "Sir, "I have received your telegram of the 23rd inst., stating that the Viceroy of Egypt is willing to dispose of his shares to Her Majesty's Government in the Suez Canal for 100,000,000 francs ; and I have to inform you that Her Majesty s Government are ready to purchase these shares, 177,642* in number, for the above-mentioned sum [i.e., ;^4,ooo,ooo), and they will be prepared to recom- mend Parliament to sanction the contract. "In the meantime, Messrs. N. de Rothschild & Sons, will be the agents of Her Majesty's Government in London to carry out the transaction. They will be prepared to hold ;^l,ooo,ooo on the ist December at the disposal of the Egyptian Government, upon the shares being handed to you on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. " The remaining ;^3,ooo,ooo will be provided in December and January, as may be arranged between the Egyptian Government and Messrs. Rothschild and Sons. " Her Majesty's Government assume that the 5 per cent, on the sum paid, which is to be paid to Her Majesty's Government, as pointed out in your tele- gram of to-day, until the coupons are liberated, will be charged on the revenuss of Egypt. „^ „ "Derby." ' These terms were accepted by the Khddive and his Ministers, and on the 25th November an agreement was drawn up, signed by the Khedive and the English Consul-General, embodying the terms of the sale and purchase, and, on the same day Rothschild and Sons forwarded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, the terms and conditions of the advance to be made by them of the ;^4,ooo,ooo ; ;^i, 000,000 to be at the disposal of the Egyptian Government on the ist December, and the remaining _;^3,ooo,ooo during the months of December and January, for which they were to charge Her Majesty's Government a commission * This number was subsequently converted to 176,602, the difference in number of 1,040, having been sold in Paris two years previously. 2s6 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ, of 2^ per cent, upon the ^^4,000,000, and 5 per cent, interest per annum, until the date of repayment. The transaction with Rothschild and Sons, stood as follows : — No of Shares. £ s. d. 176,602 Representing an amount of Commission at 2^^ per cent. to N. R. and Sons Other Expenses ... Total ... 3>976,582 99,414 625 2 II 14 6 I 10 4,076,622 8 5 To meet this loan of Rothschild's, arrangements were made with the Commissioners of the National Debt to pay into the Treasury an annual sum not exceeding _;^8oo,ooo, for payment of interest and reduction of principal to Rothschild and Sons, guaranteed by Exchequer Bonds at 3J per cent., redeemable in a probable period of thirty-five years. On the other hand, the Khedive undertook- to pay out of the revenue of the Egyptian Government to Her Majesty's Government, a sum of ;^2oo,ooo, being at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum on the whole amount of the purchase-money of 176,602 shares, in half- yearly instalments, until the coupons of the said shares shall be liberated, which it is expected will be in the month of July, 1894. This arrangement with the Khedive- was necessary, in conse- quence of his having some years previously transferred to the Suez Canal Company the whole of the coupons of his 1 76,602 shares for a period of twenty-five years, and, consequently, the holders of these coupons during this period receive the dividends on these shares. The purchase having been completed, and the documents signed. It now only remained for the delivery of the shares, which was done on the 27th November, when seven large cases were handed over to the charge of the Consul-General, and duly deposited in the British Consulate at Cairo, pending verification, and on the 17th December they were despatched to England, vid, Alexandria, per Steam-ship Malabar ; and, on arrival in London, on the 3rd January, they were handed over to the Bank of England, to the orders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Baron de Rothschild, THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 257 The first influential personage to make a public declaration on this transaction, was Ferdinand de Lesseps, who, in addressing the Shareholders of the Canal on the subject, observed : — " The English nation now accepts that share in the Canal Company which had been loyally reserved to her from the onset ; and if this action is to have any effect, that effect, in my opinion, can only be the abandonment by the British Government of the long-standing attitude of hostility towards the interests of the original Shareholders of the Maritime Canal, whose perseverance has been at once so active and so well directed. " I, therefore, look upon the clos6 community of interests about to be established between French and English capital, for the purely industrial and necessarily peaceftil working of the United Maritime Canal, as a most fortunate occurrence." On behalf of the German Government, Prince Bismarck conveyed to Her Majesty's Government his high appreciation of the policy adopted, for the transaction met with his sincere approval, as a further and important guarantee for the maintenance of peace in Europe. Equally friendly sentiments were expressed by the Governments of Italy, and Austria-Hungary, in regard to the wisdom of the step , that had been taken, and as highly advantageous to the commercial interests of all nations ; and, even the Porte, being unable to resist the general chorus of approval, contented itself with a formal inquiry, both at London and Cairo, declaring to Europe at large that it had received no Official information respecting the transaction, and that, therefore, she would reserve its judgment until Ofificially informed through the usual diplomatic channels. Fortunately for the Government of Mr. Disraeli, and for the in- terests of all parties concerned in this great transaction. Parliament was prorogued ; for, had it been otherwise, Ministers would un- doubtedly have been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism, and, probably, opposition, which may have delayed, and, possibly rejected, the scheme for the acquisition of the interests of the Government of Egypt in the Suez Canal. On the other hand, no charge cojild be made against the British Cabinet of concealment of their intentions, much less of attempting a policy of surprise during the Recess, and thus avoiding the action of Parliament, until it was too late to reverse their decision ; for, as we have previously explained, the step taken by the Khedive, under the advice of his Ministers, was so sudden, and the necessity for promptitude so urgent, arising from his financial embarrassments, that neither time 2S8 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. nor opportunity was allowed to the British Government to convoke Parliament, or to await its Re-assembling, for the purpose of securing, in the first place, its approval. If Parliament, however, had reason to complain of undue precipi- tation, or of the action of the Executive without its authority, the voice of the Nation was not stifled, nor its powerful organ, the Press, kept in the dark, of the policy pursued, and of the paramount reasons for its immediate adoption ; and, herein, it may be said, truly, that Her Majesty's Government took the Nation into its con- fidence, and kept it fully informed of the Negotiations, and, thereby, enabled them to be guided and strengthened by the expression of its opinion, so universally given by the Press of all shades of political thought and feeling. The prevailing sentiment of the country, as gathered from public utterances of eminent men and the leading articles of the Press, who vigorously discussed the transaction, was, on the whole, favourable to the action of Ministers. That it was spirited, could not be disputed; that it was an astute stroke of diplomacy and of statesmanship, for it proved that Her Majesty's Government were alive to the interests of England in its far-off Indian possessions, and that they were ready to protect them whenever menaced, or imperilled. Lord Derby, upon whom had fallen, as Foreign Minister of the Crown, the responsible duty of carrying through the delicate nego- tiations with the Khedive and his Ministers, frankly acknowledged to the Marquis d'Harcourt, the French Ambassador, that the policy of England was strictly defensio, non provocatio ; and, moreover, France having so large an interest in the Canal, it was natural, nay, imperative, that England, whose mercantile and maritime interest was larger than all the nations of the world combined, should also have some share in the management of the Canal, proportionate to Her wealth and power. His Lordship, on a subsequent occasion, addressing a meeting at Edinburgh, observed : — " There was no deep-laid scheme in tlie matter. We have stated what we want, and why we want it, and Europe is accustomed to believe what we say." When Parliament met in February, 1876, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Northcote, submitted the whole proceedings to the approbation of the House; and, on February 2 ist, an important debate took place, which was taken part in by Mr. Gladstone and THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 259 Mr. Lowe, and the result was, after an able defence by Mr. Disraeli, that the Resolution by the Government was agreed to, without a division ; Nemine contradicente. INTERVENTION OF ENGLAND IN EGYPT IN 1882. The next important event, affecting the Suez Canal, arose in 1882, when England, under the Government of Mr. Gladstone, unfortunately broke through, what had become a traditional policy of Non-intervention, and for various reasons, of a commercial, financial, and political character, undertook the suppression 01 Rebellion in Egypt, which led to her armed intervention, and an eventual occupation of the country. The Government of England expected, but not without good grounds, that France would have been her Ally in this policy of armed intervention, in Egypt, in accordance with Treaty engage- ments, and, from considerations of mutual interest, but, at the last moment, this alliance and assistance was refused, and England was compelled to undertake single-handed, the pacification of Egypt, for the purpose, pre-eminently, as it was declared, of maintaining her communications with the East, unimpaired. The intervention of England, therefore, in Egypt, was mainly, if not entirely, influenced by the fact that the Suez Canal pierced Egyptian territory, and, but for this, England would not have been compelled, we will go further, and say, would not have felt it her duty, to interfere in the internal affairs of Egypt. If doubt exists in any mind upon this point, surely the emphatic declaration of Mr. Gladstone, made at the Mansion House, August 9th, 1883, will remove it : — "Egypt," said the Prime Minister, " having become the great gate between the Western and Eastern Hemispheres, it is essential, for the industry and enter- prise of mankind, that the gate should be open." The importance to England of a free passage to the East cannot be questioned, and the Suez Canal must ever be considered the high road of a steadily increasing commerce, embracing not only the luxuries, but the necessities of every-day life. 26o THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. In the East, England finds the largest market for her manu- factures, and, from the East, (for the Colonies are as much interested as the Mother Country in this commerce, which it is essential should be rapid and economical), flows a steady stream of the products and industries of India, China, and Australasia. The Canal is not alone valuable to our Merchants and Manufac- turers, but it has especial advantages, in other directions, which cannot be overlooked. England rules India, and possesses a great Colonial Empire, so she must have direct communication between the centre and Capital of her Government, and the scattered members of that Empire. It was felt, therefore, that in defending Egypt from foes who threatened her ruin, England was defending the Suez Canal, and herein must be found the reason for the popular cry in 1882, for military operations in Egypt, wherein the criticisms of party, and of the small section, to whom all armed intervention is odious, were alike silenced. It was natural, therefore, that France was keenly alive to all that related to the security, and prosperity of the Suez Canal. Its illus- trious constructor, Ferdinand de Lesseps, is justly called, one of the glories of France, and she is proud to count him as one of her foremost sons ; and this admiration is enhanced by the fact, that his great genius, was pre-eminently displayed in Egypt ; the country that has always inspired the French mind with traditional pride ; because France has there played an important historical part, and this tradition, it is impossible to efface from the mind of the French people, or to weaken the conviction, that there is a national dignity to be upheld, in all that relates to the great work with which . the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps is indissolubly bound. Moreover, there are those in France, and they are an illustrious minority, who saw, and who still see, in the grand scheme of piercing the Isthmus of Suez, the noble idea of Peace, another link added to the beneficent chain which bind peoples together, in order to make them friends and allies. A grand idea of Peace ! It has been said that France made War for an idea ; but, it is equally true, that France made Peace for an idea. Peace by the Suez Canal, for by this water in the midst THE MARITIME CANAL 01" SUEZ. 26 1 of two continents, this inner sea of the ancient civilisation, she has converted into a channel which reached out to, and, with a new arm, touched the Indian Ocean. That this idea of Peace, this grand scheme of civilisation, which was to bring the nations together, to weave them into one, should be changed into an idea of War, — it was impossible ! For it would have driven back into barbarism the civilisation of Europe. On the other hand, it must be admitted, that there was no desire on the part of the Government of England to enlarge Empire, by the annexation of Egypt, for they were committed to a policy of Non-annexation, and they disclaimed, over and over again, all idea of conquest, much less of injuring the interests of the Suez Canal Company, or of closing the Canal to the ships of other Nations. Whatever, therefore, may have been the blunders committed by England in her Egyptian policy, (and they have been very many), France, on the other hand, committed a greater blunder, when she suddenly withdrew, in 1882, from the English alliance. But great as have been the errors on both sides, this fact remains established as firmly as ever, that the Anglo-French Alliance in the Mediterranean, as elsewhere, is the direct pledge of the World's peace, and, in that alliance, is the best guarantee for the prosperity of the two countries. The idea of an Egypt developing all its national resources through the alliance and protection of England and France, is a political conception of the highest rank, which would inevitably have produced a most beneficial effect upon the body politic of Europe. In 1877, the two nations endeavoured to give effect to this idea, and the policy, which was described as the Dual Control in Egypt, (whatever opinions we .may entertain upon it), was, nevertheless, a phase of the Anglo-French Alliance, and it was unfortunate that the two Nations were not able to march abreast in the same direction during the crisis of Arabi's revolution, for common action on the part of France and England in that crisis, would have probably led to a more satisfactory result, than that which has been produced by the isolated action of England. . If, therefore, the policy of England, by an isolated intervention in Egypt, was a blunder, under the pretence of being European, instead of being Anglo-French, the policy of France, by irresolution at the 262 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUE?. onset, and refusal at the last moment, was a greater blunder, for she withdrew at the critical moment, when she ought to have acted with England. There was but one way of repairing the error which the two countries committed in 1882, by their policy in Egypt, and, it was on the soil of the Isthmus of Suez that a way was found, by the settlement of the question of the Suez Canal, upon the basis of a harmonious policy. As France desired only, that her great name, and moral influence should serve the cause of civilisation in Egypt, without injuring England^ then she had a right to be treated with the consideration due to an Ally, and as this is realised^ England in return will surely find in France a support, which, if it ever should be needed, will be of great value in whatever quarter of Europe, or the World, the interests of England are threatened. By respecting the interests of France in the Suez Canal, by showing that England had in view the united interests of Europe, and by not pressing a policy of selfishness in all that concerned that international highway, the creation of a Frenchman, the true alliance of the two nations was achieved, and thus this grand highway of civilisation can now be traversed with equal liberty, and equal security, by all the Nations of the world. A great Frenchman, M. Thiers, said that interests are ferocious ; and another great statesman, an Englishman, has said, that public opinion was sometimes like a wild beast, which the Government should keep an eye upon, in order to escape being devoured. That this great work was not accomplished without difficulty, the history of the negotiations abundantly evidences. There were two influential voices at the Council of the Suez Canal Company, first, that of M. de Lesseps, a French voice, and which could not be stifled without wounding the country which gave him birth, and there was also the voice of England, because she was, and is, the most important of Ferdinand de Lesseps' partners in the great enterprise of the Canal, and, therefore, it was right that the legitimate influence of England should receive due con- sideration. But if England was, and is, the most important of the partners, she was, and is, also the most important of the clients, as she makes use of the Canal, in a much greater proportion, than all the rest of THE MARITIME' CANAL OF SUEZ. 263 the maritime Nations together, and the following figures attest this great fact : — The Tonnage and Receipts for Vessels Passing Through THE Suez Canal for the Year 1885. > i — .2 u 6 1 a 1 Oh Is Kg '1 2* ^■0 O.C ^r*' ■^ >s ■S" ■5 e-s ".S o""* m Oi H n o\ m O^ eS 2>734 890 3.624 6,854,815 2,i30j596 8.985,411 46,707,439 1 15,500,000 62,207,439 Showing, that to Great Britain belongs three-fourths of the Tonnage, and three-fourths of the Receipts. In addition to the commercial, there was the political aspect of the question. If England holds in the world the dominant position which legitimately belongs to her, if she is respected and 'feared, if she is dreaded and honoured, if she has allies willing to advance with her in the path of civihsation, and to give her their support without fear and without jealousy, is it not because England, freely governed by a conscientious public opinion, knows how to place right above might, and, "To be just, and fear not " ? What, therefore, we should all desire to secure is a common accord of the separate views of France and England, not only in regard to the affairs of Egypt, but for the pacific arrangement of all questions concerning the Suez Canal. To reconcile conflicting rights, to conciliate French susceptibilities, to be generous to France while just to England, it is only fair to say that, from first to last, whatever Government has been in power, these grand objects have been the aims and intentions of English statesmanship. A memorable instance of this firm determination of England to safeguard the interests alike of France, and of the Suez Canal, is to be found, in the decisive action of Lord Derby in 1877, at the onset of the Russo-Turkish War. It was in May of that year that M. de Lesseps hurried expressly to London, to confer with the British Foreign Minister on the important question of the right of passage of the ships of the belligerent Nations of Russia and Turkey through the Suez Canal, and, also, in the prospective danger of the violation, ipso facto, of its neutrality. He submitted a project for the 264 THE MARITIME C'ANAL OF SUEZ. neutralisation of the Canal, by the appointment of an International Commission. It was in consequence of this communication that Lord Derby addressed his important Despatch to the Ambassador at Paris, Lord Lyons, wherein, after referring to the delicate and difficult question of the Neutralisation of the Canal, and of the difficulties of a political character, which prevented Her Majesty's Government recommending this project for the acceptance of Turkey, he made this emphatic declaration : — " That Her Majesty's Government, sensible of the importance to Great Britain and the other Neutral Powers of preventing the Canal being injured or blocked up by either of the belligerents, were resolved that any attempt to blockade, or otherwise interfere with the Canal or its approaches, would be regarded as a menace to India, and as a grave injury to the commerce of the world." Lord Derby's declaration was sharp, short and decisive, and does hirn great credit, for his Lordship realised, what is sometimes forgotten, that England has a greater stake in the Suez Canal than all the other Nations put together, and that the Power which holds India, and the Empire of Australasia, was bound to safeguard her communications, and her possessions. The strongest proof of the wisdom of this bold declaration of Her Majesty's Government, was the prompt assurance of the Russian Ambassador, Count SchouvaloiF, that Russia, not wishing to multiply her risks tenfold, would not, and did not, intend to inter- fere with the freedom of the navigation of the Suez Canal. A few such prompt declarations of this character on the part of Her Majesty's Government, at critical periods of Foreign Affairs, would have spared in the past, and, in the future, will spare Great Britain many unforeseen compUcations, especially with Russia. NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SUEZ CANAL COMPANY. We will now consider the more direct causes of this international difficulty. In 1883, a widespread dissatisfaction showed itself, from those interested in the Eastern trade, against the management of the Suez Canal, based mainly upon the overcharges, delays, and neglect of sanitary arrangements, and, on loth May, 1883, an indignation Meeting was held in the Cannon-street Hotel, to consider the construction of an alternative Maritime Canal, across the Isthmus THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 265 of Suez. This Meeting, representing upwards of three million tons of shipping, advocated the construction of a parallel, and conterminous Canal, in preference to the widening of the existing Canal, and the reduction of the tolls. Two alternative schemes were put forward,, one by Mr. Fowler, which proposed to construct a waterway of 240 miles through Egypt, and thus bring the Desert within reach of the means of irrigation; and, the other, by Sir George Elliot, to start from Alexandria, and running parallel to the present Canal to Suez, of 150 miles in length. At the annual meeting of the Suez Canal shareholders, held June 4th, M. Ferdinand de Lesseps declared, that improvements were being carried out which would sufifice for a traffic of io millions of tonnage, and, that to secure this, it would be necessary to consider the construction of a second Maritime Canal ; and, on the following day, the Chairman of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Coilipany declared, that these improvements were absolutely necessary. On July 6th, M. de Lesseps, and his son arrived in London, and the Government of Mr. Gladstone, for the first time, attempted a solution, by entering, on the one hand, upon negotia- tions with Ferdinand de Lesseps, as the President of the Suez Canal Company, and, on the other hand, with the Chambers of Commerce in England, and the latter were invited by the Government, to formulate a definite plan, which would be considered ; but while the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce were taking pre- limininary steps to obtain the necessary information, the country was startled by the unexpected announcement, that the Government, from whom no immediate action was expected, had concluded a provisional arrangement with M. de Lesseps, the terms of which would be submitted to Parliament for confirmation. When the result of these negotiations were submitted to Parlia- ment, it is not surprising, that they were received with astonishment by Liberals, and Conservatives alike, and hardly a man could be found, to recommend the adoption of the Ministerial propositions, which amounted to this : that England had occupied Egypt, in order to obtain the power of making a second Maritime Canal, under French liianagement, and, for providing the _;^8,ooo,ooo necessary for its construction, at 3^ per cent., which was a far lower rate of 266 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. interest than the Company could have obtained elsewhere ; further, that two concessions should be granted to Ferdinand de Lesseps, one, for the construction of the second Maritime Canal, and also for the construction of a Fresh-water Canal from Ismailia to Port Said; and, lastly, the original concession of the Suez Canal of ninety-nine years, as"expressly provided in the Convention of 1866, was to be prolonged for a period, it was believed, of twenty-five years, on the basis of the agreement, that the term of ninety-nine years commenced, de novo, on the completion of the second Maritime Canal. These proposals, practically made Ferdinand de Lesseps master of the position, for, with an honest desire to give him full credit for what he had done, and for what he had to offer, they allowed him to ignore the fact that England also had something to proffer, namely, the far wider, and more important claim of a free passage to the East for all ships, at all times, on the payment of a fair toll. Moreover, if the Convention had been accepted, it would have for ever stood in the way of conferring on the Canal, that which the Statutes of the original Convention contemplated, an international, as distinguished from a national character, a universal, as dis- tinguished from a private and personal interest ; and, under these circumstances, it is not to be wondered at, that the terms of the agreement were rejected. The Provisional Agreement had been submitted to, and approved by, the Board of Directors of the Suez Canal Company, but else- where it met with opposition from the General Shipowners' Society, who declared their preference for an independent Canal, and also by the London Chamber of Commerce, who considered it was inadequate and unsatisfactory, and, further, Lloyd's condemned it in far stronger language. In the House of Commons, Sir Stafford Northcote gave notice to refuse sanction to the Scheme, and its general unpopularity, and risk of defeat, compelled Her Majesty's Government to abandon it, and accordingly, on the 23rd July, Lord Granville in the House of Lords, and Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, announced that the Cabinet did not intend to proceed further with the Con- vention, and that the proposals would be unconditionally withdrawn. The rejection of this Convention with Ferdinand de Lesseps, and the Directors of the Suez Canal Company, was not only an unhappy THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 267 incident of, but it was also a heavy blow, to the Administration of Mr. Gladstone. It constituted one of those chapters of accidents which marked the Government's policy in Egypt, and it not only irritated Ferdinand de Lesseps and his powerful Corporation, but it strained still ' further England's relations with France, dis- turbed enough already, owing to the latter's isolated position in connection with Egyptian affairs. THE PROPOSED NEUTRALISATION OF THE CANAL. To atone for this check to the Foreign Policy of England, and to appease, if possible, the resentment of France, the English Govern- ment resolved to make another attempt to secure the satisfactory solution of the difficulty, and, accordingly, on the 3rd January, 1883, Lord Granville sent a Despatch to the Ambassadors of England at St. Petersburg, Berlin, Vienna, Paris, and Rome, for presentation to their accredited Governments, wherein he pro- posed to leave the Canal free for ships of war, including those of belligerents, at all times, with certain important limitations to prevent the Canal being made either a shelter for belligerents, or a base for their military operations. In order to enable the reader to judge of this important diplomatic step, we will give the full text of this Despatch of Lord Granville : — " One result of recent occurrences has been to call special attention to tlie Suez Canal : firstly, on account of the danger with which it was threatened during the brief success of the insurrection ; secondly, in consequence of its occuca- tion by the British forces in the name of the Khedive, and their use of it as abase of the operations carried on in His Highness's behalf, and in support of his authority ; and thirdly, because of the attitude assumed by the Directors and officers of the Canal Company at a critical period of the campaign. " As regards the first two of these points. Her Majesty's Government believe that the free and imimpeded navigation of the Canal, at all times, and its freedom from obstruction or damage by acts of war, are matters of importance to all nations. It has been generally admitted that the measures taken by them for protecting the navigation and the use of the Canal on behalf of the territorial ruler, for the purpose of restoring his authority, were in no way infringements of this general principle. But to put upon a clearer footing the position of the Canal for the future, and to provide against possible dangers, they aie of opinion that an agreement to the following eflfect might with advantage be come to between the Great Powers, to which other nations would subsequently be invited to accede." " I. That the Canal should be free for the passage of all ships in any, circum- stances, U 268 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. " 2. That, in time of war, a limitation of time as to ships of war of a belligerent remaining in the Canal should be fixed, and no troops or munitions of war should be disembarked in the Canal. " 3. That no hostilities should take place in the Canal, or its approaches, or elsewhere in the territorial waters of Egypt, even in the event of Turkey being ne of the belligerents. " 4. That neither of the two immediately foregoing conditions shall apply to measures which may be necessary for the defence of Egypt. " 5. That any Power whose vessels of war happen to do any damage to the Canal should be bound to bear the cost of its immediate repair. " 6. That Egypt should take all measures within its power to enforce the conditions imposed on the transit of belligerent vessels through the Canal in time of war. "7. That no fortifications should be erected on the Canal or in its vicinity. "8. That nothing in the agreement should be deemed to abridge or affect the territorial rights of the Government of Egypt, further than is therein expressly provided." This was followed by a voluminous correspondence from each, and all of the Governments of the Great Powers, agreeing generally to these proposals ; and France, so largely interested in the question, suggested the assembling of a Conference for their consideration, and the negotiation of a Treaty embodying its provisions. Other Maritime Powers, such as Turkey, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Sweden, appealed for permission to be repre- sented at the proposed Conference, which was assented to ; and in March, 1883, the Conference assembled at Paris, a strongly repre- sentative Conference of all the Maritime Powers of Europe ; and at this Conference, England was ably represented by Sir Rivers Wilson, and Sir Julian Pauncefote. The Ambassador for France, M. Billot, presided at the Conference, and, at its opening, two plans were submitted as a basis for negotiation, one by England, and one by France ; and for three months these, and other counter-proposals occupied the attention of the Conference. Throughout this Conference, England found herself isolated, for she was confronted with a disciplined coaUtion, consisting of Germany, Austria, and Russia, whose representatives on every occasion voted with persistent harmony, inspired, it is believed, by the representative of France. It may be said, the representatives of England fought step by step, and gallantly, but in vain ; but they were powerless, single- handed, against so formidable a coaUtion, because, although Italy THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 269 supported England, yet the representative of Spain practically held aloof, the representative of Holland said nothing, and the repre- sentative of Turkey agreed to anything. The real point of difficulty lay in the proposal of Germany, Austria, and Russia, supported by France, for the appointment of an International Commission, similar to the International Danubian Commission, for the control and navigation of the Canal, and over this proposal a stubborn diplomatic battle was fought. This proposal was described as an " imperium in imperio'' for it was to be an International Commission, composed of the repre- sentatives, in Egypt, of the Great European Powers, with an Egyptian delegate ; and the President of the Commission was to be the representative of Turkey. The powers of this Commission were wide : to provide for the service of the Canal; to exercise supervision over all the other clauses in the Treaty, (eighteen in number) ; to submit to the Powers for approval, of all measures which it deemed suitable; and, generally, to control, and direct the operations of, the Suez Canal Company. Both England and Italy submitted amendments to this obnoxious Article IX. in the Treaty, the former proposing to leave to Egypt, and to Turkey the Executive power of the Treaty, and the latter, proposing that the representatives in Egypt of the Great Powers, should be empowered to watch over the provisions of the Treaty. Thus, after three months' negotiation and deliberation, owing to the repugnance of England, and Italy to Article IX., the Conference was practically abortive, for, although the majority of the repre- sentatives voted the French draft of the Treaty, yet, in face of the resolute opposition of Great Britain, and the veiled Neutrality of other Powers, it was looked upon as not worth the paper on which it was written ; and, in fact, at the close of the Conference, Sir Julian Pauncefote, the representative of England, declared as much in these words : ' ' We have not succeeded in completing the work on which we have spent so much labour. No one will regret it more than Lord Granville, the author of the well-known circular which has been the basis of our labours. But if the edifice which we have constructed remains incomplete, it stands, at all events, on solid foundations, and we have advanced considerably nearer to the object in view. " The friendly attitude towards England of Italy, throughout the proceedings of the Suez Canal Conference at Paris, was one u* 270 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. feature of its deliberations, and was not unobserved by, or without its influence upon, the neutral, and other European Powers; and this alliance continued unshaken, subsequently, as we find by a Despatch of Lord Granville, on 3rd October, 1883, addressed to the English Ambassador at Rome, in which he declares how grateful Her Majesty's Government were f6r the support which Italy had given. PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION. After the failure of the Paris Conference, the Italian Ambassador to England, Count Nigra, was the first, on behalf of a Foreign Power, to re-open the Suez Canal Question, in order to bring about an agreement between the Powers ; and, whilst strongly in favour of the policy of England, " to guarantee, at all times, the freedom of the Suez Canal," she nevertheless considered that Egypt alone, in the event of becoming a belligerent, was unable to guarantee the Freedom, or Neutrality of the Canal, and, therefore, it was necessary that the Powers should concert measures with Egypt, for safeguarding the interests of the Canal. England and Italy, however, proceeded no further than the exchange of friendly Despatches, and all efforts to bring about a rapprochement amongst the Maritime Powers remained in abeyance for a period of nearly eighteen months, when in February, 1885, the Ambassador ' of France, M. Waddington, communicated to Lord Granville the views of the French Government, which were in the direction of the assembling of a Commission of specialists at Paris, for the purpose of drafting an international agreement, based on the famous Despatch of Lord Granville of January, 1883. To this pro- pos,al no objection was taken, for it was, moreover, in accordance with the former proposals of England, that an International Com- mission should assemble at Cairo. A preference was, however, given by Lord Granville to London rather than Paris, as the place of Meeting, and each side urged reasons for their choice; but France, showing unusual tenacity for Paris, Lord Granville courteously yielded, although the result of its deliberations showed, that it would have been more prudent, and certainly more favour- able for a satisfactory issue, if the Commission had assembled at London. A draft of declaration agreed upon between England and France, was immediately communicated, by arrangement, through France to I'ME MARlTllviE CANAL O^ SUEl . 271 the European Powers, and, with the exception of Turkey, was uncon- ditionally accepted by all. The position taken up by the Ottoman Porte was persistent, and in one sense, consistent with its position as the Suzerain Power, for her acceptance was on this condition : " That the Porte will have full right to take all measures which may be necessary for the defence of Egypt, either against a belligerent State, or, if need be, in Egypt itself." But this reservation was impossible of acceptance, as it would have been irreconcileable with the paramount object in view, the Neutrality of the Isthmus, and the Canal of Suez. Finally, on the 17th March, 1885, the following Declaration was agreed to, by common consent, between the Governments of Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, France, Italy, Russia, and Turkey : — " Whereas, the Powers have agreed to recognise the urgent necessity for negotiating with the object of sanctioning, by a Conventional Act, the establish- ment of a definite regulation guaranteeing at all times, and, for all Powers, the freedom of the Suez Canal. " It has been agreed between the Governments above-named, that a Commission composed of Delegates, named by the said Governments, shall meet at Paris on the 30th March, to prepare and draw up this Act, taking for its basis the circular of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, of the 3rd January, 1883. " A Delegate of His Highness the Khedive shall sit on the Commission, with a consultative voice. "The draft drawn up by the Commission shall be submitted to the said Governments, who will then take measvtres to obtain the accession of the other Powers. " The Undersigned, Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, France, Italy, Russia, and Turkey, furnished with the necessary powers, declare by these presents that their respective Governments mutually engage to observe the foregoing stipulations. " In witness thereof the undersigned have signed the present declaration, and affixed thereto the seal of their Arms. " Done at London, 17th March, 1885. " Signed " GRANVILLE. " MUNSTER. " kArolyi. " waddington. " NIGRA. " STAAL. " MUSURUS." Again, and notwithstanding the signature of the Turkish Ambas- sador, Musurus Pasha, to the Declaration of the Powers taking part i'ji The; MariItMe catJal of sueZ. in the Conference, the Ottoman Porte, on the day of its assembling, handed in to the British Government the following protest in advance, should the decisions of the Conference not favour her Suzerain rights : — "The Sublime Porte maintains its reservations respecting Lord Granville's Despatch of 3rd January, 1883, and understands that an insertion will be made in the Conventional Act of the International Conference assembled at Paris for the settlement of the Suez Canal, to the effect that the Government of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan shall have full right to take the necessary measures for the defence of Egypt, whether against a belligerent State, or Egypt itself, in case of internal disorders. " MusuRUS." The Commission of Specialists which met in Paris on the 30th March, 1885, terminated its sittings at the end of the summer, and a pricis of its proceedings was communicated to the various European Governments, but no definite line of action was indi- cated ; for, although on many points raised, a general agreement was arrived at, yet on others, and by no means the most unimportant, considerable difference of opinion prevailed. The French Ambassador, M. Waddington, on the 13th January, 1886, communicated to the Marquis of Salisbury the views of the French Government, to the effect, that having sounded the Govern- ments of the other European Powers, they were all in favour of leaving the solution of the questions, unsettled by the Commission, to friendly negotiation between Great Britain and France ; and the French Premier, M. de Fr^ycinet, therefore proposed in the first instance, to submit a draft statement of'^the various points in dispute, in the hope of arriving at an agreement, and in this course the Marquis of Salisbury agreed, although an early, or satisfactory solu- tion could not be anticipated, in consequence of the pre-occupation by Turkey of pressing affairs in Eastern Roumelia. Moreover, the Government of the Noble Marquis had but recently assumed the responsibilities of Office, June, 1885, and the political forecast was far from reassuring, and it was natural, therefore, that his Lord- ship advised a postponement of further attempts at negotiation. CONTINUED NEGOTIATIONS. The French Government of De Frdycinet were not, however disposed to allow any political changes in England to bar the way for the Settlement of the Suez Canal controversy, and, within three THt; MARITIMJE CANAL OF SUEZ. 2^3 weeks, of the return of Mr. Gladstone to power, ou the 15th Feb- ruary, 1886, the French Ambassador was instructed to interview the new Foreign Minister, Lord Rosebery, and to inform him, that the French Government considered the time had now come when the Negotiations for the conclusion of an international arrangement, for the Free Navigation of the Suez Canal, might with advantage be resumed. Lord Rosebery, whilst not sharing this view of urgency, suggested that the French Government should formulate in writing their proposals; and, on the 22nd February, M. Waddington stated, that the principal question of divergence of opinion referred to the nature, and character of the superintending authority inEgypt, to en- sure the execution of the Treaty, and that the prevailing opinion of the Great Powers was in favour of Great Britain and France — the two Powers mainly interested — coming to a good understanding there- upon, and, afterwards, there would be no insuperable difficulty in securing the assent of the other Maritime Powers, represented at the Conference. On the loth March, Lord Rosebery informed M. Waddington that he was of the same opinion as his predecessor, that the time was not favourable for the resumption of negotiations, and, strongly counselled postponement ; but the French Minister, De Freycinet, was not to be denied, for on the same day of the receipt of Lord Rosebery's Despatch, he reminded Lord Lyons, the Ambas- sador of England at Paris, of the various Despatches and verbal communications that had been made to the British Government, past and present, and that each advance had been met by frivolous excuses for delay, and urged the great need of a speedy settlement of the vexed question on the ground, not of any international pressure or danger, but solely because there was a strong political feeling in France, and of the inconvenience arising from the recalcitrant Deputies in the French Chambers pressing for information. In consequence of this remonstrance, addressed to Lord Lyons by De Frdycinet, Lord Rosebery replied, on the 17th of March, in a lengthy Despatch, justifying the caution displayed throughout the difficult negotiations, both by the Marquis of Salisbury, and himself; and, in order to bring, if possible, the difficulty to an end, he promised, en behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to give the utmost consideration to any definite scheme proposed by the French Government for the settlement of the question. Accordingly, De Frdycinet, within a week of the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government, submitted a preliminary statement, setting forth the i'j4 tH£ MAklTlME CANAL O^ SUe2. outlines of the proposed Convention, upon which differences of opinion existed between England and France. Firstly, Article V., which' referred to the Canal being opened in time of Peace and War, and that forbade any act of hostility in the Canal during a time of War, England and France differed in opinion on the subject of limit, whether it should be a three mile limit, or a territorial limit, and whether the approaches to the Canal, or of the Ports of access to the Canal, should be defined. Secondly, Article IX., which referred to the character of the super- intendence to ensure a proper execution of the Convention, France wished to have a Commission of the representatives of all the Powers, including Egypt, under the presidency of the Delegate from Turkey ; whilst England desired, that the Commission should be the representatives of the Signatory Powers, only, in Egypt, and, that in the event of War, or of internal troubles, or of any complications threatening the safety, or the free use of the Canal, that they should inform their respective Governments, and await their instructions. Thirdly, Articles X., and XI., England and France differed as to what Power should be called in to insure execution of the Convention, whether it should be Turkey, or a Neutral State. Upon these conflicting questions De Frdycinet urged the desira- bility of France and England coming to a mutual understanding ; and, that being attained, he believed that the concurrence of the other Governments would be easily secured. During the months of April, May, June, July, August, of 1886, the diplomatic duel was continued without much advantage to either side j and, tipon the change of Government, with the accession of the Marquis of Salisbury to power, the Earl of Iddesleigh became Foreign Minister, in succession to the Earl of Rosebery, and De Freycinet lost no time in instructing Count D'Aubigny to interview the new Foreign Minister, and press him for a reply to his numerous Despatches, and, to add, that he considered the moderation of the proposals made by France, had been equalled only by the forbearance with which France, has awaited the convenience of Her Majesty's Government. The Earl of Iddesleigh's tenure of office, as Foreign Minister, was of short duration, and the solution of the question made little, if any, progress j and it was not until the Marquis of Salisbury became Me maritime cAnal oi? sWez. iy^ Foreign Minister, at the beginning of 1887, that any energetic action was really taken to arrive at a satisfactory settlement. The first evidence of the Noble Marquis's determination to grapple in earnest with the difficulty, is to be found, in the able and .stales- manlike Despatch of the 21st October, 1887, and which deserves more than a passing notice, so therefore, we submit the full text : — " The Marquis of Salisbury to Mr. Egerton. " Foreign Office, October 21, 1887. " Sir, — More than two years have elapsed since the last meeting of the Com- mission appointed by the Declaration of London, of March, 1885, to prepare a Treaty for guaranteeing the free use of the Suez Canal by all Powers at all times. It separated on the 13th of June, 1885, apparently in consequence of the change of Government in England, without coming to any conclusion. Since that time, the French Ambassador has repeatedly urged upon Her Majesty's Government the importance of resuming the discussion, with a view to bringing the negotiations to a conclusion. On the 13th of January, 1886, M. Waddington informed me that, ' the French Government had consulted the other Powers as to the resump- tion of negotiations on the subject of the Suez Canal, with the result that these Powers expressed their readiness to concur in any solution of the questions left in suspense at the time of the sittings ol the late Conference in Paris which might be acceptable both to Great Britain and France.' I deprecated a renewal of the discussion at that moment on account of the uncertain condition of political affairs in England. Shortly after the change of Ministry, M. Waddington urged a resumption of the negotiations upon Lord Rosebery, but was again met with the observation that the moment was not favourable, though Lord Rosebery expressed the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government to be in harmony with that of France on this important question. Considerable discussion took place upon the matter in the time of Lord Iddesleigh, and it has been the subject of several communi- cations between M. Waddington and myself. The French Government are now pressing very earnestly upon us that it is of great importance that this long negotiation should now, if possible, be brought to a close. We are not in a posi- tion to dispute this allegation. We have declared, in the most formal manner possible, first in conjunction with the French Government, and afterwards with the other Great Powers in the Declaration of London, of the 17th of March, 1885, that ' we have agreed to recognise the urgent necessity for negotiating with the object of sanctioning by a Conventional Act the establishment of a definite regulation destined to guarantee at all times and for all Powers the freedom of the Canal. ' As a matter of good faith, therefore, we are under an obligation to spare no effort to arrive at an agreement upon the terms of a Conventional Act which shall satisfy the above Declaration consistently with the duties and interests to which Her Majesty's Government are bound to have regard. " It is possible, that the French Republic may insist upon conditions to which the objections in our judgment are insuperable. But the tone of their communica- tions appears to me to indicate a disposition to meeting in a considerable degree the objections of detail raised by the British delegates at Paris. In view, there- 276 THE MARltlME CANAL Ol? SUEZ. fore, of the policy to which Her Majesty's Government are pledged by the De- claration of London, it appears to me that it is right to examine again whether the differences on questions of substance which made the negotiations of 1885 unfruitful are such as to make an agreement definitively hopeless. "I enclose proposals for a Convention, following in their form and arrangement the draft which was under discussion in 1885, and containing the stipulations on which, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, the two Governments may properly come to an agreement. On some of the points which two years ago they were unable to concede they have offered alternative suggestions by which the difficulty may be turned ; on others they have good grounds for hoping that the Government of the Republic will be disposed not to insist. " It must be borne in mind, that the two Governments were requested by the other Powers represented in the International Commission to enter upon special negotiations, and, to come, if possible, to a preliminary understanding in order to facilitate a European agreement. But no instrument to which they, set their signatures can have any practical value until it has received the assent of the Suzerain and of the other Powers concerned. "In laying this proposal before M. Flourens, it is my duty to renew the words of a reservation made, without opposition on any side, by Sir Julian Pauncefote at the close of the sittings of the Commission of 1885. It was to the following effect : — "'Les Delegues de la Grande-Bretagne, en presentant ce texte de Traite comme le regime definitif destine a garantir le libre usage du Canal de Suez, pensent qu'il est de leur devoir de formuler une reserve generale quant a I'appli- cation de ces dispositions en tant qu'elles ne seraient pas compatibles avec I'^tat transitoire et exceptionnel oii se trouve actuellement I'Egypte, et qu'elles pour- raient entraver la liberie d 'action de leur Gouvemement pendant la periode de I'occupation de I'Egypte par les forces de Sa Majeste Britannique. ' " I have, in conclusion, to request that you will give to M. Flourens a copy of this despatch, together with the draft Convention which it encloses. " I am, &c., "Salisbury." A change in the French Administration of Affairs, by the accession, on May 31, 1887, of M. Rouvier to power, with M. Flourens as Foreign Minister, gave good promise of a favourable issue of this interminable discussion; and, M. Flourens, who throughout this critical period of the final negotiations proved himself worthy of his position, cordially welcomed the Despatch and the Draft Convention, and expressed to Lord Lyons the gratification of himself and col- leagues, at the probable termination of the Suez Canal negotiations between England and France. An agreement having been thus arrived at, between the two Governments chiefly interested in the Canal, on the two main subjects of controversy, of its neutrality in time of war and peace, and the nature of the supervision in Egypt of the pro- tHE Maritime Canal of sue2. 277 posed Convention, it now devolved upon them to arrange for the submission of the Convention, as amended, to the other European Powers. Accordingly, the French Government, to whose initiative in 1885, after the failure of the Conference at Berlin in 1883, was largely due this Convention, addressed a circular Despatch to the Powers, which was approved, in the first instance, by the Marquis of Salisbury, in- viting their acceptance of the Draft Convention, " for guaranteeing the free use of the Suez Canal by all the Powers, at all times." At the same time a circular Despatch was forwarded, by the Marquis of Salisbury to the British Ambassadors at Berlin, Vienna, Madrid, Rome, The Hague, St. Petersburg, Constantinople, and Cairo, with instructions to support the French Ambassadors in those Capitals, accompanied by a copy of the above Despatch of October 21, 1887, and the Draft of the proposed Convention. With the exception of Turkey, the whole of the European Powers, unconditionally, accepted the Convention, which fully justified the sanguine anticipations of M. Friycinet, that, provided England and France were agreed, Europe would be perfectly satisfied. The opposition of Turkey was confined to certain conditions contained in Articles VIII. and X., in the former, demanding that, at all the Suez Canal meetings of the representatives of the Signatory Powers in Egypt, they should be presided over by the Ottoman Ambassador ; and in Article X., that the Ottoman Porte should have free use of the Canal by its mihtary or naval forces for the defence of Egypt, and the maintenance of public order in its Empire. From this date, October, 1887, to October, 1888, a period of twelve months, the Ottoman Porte delayed, if not imperilled, the acceptance of this great international instrument, and much patience was exercised, and many Despatches and pourparlers exchanged, ere a satisfactory result was reached. Fortunately, throughout the negotiations, France and England were united, and the other European Powers remained firm in their ' support, and were not to be diverted by the crafty diplomacy of the Ministers of the Sultan ; and, fortunately, too, England was power- fully represented at Constantinople by one of the ablest and most resolute of her Ambassadors, Sir William White, whose influence and counsels are not unappreciated by the Sultan and his Ministers. These various influences steadily exerted themselves, and there 27§ THk kARlflME CAnaL oP SUeZ. was evidence that the Porte was disposed to be conciliatory, for on 24th April, the French Ambassador in London, M. Waddington, informed the Marquis of Salisbui-y, that the Sultan was disposed to yield on the question of the Presidency of the Consular Body, when summoned in Egypt, " in case of any event threatening the security or the free passage of the Canal," provided the Powers were dis- posed to concede to the Imperial Ottoman Government the right to defend by its own forces, its possessions on the Eastern coast of the Red Sea. CONVENTION FOR ITS NEUTRALITY. To this reasonable compromise, both France and England readily agreed, and this decision being communicated to the Ambassador at Constantinople, the Sultan issued, on. May 26th, his Irade, accepting the Diraft Convention, for final submission and acceptance by the whole of the European Powers ; and, on June 25th, the Porte, by the hand of Said Pasha, the Grand Vizier, addressed the Ottoman Representatives at Vienna, Berlin, Rome, St. Petersburg, Madrid, and The Hague, the following Despatch, enclosing the Suez Canal Draft Convention: — ' ' The draft Convention relative to the International Regulation for the free navigation of the Suez Canal has formed the subject, on the part of the Imperial Government, of some observations bearing on a small number of points. " After an exchange of views on this subject, the Government of the French Republic, and the Government of the Queen, have adhered to our amendments. The most complete agreement has, in consequence, been established between the three Governments with regard to the new draft Convention, the text of which is herewith enclosed, and which we submit with confidence to the Government, persuaded that it will be found in conformity with the principles, which have already obtained the aiihesion of the Powers, as being of a nature to secure at all times the free navigation of the Suez Canal. " This Despatch of Turkey to its representatives abroad, with a copy of the Convention, was favourably received by the accredited Governments, but it was not until the 29th of October, after much hesitation and procrastination, that the Ottoman Porte gave its final approval, and that the representatives of the Nine Powers at Con- stantinople were enabled to sign the Suez Canal Convention. The following is the full text of this remarkable State Document : — The Convention between Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Spain, THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 279 France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, and Turkey, respecting the free naviga- tion of the Suez Maritime Canal. Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and Empress of India ; His Majesty the Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia ; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, &c., and August King of Hungary ; His Majesty the King of Spain ; the President of the French Republic ; His Majesty the King of Italy ; His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxembourg ; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias ; and His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans; wishing to establish, by a Conventional Act, a definite system destined to guarantee at all times, and by all the Powers, the free use of the Suez Maritime Canal, and thus to complete the system under which the navigation of this Canal has been placed by the Firman of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, dated 22nd of February, 1886, (2 Zilkade, 1282), and sanctioning the Concessions of His Highness the Khedive, have named as their plenipotentaries, that is, to say :— * Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Empress of India, the Right Hon. Sir William Arnold White, Her Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, M. Joseph de Radowitz, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, &c., and August King of Hungary, Baron de Calice, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. His Majesty the King of Spain, and in his name the Queen Regent of the Kingdom, Don Miguel, Florez-y Garcia, his Charge d' Affaires. The President of the French Republic, M. Gustave Louis Lannes, Count de Montabello, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of France. His Majesty the King of Italy, M. Albert, Baron Blanc, his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. His Majesty the King of the Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxembourg, M. Gu stave Keun, his Charg^ d'AfFaires. His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, M. Alexandre de Nllidow, his .Embassador Extraordinary and Pleniootentiary. His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans, Mohammed Said Pasha, his Minister for Foreign Affairs. Who, having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles : — Article i. — The Maritime Canal of Suez shall always be free and open, in time of War as in time of Peace, to every vessel of Commerce, or of War, without distinction of flag. Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of War, as in time of Peace. The Canal can never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade. THE MARITIME TANAL OF SUEZ. Article 2. — The High Contracting Parties, recognising that the Fresh-water Channel is indispensable to the Maritime Canal, take note of the engagements of His H^hness the Khedive, towards the " Com- pagnie Universelle du Canal de Suez," as regards the Fresh-water Canal, which engagements are stipulated in a Convention bearing date i8th March, 1883, containing an expose, and four Articles. They undertake not to interfere in any way with the security of that Canal and its Branches, the working of which shall not be exposed to any attempt at obstruction. Article 3. — The High Contracting Parties likewise undertake to respect the plant, establishments, buildings, and works of the Maritime Canal, and of the Fresh-water Canal. Article 4. — The Maritime Canal remaining open in time of War, as a free passage even to the ships of War of belligerents, according to the terms of Article i of the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties agree that no right of War, no act of hostility, nor any act having for its object to obstruct the free navigation in the Canal, shall be committed in the Canal and its Ports of access, as well as within a radius of three marine miles from those Ports, even though the Ottoman Empire should be one of the belligerent Powers. Vessels of War of belligerents shall not revictual or take in stores in the Canal and its Ports of access, except in so far as may be strictly necessary. The transit of the aforesaid vessels through the Canal shall be effected with the least possible delay, in accord- ance with the regulations in force, and without any other inter- mission than that resulting from the necessities of the Service. Their stay in Port Said and in the roadstead of Suez shall not exceed twenty-four hours, except in case of distress. In such case they shall be bound to leave as soon as possible. An interval of twenty-four hours shall always elapse between the sailing of a belligerent ship from one of the Ports of access, and the departure of a ship belonging to the hostile Power. Article 5.— In time of War belligerent Powers shall not disembark nor embark within the Canal and its Ports of access either troops, muni- tions, or materials of War. But in case of an accidental hindrance in the Canal, men may be embarked or disembarked at the Ports of access by detachments not exceeding 1,000 men, with a corre- sponding amount of War material. Article 6. — Prizes shall be subjected in all respects to the same rules as the vessels of War of belligerents. Article 7. — The Powers shall not keep any vessel of War in the waters of the ■ Canal, (including Lake Timsah and the Bitter Lakes). Nevertheless they may station vessels of War in the Ports of access, Port Said and Suez, the number of which shall not exceed tws for each Power. This right shall not be executed by the belligerents. THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 251 Article 8. — The Agents in Egypt of the Signatory Powers of the present Treaty, shall be charged to watch over its execution. In case of any event threatening the security, or the free passage of the Canal, they shall meet on the summons of three of their number, and under the presidency of their Doyen, to proceed to the necessary verifications. They shall inform the Khedival Govern- ment of the danger which they have perceived, in order that the Government may take proper steps to insure the protection, and the free use of the Canal. Under any circumstances they, shall meet once a year to take note of the due execution of the Treaty. The last-mentioned meetings shall take place under the presidency of a Special Commissioner, nominated for that purpose by the Imperial Ottoman Government. ACommissiorer of the Khedive may also take part in the meeting, and may preside over it in case of the absence of the Ottoman Commis- sioner. They shall especially demand the suppression of any work, or the dispersion of any assemblage on either bank of the Canal, the object or effect of which might be to interfere with the freedom, and the entire security of the navigation. Article 9. — The Egyptian Government shall, within the limits of its powers resulting from the Firmans, and under the conditions provided for in the present Treaty, take the necessary measures for ensuring the execution of the said Treaty. In case the Egyptian Government should not have sufficient meansat its disposal, it shall call upon the Imperial Ottoman Govern- ment, which shall take the necessary measures to respond to such appeal ; shall give notice thereof to the other Signatory Powers of the Declaration of London 17th March, 1885, and shall, if necessary, concert with them on the subject. The provisions of the Articles 4, S, 7, and 8 shall not interfere with the measures which shall be taken in virtue of the present Article. Article 10.— Similarly, the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 7, and 8 shall not interfere with the measures which His Majesty the Sultan, and His Highness the Khedive in the name of His Imperial Majesty, and within the limits of the Firmans granted, might find it necessary to take for securing by their own forces the defence of Egypt, and the maintenance of public order. In case His Imperial Majesty the Sultan or His Highness the Khedive should find it necessary to avail themselves of the excep- tions for which this Article provides, the Signatory Powers of the Declaration of London shall be notified thereof by the Imperial Ottoman Government. It is likewise understood, that the provisions of the four Articles aforesaid, shall in no case occasion any obstacle to the measures 282 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. , which the Imperial Ottoman Government may think it necessary . to take, in order to insure, by its own forces, the defence of its other possessions situated on the Eastern coast of the Red Sea. Article ii. — The Measures which shall be taken, in the cases provided for by Articles 9 and 10 of the present Treaty, shall not interfere with the free use of the Canal. In the same cases, the erection of per- manent fortifications contrary to the provisions of Article 8 is prohibited. Article 12. — The High Contracting Parties, by application of the principle of equality as regards the free use of the Canal, a principle which forms one of the bases of the present Treaty, agree that none of them shall endeavour to obtain, with respect to the Canal, terri- torial or commercial advantages, or privileges in any International arrangements which may be concluded. Moreover, the rights of Turkey as the territorial Power are reserved. Article 13. — With the exception of obligations, expressly provided by the Clauses of the present Treaty, the Sovereign Rights of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, and the rights and immunities of His Highness the Khedive, resulting from the Firmans, are in no way affected. Article 14. — The High Contracting Parties agree, that the engagements result- ing from the present Treaty, shaU not be limited by the duration of the Acts of Concession of the "Compagnie Universelle du Canal de Suez." Article 15. — The stipulations of the present Treaty shall not interfere with the sanitary measures in force in Egypt. Article 16. — ^The High Contracting Parties undertake to bring the present Treaty to the knowledge of the States, which have not signed it, inviting them to accede to it. Article 17. — The present Treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Constantinople, within the space of one month, or sooner, if possible. In faith of which, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty, and have fixed to it the seals of their arms. Done at Constantinople, the 29th day of the month of October, in the year 1888. W. A. WHITE. A. BLANC. RADOWITZ. GUSTAVE KEUN. CALICE. NfiLIDOW. MIGUEL FLOREZ-Y-GARCIA. MOHAMMED SAID. G. B. MONTEBELLO. The Ratifications of the Suez Canal Convention were duly ex- changed, between all the Signatory Powers at Constantinople on 22 nd December, 188S. THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 283 CONCLUSION. V Both England and France, are to be congratulated on this satis- factory result, which brought to an amicable settlement, a question which has long been the subject of anxious controversy. What England and France have now done, fulfils the closing words of Sir Julian Pauncefote, uttered at the close of the Paris Con- ference in 1885, and have made the deliberations of that Conference the basis of a fresh Convention, which secures the Neutralisation of the Suez Canal. The Canal is neutralised, and the Sultan of Turkey, and the Khddive of Egypt are to be charged with the protection of its neutrality, and a Commission, composed of the Consuls-General, is to be appointed, whose chief function will be, in case of necessity, to set the action of the Khedive in motion. In time of Peace the Commission will meet once a year, and in time of War its functions will be discharged by the Khedive. This secures the effective Neutrality of the Canal, so long desired, and so much required, in the interests of peace, civilisation, and commerce. Hitherto, the term Neutralisation has been more generally under- stood as applicable to the protection of Sovereign States, whereby they have been prevented from taking part in a War, and guaranteed from the attacks of powerful neighbours. As early as 1803, France promised to employ her good Offices to procure the Neutrality of Switzerland, and by a declaration, con- firmed by the Treaty of Vienna, the Great European Powers acknowledged the perpetual Neutrality of the Helvetic State. By the Treaties of 1831, and 1839, Belgium was recognised as an independent, perpetually Neutral State, and it will be remembered that, at the outbreak of the War of 1870, England made Treaties with France and Prussia respectively, to secure the faithful Neutrality of Belgium. Luxembourg was similarly neutralised in 1867, and, recently, a movement has been set on foot for neutralising the Scandinavian Kingdoms. The term Neutralisation has, however, not only a territorial application, but it has also, in several instances, been applied to maritime questions. 284 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. In 1865, when the Convention was entered into for the Naviga- tion of the Danube, and confirmed by the Conference, which met in Paris in 1866, the Neutrality of the Danube, up to the Iron Gates, was decreed, and it is to be hoped that the whole course of the Danube below the Iron Gates will, in accordance with the proposal made at the Berlin Congress, be neutralised, and interdicted against operations of War. The Sound, at the entrance of the Baltic Sea, after many years of controversy, has become neutralised, a free channel like any other portion of the high seas, whether in time of Peace, or War, of the merchant marine, and War vessels of all nations. The Convention between Columbia, and the Panama Canal Com- pany, signed 1878, embodying the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850, recognises the absolute Neutrality of the Panama Canal, in the event of War between any two or more Maritime Powers, freedom for merchant vessels and war-ships in time ot Peace, freedom for merchant vessels in time of War, and further, tolerates no violation of neutrality by Columbia, by the erection of orts or fortifications, or the assembling of troops. Truly, it may be said, the era of Ship Canals is rapidly opening up, for, though attention has by special circumstances, been concentrated on the Suez Canal and its actual position, and also on the prospective regulations for that still grander inter- national highway, the Panama Canal, they are, we hope, but the beginning of Oceanic Canals. Whatever plans may be devised for exempting these Inter-oceanic Canals from molestation, for rendering them barriers against modern warfare, they must be based upon the. unequivocal declaration of the inalienable Sovereign Rights of the States through which they pass. Inasmuch as Egypt and Columbia are weak, it behoves us, as vindicators of International Right, and as advocates of Peace, to use all our influence to induce general respect for the in- dependence and autonomy of these States, and if Egypt, or Columbia desire to secure the protection of more powerful States in the main- tenance of commercial intercourse, let us aid them in that direction ; but only on the condition, that all Maritime Nations shall have equal claim to participate in the natural advantages which these States now enjoy. We should place no reliance on any military plans for safeguarding these highways of the Ocean. Rather should THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 28s it be our endeavour to indicate a more excellent method, and induce the Nations of the World to see, that in mutual trust, in frank con- fidence in each other's good faith, ratified and controlled by the unanimous voice of public opinion, there might be found more durable security for the stability and future maintenance of these new arteries of international trade, than could be obtained by for- midable fortifications, and batteries of artillery, placed, as these resources of civilisation, so called, would undoubtedly be, under the control of one or two of the more powerful Nations of the World. ojajaaoorV ^ i/n . .n,!??®!.... -^ , >fl!o^oooo MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. Maritime Law embraces the rules and customs of commercial towns and sea-ports, gradually established through maritime inter- course during the Middle Ages, and that have assisted to form the germs and the bases of the Law of Nations. MARITIME LAW PRIOR TO THE XVIIIth CENTURY Prior to the establishment of the Roman Empire, the Romans were guided in their maritime relations by a Code of Laws of the Island of Rhodes, comnionly called, "The Rhodian Laws." These rules of commerce and navigation formed the lex mercaioria of the navigators of the Island of Rhodes, and of the Islands of the ^gean Sea, and, subsequently, the Emperor Augustus recognised them. Thus they became the law of the Roman Empire, and were generally adopted by the Western Nations of Europe. In the reign of Richard I., King of England, a Code of Maritime Law was formulated, based upon the maritime rules and customs of Venetia and other Mediterranean States, and this code received the title of the Jugenients d'Oleron; a title derived from the Island of Oleron, the residence of Queen Eleanor, under whose direction they were prepared, and they were adopted by English navigators, and recognised by our Government in maritime relations. During the period, from the 12th to the i6th centuries, the Northern Countries of Europe accepted, and were guided by certain maritime laws, which bore the title of the Jugements de Damme ; a title derived from the town of Damme, near Bruges, in Flanders, and these laws were also known as the Lois de West Capelle, or, as it is now spelt, Westkapelle, a town in West Flanders, Belgium. During this same period, these codes of Maritime Law were recognised — (i) The Conhtnies d^ Amsterdam MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 287 — (2) the Laws of Antwerp — (3) a celebrated Code of Maritime Law, called the Wisbische Seerechton, after the town of Wisby on the Island of Gothland, in the Baltic Sea, and this Code of Maritime Law was recognised in the ports and islands of the greater part of Northern Europe. In the 14th century, an attempt, for the first time, at Barcelona, was made to codify the Maritime Laws in practice by Modern Europe, and this codification embraced, the rules of commerce and Navigation in times of peace ; and, also, the rules for maritime war, affecting the rights of belligerents and of neutrals. The Consolato del Mare was the title of this famous Code of Maritime Law — the able production of eminent jurisconsults — well acquainted with the Roman Law and the legislation of Marinal countries, especially of France and Spain, and the accepted rules in the -ports and islands in the Eastern Archipelago. The Consolato del Mare, for many centuries, was regarded by the Maritime Powers of Europe as the most authoritative system of Maritime Law incorporated into the Law of Nations, and it main- tained its high reputation through all the great events of Maritime History, until the Congress of Paris, in 1856, reversed the principles upon which it was based, which we shall, in due course, refer to. In the 1 6th century, an eminent French jurisconsult, whose name is not known, published a valuable treatise entitled the Guidon de la Mer, and the principles, therein stated, received the highest sanction from the best authorities upon Maritime Law, especially with reference to lettres de marque, maritime prizes, and reprisals. In addition to the questions dealt up with under the domain of Public Law, the Guidon de la Mer embraced many subjects in the more intricate branch of private Maritime Law, especially with reference to Marine Insurance and Maritime Contracts, and the principles for guidance laid down on these subjects were after- wards adopted as the lex mercatoria, and, according to Wheaton, now form the bases of the present commercial code of France. In 1609, appeared the famous work of Grotius on the subject of Mare Liberum, which declared the open sea, or main ocean, as the highway of all nations, the common property of all mankind ; and in 1635, Selden pubUshed the learned work entitled Mare Clausum, which claimed a Maritime Domain, an exclusive right, over the waters, within certain prescribed limits, of a Maritime State. 288 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. Towards the close of the XVIIth century, Louis XIV., King oi France, sanctioned a Code of Maritime Law, known by the title of the Ordonnance de la Marine of i68r, which comprehends, not only all the enactments on Maritime Law for the period of 200 years antecedent thereto, but also the principles laid down in the Consolato del Mare and the Guidon de la Mer, on the subjects of the maritime practice of belligerents, and the rights of neutrals. In most of the tribunals of Europe the Ordonnance de la Marine ot 1681, supplemented by the Act of the Legislature of 1744, were generally accepted by the Maritime Powers, and the decisions of the Tribunals, based upon this Code, were uniformly upheld. Having now passed in review the various ancient codes of Maritime International Law, prior to the i8th century, which became the basis of the system of Maritime Law of the rgth century, throughout the world, we will now refer to the Treaties, which have any reference to the subject prior to the Declaration of Paris, 1856. TREATIES PRIOR TO THE DECLARATION OF PARIS. These Treaties followed the conclusion of the Wars in Europe, which arose mainly, from the jealous rivalry between the European States, keenly affecting their commercial and colonial policies, and the various provisions of these Treaties, dealing considerably with the questions of neutrality, navigation, and commerce in time of peace or war, are important links in an historic survey of Maritime Law. In 1604, the Ottoman Porte conceded to France the right to protect the enemy's goods under the French flag, and this right was in 1 61 2, also, ceded to Holland, and, afterwards, to, other Maritime Powers. In 1659, the Treaty of the Pyrenees, renewed, in 1668, by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which closed the war between France and Spain, recognised, that the enemy's goods in neutral vessels should be ixte,—free ship, free goods ; an enemy's vessel carrying neutral goods should not be free, — enemy's ship, enemy's goods ; but the Treaty left untouched the Ordonnance de la Marine of the French Code of 1533 and 1584, derived from the old Roman Law, "/a robe d'ennemi confisque celle d'ami" which the French formulated into the maritime maxim, " an enemy's ship, an enemy's goods." In 1661, Holland gave in her adhesion to the Maritime dicta in MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 289 this Treaty, as did also Great Britain, Portugal, Sweden, and Denmark. In 1665, a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation was entered into between France and the Hanseatic Towns of Germany, which recognised, for the first time, in maritime warfare, that neutral goods in an enemy's vessel should be free from capture, except those contraband of war ; but this recognition was withdrawn by the Treaty of 1716, which acknowleged only free ships, free goods. These rules were the utmost of the concessions contained in the Treaties of Navigation and Commerce that followed the Peace of Utrecht in 17 13, and which were entered into by the four Maritime Powers, France, Spain, England, and Holland. In 1739, however, France and Holland, on the renewal of the aforesaid Convention of 17 13, agreed to recognise these two rules of Maritime warfare, " free ship, free goods, an enemy's ship, enemy's goods," and, in 1742, Denmark gave in her acceptance of these rules, and from the date of the Treaty of Utrecht of 17 13, the practice of the Maritime Powers of the World has uniformly been in this direction. During the Seven Years' War, waged from 1756, to 1763, by Great Britain against France and Spain, the question of the rights of neutrals was raised ; as to, whether the belligerents could capture and confiscate neutral vessels with an enemy's goods, without infringing International Maritime Law, but, owing to the omission of a decision upon the subject, the Treaty of Paris of 1763, making no declaration on the subject, the law remained undefined. ARMED NEUTRALITY OF RUSSIA, 1780. During the war, however, waged from 1780 to 1783, by England against France, Spain, and Holland, Russia proclaimed an Armed Neutrality, and she invited the Northern Powers of Europe to join her in defence of the commerce of Neutral States. This declaration and action of Russia, in favour of the rights of neutrals, was an important step, for it prepared the way for a great change in Maritime Law. Prior to this period, the commerce of neutrals was subject to great interruption and injury by the belligerents, and, to counteract this ruinous state of affairs, arose the powerful combination of the Maritime Powers, in support of the following rules for neutrals, 290 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. I. — Neutral vessels can trade freely between the ports, and along the coasts of nations at war. 2. — Enemy's goods in neutral vessels are free, with the exception of those contraband of war.* 3. — Only those ports are treated as blockaded ports, the entering of which is accompanied with evident danger, through the presence of the belligerent vessels, 4. — These principles to serve as law for the guidance of Prize Courts. Great Britain was the only European Power that refused acquies- cence to these rules in favour of the commerce of neutrals, for she clung tenaciously to the ancient rules of the Consolato del Mare, and the following were the principles of the first Code, of Maritime Law, in reference to the rights of neutrals in war. r.— When both the vessel and her goods belong to the enemy, the whole is a good prize, as a matter of course. 2. — When the vessel belongs to a neutral, atid the cargo to the enemy, the neutral captain can be enjoined to conduct ship and cargo to a port belonging to the belligerent captor, where he will receive due, and full freight for the cargo as orginally agreed upon, the cargo alone being subject to confiscation, and the vessel set free. 3. — In case the vessel belongs to the enemy, and the cargo to neutrals, a transaction is allowed with the captor to buy the cargo, or, if no agreement can be arrived at, the cargo is taken by the captor, in the confiscated vessel, to one of his ports, and landed there, after payment to the captor of the original amount of freight which would have been payable if the cargo had arrived at its original destination. The new rules proposed by Russia in 1780, and the action of the " Armed Neutrality " of Europe in support of them, were not of much practical effect, for they were, unhappily, rendered nugatory during the great French War from 1792 to 1815, and, during this period, a retrograde step was taken, in which the principles and practice of Maritime Law received a great check. Great Britain endeavoured to crush this alliance of the Armed * Contraband of war was declared to consist of munitions of war, such as cannon, mortars, fire-arms, gun-matches, gunpowder, saltpetre, sulphur, cuirasses, pikes, swords, belts, cartridge boxes, saddles, and bridles. MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 29I Neutrality of Russia, Sweden, Denmark, and other Maritime States, which threatened her Naval Supremacy, and when their ports were closed to her Commercial Marine, Admiral Nelson, in command of the British fleet, bombarded Copenhagen and destroyed the Naval Squadrons who defended the Armed Neutrality ; and subsequently, he attacked the allied Naval Squadrons of France and Spain, and won the signal victory at Trafalgar. Thus, both France, and Great Britain, throughout that great struggle violated, openly and determinedly, every principle of International Law, and every accepted rule of Maritime Warfare, for the one purpose of inflicting on the commerce and navigation of one another the greatest amount of suffering and ruin, in the hope thereby, of crippling the food supplies, and the commerce of the people of the belligerent nations. This deplorable state of affairs is referred to by Sir Robert Phillimore, as follows : — " During the Six years' war between Great Britain and Napoleon I. the history of blockade had its greatest epoch. Napoleon established what was then known as the Contiaental system, the object of which was to exclude Great Britain and its Colonies from the trade of the Continent of Europe. The continental system was created by the Decrees of Berhn, in 1806, by which the British Islands were declared to be in a state of blockade, until Great Britain should recognise the French Maritime Law. This decree was met by the British Orders in Council of January 7th, 1807, by which all ships were forbidden to enter any French port, or any place under French occupation or influence, under pain of confiscation. Napoleon retaliated by the Decree of Warsaw, January 2Sth, 1807, which declared the confiscation of all British commodities in the Hanseatic Cities, then newly occupied by the French troops. The British having established a strict blockade of the Elbe and Weser, declared, by two Orders in Council, March nth, 1807, and November nth, 1807, all those ports from which the British flag was excluded to be in a state of blockade, and, that all ships proceeding thither should be captured, unless they touched at a British port and paid duty to the British Government. Napoleon • replied to this by the Decree of Milan (1807), which declared every ship submitting to the British conditions to be denationalized and a lawful prize, and, further, that every vessel, to whatever nation she might belong, fitted out from, or going to, England, or the British Colonies, or any country occupied by British troops, should be captured and confiscated. " By these blockade skirmishes, the neutral commerce and navigation, pressed and threatened on all sides, were entirely suppressed, and did not revive until Great Britain, remitting that part of the Order in Council, by which the countries of the Allies of France were included under the Proclamation of blockade, Napoleon, on his side, revoked the Decrees of Berlin and Milan, in 1812 whereupon the British Orders in Council were all instantly declared cancelled." 292 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. ACTION OF ENGLAND, IN 1854. From this date, during a period of half a century, no perceptible change for the better was eifected in Maritime Law, and, not until the outbreak of the Crimean War, in 1854, was any alteration in the system attempted or secured. Upon the Declaration of War by Great Britain against Russia, the Allied Powers waived the Maritime Right of Belligerents, and practically recognised that the neutral flag should cover the enemy's merchandise, and the following Agreement was arrived at by them, and formally declared in the London Gazette of 28th, and 29th March, 1854: — " Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, having been compelled to take up arms in support of an ally, is desirous of rendering the war as little onerous as possible to the Powers with whom she remains at peace. "To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all unnecessary obstruction, Her Majesty is willing, for the present, to waive a part of the belligerent rights appertaining to her by the Law of Nations. " It is impossible for Her Majesty to forego the exercise of Her right of seizing articles contraband of war, and of preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's despatches, and She must maintain the right of a belligerent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade, which may be established with an adequate force against the enemy's forts, harbours, or coasts. " But Her Majesty will waive the right of seizing enemy's property laden on board a neutral vessel, unless it be contraband of war. It is not Her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral property, not being contraband of war, found on board enemy's ships, and Her Majesty further declares that, being anxious to lessen, as much as possible, the evils of war, and to restrict its operations to the regularly organized forces of the country, it is not Her present intention to issue Letters of Marque for the commission of privateers." This Declaration, and the policy which it indicated, mark an important change in the attitude of Great Britain upon the question ; as she had for centuries maintained the haughty doctrine of " Mistress of the Seas," and she refused, even at the Congress of Vienna — at the close of the prolonged period of carnage that culminated at Waterloo — to listen to any ccMpession of Belligerent Maritime Rights. DECLARATION OF PARIS, 1856. Forty years afterwards. Great Britain was induced, from various considerations, to change her policy, and this change was a step in advance in favour of a reform of Maritime Law, in the direction of MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 293 making private property at sea inviolable, provided such were not contraband of war. It is not surprising, therefore, that at the conclusion of the Crimean War, Great Britain, in concurrence with the other Mari- time Powers of Europe, determined upon a more general and per- manent recognition of the policy proclaimed at the outbreak of hostilities. At the Congress which assembled at Paris, in 1856, the following declaration was made : — " Declaration respecting" Maritime Law, signed by the Plenipoten- tiaries of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey, assembled in Congress at Paris, April i6th, 1856. " The Plenipotentiaries, who signed the Treaty of Paris of 30th March, 1856, assembled in Conference — considering : — " That Maritime Law, in time of war, has long been the subject of deplorable disputes ; "That the uncertainty of the law, and of the duties in such a matter gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents, which may occasion serious difiSculties, and even conflicts ; "That it is consequently advantageous to estabhsh a uniform doctrine on so important a point ; "That the Plenipotentiaries, assembled in Congress at Paris, cannot better respond to the intentions by which their Governments are animated, than by seeking to introduce into international relations fixed principles in this respect : " The above mentioned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized, resolved to concert amongst themselves as to the means of attaining this object; and, having come to an agreement, have adopted the following solemn Declaration : — " I. — Privateering is, and remains abolished. " 2. — The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception ot contraband of war. " 3. — Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag. "4. — Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. " The Governments of the undersigned Plenipotentiaries engage to bring the present Declaration to the knowledge of the States, which 294 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. have not taken part in the Congress of Paris, and to invite them to accede to it. " Convinced that the maxims which they now proclaim cannot but be received with gratitude by the whole world, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries doubt not that the efforts of their Governments to obtain the general adoption thereof will be crowned with full success. " The present Declaration is not, and shall not be binding, except between those Powers who have acceded, or shall accede to it. "Done at Paris, the x6th of April, 185$. " (Signed.) " BUOL-SCHAUENSTEIN. HUBNER. Walewski. BoURQUENEY. Clarendon. Cowley. Manteuffel. Hatzfeldt. Orloff. Brunnow. Cavour. De Villama'rina. Aall Mehemmed Djemil." This Declaration of Paris, therefore, as it is stated, is binding only on the Signatory Powers, who were empowered to invite the adhesion of all the Maritime States, unrepresented at the Congress. ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES. The attempt, made at this Congress by the British Government, to abolish privateering was agreed to by all the Powers, with the exceptions of Spain, Mexico, and the United States. Mr. Marcy, the Foreign Minister in President Pierce's Administration, replied in a Despatch, dated 28th of July, 1856, by making the famous counter-proposal, viz. : — to exempt from capture private property at sea, the merchandise of belligerents. This proposal was agreeable to all the Powers but Great Britain, but she, not accepting it, the former proposal fell to the ground, thus consequently, privateering, though abolished between the Powers that have adhered to the Declaration of Paris, still remains, in statu quo ante, between Great Britain, Spain, Mexico, and the United States, in the event of war. The refusal of the British Government to accede to this proposal was, to say the least of it, unjust, for it could hardly be expected that the United States, with a comparatively small Navy, could consent to the abolition of privateering, while European MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 295 nations could, with their Naval Fleets, and flotillas of gun-boats, plunder, burn, and destroy the Merchant Marine of the enemy. The subject was reopened by the United States, on the outbreak of the War in Italy|, in 1859, on the accession of Mr. Buchanan to the Presidency, when Mr. Cass, the Foreign Minister, addressed the representatives of the United States in the Capitals of Europe on the subject. The character of the proposals embraced the Abolition ojf Privateering, and, therefore, were similar to those discussed in 1856 ; but, in addition, it was proposed by the United States Government, "that the right of blockade of a commercial port, should only be permitted, when the forces on land invested it, and, that any attempt to intercept trade by blockade, or to blockade commercial ports, ought not to be allowed." The answer of the British Government, as expressed by Lord John Russell, then Foreign Minister, was, in substance, that the maintenance of these -maritime rights is essential to the Naval Supremacy of England, and, therefore, the proposals of the United States were necessarily rejected. It is generally understood, that when this proposal was made, in 1856, the Governments of Russia and Prussia declared themselves prepared to give their tonsent thereto, and that they responded to the letter of Mr. Marcy in a favourable manner. The Government of France also, it was said, shared in this view, and would have publicly communicated its adhesion, but, by doing so, it might have resulted in embarrassing her relations with Great Britain. ' The nature of the reply of Great Britain is somewhat important, and she being the only Maritime Power that has hitherto assumed a hostile attitude to this Reform, it may be well to examine these objections, as to whether they are founded upon justice- Undoubtedly, to Great Britain, in a former period of her Naval History, this Maritime Right was a most formidable weapon, which her great sea Captains, Frobisher, Drake, Cavendish, and Nelson wielded with terrible and dire results ; but, during that period, whilst her Naval power was supreme, her Commercial Marine was less than that of the other Maritime Powers; whereas, now, it is estimated^ that her Commercial Marine is upwards of 120 millions sterling in value, or is equal to the entire value of the Merchant Marine of all maritime nations. Moreover, prior to the Declaration of Paris of 1856, such a 296 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. Maritime Right in her hands was most efiFective, and, as Lord Palmerston declared, to abolish the right would be disastrous to her Naval strength and supremacy. But the Declaration of Paris has completely changed the aspect of the question, for, in the event of war with the United States, or Spain, or Mexico, it is evident that all her vast commercial trade, in order to avoid destruction by the cruisers and privateers of the enemy, as well as in consequence of the higher rate of Marine Insurance on English cargoes, would at once pass from her to that of neutral Nations. It is, therefore, obvious that this belligerent right, instead of being a formidable weapon for Great Britain in time of war, would be the reverse, not only in consequence of the alteration of Maritime Law by the Declaration of Paris, but, also, from the ^altered circumstances in the commercial marine of the world, and that it would prove more disastrous to her than to any other nation. Nevertheless, the Declaration of Paris, which decreed that a neutral flag covers an enemy's goods, and is free from capture, and that neutral goods, under an enemy's flag, are also not liable to capture, provided they are not contraband of war, was a great reform, for it reversed the custom and laws of nations, extending to most of the Great Powers of the civilised World. It is all the more important, as it secured the adhesion of Great Britain to the principles of the Declaration of Armed Neutrality of 1780, and of the Treaty of 1785 between the United States and Prussia, especially of the latter,, in favour of neutrals, which contained the abolition of many restrictions, and the removal of many doubts, as to the character of contraband of war, which had been a pretext, by the belligerent Powers, for an arbitrary extension of their rights. And although, since the declaration of Paris, there has arisen much criticism and dissatisfaction, yet, judging by the same sentiments and tendencies which were manifested after the Treaty of 1785, they will, it is hoped, gradually disappear, and thus, this Declaration of Paris, may be considered as the beginning of a more thorough, and complete reform of International Maritime Law. ABOLITION OF PRIVATEERING. This reform having been carried, it is absolutely necessary that the great Maritime Powers of the world, should take a step further in advance, and declare, that all private property at sea is MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 297 free from capture, thus doing away with the barbarous practices, exercised by belligerents, of privateering, plundering, burning, and destroying the merchant marine, and blockading the commercial ports of an enemy, which are outrages on humanity, are injurious to commerce, and are fraught with dangers to the prosperity of nations. That cannot be called law, which is an abandonment of all law and public rights, a system of rapacity and cruelty, that has been surrendered by the most barbarous, in war on land. It is a relic of barbarism, having sprung from the practices of those early times, when the chief means of carrying on naval warfare, were to seize merchantmen, and convert them into men- of-war; but the evils of the system, whether practised by a nation with no Navy, or by a nation with a Navy, are alike flagrant and disastrous, and its abolition ought to be resolutely urged upon all Maritime Nations. The analogy of privateering, amongst civilized nations in a state of belligerency, with the piracy of the Dark Ages, and the piratical depredations of later times, is somewhat remarkable, because both inflict tremendous injury on the commerce of non-combatants, and the same arguments urged for the abolition of piracy, in earlier times, may be urged with equal effect for the abolition of that barbarous maritime code relating to privateering. In regard to piracy, it was strongly felt by the States that suppressed it, that, as relations between nations became more civilised and interwoven, as commerce became more and more developed, it must therefore be put down. They considered, that no nation can interdict the liberty of the sea, which is the common possession of all nations. Rome, when Mistress of the world, recognised this rule, and which was well rendered by her Jurist ; Et quidem mare commune omnium est, el Httoria sicut aer. PIRACY V. PRIVATEERING. » Beyond all doubt, Rome, famous for her jurisconsults, had tenaciously held this doctrine, that the Sea can have no master, and that it is the common property of the nations. Actuated by these considerations, the ancient Republics of Greece 298 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. and Rome felt deeply interested in the extirpation of piracy, but it was not until the downfall of Imperial Rome, and when the commerce in the waters of the Mediterranean was hindered by its depredations, that the wisdom and courage of the merchants of Venice and Genoa suppressed it, and inaugurated an enlightened commercial policy. Carthage, in the greatness of her power interdicted piracy, which had sapped the foundations of the commercial greatness of Phoenicia. The merchants of North Germany, in order to suppress piracy in the waters of the Baltic, formed the celebrated Hanseatic League, and, thereby, helped to extirpate the "Northern Freebooters," as they were justly termed. When the civilised nations of Europe in the isth century refused to crush piracy, and permitted rather its enthronement as a maritime right, the Knights of St. John, jealous of the policy of the Barbary States, created by piracy, determined to check it. They successfully held Malta for three centuries, and thus sup- pressed during that prolonged period piratical depredations on the waters of the Mediterranean ; and, lastly, in the beginning of this century. Napoleon Buonaparte, enraged by the depredations of the Barbary States upon the merchant marine of France, issued the following proclamation : — " I will destroy your city and harbour, I will seize upon your territory, if you do not respect France, of which I am the Chief, and Italy, where I command," which declaration, forced the Algerines to abandon their policy, and, in 1829, after the deposition of the Buonapartes, and, during the Orleans rigime, Algeria, which then became a French colony, wherein piracy ceased. These historical references, though far from complete, are yet sufficient to prove our assertions : that piracy was felt, and considered by civilised nations formerly, to be a crime, which they were bound to suppress. It may be affirmed, that the analogy of piracy with privateering, is not valid, inasmuch as the former is proscribed by the laws of nations, whilst the latter is in accordance with the Maritime Rights of belligerents. Granted, but the distinction is one of degree only, and of recognition and non-recognition by the laws of nations, privateering, being in reality, legalised piracy, plunder, and l^illage. MARITIME INTEENATIONAL LAW. 299 Piracy committed depredations against the merchantmen of every country, whether in a state of peace or war, and therefore it was justly termed, " hostes humani generis^' whilst privateering and filibustering, the modem name for piracy, commits depredations during a state of belligerency ; yet in their operation and disastrous results they are analogous, for both are committed in the solitude of 'the seas, both are exercised, often, for the sake of plunder and pillage, and seldom animated by love of country or freedom, both execute destruction wide and wanton to the property of the defenceless and unoffending non-combatants, and are, therefore, alike hostile to the prosperity and civilisation of nations. The reply of a celebrated pirate, who was, when captured "/« flagrante delicto" brought before the Emperor Alexander, forcibly illustrates the distinction. " He was a pirate because he had only one ship, if he had a fleet he would be a conqueror." The principle which has been laid down, and which we should urge, is to secure a uniformity of the practice of maritime warfare with the practice and laws of war on land,, or, in other words, the waging of war, when nations are unhappily plunged therein, between armed ships and armed men only, thus exempting from injury, by the armed government ships, or privateers, the trade, the com- merce, and the ports, and cities of the nations involved, from all the evils incident to a state of war. THE "ALABAMA'S" DEPREDATIONS. In 1865, the question was brought into considerable prominence, and rendered of great importance in consequence of the serious complications which threatened to disturb the peaceful relations of Great Britain and America, arising from the deplorable, not to say culpable, escape from the shores of England of that famous corsair, the " Alabama," and of th£ widespread depredations com- mitted by her, upon the merchant marine of the Northern Federal States, during the War of Secession. The dangers, which threatened at one time the maintenance of peace between the two great Anglo-Saxon races, and the tre- mendous disasters which would have resulted by the dire calamity of war, arose mainly, if not entirely, from the escape of the " Alabama," and, especially, her depredations were the direct result Y 300 MARITIME INTERNATIpNAL LAW. were created and fomented -by, and through, the existence of this barbarous maritime code, the right of a belligerent to prey upon the peaceful commerce of an enemy. Happily, the general acceptance of the obligations of justice between Great Britain and America, made it difificult for the Two Governments to be driven to the necessity of appealing to force, and to the August Tribunal which assembled at Geneva were relegated the complicated difficulties. The success attending this peaceful reference has proved, that it is within the compass of public reason and justice, that two powerful, enlightened, and kindred nations can, by amicable negotiations, avoid the adjudication of war, and leads to the hope, that at no distant date, an International Tribunal may be erected, for the peaceful and equitable adjustment of all international differences. Of the intricate questions involved in the escape of the "Alabama," it would be irrelevant here to treat, if for no other reason that they have been, by the Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Tribunal, for ever set at rest. It is rather to the effects produced by her escape, the depredations she committed as a privateer, that we would make reference. The United States, throughout their great struggle, were sorely tried by having to cope with an adversary which had no commerce and no Navy, but which, by privateers and corsairs, was able to burn, and plunder, and drive from the seas, her vast commercial marine. These privateers, built, armed, and supplied by foreign agencies, were swift and vigilant for the destruction of peaceful commerce, and swift and vigilant to evade pursuit and capture. The injuries inflicted by these piratical cruisers of violence and robbery, were estimated at twenty millions of dollars, and this does not include the indirect losses,, the burden on the commerce of the United States, and the transfer of its carrying trade to foreign nations, by the partial destruction of her mercantile marine. Besides, there was the unnecessary prolongation of the war, and the severity in its prosecution imposed by the Federal Government, in order to main- tain its authority and to suppress the Rebellion, and all this increasing vastly the radius of mutual injuries, without in any way advancing the Rebel cause, or hastening the conclusion of the struggle. The direct and indirect evils arising from the piratical depreda- tions of the " Alabamas," and the" Shenandoahs," of the Southern Confederacy, have helped considerably to advance opinion against MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 30I privateering, especially with merchants and ship-owners, who are interested in maritime commerce, as well as with eminent writers and authorities on international maritime law, who have forcibly urged its abolition. Pre-eminent amongst distinguished writers and speakers, who have strenuously laboured to achieve this triumph, was Richard Cobden, whose services in the cause of International Peace, and especially in the direction of the reform of International Maritime Law, have been great and distinguished* and claim for him the homage of all men of peace and progress. COMMERCIAL BLOCKADE. The same may, with equal force, be said in regard to the right of commercial blockade, and, it is inexplicable, that Great Britain, which of all nations would suffer most seriously by its exercise, should be the chief obstacle to secure its abolition. On account of her insulated position, and her dependence upon other nations, not only for the supplies of food, but also for the raw materials which minister to her great and varied manufacturing industries, it is obvious that its abolition, except under the exigencies of military operations, as proposed by the United States Minister, Mr. Cass, in 1859, is a policy dictated alike in the interests of her trade, and of her naval supremacy, as it is in the interests of humanity. Moreover, the exercise of commercial blockade has been proved by experience, to affect Great Britain as disastrously when a neutral, as when a belligerent, for in the latter case, it is not only a comparatively useless and ineffective weapon, but it is practically abandoned by her. In the first case, as a neutral. During the prolonged American War, Great Britain suffered commercially, industrially, and otherwise most disastrously; her sufferings indeed could hardly have been more severe, even had she been engaged in that sanguinary struggle. These privations and disasters. Great Britain was herself responsible for ; they were self-imposed, because, judging from the declarations of the other Great Powers, represerited at the Cdngress of Paris in 1856, in favour of the abrogation of the right of blockade, she was 302 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. alone'm her opposition to the proposal, and, but for her opposition, not only would commercial blockade have become erased from the Maritime Law of nations, but the evil effects of the blockade of Southern ports would not have been so severely felt, as the commerce between the two countries, in spite of the War would comparatively have not suffered, for the United States Government, being, a priori, strongly in favour of making inviolate private property at sea, would, it is reasonable to believe, had the proposal been carried in 1856, have willingly and faithfully carried out this Convention during her great struggle. And, secondly, as a belligerent. When Great Britain was unhappily involved in the war with Russia, between 1854 and 1856 she carefully avoided, in accordance with her proclamation, the blockade of the commercial Russian ports, and she allowed and it may be said, forcibly obtained, her vast supplies of grain from Odessa, and the ports of the Sea of Azoff, and hemp, flax, tallow, and jute, etc., from the Northern ports of Russia, thus render- ing blockade ipso facto ■a&tSs&i,; whilst, on the other hand, it involved Great Britain in a heavy outlay of money in protecting these ports, besides raising the price of the grain, and especially the raw materials, 50 per cent., to the injury of English trade and enterprise. There is another view of the question, and it is an important one that should not be lost sight of. In the event of war between Great Britain and any one of the Powers in Europe, should the former resolve on blockading the enemy's ports, such blockade would prove practically useless, as the increased railway communication which year by year is spreading itself into a vast network over the Continent, to use the expressive words of Mr. Gladstone, " weaving the nations into one," would virtually enable a belligerent still to export and import through the aid of adjacent nations, and thus, however complete the blockade, bid defiance to a war measure, which would injure far more England that blockades, than the nation that is blockaded. It is remarkable, therefore, that with all these indisputable facts and figures arrayed against the system of commercial blockade, that English Statesmen can be found, of great eminence, and English writers, of considerable celebrity on International Law, who advocate adhesion to a policy, which is not only condemned by the judgment of civilised nations, but one obviously antagonistic to the true interests of British policy. MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 303 The validity of this right of .blockade does not seem very clear, foi it rests on an international custom, whose legitimacy has, unhappily, never been questioned, being, in fact, an extreme war measure, only justified on the grounds, that maritime war without blockade, will not secure, to a belligerent, results of any great importance. This argument to justify- the right of blockade seems based on a wrong premiss, as though it were a right of conquest, to be exercised upon the maritime territory of an enemy. CONCLUSION. For the abolition of this system of commercial blockade, as well as that of privateering, to Great Britain we must look, as she alone amongst the family of nations is responsible, not only for its establishment, as a belligerent right, but by her energetic opposition to its overthrow, for its present existence. It was at the beginning of this century, that Great Britain, by the issuing of the celebrated " Orders in Council," strengthened the foundation of a system which openly violated the rights of neutrals, by putting, during the French War, into rigorous imprisonment, the sailors of the merchant-men of foreign nations. It was this odious Act which called forth from the First Napoleon, the severe condem- nation contained in his famous Decrees, issued in 1806, and 1807, Decrees which, to show the severity of his displeasure, were written by him in his own hand, and, sealed by his own seal. The principles and policy, which we must endeavour to secure the ultimate triumph of, and for which we would invoke the co- operation of all friends of freedom, humanity, and justice, as a work worthy to be accomplished, are ; (i) To make all private property free from capture on the high seas, with such exceptions as may be found necessary. (2) To abolish the right of block- ading, during war, those ports of the belligerents which are purely commercial. (3) To relinquish the right to search on the high seas the merchant vessels of Neutral Powers. The eminent American Statesman, Charles Sumner, whose fame and name will long be revered, by men of freedom, of humanity, and of peace, exerted his great powers, of voice and by pen, for its promotion, In the memorable Speech on Maritime Rights, 304 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. which he delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 9th, 1862, he thus eloquently concluded : — "With the consummation of these reforms in Maritime Law, not forgetting blockades under international law, war would be despoiled of its most vexatious prerogatives, while innocent neutrals would be exempt from its torments. The Statutes of the Sea, thus refined and elevated, will be the agents of peace, instead of the agents of war. Ships and cargoes will pass unchallenged from shore to shore ; and those terrible belligerent rights, under which the commerce of the world so long suffered, will cease from troubling." THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL CONDITION OF EUROPE. In taking a survey over the Continent of Europe, and carefully considering the political relations and attitudes of the Great Powers, towards one another, and of the policy which for many years they have adopted, one striking fact presents itself to every student of European politics, and it is this : that it is not so much the im- possibility of arriving at a modus Vivendi between France and Germany on the Alsace-Lorraine question, or between Russia, Austria, and Turkey on the subject of the political independence of Bulgaria and Servia, or even between France, England, and Turkey on Egyptian affairs, which seriously imperils the peace of Europe, but it is the appalling magnitude of the armed forces, the vast armies and navies of the great Empires of Russia, Germany, Austria, and France, that are so full of peril, and which are the real dangers to the general tranquillity of Europe. Is it not a most astounding and humiliating fact, that at the present day, now that nineteen centuries have rolled by since the dawn of the Christian Era, with all their accumulated teachings of Christian thought and practice, that there should be upwards of 4,000,000 of men, the able-bodied and the vigorous men, withdrawn from all the peaceful avocations of productive industry, withdrawn from all the hallowed associations of hearth and home, and com- pelled, by the despotism of the military conscription, to live a life of laborious idleness, a life of great temptation, and great exposure in the armies and navies of Europe ? And if we include the Auxiliary Forces, the Volunteers, Militia, and Yeomanry, or, as they are described in continental countries, the Landwehr, the Land- stiirm, the Reserves, and Territorial Forces, the numbers stand at 18,909,608 men, trained to the use of arms in Europe. This surely is not Peace ; but guerre h outrance, War to the knife ! 306 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL Peace ! implies rest, and in Europe there is no rest, but constant unrest and alarm. Peace ! implies order, and in Europe there is not order, but a fear of disorder, anarchy, and general disturbance. Europe is a vast armed camp ! Restless, suspicious, and dangerous Armies are ranged side by side, ready, aye, many of them, eager, for the bloody fray. The whole continent seems to be under the sinister influence of some horrible enchantment, and this strange contradiction, an Armed Peace ! hovers like a vampire over the hearths and homes of the people, draining their life-blood to the very dregs. Under such circumstances, it must generally be admitted that the vast and crushing armaments maintained, and the extensive mili- tary and naval preparations organised especially by the Great Powers of Russia, Austria, Germany, France and Italy, are an iniquity. Nay, are they not a stupendous crime ? Because, in the first place, they are dangerous instruments in the hands of despotic govern- ments, for the oppression of their peoples, and no less dangerous in the hands of' a despotic people, for the overthrow of govern- ments, whether imperial, monarchical, or republican; and in the second place, instead of preserving the peace, in accordance with the old Latin proverb, " Si vis pacem parent bellum^' (to seek peace through war, which was Cromwell's motto*) they are perpetual provocatives of war, they are in fact, a declaration of war between nation and nation, and that so long as they exist, peace is impossible, and wars and rumours of war inevitable ; and the worst part of this deplorable state of affairs is this, that it compels the lesser Powers to follow the evil example of the greater Powers, and to organise and maintain armies and navies, far beyond what they actually require, for the preservation of peace and order within their own frontiers, and far beyond what they can actually afford to pay for. In confirmation of this alarming state of affairs, in regard to the Military and Financial condition of Europe, we have taken con- siderable trouble in the preparation of an authentic statement, show- ing the numerical strength of the armies and navies, with their annual cost, together with the amount of the National Debts, and Annual Interest thereof, alphabetically arranged and followed by a summary of the financial and military condition of each Europeai) nation. * Pax 42,827. 220,000. THE MILITARY EXPENDITURE. The public income and expenditure in recent years have mostly been balanced with an occasional surplus, and for 1890-1 there was an estimated surplus of ;!f329,24o. The National Debt mainly represents the share which Belgium had to take in the national liabilities of the United Netherlands, after separating from that kingdom in 1834. The remainder of the debt was raised for, and devoted to, works of public utility, particularly the construction of state railways. It may be stated that ^3,223 i8s. 6d. per annum is regularly paid to the heirs and assigns of the Duke of Wellington, for meritorious services rendered to Belgium by the victory at Waterloo. Annual Expenditure, 1890. ^13,312,562. Army, 1890. ;^2, 042,266. Interest of the National Debt, 1890. ;^4,oo2,624. National Debt, 1890. ^89,263,311. DENMARK. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The Army and Navy of Dentiiark consists, according to a law of re-organisation passed by the Rigsdad, 6th July, 1867, and supple- mented the 2Sth July, 1880, of all the able-bodied men of the' kingdom who have reached the age of 22 years, and their time of service is 8 years in the regular army, and 8 years in the Reserves. The Navy is recruited by conscription from the coast population. Standing Standing Army and Population, Army, Reserves, Navy, 1st Feb., 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. 2,298,367- 42,909. 59,562. I Ironclads and ^ ^ 1 Monitors. Navy. j^ Frigates, Men, 1,137 57 < Torpedo Boats, Officers, 181 1 Steamers, &c. 1,318. 68. 310 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. The revenue of the State for the past quinquennial period has shown an annual surplus, which haS', been employed for the reduction of the public debt. The latter was mainly incurred in consequence of large deficits in former years, and in part for railway undertakings, construction of harbours, lighthouses, and other works of public importance. An important feature in the administration of the finances of the kingdom is the maintenance of a reserve fund, which amounts to ;^990,o99, the object of which is to provide means at the disposal of the Government in the event of war. Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1 890- 1. 1890. i8go. 1890. ^3,461,155. ^1,933.773- — ;£'i°.Si4,S°3- The public debt, which consists of the " passive " and " active," and from the "active,'' amounting to ^3,560,222, considerable annual receipts are placed to the credit of the revenue. FRANCE. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The military forces of France are based on a new " loi sur ie recrutement," passed in 1872, and supplemented in 1875, 1882, 1887, and 1889, which enacts universal liability to arms from the age of 20 to that of 45 years. Every Frenchman, not declared unfit for military service, must serve 3 years in the "armee active," 6 years in the "reserve de I'armde active," 6 years in the "armde territoriale," and 10 years in the "reserve de I'arm^e territoriale." By the same law the navy is manned partly by conscription, and partly by voluntary enlistment, and the time of service is 3 years in the active, and 6 years in the reserve. At the expiration of these nine years the men pass into the territorial army, where they remain until the age of 50. CONDITION OF EUROPE. 311 Population, May 31st, 1886. Standing Army, 1890. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. 38,218,903. 547.482. 4,190,000. 57 I Navy and Marine Infantry and Artillery. 39,784 17,921 67.705- 375 432- Navy, 1891. Ironclads and Cruisers. Torpedo Boats, Ships, Steamers, &c. THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. The enormously increased expenditure of recent years, is due principally to the augmented public debt, created by wars and preparations for wars, and to the increased cost of the army, which has been covered by the imposition of new indirect taxes. " The increase in the expenditure of France has been greater and more rapid than that of Great Britain. Between i8i4and 1829, the expenditure of France was about ;^4o,ooo,ooo a year, and she made no addition to her debt; between 1829 and 1847, t'^s expenditure of France rose to ^^5 1,000,000 a year, and there was an annual average deficit of ;^4,25o,ooo. Between 1850 and 1870 — that is to say under the Empire — the deficit had diminished to _;^2,5oo,ooo, but the expenditure had enormously increased, and the budget for 1883 is ;£i36,i37,6o7."* The budget for 1890 reached the enormous total of ;^iS 1,943,318. In the year prior to the war in 1870, the revenue was _;^7 1,927, 742, and the expenditure ^^69,608,556 ; and according to the budget of 1890, the latter has increased, in consequence of thg Franco-German War, the enormous preparations, for what is called the " war of revenge" against Germany, and also the military expeditions to Tunis, Madagascar, and Tonquin, to the extent of ;^82,334,762, as compared to the year 1870, the last year of the Empire of Napoleon, i.e., for 1870, ;^69,6o8,556, and for 1890, ;^i5i, 943,318. Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^iSi,943.3i8. ^^36,412,409. ;^52,022,767. National Debt, i8go. _;^8so,o68,ooot 415,680,804^: ;^i,26s,748,8o4. Speech of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P. f Funded. % Unfunded. 312 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL The National Debt, which is the largest in the world, has been chiefly created to meet the cost of the great French Wars from 1800 to 1814, during the military dictatorship of the First Napoleon, and also from 1852 to 1870, during the reign of the Third and the last Napoleon. In 1793, under the Revolution, the public debt stood at ^^32,000,000; in 1815, under the First Empire, at ;^7o,645,ooo ; in 1830, under the Bourbons, at ;^i4i,770,ooo; in 1848, under the Orleans, at ;^i82,ooo,ooo ; in 1852, under the Republic, at ;^245, 250,000; in 1870, under the Second Empire, at _;^5so,ooo,ooo; and in 1890, in consequence of the Franco-German War, and Colonial Wars since 187 1, it amounts to the stupendous total, according to M. Leroy Beaulieu, of ;^i, 265, 748,804. The Franco-German War, 1870-71, added the enormous sum to the National Debt of ;^37i,S7S)28o, which includes the enormous war indemnity exacted by Germany. In addition to this, the heavy deficits, caused by the great military expenditure, have swollen it considerably. From 1S14 to 1830, during the Bourbon Monarchy, the deficits amounted tO;^8io,92o; from 1830 to 1848, under Louis Philippe, to ;^39,9i4,520 ; and from 1848 to 1851, under the Second Republic, to ;^i4,374,96o; and from 1851 to 1870, under the Second Empire, to ;^85,54i,58o; and from 1870 to 1874, the first four years of the Republic, to _;^i2, 198,962, amounting in all, in deficits alone, to ;^iS2, 840,902. Since 1874 and down to the year 1890, the budget showed handsome surpluses ; but, unfortunately, owing to the militant and aggressive foreign policy, especially of the Governments of MM. Gambetta, Frdycinet, and Jules Ferry, there have been for the subsequent years consider- able deficits, and'for 1890 it would appear by the Budget that the deficits amount to ;£3,5oo,ooo. THE GERMAN EMPIRE. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The Prussian obligation (^according to the laws of the Constitu- tion) to serve in the army is extended, without substitution, to the whole empire. Every German, capable of bearing arms, has to serve in the standing army for seven years, from the end of the 20th CONDITION OF EUROPE. 313 till the commencement of the 28th year of his age. Three of these seven years he must spend m active service, and the remainder in the reserve ; after quitting the latter he forms part of the Landwehr for five years more in the first " ban," and seven years afterwards in the second " ban." The maritime population is exempt from these obligations, but has to furnish a force for the Fleet and Marines. In 1875, a new force, called the Landsturm, was created, only to be called out in the event of war, comprising all able-bodied men from the age of 17 to the age of 45, who are not in the Standing Army, Landwehr, or Marine. This force is divided into two " bans," the first including those from 17 to 39, and the second "ban " from 39 to 45. The whole of these land forces form a united army under the orders of the Emperor, and must unconditionally obey the Oath of Fidelity. The following figures embrace the whole of the German Empire, and include the officers and all military officials : — Standing Standing Army and Population, Army, Reserves, Navy, I Dec, 1885. 1890. 1890. 1890. 46,857. 705- S"j492- 2,393,500. 27 Ironclads. r Frigates, Navy 700,000* 185 ] Torpedo Boats, i6>77o- ^ Steamers, &c. 3j093!Soo. 212. the military and naval expenditure. The whole of the 26 German States forming the German Empire, from the largest (Prussia), to the smallest (Schaumburg Lippe), contribute towards the Imperial expenditure of the Empire, and their united contributions amount to ^^16, 131, 175. The total annual expenditure of .;^56,532,294 includes the ordinary expenditure of ;^47,o56,753, and the extraordinary expen- diture of ;^9,475,54i. This latter sum is swallowed up for extra- ordinary military and naval charges, and to meet the Imperial (personal) Debt. In the Budget of the Empire, the sum received from France in 1871 as war indemnity, was not entered, but placed to a separate ' Landsturm. 314 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL account, which up to September, 1873, amounted to ^^220,000,000, including the tribute from the City of Paris, and other French Departments. That amount was duly apportioned amongst the 26 German States. The German Empire, as such, prior to the Franco-German War, had no Public Debt at the time of its establishment in 1871, but it has been created in recent years, to meet the military exigences of the empire, which, however, are not large. As a set-off against this debt, there exists a variety of invested funds amounting to ;^3o,404,688, created out of the French war indemnity, to be applied as the necessity arises, for military hospitals, the construction of the "palais du parlement," and fortresses, and which can be drawn on in case of a foreign war or invasion. Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. i8go. 1890. ^56,532,294 ;^22,768,479* ;^26,93o,25o. ^^48,875,100! CoS ^^16.131,175 ^^6,907,2851 ;^i2,85o,35°§ butions. -^^^^—^-^ ■ ■ ^— ' ;^40,40i,ii9. ^39,675,764. ;^6i,725,4So. THE NATIONAL DEBT AND ANNUAL INTEREST OF THE STATES OF GERMANY. The amount of annual expenditure for each of the States of Germany includes the Federal Contributions to the Imperial expenditure. The expenditure for the army and navy is not included, but appears in the Budget of the Empire. The Public Debts of the States of the German Empire were principally incurred in the construction of State railways, tele- graphs, canals, and works of public utility. A large proportion, however, of the Public Debts — for instance, Bavaria, Wiirtemburg, Saxony, and Baden — represents an extraordinary military expendi- ture involved in the wars with Prussia, France, and Austria. Some of these debts are divided into " passive " and " I'active," and in some instances, such as State Domains, no interest is paid. The following figures include both " passive et I'active," with or without interest : — * Ordinary. f Extraordinary. { Funded. § Unfunded. CONDITION OF EUROPE. 31S Annual National Annual Interest]: Expenditure, Debts, and Charges, 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^79,583.697 ;^2IO,236,2I3 ;^I2, 728,178 14.014,532 66,804,562 2,487,067 ■ 4.628,303 32,394,345 1,561,839 3,047,059 21,273,566 i',oi9,763 2.457.53° 19,548,753 882,750 2,647,790 16,888,389 504, 100 1,072,698 1,784,765 60,501 376,080 1,835,960 91.793 605,300 3,394,153 t 995.534 3,432,660 176,633 2,218,477 1,290,075 38,700 864,550 362,862 285,814 688, 183 • 384,802 192,228 ■ 166,126 382,628 ■ 103,720 431,678 • 111,710 330,415 4,130 123,122 179,411 8,975 172,99s 679,324 33,966 87,717 52,027 2,601 54,088 10,687 534 59,340 112,275 5,613 36,658 25,509 1,27s 51,155 40,519 2,025 300,000 15,000 800,000 3,001,780 + ;^I 14,948,797- ;^38S,667,959- ;^i9,62S,463. Prussia (Including Pomerania, Saxony, Schleswig- Holstein, Hanover, Hesse-Nassau, West- phalia, &c., &c.) Bavaria Saxony Wiirtemburg Baden Hamburg Hesse Oldenburg Brunswick Bremen Alsace-Lorraine Anhalt Saxe-Meningen Saxe-Weimar Saxe-Altenbourg Saxe-Coburg-Gotha Schwarrbourg Sonderhausen Lubeck Reuss-Schleiz Reuss-Greiz Waldeck Schaumburg-Lippe Lippe Mecklenbourg-Strelitz Meckleaibourg-Schwerin GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The maintenance of a standing army in time of peace, without the consent of Parliament, is prohibited by the Bill of Rights ot 1689. The number of troops, as well as the cost of the services, have to be sanctioned by an annual vote of the House of Com- mons. By the Act of Parliament of 1881, Great Britain and Ireland are divided into thirteen military districts, and these are sub- divided into sub-districts, or General Officer commands. The system of military service is by voluntary enlistment, and the duration of the service has been fixed at 12 years — 7 years in active service, and 5 years in the Reserve. Exception is made to this rule to the Horse Guards, who remain 1 2 years in active service. The non-commissioned officers and subalterns, under certain conditions, * Not positively known. J Includes Interest and Management, &c. ■f Active Debt exceeds the Passive Debt, and therefore no Interest charges. Z 3l6 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL have the privilege of remaining in active service for 21 years, which gives them the right of a pension for life. In addition to the Standing Army and its Reserves, there are the following Auxiliary Forces: the Militia, the Yeomanry, the Volunteers, and the enrolled Pensioners. , The ^following figures include the Home (both Regular and Auxiliary) and Colonial Forces, but they do not include the military police force in Ireland of 13,000 men, nor the military poUce force in India of 190,000; neither the Militia, nor Volunteers in the British Colonies : — Standing Standing Army, Army, and and Auxiliary Population, Reserves, Forces, Navy, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. , , ( Ironclads, and 696,048. 91 [ Cruisers. 38.583.955- 210,218. British Navy and r Gunboats, Empire. Naval Reserve. 2^2-1 Torpedo Boats, 333.777.877- 94.859- (^ Steamers, &c. 373- THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. The largest branch of National expenditure is that for the interest and management of the National Debt, which, since 1 784, has more than trebled, in consequence of the wars of the last 100 years. The Debt in 1689 stood at ;^664,236, and at the conclusion ot the American War, in 1784, it stood at ;^?43,o63,i4S. The 20 years' warfare with France, 1792 to 1815, increased it to _;£86i,o39,o49, since which, by means of a Sinking Fund and Terminable Annuities, it has been reduced to date, 31st March, 1891, to ;^s8s, 959,852, notwithstanding the following additions : Slave Compensation, ;^20,ooo,ooo ; Irish Famine, ;^8, 000,000 ; Crimean War, ;^39.o26,i73. The Amount of ;^585>959.8S2 represents the Consolidated Debt. The Unconsolidated Debt includes the sum of ;^7i,73i,869 of Terminable Annuities, and of various Treasury and Exchequer Bills and Bonds, created to meet certain military expeditions, amounting to ;^32,2S2,oo5. These sums, added to the Consolidated Debt, make the sum total of the nation's liabilities — in other words the National Debt — to _;^689,944,026. The large increase in the Army and Navy CONDITION OF EUROPE. 317 Estimates, is attributable to the amounts involved by the wars in Afghanistan, South Africa, Egypt, the Soudan, and other extensive military preparations. Annual Expenditure, i8go. ;^86,o83,3i4. Interest on National Debt, 1890. ;^I3>836,46S. Interest. Terminable Annuities. 6,555,596- I 942,363- Management and Unfunded Debt. Army and Navy, 1890. ;^l 7,7 1 7,800. Army. 14,557,856- Navy. ;^32,275,656. National Debt, 1890. ;^585!959,852- Funded. 32,252,305. Unfunded. _ _ oc f Terminable 71,731,869. I Annuities. ;^689, 944,026. ;^24,334,424. Note. The sum of ;^io, 929,949 re- presents the following amounts, applied for remunerative purposes, and returnable to the Treasury : — Sardinian Loan £^^SA^^ Cape Railway 400,000 Bullion 365,000 Suez Canal Shares 3,532,040 Australian Colonies Loan... 298,537 Red Sea Telegraph Loan... 268,914 Balances at Banks of Eng- ) .-„„„,, /-, „„ land and Ireland .... . | 5,220,914 ;^679,733,889. ;^io,929,949 719,812. ^^690,663,838. 10,929,949. Savings Bank Deficit, and other obligations. Net total of National Debt, 31st March, 1890. GREECE. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The Army of Greece, by the law of 21st June, 1882, is based on the principle of universal liability to arms on all able-bodied men. The term of service is 19 years, which is sub-divided as follows: 3 years of active service, 6 years in the Reserves, and 10 years in the Landwehr. In addition to the Standing Army and Reserves, there is a Territorial Army of 146,000 men liable to be called to arms. The Navy is manned by conscription and enlistment, and the term of service is 2 years. z* 3l8 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL Standing Standing Army, and Population, Army, Reserves, 1889. 1890. 1890. Navy. f Ironclads and ^ \ Monitors. 2,187,208. 2:6,134. 276,634. Cruisers, Navy. 21 < Torpedo Boats, 3.361- — ( Steamers, &c, 26. THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. Greece has relatively a large public debt, consisting in part ot unpaid loans for past wars, for 1824-5 ^^^ 1862. Since the estab- lishment of Greece as an independent kingdom, there have been few financial terms without a deficit. This frequently recurring deficit is due in great part to military expenditure, and to the excessive number of Government officials, who form one-twelfth of the population. The deficit for 1891 was 2,282,000 drachmas, equal to ;^76,oi3. The National Debt consists of the Internal and External Debt, of which ;^2,343,75o is guaranteed by Great Britain, France, and Russia. The amount of ;£^29,5i5,4i5 does not include the Greek portion of the Ottoman Debt, and, including this, the National Debt of Greece stands at ^^3 8,000, 000. Annual Expenditure, 1890. Army and Navy, 1890. Interest on National Debt, 1890. National Debt, Internal and External, 1890. 3,643,279. 930.713- 1,183,089. 29.515.415- ITALY. The general law of universal liability to arms forms the basis of the present military organisation of the Kingdom of Italy, in accordance ^with the law of the 29th June, 1882. There are three distinct divisions: the Permanent Army, the Active Militia, and the Territorial Militia. The period of service is 19 years : 8 years in the Army, 4 in the Active Militia, and the rest of their time in the Territorial Militia, ■,, Condition of eUrope. 31^ Population, 31st Dec, 1889. Standing Array, 1890. Standing Array and Reserves, 1890. Navy. 1890. 3o.947i3o6. 849,192. 2,852,323. f Ironclads and ^* [ Monitors. ( Cruisers, Navy. 20,429.* 208 ■ FINANCIAL against Turkey in 1876, an 8 per cent, loan was raised of ;^48o,ooo, and in 1877, a further loan became necessary, of ;^i, 000,000. Since then, in consequence of the outlay involved by the war against Bulgaria, two loans have been raised of _;^2, 000,000. Annual Interest of Expenditure, Army, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. ;£2,307,624. ;^392,ooo. ;^796,037- ;^l2,l6i,840. SPAIN. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The Army of Spain was reorganised in 1882, the obligation to serve being general for twelve years, and consists of a permanent Army, in which all Spaniards past the age of 20 are liable to serve for three years ; an Active Reserve for three years, composed of all men who have served their three years in the permanent Army, and the remaining six years in the sedentary Reserve. All Spaniards past the age of 20 are liable to serve, but by a payment of £60, exemption may be purchased. The service in the Colonial Army is eight years, four with the colours, and four in the Reserve forces. The Navy, like the Army, is recruited by con- scription : — Standing Standing Army, and Population, Army, Reserves, Navy, 1887. 1890. 1890. 1890. 17,550,246. 144,912. Navy and Marine 831,642. , i Ironclads, and 1 Monitors. Infantry. 1 Torpedo Boats, 18,478. "4< Cruisers, ( Steamers, &c. 120. The Army and Navy in the Spanish Colonies stands as follows : — Cuba. Porto Rico. Philippines. Total. Army. 27,692 3)700 11,000 42,392 Navy. 1,007 102 3,270 4.379 28,699. 3,802. 14,270. 46,771. CONDITION OF EUROPE. 327 THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. The National Debt of Spain dates as far back as the i6th century, from the conquest of Granada, under Philip V., in 1475, when it stood at ;^9,ooo,ooo. Since then, in consequence of the extravagance of successive rulers, and the constant and ever- increasing excess of expenditure over public revenue, the debt has increased to a very large amount. In 185 1, from various causes, Spain became bankrupt, being unable to meet her engagements in full. In 1870 the debt had risen to ^^237,400,000, and in 1877 it had increased to ;^55o,ooo,ooo, which last increase was the direct result of costly civil wars in Spain and Cuba, and as the Govern- ment were unable to pay interest, an arrangement was made in 1882, by which the total of the National Debt was reduced to ,^233,099,771, upon which interest is paid. Since 1882, the Con solidated Debt has increased to £■2^0,2^^,1 z% and an Unfunded or Floating Debt has been created, amounting to ;^2 1,288,400, and thus the total of the National Debt now stand at ;^2 7 1,5 83, 139. Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. Funded. ^^32,456,536- .;^7>i32,365- ;^ii,3i2>i26. ;^2So,294,739. Un&nded. ;^2I,288,400. ;£'27 1,583, 139- SWEDEN. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The foundation of the Swedish Army dates from the time of Charles IX. In virtue of the Military Law of 1885, all Swedes are obliged to serve 12 years in the Army, which is composed of four distinct classes of troops, the Vdrfvade, or enlisted troops, the Indelta, or National militia, the Bevdring, or conscription troops, drawn by annual levy from the male population between the ages of 2oand 25 years (the law of substitution being abolished), and lastly there is the Gothland MiUtia, who are not compelled to serve beyond the Island of Gothland. The Navy is divided into the Royal Navy, the" Royal Naval Reserve, and the Bevaring of the Marine. 328 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL • Standing Standing Army and Population, Army, Reserves, Navy, 31st Dec. 1889. 1890. 1890. 1886. * "{ Ironclads and 4,774,409- 38,142. 330,480. Monitors. Navy and ( Gun Boats, Reserves. S3 I Torpedo Boats, 28,000. \ Steamers, &c. 69. THE MILITARY- AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. Not only the greater part of the Army expenditure, but also of the Civil and Ecclesiastical, is met from the Revenues of State Lands, State Banks, and the State Railway and Telegraph Receipts. The National Debt was exclusively incurred for the construction of railways, and as their receipts are equal to two-thirds of the interest, the charge is very small, amounting with amortisations to j£S42,43°- Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. i8go. ^^5,189,833. ;£'i,62S>287. ;^S42,43o. ;^i4,o24,467. SWITZERLAND. THE ARMY. The laws of the Republic forbid the maintenance of a Standing Army within the limits of the Confederation. To provide, however, for the defence of the country every citizen, not prevented from physical or mental causes, is liable to bear arms. All cantons are obliged, by the terms of the Constitution of 1874, to furnish at least 3 per cent, of their population to the Federal Army, which is composed of the " Auszug" of men from 20 to 32 years, and of the Landwehr, which includes all men from 33 to 44 years, and the Landsturm, consisting of all able-bodied men from 17 to 50, not serving in the other forces. Population, The 6lite or Slite, Landwehr, ast December, Regular Army, Landwehr, and Landsturm, 1888. 1890. 1890. 1890. 2,934,057- 126,444. 80,796. 268,715. THE MILITARY EXPENDITURE. The Public Debt has been recently created by loans in 1857, 1867, 1871, an'd 1877, either for real acquisitions, or for national defence. CONDITION OF EUROPE. 329 It should be stated that, as a set-off against the Public Debt, which amounts to ;^2,36o,94S, there exists a " Federal Fortune," or " State Property," valued at ;^4,204,642, so that there is an excess in the Active Debt of ;^i,843,697. Interest and Annual Amortisation of Expenditure, Army, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^3,i22,76o. j;^i, 245,606. _;£'io6,o9o. ;^4,204,642 Active Debt 2,360,945 Passive Debt Excess in Active Debt ;^i, 843,697. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The Military Forces of the Ottoman Empire comprise three classes of troops, namely : Nizam, or Active Army ; Redif, or Landwehr ; and the Mustahfiz, or Landsturm. Military service is compulsory on all able-bodied Mahometans for a period of 20 years, 10 years in the Nizam, 4 in the Redif, and 6 in the Mustahfiz ; exemption being allowed to the inhabitants of Constantinople and the island of Crete, according to an old-estabUshed privilege. Non- Mahometans are not liable to military service, but have to pay an exemption tax of ;^23 per annum. The Navy has been considerably weakened by losses during the late Russo-Turkish war, and by the sale of several Ironclads to England. The Navy is raised partly by conscription and partly by voluntary enlistment, and the figures include 80,000 sailors and 9,460 marines. The time of service is 12 years, 5 years in the Active, 3 years in the Reserve, and 4 years in the Redif. The following figures embrace the Turkish Empire, reorganised under the Treaty of BerUn, but excluding the Tributary States of Bulgaria and Egypt, and the Asiatic possessions of the Empire : — Standing Standine Population, 1890. 33,359.787- Standing Army and Army, Reserves, Navy, 1890. 1890. 1890. 170,400. 852,000. 15. Ironclads. ■ Monitors, Gunboats, Navy. 105 Torpedo Boats, 40,572 Men. Steamers, &c. 120. THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. No account of the Imperial expenditure has ever been published by the Government of Turkey, and we have to rely on an official report, from the British Embassy, supplied by the Budget Com- mittee of 1889, which shows the last estimated annual deficit to be T;^2,9oo,ooo. In 1880 the Turkish Government invited delegates, chosen by her creditors, to Constantinople, for the purpose of reorganising her finances. An arrangement was concluded and sanctioned by decree of the Sultan in December, 1881, of which the following is a summary : — The total Debt of Turkey, including arrears of interest (excluding guaranteed loans of 1854, 1855, 1871, and 1872), was estimated at _;^252,8oi,885. This sum has been reduced by the Convention to ;^i 06,437,234. To meet the interest on this agreed debt, Turkey surrenders to a Council of Administration of six members, represent- ing England, France, Germany, Austria, Italy, and the Galatea Bankers, certain revenues, which will be employed as follows, four- fifths for interest, and one-fifth for amortisation. The Galatea Bankers, who claimed T;£8, 170,000, will be re- imbursed by an annual payment of T;^S9o,ooo, which, with accumulated interest, is at the rate of 5 per cent. The proportion of the Turkish Debt due from Servia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Greece, when paid, will be applied to the amortisation of these debts. The amount of interest of the guaranteed debts , of 1854, 1855, 1871, and 1872, is provided for by the Convention out of the Egyptian Tribute, under the joint guarantee of England and France. The indemnity to Russia of ;^32, 000,000 is to be paid, without interest, at the rate of ;^32o,ooo a year, from certain sources of Turkish income, surrendered to Russia. According to the last Budget estimate, the following are the figures as near as can be ascertained, based on the agreement of 1881 : — Annual Interest of Expenditure, Army and Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1889. 1889. 1889. 1889. ;^i9,26o,ooo. ;^6,2 10,000. ;^2, 136,962. ;^io4,458,7o6. EASTERN ROUMELIA, AND BULGARIA. Conformably to the Treaty of Berlin (1878), Roumelia enjoyed an autonomous administration under the immediate authority of Turkey, but by the Revolution which occurred in 1886, its union CONDITION OF EUROPE. 331 with Bulgaria was secured, and its civil, financial and military affairs were united with Roumelia. By the Treaty of Berlin (1878), Bulgaria enjoys a constitutional and hereditary Monarchy, under the Suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey. The Prince is elected by the people, confirmed by the Porte, and ratified by the Great European Powers. According to the Decree of 1879, each subject of the two States, from his twentieth year are obliged to render military service for a period of 12 years, 4 in the active Army, 4 in the Reserve, and 4 in the Landwehr. Population, 1888. Standing Army, 1890. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. Navy, 3,154.375- 35.807. Monitors, 125,000. / ivionitors, 13) Torpedo \ Boats, &c. 346 men. The Pubhc Debt represents the cost of the Russian Occupation of 1876-7, and two Loans in 1887 and 1889. Under the Treaty of Berlin both Bulgaria and Roumelia pay a Tribute to Turkey as their share of the liabiUties of the Old Turkish Debt. Annual Expenditure, 1890. ^3.243.727- Army Interest of National and Navy, National Debt, Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. ;>^956.472- ^^266,717. ;^4,o68,ooo. EGYPT. In 1882, a Revolution broke out in Egypt, which led to the intervention of England, without the assistance of France, and accordingly, after the restoration of the authority of the Khedive, a decree was issued abohshing the joint control of England and Franca in Egypt, and in place of the control, an English Financial Adviser was appointed, with a seat in the Council of Ministers. In September, 1882, the Egyptian Army was disbanded by the decree of the Khedive, and a new Army was formed under the command of an English Officer, with the title of Sirdar. Population, Standing Army, 1882. 1890. 6,8o6,3«i. 13,000 Egyptian. 3,300 British. Annual Army Interest Expenditure, Expenditure, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. i8go. i8go. ;^9.73o.7So- ;^786,425- ;^io9,6ii,2o8. ;£4,844,228. a A 332 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL THE FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR 1890. NATION. ANNUAL EXPENDITURE, 1890. ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES, 1890. INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEBTS, ■ 1S9O. FUNDED AND UNFUNDED NATIONAL DEBTS, 189Q. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY . . . Bosnia, & Herzegovina BELGIUM DENMARK FRANCE THE GERMAN EMPIRE Do. do. STATES GREAT BRITAIN) AND IRELAND) ■" GREECE HOLLAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG MONTENEGRO NORWAY PORTUGAL ROUMANIA IIRUSSIA SERVIA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TURKEY Bulgaria & Roumelia. Egypt Totals £ 91.s30.767 1,018,76s 13,312,562 3.461.15s 151.943.318 40,401,119 114,948,797 86,083,314 3,643,279 11,256,249 74,885,331 329,884 60,000 2.541,437 11.207,713 6,590,760 157,978,206 2,307,624 32,456,536 5. 189,833 3,122,760 19,260,000 3.243.727 9.730,750 847,503,886 12,863,481 428,200 2,042,266 1.933.773 36.412,409 39.675.764 32.275,656 930.713 2,906,786 16. 155.485 15,060 3,000 S13.530 1,664,293 1,456,685 43.539." I 392,000 7.132,36s 1,625,287 1,245,606 6,210,000 456,472 786,425 210,764,377 £. 26,232,288 4,002,624 52,022,767 2.693,025 19,625,463 24.334.424 1,183,089 2.91 1.843 23.159.393 29.076 8,000 206,150 4,061,940 2,462,961 42.790,340 796.037 11,312,126 542,430 106,090 2,136,962 266,717 4,844,228 205,727,973 £ 545,3i3.9SO' 89,263,311 10,514,503 850,068,000* 415,680,804+ 48,875,100* i2.85o,3Sot 385.667,959 679,733.889. 29.515,415 92,626,430. 449,262,660 646,800, 170, 000 J 14,354,014 128,720,971 38,133.837 920,873,374 12,161,840 271,583.139 14,024,467 1.843.69/ 104,458,706 4,068,000 109,611,208 5,230,022,434 * Funded. t Unfunded. § Approximate. 1 Rouble estimated at 3s. 4d. CONDITION OF EUROPE. 333 THE MILITARY SUMMARY FOR 1890. NATION. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. *Bosnia *Herzegovina BELGIUM DENMARK FRANCE THE GERMAN EMPIRE GREAT BRITAIN-) AND IRELAND] • POPULATION ACCORDING TO LAST CENSUS. GREECE HOLLAND ITALY ., LUXEMBOURG MONTENEGRO NORWAY PORTUGAL ROUMANIA RUSSIA SERVIA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND .... TURKEY Bulgaria & Ronmelia Egypt STANDING ARMY, 1890. 41,076,804 ]- 1,404,000 6,093,798 25298,367 38,218,903 46,857,705 38,583,95s 2,187,208 4,548,596 30,947,306 213,283 236,000 1,806,900 4,708,178 5,376,000 II2,934,S92§ 2,096,043 17.550,246 4,774,409 2,934,057 33,359,787 3. '54,375 6,806,381 408,264,893 336,717 47,570 142,827 42,909 547,482 511,492 210,218 26,134 65,849 849,192 267 650 18,750 37,273 51,450 814,000 18,000 144,912 38,142 126,444 170,400 35.807 13,000 STANDING ARMY, AND RESERVES, 1390. NAVY, i8go. 1,813,413 4,788 220,000 59,562 4,190,000 ( 2.393,500 ( J7oo,ooo 696,048 276,634 184,902 2,852,323 ■517 59,000 40,700 125,057 273,000 2,392,327 210,000 831,642 330,480 268,715 852,000 125,000 SB 4,146,485 24 p. o Officers, and Men and Re- serves, 1890. 104 14,507 18,909,608 II 57 27 91 5 25 44 4 I I 39 6 16 15 366 57 375 69 282 21 125 208 51 53 10 340 114 53 105 13 1.318 67,705 13,955 94,859 3,361 12,578 20,429 27,000 3,600 1.751 30,174 18,47s 28,000 40,572 346 1908 378,633 Occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary. • Including Caucasus and Transcaspian. t Landsturm. t Civil Guard. 2 A* 334 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL Five Millions of Men ! all able-bodied and vigorous men, the flower of the population, under arms in Europe, and when the tocsin of war is sounded, when these auxiliary forces are mobilised, when war is proclaimed, Nineteen Millions of armed warriors, the bread- winners of Europe, the fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers amongst the people, trained and disciplined to war. Steadily, year by year, throughout every nation in Europe, the vast hosts of armed men, and the ironclads of destruction, increase in numbers, and in destructive power. In 1880, the numbers of armed men, trained and disciplined for war in Europe, stood at 12,445,871, and for the year 1890 the numbers are, 18,909,608, which shows an increase of Six Millions IN Ten Years. This tremendous increase is not only very discouraging, but it is very alarming, for it is full of danger, and sooner or later, must be fraught with terrible disaster, and when it does overwhelm Europe, will drive back the civilisation of the continent a quarter of a century. The next war, we might say the impending war (would that it could be averted), will be, must be, an appalling catastrophe, from which the mind, the conscience, and the whole nature of man, may well shudder, for it will be a conflict, not of 100,000 soldiers of the line, in which bravery or heroism can be displayed, but a conflict of many millions of men, a conflict, in which all the resources of civilisation, of science, and of infernal machinery will be energetically displayed. The blast of the trumpets, that proclaim the beginning of the war, will summon the manhood of Europe, from each village, town, and city of every nation, to the horrid work of human slaughter, and characterised by horrors far more colossal, and disgraced by scenes far more revolting than the world has ever witnessed. During the past fifty years, say trom 1840 to 1890, it is generally admitted that the peoples of the nations of Europe have advanced, not only in numbers, and in wealth, but in the arts, in commerce, in industry, in knowledge, and in much of political, civil, and religious freedom, but with that civilising advance in political, intellectual, and social progress, there has, unhappily, been a retrograde movement in the direction of the practice of feudal times, the barbarism of the middle ages, by the augmentation of vast standing armies and vast floating navies, and, as an inevitable CONDITION OF KUROPE. 335 consequence, the piling up of gigantic National Debts, and of gigantic military budgets, eating like a canker, sucking like a huge octopus, the life-blood of nations. Throughout Europe, states have been racing for upwards of half a century, in the absurd race, in the ruinous rivalry for the glory, as it is called, but we would rather say the inglory, of ,the "biggest battalions," the mightiest armies and navies, and, strange infatuation, the piling up of the heaviest budgets. The public expenditure of Europe has leaped, in this period of fifty years, from _;^389,ooo,ooo to ;£847,ooo,ooo, three-fourths of which has been, and is still being, poured into the bottomless abyss of war. The National Debts have swelled in the same proportions, from ;^2,626,ooo,ooo to ;^5,228,i78,737; Every military department of each militant State in Europe, has helped, by their wicked and cruel wars, and by their huge prepara- tions for war, to build up this tremendous military fabric. The following Table will show, at a glance, the comparison of the Standing Armies, Annual Expenditure, and National Debts of the principal European Powers in 1840 — 1890. National Annual Strength of Debt. Expenditure; Army. Population. AUSTRIA .., , In 1840 ;^65,ooo,ooo ;Si6,oob,ooo 280,000 32,500,000 In i8go 545.313.950 91,530.767 1,813,413 41,076,804 DENMARK .. . In 1840 105,000,000 1,500,000 40,000 2,500,000 In 1890 10,514.503 3.461,15s 59.562 2,298,367 FRANCE ... . In 1840 658,000,000 49,000,000 480,000 34,ooo,boo In 1890 1,265,748,804 iSi.943,3«8 4,190,000 38,218,903 GT. BRITAIN In 1840 834,500,000 50,000,000 1120,000 24,000,000 In 1890 679.733.889 86,083,314 696,048 38.583.95s HOLLAND ... , In 1840 107,000,000 3,250,000 26,000 2,500,000 In 1890 92,626,430 11,256,249 184,902 4,548,596 PORTUGAL .. . In 1840 7,000,000 2,500 3.000 3,750,000 In 1890 128,720,971 11,207,713 125,057 4,708,178 RUSSIA In 1840 56,000,000 16,000,000 800,000 56,750,000 In 1890 920,873,374 157,978,206 2,392,327 "2,984.592 SWEDEN &•) NORWAY.. . In 1840 4,000,000 2,250,000 59,000 5,000,000 In 1890 28,378,481 7.731.270 381,180 6,581,309 SPAIN , In 1840 24,000,000 5,000,000 95,000 13,000,000 In 1890 271,583,189 32,456,536 831,642 17.550,246 SWITZERL'ND In 1840 None 500,000 35.000 2,000,000 In 1890 1.843.697 3,122,760 268,715 2,934.057 TURKEY _. , In 1840 None 8,000,000 120,000 15,000,000 In 1890 104,458,706 19,260,000 852,000 33.359,787 33^ THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL Every other European nation, Prussia, and the German States, Italy, Belgium, and Greece, equally advancing, or rather retrograd- ing, plunging deeper and deeper into debt, and rushing headlong into, what must eventually be, national bankruptcy and ruin. The Daily Telegraph, writing on this subject, November, 1886, well says : — " Here is, therefore, a total of between thirteen and fourteen millions (now seventeen millions) of effective combatants, every man of whom is liable within a few hours' notice to the dreadful obligation of risking his own life in the strenuous endeavour to take that of some other human being, against whom he bears no personal animosity whatsoever, whom, in fact, he does not know and has never seen. If this tremendous fact be not a black blot upon our boasted civiEsation, there is no such thing as right or wrong in the world. By those to whom it chiefly owes its baleful existence it is extenuated, or, rather, apologised for, on the ground that in reality it serves to maintain general peace ; whereas, if honestly judged by the light of its true significance, it constitutes the supreme danger that menaces European tranquillity from day to day. It compels the peoples of Christendom — ourselves Included — to live, as It were, on the brink of a grumbling volcano, the fiery contents of which may burst forth at any moment, and overwhelm us with ruin. Not only is it a continuous temptation to monarchs and governments to make trial of the superb and costly weapons ever ready to their hands, but it contains, within itself, a force that is necessarily, and unintermittently exerted in a direction distinctly adverse to the conservation of peace The ' blood-tax,' as it is rightly designated in Continental States afflicted by the curse of military conscription, affects every household, profession, business, and calling with equal oppressiveness. It blights agriculture, paralyses industry, lames enterprise, and hampers commerce. In realms less prosperous than France and England, it sets like a perpetual nightmare on the breast of the nation, and is the immediate cause of countless sufferings and sorrows. Russia and Germany, Austria, and Turkey, Italy and Spain groan under the crushing pressure of their Army expenses, from which they can perceive no prospect of relief." The Times, in a trenchant leader, a few years ago, on the military and financial state of Europe, wrote thus : — "The sole cause of the nightmare which is riding Europe down, is, that each nation is striving to steal a march upon its neighbour before its neighbour's open eyes. Military budgets, and armaments might be cut down all round by half, and the relative strength and security of States not be, by an ell's breadth, impaired. Kings and Emperors, and their Ministers of State, and the leaders of militant democracies seem absolutely blind to the manifest fact, that European commonwealths run in harness. With each fraction of accelerated speed in pne, all the rest, perforce, quicken their pace. Fresh martial preparations in one quarter frighten Europe in every other. Not least do they terrify the very State which makes them. Kingdoms and Republics shudder at the tread of their own armed garrisons." There is a passage in the late Mr. Bright's remarkable letter CONDITION OF EUROPE. 337 addressed to Frederick Passy, the eminent French political economist, which is full of force and wisdom : — "As things stand, nations find their resources swallowed up by the insatiable •exigences of the militarism in which they live " The interests of peoples are sacrificed to the most miserable and culpable fantasies of foreign politics, and, unhappily, neither your fellow-citizens nor mine, are able to understand the folly of this policy. ' ' Both France and England possess a wide suffrage and democratic institutions, but our policy remains pretty nearly what it was formerly, the real interests of the masses are trodden under foot, in deference to false notions of glory and national honour " I cannot help thinking that Europe is marching towards some great catastrophe. The crushing weight of her military system cannot be indefinitely supported with patience, and the populations, driven to despair, may very possibly, before long, sweep away the personages who occupy Thrones, and the pretended Statesmen who govern in their names." Well may it be said, that enormous thunder-clouds, heavily sur- charged with ruin and war, hang over the whole horizon, and, it may be, some apparently accidental flash will discharge them, and set Europe in a blaze, involve Europe in a terrible conflagration. In view of such a stormy outlook over the sky of European politics, it is to the thoughtful and sober-minded, and especially to the industrial classes of every nation, that we must appeal, to that Public Opinion which the Italians so poetically describe, ■" the Queen of the World," more powerful, we believe, than all Empires, Thrones, Governments, or Parliaments, for, as Lord Palmerston justly observed : "Opinions are stronger than armies, and if they are founded in truth and justice, will in the end prevail, against the bayonets of infantry, the fire of artillery, and the charges of cavalry." At any moment, Europe may be plunged into a terrible war, and the factories of indus~try and the hives of commerce will be emptied of their hands, some of whom will go to swell that mournful pro- <;ession of unemployed and starving mechanics ; some of them will ■be summoned to occupy and defend the fortresses of war ; and some of them, a vast multitude, will be called upon to perish on the " battle-field of confused noise, with garments rolled in blood." Remember, we are rapidly approaching the close of the nineteenth, and are entering on the dawn of the twentieth century, and this is the humiliating position of Europe ! Her boasted civiHsation, her vaunted progress, her scientific discoveries, her political, civil, and religious liberties, her free press, 338 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL her infinite wisdom and enlightenment, have one and all, it would appear, launched her into this painful position, that when the nations of Europe are not fighting, and slaying, they are preparing to fight, and slay one another ; they are snarling at, and watching one another, with the sleeplessness and cunning, with the vigilance and ferocity, of barbarous and savage tribes. Under such portentous circumstances as these, truly, the task of the statesmen of every European State, is an arduous and perilous one ; and to none is it more so, than to the those statesmen of the Great Empires of Germany, Russia, and France. By wisdom and forbearance, by firmness and sagacity, it may be within their power to avert any disastrous collision, which seems so threatening, of these vast armed forces, and vast floating navies in Europe, ready for the fray. In such a serious crisis, may we not commend, to every lover of order, every true patriot, every friend of peace, the sagacious counsels of that eminent statesman, the late Sir Robert Peel, words of warning, uttered fifty years ago, in 1841, but equally, and more forcibly applicable at the present day : "The true interest of Europe is to come to some one common accord, so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war, rather than to peace. " I do wish the Councils of every country, and if the Councils will not, that the public mind and voice will willingly propagate such a doctrine. Let the Friends of Peace, therefore, in every nation urge upon their respective Governments the necessity of an immediate reduction of those enormous armaments which promote rivalries, foment constant jealousies, and are the most frequent causes of war, and let their cry be, Disarm ! Disarm ! Disarm ! The only escape from this greatcatastrophe is, to create anddevelope an improved public opinion throughout the various nations of Europe, which shall lead them to understand, that their true interests are involved in, and best secured by, the preservation of Peace ; to encourage and extend perfect freedom of trade, and intercourse between the peoples of various countries, for thus, prejudices will be removed, friendships stimulated, and the entire human family united in bonds of commerce ; to establish a High Court of Nations, com- posed of the most learned, wise, and elevated in each nation, to whom all disputes, which it is found impossible to settle by negotiation, shall be referred, in order that they may be decided in accordance with the principles of truth and justice. CONDITION OF EUROPE. 339 The words of the poet Longfellow, in his admirable poem, " The Arsenal of Springfield," will then have a happy fulfilment : — " Were half the power that fills the world with terror. Were half the wealth, bestowed on camps and courts, Given to redeem the human mind from error, There were no need of arsenals nor forts : The warrior's name would be a name abhorred ! And every nation, that should lift again Its hand against a brother, on its forehead Would wear for evermore the curse of Cain ! Down the dark future, through long generations, The echoing sound grew fainter, and then cease ; And like a bell, with solemn, sweet vibrations, I hear once more the Voice of Christ say, ' Peace ! ' Peace ! and no longer from its brazen portals, The blast of War's great organ shakes the skies. But beautiful as songs of the immortals. The holy melodies of love arise." AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. • It must be generally admitted, that the militarism which exists in Europe, the vast and unnecessary armaments, and the gigantic military expenditure which they involve, the absence of a judicial system of law, and of an International Tribunal to apply it, creates such a state of things as is' not only very barbarous, and burdensome, but hazardous to the lives of a great community, and is indeed a disgrace to the Nineteenth Century. The character of a well-governed community, the condition of a well - ordered State, is, where laws, tribunals, and magistrates exist, and the character of a State which has no such judicial system, but in which brute force prevails, as the result inevitably must be, disorder and anarchy ; for what can we expect otherwise, where each nation's passions, jealousies, and ambitions, each nation's right arm, forms the only recognised arbiter for justice and redress ? Imagine a state of Society where men, aye, and women too, are not only allowed, but compelled, in the absence of a judicial system, to fight out their own individual quarrels in the open street, it is self-evident, that from such an interruption to public order, and public business, the common needs would suppress. In a civilised community hke England, or the United States of America, by the advancement of civilisation, and by the power of a humane public opinion, duelling is abolished ; it is illegal for individuals to appeal to might rather than right, to brute force rather than even-handed justice, for the settlement of their individual disputes, and the individual so exercising it, not only forfeits the justice he demands, but secures for himself a punishment he did not anticipate. AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 34I But though civilisation and justice have demanded, and abolished this practice in civil society — this appeal to force in a community of individuals — yet, unfortunately, amongst some of the civilised nations of the world it is precisely the reverse; duelling is permitted, for any nation against whom an injury, as it considers, h^s been done, that nation aggrieved becomes the enforcer of the law ; because, failing a recognised tribunal for Justice, she takes the law into her own hands, and endeavours to secure, by her gigantic armies and navies — by battle, and murder, and death — justice and redress, so-called, and thus by might, not right, tries to obtain its own verdict. WARS OF MODERN EUROPE. The causes of many, if not all, the great wars of Modern Europe forcibly illustrates not only the language of Solomon : " Behold what a great fire a little spark kindleth," but, also, justifies the declaration of the late Lord Russell : " That on looking at all the wars which have been carried on during the- last century, and examining into the causes of them, I do not see one of these wars in which, if there had been proper temper between the parties, the questions in dispute might not have been settled without recourse to arms." In proof of this declaration we will refer, briefly, to the principal wars, and their causes, to which Lord Russell probably referred : I. The War of 1688, which followed, and, which was, in fact, the result of the overthrow of the Royal House of the Stuarts, em- bracing James I., Charles I., Charles II., and James II., that ruled England with despotic power from 1604 to 1688, was the accelerating cause of the War of the Revolution of 1688;; for Louis XIV., King of France, was jealous of the triumph of William of Orange, jealous of his triumphal entry into London, and coronation as King of England, as he had been anxious to maintain James II. on the Throne of England, as a Roman Catholic Monarch ; and, especially, to crush the Revolution of Protestantism that overthrew him, and that banished him to France. No sooner, therefore, was William of Orange firmly seated on the Throne of England, than he declared war against France, being supported by a powerful European League, consisting of Prussia, Holland, Austria, Italy, and Spain, and, in 1707, after a sanguinary war of eight years, during which were fought terrible battles on land and sea, at La Hogue, Steinkirk, Nervine, Dieppe, 342 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. and the Battle of the Boyne, a Peace was concluded at Ryswick, the principal condition of which was, that Louis XIV. recognised William III. and Mary, as the King and Queen of England, and the final settlement of the Protestant Reformation which followed. This war cost England ;^36,ooo,ooo, and was the originator of the National Debt. 2. The next war waged by England, was on behalf of the Spanish Succession, which commenced on the accession of Queen Anne, in 1702, and was declared for the ostensible reason of preventing the accession of Louis XIV. or his Queen, Maria Theresa, to the Spanish Throne; but, really, it was a war to humble ajtid force the Bourbons out of Europe. The war lasted eleven years, during which were fought the terrible Battles of Blenheim, Ramilies, Oudenarde, and Malplaquet, and, in 17 13, a Peace was signed at Utrecht. The result of this war was, that England annexed Gibraltar, Malta, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, but it cost her ;^62,soo,ooo. 3. In 1739 the war was renewed with increased vigour, England having for her allies Austria, Holland, Russia, Sardinia, and Hungary ; and France having Spain for her ally. This war lasted nine years, and was waged by England, in the first place against Spain, arising out of a quarrel in regard to the Spanish Colonies in America, and two years subsequently, in 1741, war was waged against France, in regard to the Austrian Succession to the Throne. This war was concluded by the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1748, and it cost England ;;^54,ooo,ooo. 3. The Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle was not of long duration, for, after an interval of nine years, a jealous rivalry divided France and England, which served to promote serious discord between them. Disputes arose in regard to territorial annexation upon the North American Continent, upon the question of the boundaries of Nova Scotia and Canada, and the disputed possession of several of the West India Islands— St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago. From these, and other disputes in European affaks, a long and bloody war, which lasted seven years, was waged between France and England, which extended its ravages over the three Continents of Europe, Asia, and America, until at last, the resources of both nations being exhausted. Peace was concluded, and a Treaty signed at Paris, in 1763. The cost of AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 343 this war to England was _;^ii 2,000,000, and she wrested from France, Canada, Cape Breton, and several Islands in the West Indies. 4. Then followed that senseless and desolating war, waged with such relentless fury over Europe and Asia, from 1794 to 18 1 5, the objects of which were, the overthrow of Napoleon, to secure the restoration of the Bourbons, and to crush out republicanism in Prance ; and for these objects England subsidized nearly every State in Europe ; the Continent was deluged with blood, marked by the terrible Battles of Marengo, and Wagram, Austerlitz, and Jena, Borodino, and Waterloo, and a hundred others, where "Millions lay down in their anguish to die." This great War, waged by England against France, may be divided into two periods, the first, called the War of the French Revolution, and lasted from 1794 to 1805, and during this great struggle, England had Russia, Austria, Spain, Holland, and Portugal, as allies in her War against France. It was concluded by the Peace of Amiens, and cost England ^^464,000,000, arid the result ot that Peace was, that France lost all her power and territory in .India, which England seized, besides Malta, Trinidad, and other West Indian possessions of France. The second period of the war with France, began immediately after the Peace of Amiens, for it was abruptly broken, owing to the determination of England and her Allies, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Portugal, to refuse to recognise, or to sanction the choice by the French people, of Napoleon as their ruler, — a war, which cost England ;^i, 159,000,000 — and it is estimated, that, in these two wars, upwards of 5,000,000 lives were sacrificed. In 177s, Great Britain waged the tremendous struggle with America for the possession of the North American Colonies, com- monly called the Great War of American Independence, which was caused by tlie determination of England to dictate a system of Finance to 40,000,000 of people, 3,000 miles to the westward of her own shores, and, by her attempt, by force, to raise a large revenue from the American people, to enable her to carry on, and wage her wars of ambition and intervention upon both the European, and Asiatic Continents, which was a policy of fraud and violence, being based upon taxation without representation, quite contrary to our Constitution. After a great and sanguinary struggle, which lasted eight years, and 344 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. which cost Great Britain ;^i 36,000,000, Peace was concluded, and signed at Versailles, in 1783, by which Treaty she was forced to acknowledge the 13 Provinces of North America as being free, sovereign, and independent States. 5. From 1854 to 1856, Great Britain, allied with France, Sardinia, and Turkey, waged the Great War against Russia. The causes which precipitated this war arose, originally, out of a dispute regarding the ^oly Places ; the Churches that have, been built over those spots in Palestine, where the events in the Messiah's History are supposed, to have taken place, viz. : the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of Bethlehem ; both of which were in the possession of Turkey ; and the immediate cause of the dispute was, that the Star, which had been placed from time immemorial over the Altar in the Church of Bethlehem, had mysteriously disappeared. The Latins charged the Greeks with having stolen it, and this squabble was made the pretext by the Russians for a political quarrel, and, eventually,, this became the cause of the Crimean War. The French Government, to please the Roman Catholics in France and Europe, supported the claims of the Latins, and demanded of the Sultan of Turkey supervision of the Latin Sanctuaries. Great Britain supported the French demand ; against which, Russia, as the defender of the Greek Church ; protested, firstly, on the grounds ot her Treaty obligations with Turkey, and, secondly, that to yield any privileges which the Greek Church had ' hitherto enjoyed, to the Latin Church, would be a loss to Russia of her influence in the East. The Government of Turkey was advised by England to resist^ so actuated by a bitter hostility to Russian aggrandisement; (i) to cripple the resources of Russia, (2) to maintain the " Balance of Power " in Europe, (3) to secure the independence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. These were the three great objects of the war, and for which the efforts and resources of England were provided. That " measureless calamity," cost Russia, Great Britain, France^ Italy, and Turkey, ;i^340,ooo,ooo, and the lives of upwards of 900,000 men. 6. In 1864, Prussia waged war against Denmark to secure the sovereignty over the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein. This claim by Prussia arose out of the Danish insurrection of 1850, for the purpose of establishing a constitutional system in Schleswig-Holstein, distinct from Denmark, and Prussia, at that time, assisted the Duchies» AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 345 and by the Treaty of Peace which followed, their independence was secured. In 1863, upon the accession of King Christian to the Danish Throne, the question was raised again, and Prussia claimed the recognition of the Uuke of Augustenburg as the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein, but this claim was resented by the King of Denmark, and herein was the cause of the war. 7. In 1866, consequent upon the annexation of the Danish Pro- vinces to the Prussian Crown, a quarrel arose with Austria, which culminated in the Austro-Prussian War ; wherein, during the decisive campaign in Bohemia, the Austrian Army under Marshal Benedek was defeated by the Prussian forces at the Battle of Sadowa. By the Treaty of Prague, which followed, the political influence of Austria in the North German Bund, and over any portion of the German States, was swept away. These two Wars, waged by Prussia against Denmark and Austria, involved a loss of 48,000 men killed, and an expenditure of ;^73, 000,000 sterling. 8. In 1870-71, as an inevitable consequence of these two preceding wars, France waged a terrible struggle with Germany, a war> ostensibly arising from the candidature of Prince Leopold Sigmaringen to the Throne of Spain, but, really, to prevent the military ascendancy of Germany in Europe, and to prop up, by a military diversion, the tottering dynasty of the Buonapartes in France. In this fierce struggle, with its succession of overwhelming German victories at Weissenburg, Worth, Sedan, Gravelotte, and many others, and by the sieges of Metz, Strasburg, Belfort, Paris, and many other fortified positions in France, it is estimated that 250,000 men perished, and, that the cost in treasure to France, equalled ;^3 17,000,000. An examination into the causes that led to each, and all of those deplorable wars, and many others, that have been waged within the same period of. time, justifies the declaration of Lord Russell, that had there been the least approach to concession and conciliation on either side, or on both sides, they might have been, one and all> prevented. A BARBAROUS SYSTEM. Such a state of things as we have described, such a system, or rather the absence of any system, is strikingly comparable to the Dark Ages, when private wars, and judicial combats were the 346 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. established institutions, and the practices of the people, regulated, though they may have been, by certain principles, yet they were, nevertheless, an appeal to force, as violence decided their disputes. It was during that dark period of those mediseval and barbarous times, that Grotius, a brave man, a genius, and an authority on International Law, was so impressed with this unbridled lust for miU- tary ambition and territorial aggrandizement, which animated and controlled the age in which he lived, that he published to the world the first Treatise on International Law, entitled, " De Jure Belli, ac Pads" and, it may be well to quote, from the Preface to that remark- able work, the reasons he so forcibly gave for writing it. He said : — "I observed, throughout the Christian world, a licentiousness in regard to war, which even barbarous nations ought to be ashamed of, a running to arms upon erery frivolous, or rather, no occasion, which, being once taken up, there remained no longer any reverence for right, either divine or human, just as if, from that time, men were authorised, and firmly resolved, to commit all manner of crimes without restraint." And, may we not declare, that, at the present time, in International Affairs, whilst, it may be admitted, that there are certain maxims and principles, with a certain amount of equity and morality, yet, that it is brute force, or, as Grotius declared, 200 years ago, " An appeal to violence, a running to arms on every frivolous occasion," that decides national quarrels ; so that we may say, even from the days of Julius Caesar down to the present time, during the 2,000 years of the Christian Era, with all their accumulated experiences of Christian thought and Christian teaching, nations have ever taken the law into their own hands, by the blind and brutal arbitrament of war, thus endeavouring, by force, to secure what they call justice. Whilst, therefore, this absence of law, and of a Judicial Tribunal of Arbitration, may have been permitted in a state of Society, and amongst nations, slowly emerging from semi-barbarism, yet now that nations have become more civilised, more under the benign influence of Christian thought and practice, and more dependent upon one another, by Free Trade, by industrial and commercial activity, and especially now that war, and the infernal machinery of war, is, year by year, becoming more and more murderous, a system, in fact, of murdering men by machinery, is it not becoming more and more intolerable, that nations bound together by interests so vast, so complicated, and yet so mutual, which Mr. Gladstone so AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 347 well compared to, " gigantic shuttles weaving the nations into one," that Europe, nay this great civilised and Christian community, equal to a population of 465,000,000, should be without a recognised Code of Law, without a recognised Tribunal of Arbitration, for the settlement, by reason and common sense, of their international differences ? AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. To meet this great evil of militarism, a system of International Arbitration is proposed, or rather the establishment of a High Court of nations, for the peaceful adjustment of differences which may arise between nation and nation, in accordance with certain well-defined principles, embodied in a Code of International Law. And this system which is proposed, is by no means original, for it is as old as the oldest of empires. It is a system that has come down to us from the earliest times, from the anarchy and confusion of the Dark Ages, through Egyptians and Persians, through Greeks and Romans, through Confederacies and Councils, through Congresses and Con- ferences of nearly every age, down to the present century. One of the earliest systems for the peaceful settlement of national disputes was the Araphictyonic Council of Greece, founded by Amphictyon, King of Athens, 1497 B.C., as a bond of union for many communities, an institution of Equity and of Law, that existed during many centuries of Grecian History. It represented twelve, and afterwards, thirty-one States, each State sending two Deputies to the General Council, which met twice a year at Delphi, or Thermopylae, and its decisions, says Eees, " were received with the greatest veneration, and were ever, held sacred and inviolable. This Areopagus, or Court of Arbitration, continued for fifteen centuries, and there is no doubt, that, at this early period of the World's history, it exercised a powerful influence, in restraining aggression, in regulating national intercourse, and, in founding International Law. The Achaean League was the next arbitration alliance, formed amongst the cities of Achaia, in Greece, and so great was its character for justice and truth, that many other communities, espe- cially in Italy, referred their disputes to this league of arbitration. The next important step in Europe, for securing a peaceful umpirage, was the League of the Hanse Towns, established in the year 1239, embracing the cities of Lubeck and Hamburg, and 2 B 348 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. twelve towns on the Baltic ; a system that was afterwards extended to eighty cities and towns of Central Europe. For two centuries this League of Arbitration flourished, main- taining peace with surrounding nations, until, becoming rich and powerful, equipped with fleets and armies, it waged successful wars with Waldemar II., King of Denmark, which created jealousy among the other Powers, and, after the course of some years, it gradually dissolved 'into the Hanseatic League consisting of the three towns of Lubeck, Hamburg, and Bremen. The next important confederation of peace was established in 1308, representing the States of Switzerland, commonly called the Helvetic Union. Its Public Law is to be found in the Treaty of Sempatch, of 1393, and also in the Treaty of Arau, of 17 12. By these Treaties, the Helvetic Union became a perpetual defensive alliance, to protect itself by force, within, from insur- rection, and without, against all the foreign enemies of the Republic. For 500 years, this Tribunal of Arbitration in Switzerland, con- sisting of twenty different States, differing from one another in language, religion, laws, forms of government, manners and customs, has united together, not only for the purpose of resisting foreign aggres- sion, but also for maintaining peace with one another, and it has been wonderfully successful in both, and remains to this day, an honour to its founders, a blessing to posterity, and the admiration of Europe, and therefore, worthy of universal adoption. The great scheme of Henry IV. of France, commonly called Henry of Navarre, follows next in order of date. It was drafted by his Prime Minister, De Rosny, Duke of Sully, upon the model of the ancient Council of Greece, and consisted of Ministers of all Christian Governments, who were to assemble as a Senate, "to pacify quarrels, and to clear up and determine all the civil, political, and religious affairs of Europe." This project of Henry IV. for the formation of a Court, for the appeal of nations, deserves credit as an attempt to unite all the nations of Europe in one grand Confederate Republic of Arbitration of fifteen nations, consisting of eleven monarchies, and four republics. Elizabeth, Queen of England, gave the scheme her warmest support, and, had it not keen for the dagger of Ravaillac, who cruelly AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 349 assassinated Henry IV. in 1610, this great scheme of arbitration . would not have so suddenly collapsed. In 1693, William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, published an Essay, "On the Present and Future Peace of Europe," in which he urged the plan of a General Congress for the settlement ot international disputes. Referring to the great design of Henry IV. he says : "His example tells us that this is fit to be done, the history of the United Provinces shows, by surpassing instance, that it may be done, and Europe by her incomparable miseries, that it ought to be done." The scheme of William Penn aimed to establish an Assembly, or Diet, in Europe, before which all differences should be brought, that could not be terminated by embassies ; and the judgment of which, should be so binding, that if any one Government, offering its case for decision, did not abide by it, the rest should compel it. The last approach in Europe to a High Court of Arbitration is to be found in the Holy Alliance, founded at Paris in 1816, by Treaty signed and sealed by the Emperors of Russia and Austria, and the King of Prussia. This Alliance was afterwards accepted by the Netherlands, Saxony, Wurtemburg, and Switzerland, and the Kings of England, and of France, sent Representatives to the various assemblies, and meetings of this Alliance. The professed principles of this Holy Alliance were embodied in Three Articles, the objects of which were declared to be ; the perpetual preservation of peace, and the Sovereigns who signed the Treaty declared, that they considered the Christian principles of benevo- lence, mutual forbearance, and charity were binding upon them as Sovereigns, equally as upon individuals, and they bound themselves to support each other, against wars of aggression or ambition in Europe. The premature death of Alexander, Emperor of Russia, was probably the cause why the Holy Alliance was dissolved. In each and all of these leagues, confederacies, and tribunals, it must be admitted, as their Constitutions declare, that the Executive Power was, and remains still to be, force, and without this executive authority they had, and have no stability, or permanence in the family of nations. It may be said, and said truly, that the downfall of some of the Confederacies, and Leagues of Arbitration was hastened by the arbitrary exercise of their potential power, or by the jealousies, 2 B* 350 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. created amongst neighbouring states, from their unjust exercise of this potential power, but, it will be found, that their downfall, was an evidence of the abuse, not the legitimate use, of the executive authority, and, therefore, that this exception, should not prove the rule. Yet, although to Europe, especially to Greece, and to Switzerland, in particular, belongs the honour of founding first and foremost a High Court of Arbitration, still it is to the United States of America that belongs the greater honour, of establishing an International Tribunal, and in giving it a practical character. Founded by the great American Statesman, George Washington, in 1775, co-temporary with the foundation of the great American Republic, this International Tribunal of the United States of America, has flourished for upwards of a century, and is thus referred to by John Stuart Mill, as follows : — " The Tribunals of the United States, which act as umpires between the Federal and State Governments, naturally also decide all disputes between two States. The usual remedies between nations, war and diplomacy, being precluded by the Federal Union, it is necessary that a judicial remedj' should supply their place. The Supreme Court of the Federation dispenses International Law, and is the first great example, of what is now, one of the most prominent wants of civilised society, a real International Tribunal." And it is a remarkable, but no less authoritative fact, that, through- out the memorable history of the great American Republic, during all the great events of the past one hundred years, of its wonderful career, this Tribunal of Arbitration, founded with such conspicuous wisdom, by that eminent man George Washington, has proved so signal a success ; because, in every difiSculty and dispute, which have arisen between the Federal Government at Washington, and the Governments of the various Thirty-nine States of the Union, they have been peacefully and satisfactorily settled by a reference to theTribunal, and that only in one instance, and that instance the most memor- able event in the history of that Great Republic, did the decision of that Tribunal, fail to secure a peaceful settlement of the difficulty. In that instance, of 1861, the Supreme Court of the Federation exercised its legitimate authority by force, on the ground, that no one State of the Union, had a right to secede from that Union without the sanction of the whole of the States of the Union, and the result was, the tremendous conflict between the North and South ; and, deplorable as was that conflict, few persons will contend that AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 351 the exercise, by the Executive Authority of the Supreme Court was a proof of its weakness, but, on the contrary, its strength ; for this great exception, must prove the rule. The Supreme Court of the Federation nobly vindicated its authority, the glorious Union of North and South has been main- tained, and one of the basest conspiracies of modern times, that of a Confederacy, based on slavery, has been for ever swept away. But not only is our homage due to the United States of America, for the practical adoption, the triumphant establishment of a Tribunal of Arbitration, of a High Court of nations for dispensing law and equity in International Affairs, but Europe and the world is indebted to America, its government and people, for their persistent endeavours, to secure the adoption of the same great principle, by all the governments of the civilised world. Public meetings have been held, agitations of all kinds carried on, to prove its necessity and its practicability, and even the Legis- lature of several States, have addressed memorials in its favour, to the Government, and to the Congress at Washington. We will quote one memorial which was addressed from the Legislature of Massachusetts in 184.^. " That it is our earnest desire, that the Government of the United States would take measures for obtaining the consent of the 'Powers of Christendom, to the establishment of a General Congress of nations, for the purpose of settling the principles of International Law, and of establishing a High Court of nations, to adjust all cases of difficulty which may be brought before them.'' This scheme proposes, first, to define and settle the principles of International Law, and then, secondly, to establish a Tribunal of Arbitration, which shall interpret, and so duly apply that law, to such International questions of difficulty and dispute, that may be submitted to it for arbitration. This point cannot be too clearly, or too emphatically stated, as it is not simply that nations need an arbitrator, one chosen from each nation, or the recourse to a neutral or a friendly power, but the great necessity, is a Tribunal of Arbitration, a Supreme Court, as previously referred to in the United States of America, to decide, what is the law of nations in every matter of dispute, and that will give a decision, which shall be accepted as final, and, as binding, and that will also prove a statutory enactment for all time, and a precedent to all nations. This subject of an International Tribunal in Europe, has recently 352 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR KUROPE. been brought prominently to the front, by the submission of the scheme of the late Professor Leone Levi, to the Peace Congress at Paris in 1889, for the establishment of a High Court of Arbitration, which it is proposed shall consist of publicists, jurists, and philan- thropists, to secure the pacific settlement of all national differences. The following is the project : — "A DRAFT PROJECT OF A COUNCIL AND HIGH COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. ' I. Havipg regard to the earnest desire felt, and expressed in every country, to avert as much as possible the evils of war, by reason of the enormous loss of life and treasure, and of the burden of large, armies which it entails ; and, by reason also, of the retarding of civilisation and morals, the disorganisation of industry, and commerce, and the disorder in public finances, which are its necessary attendants ; " 2. Having regard to the many instances in which states have submitted their disputes to the judgment of an arbitrator or arbitrators, sometimes a sovereign, sometimes a court of justice, sometimes a congress, sometimes (as in, the ' Alabama ' Arbitration) publicists and jurists, and in nearly all cases with perfect success and satisfaction ; " 3. And, having regard to the fact, that arbitration clauses have been inserted in Treaties of Commerce, and to the need of providing some permanent organisation for giving effect to the same, where such provision does not already exist in the treaty, thus avoiding the danger and difficulty of long negotiations, for the purpose of creating a new method on the occurrence of every emergency ; " 4. The Committees of the Peace Society, and of the International Arbitration and Peace Association, invite the friends of peace in various countries, to join them in urging the governments of the several states of the civilised world, to enter into communication among themselves, with a view to convening an International Conference, specially summoned to consider the expediency of appointing a permanent Council of International Arbitration, with original and delegated authority, as follows : — " 5. Each State to nominate a given number of members, publicists, and jurists, or other persons of high reputation and standing, to constitute a Council of International Arbitration. " 6. Such Council may be held, as constituted, as soon as any two AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 353 States concur in its organisation, and have nominated members for the same. "7. When duly organised by any number of states, the Council will invite other states to nominate their members to the Council. " 8. The Council will at its first meeting appoint its secretaries. " 9. On the occurrence of any dispute between any states repre- sented on the Council, or not so represented, the secretaries, at the request of any two members of the Council, shall summon a meeting, to consider what steps may be adopted for immediately arresting any war measures already taken, or about to be taken, by any contending states, and for offering, if desirable, the aid of the Council in the shape of mediation or arbitration. " ID. When the contending states agree to leave their disputes to arbitration, the Council will appoint some of its members, and some other persons specially nominated by the contending states, to be a High Court of International Arbitration, and its award in the case, shall be binding upon the contending states. "11. The appointment of the members of the High Court shall be made with special regard to the character arid locality of the dispute, and shall terminate, on the settlement of the dispute, or abandon- ment of the arbitration. " 12. It is not contemplated to provide for the exercise of physical orce, in order to secure reference to the Council, or to compel compliance with the award of the Council, or Court, when made. The authority of the Council and Court is moral, not physical. "13. Where, however, on the