IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) I 1.0 I.I u MA S lii 12.0 L25 fflU |L6 .^ ^ 9 FhotogFaphic Sciences CarporatiQn 23 WKT MAM STRUT VMnSTM,N.Y. 149M (71*)t7a-4S0l ^ ><^ ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Inttituta for Historical IMicroraproductiOiis / inttitut Canadian da microraproductions historiquaa vV Technical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquaa Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibllographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha hnagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignif icantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chackaid balow. D D D D D Colourad covara/ Couvartura da coulaur j I Covara damagad/ Couvartura andommagte Covara raatorad and/or iaminatad/ Couvartura raatcurte at/ou paliicuMcii □ Covar titia miaaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua lourad mapa/ Cartat gAographiquaa an coulaur I I Colourad mapa/ □ Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) I j Colourad plataa and/or illuatrationa/ Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ RalW avac d'autraa documants Tight binding may cauaa ft Tranaparance Quality of prir Qualit* inijB*!* da rimpraaaion Includea aupplamentary matarii Comprend du material auppMmentaira Only edition available/ Seule Mition diaponible I — I Pagea damaged/ I — I Pagea raatorad and/or laminated/ ry] Pagea diacoloured. atained or foxed/ |~~n Pagae detached/ FT] Showthrough/ I I Quality of print variea/ I I Includea aupplamentary material/ r — I Only edition available/ Pagae wholly or partially obacurad by errata alipa, tiaauea, etc., have been ref limed to enaure the beat poaaible image/ Lea pagea totalament ou partieilement obacurciac par un feuillef d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont At* filmAea A nouveau de fa^on A obtanir la mailieure image poaaible. Various pagingi. Thia item ia filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document eet filmA au taux de rMuotlon indiquA ci-deaaoua. 10X 14X 18X 22X 20X 30X ' X 12X lex aox a«x 28X 32X Ttw copy fllin«d h«r« has b««n rtproduead thanks to tho gonorosity of: Sir Qaorgi Williamt Campus Concordia Univanity Montraal Tho imagoo appoaring hara ara tha bast quality possibia considaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract spacificationa. Original copies in printed papar oovara ara Tilmad baginning with tha front eovar and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impras- sion. or tha bacic covar whan appropriate. All othar original copies ara filmed beginning on the first paga with a printed or illustrated impree- sion, end ending on the iaat page with a printad or iiiustreted impression. L'exempiaire film* fut reproduit grice A la gin^rosit* da: Sir Gaorga Williami Campus Concordia University IMontraai Las images suhrantes ont 4t* r^produitas svec ie plus grand soin, compta tenu do la condition at da la netteti de l'exempiaire film*, et en conformiti evec les conditions du contrat de filmaga. Lea axemplelree originaux dont la couverture en papier eet Imprim4e sent fiimte en commen9ant par Ie premier plet et en terminent soit par la darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impression ou d'iilustration. soit par Ie second plet, selon Ie caa. Toua les autres axempieires origineux sent filmis en common^ jnt par ie premiere pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impreeaion ou d1ilustrati(E st en terminant par la dernl4re pege qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on eech microfiche shell contain tha symbol — ^ (meening "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meaning "END"), whichever epplies. Un des symboles suivants appsrattra sur ia darnlAre imege de cheque microfiche, selon Ie ces: Ie symbole — ►signifio "A SUIVRE", Ie /mbole ▼ signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, cherts, etc., mey be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ere filmed beginning in the upper left hend comer, left to right end top to bottom, aa many frames aa required. The following diegrams Illustrate the method: Les cartes, plenches, tableaux, etc., peu* ent Atre fllmis i d«s taux de rMuction diffArents. Lorsque ie document eet trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cllchA, 11 est film* A partir da i'angle sup4rieur gauche, de gauche h droite, et de haut en Ims, en prenant la nombre d'images nicessaira. Les diagrammes suivants lllustrent Ie mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 e »■ jri-jy'/^,^'! e^t/^^is^ FROM A I'H0T0(;RAI'H specially TAKKN 1!Y LAMHERT WESTON & SON, FOI.KKSTONE. 1 % ■■V i i)ltt GfcUHGL IV.l; JAMS Ui\i!VLHSlTY "■~" - LIBRARY THE FOREIGN POLICY OF EUROPE BY LEWIS APPLETON, F.R.H.S. JVITJI PORTRAIT OF THE AUTHOR. DEDICATED TO THE RIGHT HON. THE EARL OF DERBY, F.C.. K.G., FORMERLY SECRFTARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS ; SECRETARY OF STATE FOU '^'^'^ THE colonies; PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL; SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA, ETC., ETC. PRICE FI VE SHIL L INGS. LONDON : SIMPKIN. MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. (limited). ROME : ERMANNO LOESCHER & CO., PARIS : BOYVEAU & CHi.VILLET 22, RUE DE LA BANQUE. 307, VIA DF.L CORSO. [ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.! LONDON ; printed at 74-76, great queen street, lincoln's-inn fields, W.C. 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 ; IN 1858, AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA ; 1866-1868, AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS; 1874-1878, 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, Cfeis ^ainmt is |«strilr«b, WITH CORDIAL SENTIMENTS OF ESTEEM AND ADMIRATION, SS % ittt&or. •Shi m THE AUTHOR'S RETROSPECT OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, 1866 TO 1891. FIFTEEN YEARS TRAVEL7.ING 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. M. m^ M 't. , I ,«(•.■■ \ ■ i ^^P J .;■;.'/■■ ■ THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS WORK. The Political Writints 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 Secretarj-ships of the Earl of Aberdeen and Viscount Palmcrston. Thomas Macknight. (i&SS.) The Life of Viscount Palmerston (1846-1865). Hon. Evelyn Ashley. (1876.) The Annual Register. (1854 to 189 1.) Revue des Deux Mondes. (1866 to 1891.) Regeneration of Eastern Europe, &c. Vladimir Vovanovitch. (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. Fitzgerald. (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.C.M.G., &c. (1890.) A Treatise on Maritime Law. Robert Ward. (1875.) 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. (1891.) The Statesman's Year Book. J. Scott Keltic. (1891.) Hertslet's Commercial Treaties. (Latest Vol. 1887.) Hertslet's British and Foreign State Papers. (1814-1884.) 1 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 LEA.DING ORGANS OP THE PRESS, ESPECIALLY TO TUB TIMES, STANDARD, MORNING POST, POR NUMEROUS SPECIAL ARTICLES ON VARIOUS QUESTIONS OF FOREIGN POLITICS, AND TO THE POLI.OWiNG GENTLEMEN FOR THEIR INVALUABLE ASSISTANCE I— SIR EDWARD HERTSLET, C.B. | G. DE. WINTON, F.S.A., ChbvK, &c. W. M. BROOKES, Esq., Bradford. ''Sunt duo genera decertandi : unum per disceptationem ; alterum per vim ; illud proprius est hominis, hoc belluarumy—CiCEKo. CONTENTS. PAGES Title Page i. Dedication to the Right Hon. The Earl of Derby, K.G iii. Portrait of the Author Separat* Plate. The Author's Retrospect iv. Principal Authorities Consulted v. Contents vii. Erraia ;.: 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 iv 1842. The Third War: China, 1S39. The Fourth War: in Syria, 1840. The Fifth War: in the Punjaub, 1848. The Si/th War: in Borneo, 1S49. The Seventh War: Don Pacifico, ilj-o. 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 1 wenty-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 1 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 LorJ Derby. The Constantinople Vlll CONTENTS. I li 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-iVHat 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/(788 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 1839 to 1889. Foreign Policy of England in 1839. A Crisis in the East. Mehcmet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, declares War against Turkey. Lord Palmerston, Fore'gn 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 ^Syp^ 1875. 1'hc Dual Control. Deposition of Ismail Pasha. Events in Egypt in 1881. TewRk 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 Efe"pt. 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 Wolff to Egypt. Result of the Negotiations. Future Policy of England in Egypt 89/0 119 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 Garuier 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 Bouet succeeds Riviere. CONTENTS. IX France, Annam, anu Chihk— Continued, PAGES Treaty of Hu^, 1884. Opposition of China. Events in Tonquin from 1884 to 1886. France drifting into War with China. Military oi^erations 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 Hue. 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 120/0143 RERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1356 to 1889. Early History of Servia. Events from 1 356 to 1717. Stefan Dooshau the Mighty. The Disaster at Kossovo. Under the Ottoman Rule. The Servians of Austria, Events from 17 17 to i860. Austria and Turkey struggle for supremacy. Servia rose en masse for Independence. Servia under Kara-Georgevics. Under Milosh Obrenovics. 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 1888. Abdication of King Milan, 1889. Future Prospects of Servia 144/0171 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1713 to 1891. Early History of Newfoundland. General Characteristics. St. Pierre and Miquelon. The Shoals. Treaty of Utrecht, 1713. Treaty of Paris, 1763. Treaty of Ve lilles, 1783. Subsequent Treaties. French Fishing Industry. The Political Situation. Negotiations in 1844. Negotiations in 1851. Negotiations in ,1856. Negotiations in 1859. Negotiations in 1866. N^otiations in 1874. Negotiations in 1881. Negotiations in 1884 to 1887. The Lobster Difficulty, against British Factories. England protests Lobster Factories. A New Departure, 1889. Vivendi," 1890. Arbitration Proposals, 1891. of the Question. Mission of the Delegates from Newfoundland in 1890. The Delegation of 1891. 'Manifesto of the Colonial Government. 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 /o 228 French Protest against French The "Modus General Review '1 X CONTENTS. A POS'^ SCRIPT. PAGES Nor^h American Discoverers. Crantz on Greenland. Rees on Jean Cabot. The Metropolitana on Jean Cabot. Columbus's Visit to North America. Morse on Newfoundland. Barclay on Sebastian Cabotti. Stow on John Cabote. The Cabots at Bristol. The Universal Traveller on Expeditio.10 to New- foundland. Oliver Cromwell's action. France and New- foundland. Expedition of Verazzini, iS2n. 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 io 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 tl>e British Parliament. Intervention of England in Egypt in 1882. Opinion of Mr. Gladstone. Importance to England of the Suez CanaL The Interests of France. Policy of England. Tonnage and Receipts of the Suez Canal, 1885. A Common Accord of England and France. Action of I ,ord 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. Au 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. 235 to 285 CONTENTS. XI MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. PAGES Maritime Law defined. Historic rhumi. Customs of the earliest Maritime States. The "Consolato Del Mare." Treaties on Maritime Law since the 17th Century. Armed Neutrality of Russia, 1780. Action of England in 1854. The Declaration of Paris, 1856. Action of the United States. Piracy v. 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 parent Bellum. Military and Financial Condition of Austro - Hungarian Empire. Belgium. Denmark. France. German Empire. Great Britain and Ireland. Greece. Italy. Jtlolland. Luxembourg. Montenegro. Norway. Portugal. Roumania. Russian Jlmpire. 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 77/6 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 Congiesses. The Concert of Europe. Opinions of eminent Publicists. A Tribunal for Europe, with Executive Authority. A great Reform advocated 340 to 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. i i rage I, line 21, for "born" read "borne." Page 35, line 9, for "scatters" read "scatter." Page 35. last line, for "were" read "was." Page 62, line 25, for "with" read "for." Page 72, line 23, before "the dream" read "was." Page 74, Hne 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 public capacity as a lecturer in various pans 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, and future; and although the events of the past — which cannot be revoked or erased from the records of the Political History of European nations — may, generally, be considered to have a limited bearing only on the political events of the present time, or upon the Foreign Policy 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. i!! M i 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. The chapter 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 aifairs of the Balkan States, beginning with her first interference under the Empress Catherine II., 1768, 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 1 8th 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 Steefan-Dooshan, who assumed the Imperial title of Czar. The subsequent events of Servian history are traced in INTRODUCl'ION. XV 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 181 2. The modern history of Servia, under the Obrenovics Dynasty, from 1812 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 L^h, to the year 1787, when it entered, for the first time, into political relations vith France, by a Treaty of Alliance, in which France agreed to . "sist, by force of arms, the restoration of the Dynasty of Lbh, deposed by revolution in 1774. The successive military 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 Fran9ois Gamier, for the purpose of extending French dominion in the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, followed by the Treaty of Saignon, 15th 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 Hub, 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 9th 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 Hub, 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 Bris on ; Generalde-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, quesiions of Foreign Policy, and of international relations, which have, and, also, must ''n the future, claim the serious attention of governments, parliaments, and the people generally, are, Newfoundland, Egypt, Militarism in Europe, and the nee 3ssity 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, 10 which we shall presently refer), which have lately come to the front, and demanding the anxious conoideration 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 Salisbury, and INTRODUCTION. xvn Lord Knutsford, and, under the latter,ofM.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 cordiaU 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 to 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 kate, 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 dipio- matist, Lord Lyons, both of whom, it may be truly said, displayed in a remarkable degree, that suaviter in modo^ et fortiter in re, wherein consists the true secret of success in the rare science of diplomacy. » I*" Mi'' ' i, I ;'i I Xviii lUTROfitJCTlOlf 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 heid 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 ;^9o,ooo,ooo, 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 :;minent 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 crushinglyheavyasto 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, ;^5, 230,02 2,434 — a state of affairs that is frightfi'i'y 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 impossibihty, 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 convinced 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 JOt INTRODUCTION 11 ' as it does on the duration of the Government for the time being in France. . . . Any day there may possibly arise a French Government whose whole policy aims at living from the feu saen', 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-conquest 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 Frankfort 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 7 ' Has there been in France a Ministry which dared to say that P 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 187 1, 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 " 1 What ^ 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 — 5,000,000— at the INTRODUCTION. XXI icy the 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 alied 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 ic-day the powerful factor for the vast and threatening armaments which must, sooner or later, precipitate a mighty struggle in Central Eur pe 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 alliance 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 resolvea 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. i ► previously erLsted between them — will be cnabletl 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 of 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, 943,3i8, the Army and Navy Expenditure ;^36,4i 2,409, and the interest of her huge National Debt ;^52,o22,767, making a total Annual Expenditure for War of ;^88,435,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,53o,757, of which sum ;^26,332,288 is devoted to the interest of the National Debt, and ;^i 2,863,481 for the Army and Navy, making a total Expenditure for War of ;^39,r9S,769 per annum. Italy has an Army, including its Reserves, of 2,852,323 men ; her National Debt amounts to ;^449, 262,660; 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 ;^23iiS9»393. total ^^39.314,878 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 propositions for disarmament have been resisted, and even ridiculed Mm^I 1 1' ■ 'n 11 r 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 i866, 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 unqualified 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 Government of Austria, whilst reciprocating the pacific sentiments of the three Great Powers ♦* to avert from the fac? of Europe the calamities of war," yet cori' INTRODUCTION. XXVII 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 en 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 i866, 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- XXVlll INTRODUCTION ; 'I n ',' 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 insufficient 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 manyinternationalquestions 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 European Congress, for the express purpose of considering, in a spirit of concession and conciliation all round, the various questions that threaten to disturb the maintenance of peace, and thus to arrive at 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 r, 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 oteps of that chivalrous Minister of Great Britain, the courageous Lord Clarendon, and propose the assembling of a European Congress for the pacific solution of I'j 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 the 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 period, 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 Republican, 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 armaments, and the gigantic expenditure which they involve, is the establishment of a recognised XXX INTRODUCTION. 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 thjit 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 lang standing, that nothing could quench but blood ; and in such a case Arbitration will and did fail. But in an international dispute [threatening 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 diiferences between Great Britain and the United States of America, arising out of the Alabama contro- versy, and then we found 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 with Germany." INTRODUCTION. XXXI " But, happily," said the veteran statesman, " these 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 th ;t Arbitration is becoming the rule, and War the exception, in international aflfairs. 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, th : 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 nn opportunity to gain time." Time is a powerful factor for peace, at a c'lsis 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, is 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; xxxii INTRODUCTION. f;i( ** 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. $ist 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 o( 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 50th 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 I ■ j I a 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 1 793, and which had deluged the Continent with blood, was once more restored to tranquility 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 BuUer, 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. THE FIRST WAR: CANADA. IN 1838. The first disturbance to the quiet and good promise which heralded Queen Victoria's Reign, came 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, hov/ever, 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 demagogutjs 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 reaign, 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. *^/ul/ 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 established 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. i 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 Policy. The Go. >?mment of Lord Melbourne, acting on the sinister advice of Lord Aiickland, 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 inio 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 officers 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. 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 ;i^ 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 his 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 officers; 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. ^n<^ s 6 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 assass i- nated at a Conference soon afterwards, with his body-guard and officers, 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 snov/ and crevasses. The retreating army numbered 4,000 men and some 12,000 camp followers besides women and children, including poor I^ady 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 JugduUuk 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, tnd 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 untU 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 fortress, and on the 15th Septemoer, 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. -.-r iMHi 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 appo'nted officials to resiJe r Citima 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. 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, Anioy, 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. T ^;^Bg^» 10 THE FOURTH WAR : IN SYRIA. h 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 Egj'pt 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 cue 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 Il li II 13 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 Ofificers, 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 ;£'jo,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. 13 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 Broo'ie 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 hir 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 ;^2o 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 se^s 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 r.uthority 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. r liii Hi 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 ;^3 1,534, 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 merchant 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. IS 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 ;i^'iso for a bedstead worth j£$; and j£io for a counterpane worth ;^i ; jC^$ for a pillow-case worth 15s. ; and ;^io for a night-shirt worth only los. The jewellery of his wife and daughters he estimated at ;;^2ooo, 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 ; and this system of ceaseless aggression and annexation was, in fact, an exterminating war of races, until the Kaffir lace, 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 Avas 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 ill i6 THE NINTH WAR : KAFFIR WAR. I i i* 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 . :8o6, 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 tliese 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 181 9, another Kaffir war, which resulted in further extension of territory. In 183s, 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 utem 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. ^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 Kaffirs 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 (luestion. Its origin is in the constitution of human nature, lust for con quest, territory, and power, and the result was wasteful expenditure of money, appalling sacrifice of life, and the shame and humiliation that must ever attach to wars of blood-guiltiness. s were driven THE TENTH WAR: IN BUxRMAH. 1852. Hardly had the Kaffir War in South Africa terminated, than England became involved in a war with the Empire of Burmah. In 1 851, 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. i8 THE TENTH WAR: IN BURMAH, I I ' (il!! h So far, so good. The new Governor arrived at Rangoon ; and on his arrival the British Commodore sent an ofificer, 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 dare 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 oflFence 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 ^Cing and Government of Burmah tried pacific and conciliatory m es, and offered that a Br \sh Resident should be appointed to Ra..t,v^un, and he offered also to ^:y 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 185 1, 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. I t 1^ 1 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 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 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 sidest, made concessions to each, but these concessions pleased neither, and France threatened physical force, whilst Russ'a threatened to withdraw her Ambassador; and as a derniere r«juilt over story are J Church key ; and had been hurch of and this i political lean War. ranee and y for the ; relations »ly Places, nople de- he I^atin tafiford de 1850, first nd all the h demand, •eyes to the the Greek nople, and • Majesty's of Russia, the loss of ) yield any o the Latin sidei, made leithery and to withdraw d a rupture, agreed to a mixed Commission consisting of (i) Turkey, (i) Greece, and {7) France, and it is no wonc;er 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- mission 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- c/usive 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 j but, unfortunately, it was not acted upon, and Russia determined, in consequence of this deception and double-dealing of Turkey, to send Prince Menschikoff 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 dematid, 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 British Ambassador, Lord Stratford de Redcliflfe, in which he warned him 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 surprif^e that Turkey rejected Russia's reasonable demand ; a rejection that England alone was responsible for, because Lord Stratford de Redcliffe 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 a'^t 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 injury to her independence or honour. When, however, the Note was sent to Constantinople Turkey con- I i II aa THE ELEVENTH WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. sidered it was as dad 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 j 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 ; 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 efforts of the European Powers. " The Turkish Council," says Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, " 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 me most emphatic manner, in consort with France, Austria, and Prussia, vot to declare war, but Turkey declared war in the very teeth of h;r .iJvice. 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 declatations of England, England suffered herself to be dragged help- lesslv at the tail of the fanatical Turk into the abyss of war. ' 1 ■ ■ ortunately, 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 aias ! 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." TAis 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 o\\ 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 1854, 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 brutalising 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. i * »4 THE ELEVENTH WAR : CRIMEAN WAR. P- I \: 11 I It is to maintain a nation whose " Koran " says : " There is but one law, and that law forbids all communication with infidels." Such a system of Government, with such a policy, is nothing but a tyrannical despotism at once sanguinary and lawless. 1 1 my opinion it is not the alliance of England, or the presence of foreign arms 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 h 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 dismember 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 actuated 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 M: . 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 tne place of those miserable hovels, which now constitute the Capital of Turkey, that 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 Fleet 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 commant* 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 military 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 disembarked, some 10,000 strong, and on the rgth 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 |« Ft 1 i^P 1 M 1, 1 i '! i l| ! ' ■ i j 1 ■ 1 ■ 1 i 1 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 lor 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 *' Ange/ 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 fo undation of the Geneva Convention and the noble Army of the Red Cross. At this period of 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 sth, 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, ;^340,ooo,ooo sterling. THE TWELFTH WAR : IN OUDE. THE TWELFTH WAR: IN OUDE. 87 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 Throne. 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. i 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 («j at Paris, and cost England ;^i, 159,000,000. Lastly: The Ciimean 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,.-*77,ooo. * History of \.\ e Law of Nations, pp. 80. 88. t Rlanvial of International Law, Vo. » {ty-. i«,v" 191. CONCLUSION. S3 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, 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 i^y 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 coloi-sal 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 i>iHK ill' H? Ill r I •• 54 CONCLUSION. beneath a debt so enormoub 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 ;^8 00,000,000 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 sufficiently 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. I I 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 1^; f^\A til i i ' fl / I S^ 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 successorof 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 15 17 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.ini768,andof 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. 37 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 Selim 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 1 2,000,000 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. The next serious intervention of Russia in the East, occurred in 1820, when the Greeks, no longer able to endure the brutality and tyranny of the Ottoman rule, broke out in rebellion against Turkey, and for six years strove hard to regain their independence, during wh'ch time the Great Powers maintained an observant neutrality. Russia anxiously watched her opportunity, for she believed the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was at hand, but to the surpvise 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 llfi I »M I '^1 I I' • • II i! I it 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 cotisidered 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 tne 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 AffJairs, 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 indep endence of the Ottoman Empire. The third intervention of Russia in Eastern Affairs was in 1834 and arooe in this instance, it should in justice be stated, not to the initiative of the Government of St. Petersburg, but in re.sponse to an earnest appeal from the Sultan and the Porte, to safeguard the 1" I 1" (i !f. ft S^r ^ \T ^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 UilZi 125 ■«Kii 122 U 1 1.6 — 6" w PhologFaphic JSdmces Craporalion ^ ^■"^ <> as wnr mam strut «VWITIR,N.Y. I4SM (71«)t7a-4S03 '^'^^% ^ •\ '^ f vV 6o RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. ) • i i Ml interests and theintegrity 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 cervices with the British Forces against Bonaparte, became Viceroy of Egypt in 1806, and from 181 1 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 Co:j- 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 Bosphoius, 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 nis 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 mihtary 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. 6l ithe rmy, reaty dto gypt. 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 tims 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 m the relatione 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 brought to bear upon the Porte by the British Ambassador, against the inter- ference and subsequent action of Russia, and this advice of Lord wm § 'i ' ii J I ::» ; i "lij i 1 ' t 1 ) '"it i 1 r 1 11 '1 s 1 i '1 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 the Turks, for the 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 vhe 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 arious 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 2Sth, i860, the view of the British Government was thus defined : — RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 63 "From the time of the Treaty of Kainardji of 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 inte ference 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 i8th, 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 strongly represented to the Porte that as the Turkish Empire is by treaty stipulations to be declared part and parcel of the European system, 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, Sept^.mber 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 :5 : J 4i n. ir f: K fi :ii n ■ # c I • '8 ! 1 1 ■; 11; ■f :■ •\ :. 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 dona fide effort 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, oi- 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 ?t 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 Bosaia. 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 tl Va RUSSIA, TURKEY, AMD BULGARIA. 65 Empire, with an extension of the Greek frontiers so as to include Epirtas 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 Berlin 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 Memonndum ;" and, despairing of in n 1 66 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. ! •: a pacific solution, the Servians and Montenegrins (incited, no doubt, by Russian Panslavt'sts, 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 Governme'it 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 poiver to keep it within certain limits * • • We shall not intervene, we shall do our utmost, if necessary, to discourage others from inter- vening. " li 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 i RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 67 the restoration of peace, and this proposal was finally accepted by the Sultan, and bv 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, tiie Turkish Minister for Foreign .Vffairs, 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 deliberation 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 for 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- stanti" ople 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 'i| fi I I f Il ' 68 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. il .1^ ' h I :; M ! ; 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 eq iity, 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, ac'-'^rding 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 authoris«-d 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 feeis itself bound to declare that the Christian population of Herzegovina, and Bosnia, and of Bul- garia, rose in insurrection solely at the instigation of Fanslavist Committees, organised and paid by R;*ssia; 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." ! ' I 1 ■* ml '■'1; hi Jii Ip I M J 9 ii 11 I'i i !■ 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, /Aaf bloody 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 of 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' 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 a dark 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! G"/e 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. ! ■ ! In H fi-; 'A r " I.S m^\ III' li il' .h 1 ! 1 1^ i 1 ': i ■' i- . ■ _ii 7a RUSSIA, TUR'lEY, AND BULGARIA. It was SO in 1870, when Prussia loudly proclaimed to Europe at the moment of entering upon the strn.ggle 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, Prr^sia 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 Ambassadorof Russi? 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 R'lssian 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, ard 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 becomewar 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 it 'S 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 T877 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 Eopeal was al 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 IgnatiefT, 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 m III h '» 1% 111 im I !" ills i 4\ I' M 1 :il; II I!' il J < I' 1 '■', J ■\ I 'I! 74 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. evoked such a storm of indignation from the public press, and the public voice, that no Cabinet or Governmen. 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 conscituted a great Bulgaria, stretching from Servia to the Euxine, and from the Danube to the Egean. Another provision authorised an r,3sembly 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. on 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 political 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 I I n* :< 1 '^j i«( i m • ' 'mi H *r '1 I t I t • i jl ! n- I' I.' ., I ^: ii 1; if, 1^ 1 Si 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 SchouvalofT, 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 GortchakofF for Russia, Count Andrassy for Austria, Count Corti for Italy, M. Waddington for France, Caratheodori Pasha for Turkey, and last, but riot 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 ! ', .ord 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 Rjumania ; 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 Bu'ij_aria, and in case of a vacancy arising, the election of the new Princ 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 ,ii i il 4 € I *l ■ ?5 : m ffl; '4 *ri W .) ! I fl r I : I ml ' ',■ f. \ '. Hi 1 78 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. Hezregovina by Austria, the neutrality of the port of Batoum, and the tributary relations of Turkey with Servia and Routnania. 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 bigotr)', stopped many aveiues of foreign intrigue, abridged the Power of a Despotic Empire, and gave peace to Europe, which, we may hope, no Government or Ruler 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 ih-s 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 Gortchakoff and 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 titl« 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 Poite, 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 stoo'^ 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 i886, 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, J)d- al, 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 ind-ectly, 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 difificult 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 oflicers 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, flnding 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. i M •lii ii "; ' Hit i I. Hi m i) < 'T ir i r i ^i ill ^ I- H ' -i n '1 i ll (!! if 'ii : 1 ■ ; ,. 1 8o 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 officials, 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 Comnr;ander-in-Chief of the Roumelian Army, and the " reveille " was sounded for a general call to arms, in defence of popular rights and the natic lal 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, Philiippopolis, amid tremendous enthusiasm. Herein was the great ofTence given to Russia by Prince Alexander, for he had connived and fraternised with the anti-Russian party in 1 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. 8l in [iria, bsal, Imid Ider, ly in 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 d'etat, events which placed Bulgaru 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 im agine 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 ! Crapensation ! 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 tmprovoked 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-bom State of Bulgaria! o i •1 * 'J J'; m m :i ■i l,i ml i ii I' ■o i- m, n f f ', 8a 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 Skobeloffs, 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 rui jry lal 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 buve 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. It ■% m 1 1 iiHi m i 1:; IS III m »4 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND KULGARIA. I : I I i> ■I |i I r' '• if Surely Russia, who only reluctantly consented to the separation of Kulgaria from Roumelia nt the Congress of Berlin, should have hailed with delight its fusion with Eastern Roumelia, for if we may credit official 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 Imperialism will be in the future no one can foretell, but of this we may be certain, ihsLi a greater 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 t/ie 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 rigime, when invasion of Turkey becomes annexation of its provinces, or dis- ui ! : t RUSSIA, TURKEY, ANU BULGARIA. 85 llS- memberment of the Empire? We shall then hear of an EngUsh 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 oi one another ; and thus the area of war will be enlarged, a war, which it will be im- possible to foresee the close. Tt 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 WHi ■i ijll! g 1 • i i ' ■!;;-H ■! t ;: \i III ^ :'i| 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 deiir. 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 policy, 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 demons^ration 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 bs 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 Ottoman Empire in Europe and in Asia, is inhabited by a honrogeneous 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 lake 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 the 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. Granted that the (ireat 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 11 a I:; lit m J: I i ! 11 1.1 , ' ;i f III : In- I i] 88 RUSSIA, TURKEY, AND BULGARIA. all the children of the Empire, will acknowledge their tellow- 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. 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 affairs, 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 Palmerston (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 Ali, 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. m m If 4» > ! •fl ll u lifl 90 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. In the beginning of the year 1839, Turkey took the field with a pov/erful 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 se/enteen, 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 Flee, 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 bcrious difference between France and the other European Powers, on the measures to be adopted for the pacification of the East. ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 91 The policy of England had been straightforward from the first, for she regarded Mehemet Ali as a rebel, and 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 oflFered 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 resultt, 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 ii* \\ ■;■ 9a ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. ,*;:li ! W.\ ii! ri' of Russia should be the army of Europe, and that as such they should invade Turkey to protect 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 decimation 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 ij 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 cf opinion upon policy, many difficulties arose. Moreover, France still clung to her traditional Egyptian policy, 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. n ;iii in cy ENdLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 93 In January 1840, however, a Ministerial Crisis occurred in France, and England ho'^ed 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, m if III I ' ' iflii • :« <\\\ I: i i'l'i ■ii ■ i , ! ■ i' M ^i\ i\ f •■ m llr I'i 94 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. and, incensed by this coup de grdce, 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 L 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 cordiale 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 in lOUS ised eral his the his 3uis ince )ns, Iton, :ed, Ithe 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 miHtary 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 triumpued. 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 Powerb 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 eflFect, 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 1 84 1, which surperseded the Treaties of Adrianople, of 1829, and of Unkiar-Skelessi, of 183 1, 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 that 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. I r;i! % ■ - ■! ir' ill * I If j,M 1^ I ■• li >i f i* ■ i'-i i 1 1 1 :h : ! III 1 i i^ 96 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. Whatever may huve been the diverse opinions of the politicians and statesmen of Europe on the merits of the Treaty of the i3tii 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 Ali 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 fina'ly 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 ;^35o,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 n.«te of interest, and in a few years Ismail Pasha contracted a debt of ;^9o,ooo,ooo, of which sum only ;^45,ooo,ooo was received by th^ Government at Cairo ; the remaining ;£'45,ooo,ooo finding its way into the coffers and pockets of London and Paris financiers. The gross annual revenue of Egypt, of ;^8, 500,000, was raised by every sort of oppressive taxation upon the people, and of this sum ;^5,7oo,ooo 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 tiie Bondh»,lders ; and the result of their mission was, to recommend to their resp^ictive 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 I 1 i 98 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. I I ! 4i I ■ < 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 established 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 ;£5,7oo,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 Egyi, 1-. 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 10 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, iSSi, 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, who 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 Mi! \\ n ■> mi A %\ . i." ! ; »■. 1 ■■ m Yf ; .1 ,r * 1 \ 5 %>•' , i I; il 100 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, aiid a protest, signed by Abdelal 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 hin", 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 : — I. The dismissal of the Minister. a. Tl i summoning of the Chamber of Notables. 3. The adoption of the recommendations of the Military Commission. At z 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 Oflficers, 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 nvrords," which was also obeyed. The Khedive then demanded of them the reason for 7'! 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 Jiuler is he who is just ; he who is not so, is no longer Jiuler," d tl c ii ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. lOI 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 Ofificers, 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 from the Sultan. On September 14th, after many anxious days spent 'n negotiation with the Military, the Khedive, and the Foreign Consuls, Cherif Pasha succeeded in forming the new Ministi^, 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 respoct the Law of Liquidation, and all other international engagements ; and thus ended the eventful year for Egypt, of 1881. if' *• i ; ■; -^ i llF ;i' ; I .;. • . • \ ♦ V, \ :■' is 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 \\m fi I02 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. I i I I' < the people ; that Egypt was sick of the European Control, and its highly paid and incompetent Ofnc'als, 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 Prcuch Ministry under Gambetta fell, and was replaced by M. 3 V > -ycinet, and his policy being opposed to the former, the Chamrcf cf 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, Khedive; but the plot was betrayed, and the instigators were ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 103 arrested, tried by a secret Coi.rt 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. ill ill, !1 ii iii " 'I ii ' ' '• t I t ' '•A • '■I MM)!] I; 1 I I m h ■ !i ' ' ' I 1 1 M it 104 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. On July 7 th, Admiral Beauchamp-Seymour replied by a threat to bombard Alexandria if his request for the evacuation of the Forts, was not complied 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 orcjers from Paris, sullenly and silently withdrew to Port Said. At 7 a.m. on the morning of July i ith, the first shot wis 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 bombardment 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 iu 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 a'. 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 oi* 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 100 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. m i :1m f ri io6 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. I'' I in I ;! IT 'I i n: • y\'- 3. 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 ! And 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 for this barbaric act : — " England violated ^th the Law of Nations, and the obligations of Treaties ; she broke public faith, and infringed solemn engagements, "f Fifteen days after the bombai iment 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, 188?, 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 i5tb July, 1883, 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 ip^'ructions 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. ^I!h ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 107 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 22 nd 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 11,000 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 National 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 rule of the Khedive, to which he was eatitled. ?V ^ II « ''. J I r ' ■. , r- ■■•! 1 ' .■ 1 : i^': ) 3 1 J: ■ 1 ',n '■M\ i. r^ f !pt i.'' i r> ;' ! 1^ t' I 1 08 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 Dufferin (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 re-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 Egypt 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, and 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. 1091 he of ify ild 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 Egypt, and from that one false step, committed by the Government 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 Egypt. 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 knezv not Joseph" zxid 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 Tel-el-Kebir, they longed for a no ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. II jl li .1 i I ri i'. 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 M 'idi, that in August, 1883, Hicks Pasha, a retired Indian officer, w., 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 1 1,000 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 5th, without water, without supplies, 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 pui: it plainly, duty and policy alike imperatively demanded, that at that supreme crisis, when the Rebelion 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 \ i 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. W^l 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. ill 'ilJl I n !, 112 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. If '; I W. Ill I i 4 t \ i At this period of the struggle, a cry of despair was heard from Colonel Stewart, the Officer in commimd at Khartoum, where ii,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 K'irtoum. Can anything be more intelligible, c re emphatic than the onus 'irofiandi of that responsibility ? What are the facts ? When Gordon, in January, 1884, chivalrously } ''cepted 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, 18S4, 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. :me an ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. "3 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 ! 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 1886. 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 'Ml i !:!f ii ; 1(1 ■\m 114 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. Ik i I . ij It it:.' 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 passing 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, fke Suzerain^ of the Sultan, and the Sovereignty of the Forte, over the Gcvernment 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 Mahommedan world, v/hich 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 reccgnuion 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 26th October, 1885 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. "5 by Said Pasha, cho Plenipotentiary appointed by the Porte, and by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, on behalf of England, by which it was agreed : — " That Turkey and England would respectively send a High Commissioner to ^SypN '<> consult with the Khedive upon the best means of, (i) TranquiUising the Soudan, (a) 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 th" 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 ievolt; 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 he 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. I i w m n ti i ili'i: i i ( ii6 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 Wolff 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 orf^an of the Turkish Government, called the Tarik, wrote thus favourably of the Convention : — "The satisfactory terminati.' - of the negotiations is due to the moderation and friendliness of both parties, a. d the good news must be hailed with pleasure on all sides. The Porte's attitude through' "t has been steadfastly based on principles of equity and fairness, and these have bt 1 fully appreciated by the British Government, which, on its side, has given renev'eu 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 England 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 I igland's position in Egypt was surrounded with pledges to Europe; that whilst > .igland 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 ut Salisbury, " agreed to the signing by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff uf 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. 117 that hilst iring igas dby y Sir ^ern- lone 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 vnth previous declarations of Lord Granville, that the Canal shall be absolutely free to all nations, and at all times. (a) The withdrawal of British troops from Egypt, subject to certain conditions, in three years from date of ratincation 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, (a) 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. Nelidoff, 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 27 th 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." PI If l-i, 1!':!' I'':!!i ii8 ENGLAND, FRANCE, AND EGYPT. 1 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 bite noir of Russia, that demanded, forsooth, occupation of Bulgaria ! Occupation was the Mte noir of France, that has, forsooth, carried out ' :cupation in Tunis, Tonquin, and Madagascar ! Occupation was the Mte 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 resumt 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 2Sth 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. 119 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, I ■ 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 hostility 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 solid guarantee for the maintenance of the general tranquillity of Europe. li r' ? ; 1 l' in m m m' m':1 ill! T lii 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 conj,ists, 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 then, as is now, Hufe. In the 15th century the founder of the Annam dynasty, Lfeh, 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, conductec* by three brothers called Tayson, overthrew the dynasty of ^h, and exterminated all the members, not only of this family, but those of Trinh and Nguyfen 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. V\ \ 1\ FROM 1787 TO 1874. With the young son of Nguyfen, 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. Nguybn on his side, agreed to surrender to France the Bay and the Peninsula of Tourane, as well as two small adjacent ; i 122 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. i' i.i i; !'l ■ i 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 frireSy and replaced on the throne the heir of the deposed Nguyen 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 XVL 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. 123 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 Poulo-Condor, south-east of Saignon. These provinces were annexed by conquest, and embodied in a Treaty, signe-i June sth, 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 12 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 L^h, 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 m vi ^ Ilii li ' Ml I I? i" ! 134 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 Huh, 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. FranQois Gamier, hoping thereby to act as the prot^gd 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 Gamier 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 Gamier 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 /orce majeure reasserted the power of France. The tragic end, however, of poor Gamier and his compatriots gave FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 125 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 ''igned the isth March, 1874, on the part of France, by Rear- Admiral Duprfe, 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 indefjendence 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 tu 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 compri'->d within the following boundaries : — At the east the Chinese Sea and the Kingdom of Annam, ( Province of Binh-Thuftu) ; on the west, the Gulf of Siam ; on the south, the Chinese Sea ; on the north, the Kingdom of Cambodge, and the Kingdom of Annam, (Province of Biiih-Thu&u). 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 Annaniite Government. Article XI. — The Annamite Government engages to open for commerce the ports of Thin-Nai, in the province of Binh-Dinh, of Ninh-Hal, in the province of Hai- Druong, the town of Hanoi, and the passage by the river Nhi-Ha from the sea to Yunnan. 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 of 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, !;?^ •"If t 126 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. /lii^ mil ' li^C ' ■'^ 1, . 12 ' 1 1 j ,1 \ ' ! 'ii 'II m ml Hil'W- f' ■1' ii i1 if tlieir number and the importance 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 traffic 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 ap )roach 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 'var in Tonquin, and the consequ^t 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 greai Western Powers. We approach this delicate nnd criti.ul state of affairs with no feeling of jealousy or hcstility 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 ror.nd, and animated by this spirit, judged by this standard, examine calmly and dispassionately the causes of FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 127 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 tJie 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 j istification of a declaration of war ; but they were only the pretexts, not the actual casus belli. The pretexts were numerous : 1. The piracy and brigandage, on the frontiers of the French sett!"^- 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. •^m \'->'\'% !■■: 1 1 ■ • 1 1 1: Mi*; l'i I 128 FRANCE, ANNAM, 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 onco 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 p sj ot at the confluence of the Red and Clear Rirers for the estab- lishment of a military sL-'tion ; (i-') having chosen the spot, to demand its cession, which will be refused ; (3) to establish the station in defiance of the Annamites, ar.rt 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. Hi? exploits closely resemble the career and fate of poor Francois Gamier in 1872. Hanoi was captured in April, 1882, after five days' fighting, and having captured Hanoi he atta.cked 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 ,'ant to fight, let us fight ! If i.ot, 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 Gamier, 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 Gamier fell in 1872, he was FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 129 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 col imn. Then followed the terrible cry, that reverberated throughout France, er 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, i:e-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 Bou^t, 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 Hub, 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'r and I. — Payment of War Indemnity. II.— The occupation of the Hud forts by a French garrison until the complete payment of the indemnity. III. — The recall of the Annamite troops operating in the Delta of the Red River, and these troops to be placed at General Bouet's disposal, '*> 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. '':.'' ■': f; 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, escdcially in regard to the second Article, with reference to the occupation of the forts of Hub and the capital of Annam, until a complete payment of the indemnity ; for in consequence of the im- pec;uniosity of the Government of Annam, the Chinese Govern- ment believed it would result in an indefinite occupation, and *■ ii 1! i 1^ 1 J 1 I 1 1 . 1 . V I (m 1 1 130 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 the 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, (^"^ no one knew better than he did) that " fAe 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. 131 than the fact, of the uninterrupted invedture by the Emperor of China of the Sovereign, on his accessic 1 to the Throne, and to the Tribute Embassies every four years to 7 ekin. In 1872, France availed herself ">f 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 u 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, irontier 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 '.it m iSr * •;: !U 1 ill: ]' I i I ^ F ^- i H '■ -i: 132 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA^ between France and China, the situation was full of peril j 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 ^^40,000,000 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. ii^ f!! Ill I' !: 111 i 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 reversfe, 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. 133 were nition they undis- the ports ine, in iranced serious eded. (Uowed by the "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 offices of I^rd 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 Huh 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 Hub Treaty of 1884, yet, there devolved upon her, a more nm v 1 • •! w p.- Bi i |[ i I h h w i(! ii>.lB>< I.' I i;i M: ii i 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 sr 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 aflairs 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 Hufe 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 Huh 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. '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 tallied 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 pla^^e 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. 1 1 it 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 inai;o;urate a more pacific policy in Indo-China, and with this object in vie v, the triangular administration of affairs, which consisted of a Civil Governor at Hufe, 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 Huh. For such a responsible position, and at such a grave crisis of f 1 1 I il' ii ' 1 ' i '■' i ] tl' 1 ,' ' ■ ' ! ; 1 1 . m V. 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 rigime 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 policy 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 men, 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, bow 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. 137 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 more 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 policy), 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 climate, 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. ^ Hi' .,-,, m 138 FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 'I i ! I I I 1 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. Mawiraalt, but they both rehised the honour ; until at last, failing 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 An. m and Tonquin, especially on the frontiers with China, th^re 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 j 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. \^l FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 139 A RETROSPECT. Such then are the details, the saddenmg details, of French inter- vention in Tonquin, and its inevitable results, the threatened hostilities with China, which, happil} , 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 abrrad, 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 Toncjuin, 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 military expedition of Henri Riviere was determined upon, Jules Ferry was Premier, and Barthelemy St. Hilaire Foreign Minister, and the diplo- matic representative of France in Indo-China 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 Freyci' et became Foreign Minister; but it was a short-lived Administration, for on an adverse vote on the question of scrutin de liste, or scrutin (Tarrondissement, Gambetta resigned, and was succeeded as Premier by De Freycinet, who retained the Portfolio for Foreign Affair^ 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 if 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 Bou^t was appointed as his military successor, whilst M, i' ii :.i!'''? "I- I: ) I II 1 ! 140 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. Duclcrc, 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 f lose of 1884 M. Tricon was superseded by M. Patenotre, and Genefal 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 military affairs. ns- De r, as jisle, ^ern- de ts in FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 141 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 policy ; 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 doath, 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 ;^i, 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 C .i'^itution, raised by M. Clemenceau, they resisted, and Wire aefea el, and M. Floquet became Premier, and M. Goblet *.'inis':ei for '-"oreign Affairs. I'hiis \r\ 'he comparatively brief period of eight years there has been tweiv xidministrations in France; and upon each and all of these succe?;jht; 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 i t,. . 1 w ■1 ■! 1' ' , m I i rri 14a FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. I :l 'I ■;: been perpetual changes in the personnel of the military and civil departments. During tiie 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 exercisin^ 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 conquer''^ 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 the 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 Penins^^.r. is a direct and flagrant violation of FRANCE, ANNAM, AND CHINA. 143 territorial rights and of national Sovereignty, vhich 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 influerice in Europe. It is of little avail thai 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. f 1^ I! ir '' S E R V I A, AND HER RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 1 I v. •I 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- cans 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 Roii:an territory south of the Danube, which was ceded to them by the By/.-'ntine Emperor Heraclius, and established themselves in Moesia, Thrac'='. 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 < ople, ar i the only distinction between the Croats and Servians w.. .>, that the former acknowledged the ritual and supremacy of Rome, whilst the latter adopted the faith of ib i 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 der'ved from Serp, a sickle, and Serbians implies an agricultural people. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 145 sub- The Servians acknowledged the supremacy of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius, 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 Servians 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. implies an 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 amongst 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, ana, but for the interven- tion of Austria Bulgaria wouid have subjected Servia by a victorious war. hi ;* 1 f ■ : ; 1 fii 1 1 1 1 ' ' ! ,1 ! , i ; l> 1 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 and 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 ann^, 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 alliance 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 . entury, 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 he. 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 thi^ ■i.ir,,A vy of Servia, they were powerless to efface or stifle the pauioli :: spirit (>f ihe Servians in favour of fre< dom. SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 147 one, (wed nelia r he lace- eded mvj>, led at :haos, vodas )r the jion it lorcles. Servia IS, and tie two ae suc- : Sultan ere vic- pphe at (Tstem of of every and the Servia power. Empire ime a free annual lan Porte ubject to ia in the withdrew he moun- ck Moun- of their 'orte soon ere able to owerless to )f fre' dom. 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 mar^'ellous 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 IVeaties, they entered under the leader- ship of their Voyvoda, Branskovic*!. the army of the Austrian Empire, ready to withstand, shoulder to shoulder, with the soldiers of Austria, any further aggressions of their Moslem conquerors. I ; /' I !'1 Hi m ;' i I if, i! I i! I 248 SERVIA, AUS ^lA, 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 arnr.ies of Austria with " brave soldiers and brilliant officers," but, as admitted by historians devoted to the Empire, 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 who 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 centuries 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 unoffending 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. 149 and e en- 1691, I with orians casion toman )od in medan ices to )ire, in jvitaV/le e.red by ry, alas ! las been ly, there ittlement isaster at vill now s of the and who nan race, :,ini356> Ottoman nost cruel ion given nutterably escribe. the most ;ss of the execute. ;oslem sol- iex, age, or f the ruUng lore shock- ; the proto- hocked the 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 1717, the Turks remained masters of the position ; how under their atrocious rule, whenever and '.vhcrever 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. i' I ■I! tl ISO !l llil i»i vi 1 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 under 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 realised their ancient dreams of freedom. But, alas ! that freedom was short-lived, for no sooner was the fortune of war reversed, and the unrestful ambitivjn 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 enlightened 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 niisgovernment 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 supreme 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 '.m M 152 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. i I ■IS I i( I ii ■ i I 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 1 81 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 181 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 show;?. Napoleon urged Turkey to invade Russda from the south, whilst he * Byron. tl h fc SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. «S3 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 Sublime 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 liberties 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 7 th 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, I '!i ! ?J ..^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ■Sim t2^ lit 140 2.0 u& I '-25 III 1.4 1 1.6 II ^M lllll^ IH^ ^ 6" ► Hwtographic Sciences CoipQpation 23 WUT MAM STMIT WIUTIR,N.Y. MSM (716)I72-4S03 fl^ >^ ■mi H ,:i s :■!' I 1 54 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 Kara- 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 little more than a tweiveinonth. 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. 3- 4- 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 5th Article of the Treaty of Akerman, in 1826. The 6th Article of the Treaty of Adrianople, in 1829. Five Hatti-Cheriffs, issued by the Sultan respectively in 1829, 1830, 1833, 1838, and 1853. 5. The 17th, 1 8th, 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 his 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. I5S invested themselves with despotic power to legislate for the countrj', 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 xmminent 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 Libert^ " 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 j 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 f m 'H 1 ■ i :'l :ji ii: ii. m ih; 156 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. i i the Patriotic Association of the Servian Liberals, who had united themselves under the banner of the " Omladina," us 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 vas 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 I'fe, for, in consequence, it is believed, of the liberal professions cf 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 Rukr, 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. 157 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 t'^.e 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 Irrge 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 ro the male heirs, and, in the event of no male heirs, to the male oiTspring of Prince Milosh, but with 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 « * i r a 1 if IP' f 1: ■ 1 I 1 k 1 jf! «! . T, 1 i ! £ ,• ' r f rf ^ «( .1 158 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 ugiit 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 for his political acts, and in Foreign Affairs he acted f*s 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, wero 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 froi Hers, 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, con- SET ' lA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. »S9 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 1839, and confirmed by the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi of 1833 ; 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. • ••••• 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 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 ( i'nl " :! i: H i I il 5 ■ 5 1 < ; ■'1 iii i6o 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 cliaims 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 reccnnaissent I'ind^pendance de la Principaute de Serbia en la rattachant aux conditions expos^es dans 1' article suivant. " Article 32. — En Serbie la distinction des croyances religieuses et des confessions ne pouna dtre oppos4e k personne comme un motif d'exclasion ou d'incapacit6 en ce qui conceme la jouissance des droits civilset politiques, I'admission aux emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, ou I'exercice des difKrentes professions et industries, dans quelque locality que ce soit. La liberty et la pratique ext^rieure de tons les cultes seront assur^es & tous les ressortissants de la Serbie aussi bien qu'aux Strangers, et aucune entrave ne pourradtre apportee soit iTorganisation hi6rarchique des diff(irentes communions soit k leurs rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels. " Article 33. — Les nouvelles frontidres de la Serbie sont fix6es ainsi qu'il suit. . . " Article 34. — Jusqu'a la conclusion de nouveaux arrangements rien ne sera change en Serbie aux cor. ^n the i field as, but ited at ced to rurkish imoned ;ssation h com- rtresses, lemnity, r, 1877, Servia, e, were lating to indance de ts rarticle confessions acit6 ence lois publics, tries, dans les cultes rangers, et 5 diff(£rentes suit. . . sera change :ipaut6 avec arcbandises insi que les aujourd'bui, inun accord jngagements rers la com- ir rapport k :rr6es & con- conventions r^s la signa- et, dans les "Article 36. — Les Musulmans qui poss^dent des .Topri^t^s dans les territoires annexes k la Serbie, et qui voudraient fixer leur residence hors de la Principaut^, pourront y conserver leurs imtneubles 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'ali^nation, d'exploitation, ou d'usage, pour le compte de la Sublime Porte, des propri^t^s de I'Etat et des fondations pieuses (vacouf)i ainsi que les questions relatives aux int^rdts des particuliers qui pourraient s'y trouver engages. "Article 37.— Jusqu'i la conclusion d'un trait^ entre la Turquie et la Serbie, les sujets Serbes voyageant ousSjournant dans I'Empire Ottoman seront trait^s suivant les principes g^neraux du droit international. " Article 38.— Les troupes Serbes seront tenues d'6vacuer dans le ddlai de 15 jours, k partir de la signature du present Trait^, le territoire non compris dans les nouvelles limites de la Principaut^. "Article 39. — Le tri but de la Serbie sera capitaV^o et les rppr^sentants des Puis- sances k Constantinople fixeront le taux de cette capitalisation d'accord avec la Sub- lime Porte. La Serbie devant supporter unepartie de la dette publique Ottomane pour les nouveaux territoires qui lui sont attribu^s par le present Trait^, les repr^sentants k Constantinople en d^termineront le montant, de concert avec lu 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 iitat, a bloodless revolution in Roumelia, which deposed the Governor-General, overthrew the Government, and proclaimed by acclamation its union with Lalgaria. 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 line, Compensation I Compensation ! M I! ill ^ 11 '^\ It '\ 1 •; I ;: !• P I ■ ■1 :1 ; HI .1) n h '\ ■' ■ n '5 '1 11 ; I'' 1 ; ' i \ « < ■ i 1 1 1 li;- i6» SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA, On the north-eastern frontier, Servi.i, 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, a.id when all hope from every quarter vanished for securing some extension of territory, s'le 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 Slivn''tza, 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 Roum lia hurled back and scattered into wi'l 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 whicli 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 suspensioT 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 restoicd 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 poli"" in Eastern Roumelia. After the conclusion of peace lae 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 T SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 163 loare n Sea, :e and hope ly and IS ever at they Prince fighting 5w-born ed both otion to Bulgaria Servian ia, and a ft road to r victory. the war, ; any cost n Servia lich con ; date of cingdom il words via, who her as a ashanine, ding the ding men he had lis plunge Erht Servia ec, added ; impover- rect losses prestige of ienated. :umstances assume the so perilous I0 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 Kinj, 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 inliabited by the Sclavonic race in Eastern Europe. As this would involve the annexation of territories in the possession of Austria, King Milan, as the protege 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 i| I i| ■' ' ;■ 'J ■ ■f f il Dlllii i 164 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. *l :; ^1 by the people, with shouts of " Long live Ristitch and Russia I Down with (larashanine and Austria." In order to strengthen his position, one of his first acts was to 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 bdder in their demands, and Ristitch had not the power to resist them, much as he would have wished; whilst King Milan, who disliked and 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. T issia t iras to i time lO had igainst im his jpular. ithalie, )re and ost en- jastrous illy un- in 1886 igle Pro- ,t in the :h, were and thus irs could in their ;in, much disliked peasants, time the pposition, o-Russian lose who Danubian le I Radicals Radical of Russia, overnment party; to retained as he Minister erent of the 8ERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 165 Thus, after eighteen years in Opposition, the Radicals, whose policy 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 thj synod of Belgrade, and eventually October 24th, 1888, it was obtained on the ground of unconquerable mutual aversion and danger to the Servian 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, <:onsisting 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. J \\ -J " ik i66 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUP .lA. I kv m I Pli 5 " 1 » * • ^ ,!1 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 Nicholas 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, Ser/ia, 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 Mihn 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 biBlieve,^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 aie 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 mo.st of them, were supporters of a Russian alliance, which the King repud'ated, and of the Queen Nathalie, whom he had divorced. Even had he been willing 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 protdge 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. if: iff IF i68 SERVIA, AUSTRIA, TURKEY, AND RUSSIA. 'V. At length, on the 22nd February, 1889, disheartened and dis- mayed on every hand, overwhelmed by the fierce stri e 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 ui the Throne of Servia, and it is not too much to say that this act of amazing recklcboness 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 officials, and officers, and to the members of the Diplomatic Body, and, having concluded, Hii> 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. J : 3 ! « ' ii ' i I ( 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 public 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 hounded 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 ste^ 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 rnan that family ever produced, deserted his country in the hour of danger in 181 2, 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 ? '■!;i! 1^ r { ^ms 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 1 883, 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 v\ras 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 n forms 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 s, the terature, on the eninsula d would 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 Jfind 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 salvition. Should there be any Powr so ambitious as to attempt to annex the country, or even by violent neans 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 o- 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." s *' I * ■ 1 1 'if f 1 i I . ■ j, , ;' * \ ^^ THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION AND GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. EARLY HISTORY. > I .! The island of Newfoundland has not a very clrar 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. 173 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 1621 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 retains. From 1583 down to the Treaty of Utrecht of 17 13, 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 1698, 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 r ^rtion of the Island, which was called Le Petit Nord, and also on the Southern coast-line, especially in the Bay of I f '■ W f I , 174 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. :| 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. i| t » nged esll. Royal mting dthe the sh on ny of it was GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. The island of Newfoundland is sit .ated 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 Stmits of Belle Isle, the other south between Cape Breton Island, and Cape Ray. The island has the form of a greaf triangle, and is 370 miles in length, and 290 miles in breadth, and 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 t76 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. ^Hifl' " i - 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 Baffin 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 the 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 wintei 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 21 miles, are the small islands of St. Pierre, and Miquelon, which are the possessions of France. ■!■:■:: THK NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 177 not a ! fine \efog above ays of id the )f the urrent, them- igerous if June i, finish : them- :r them I an ice- , by the ! 00, 000, lasts, for the bays ess im- nd have than the e-packs ; ring, the d mines, y for the ive prac- :d from it ierre, and These two islands of St. Pierre and Miciuelon, 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}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 ; each 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 "/e cimetiire des Jt&timens." The French colony of St. Pierre and Miquelon consists of about 16,000 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 counten?inces 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 submarirt telegraph which 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 ' » 178 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 Baffin 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. I ' ,1 1 I \'\ 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 J5to teaux flows . On 1 and Seas, New- brings of im- Arctic ■ater of eneous ng with le over- ing the ,nd they loal, the b which indland, ble, du nainland and its eggs are led from cured to t of 200 omprised passing Treaty of Articlt 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 thf French, shall be yielded and given up, within seven months from the exchange of thr . -ttification of this Treaty, or sooner, if possible, by the most Christian King, to those whk 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, oi ;c 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'imporait 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 ) 11 I I ii H i« 1 80 THE NL'VFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1^ i i (I iniii !j 2 islands on the coasts and in the Gulf ot 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 V. 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- ^ents to leave to the subjects of the most Christian King the liberty of fishing in the gfulf 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 ar, what relates to the fishery on the coast of the island 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 1 7 1 3. 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 NEWtOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. I8l 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 I3tb Article of the Treaty of Utrecht ; excepting the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, which are ceded in full right by the presen: 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 F rench 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. Article 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 IIL, 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 bis 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 on the coasts of the islands of Newfoundland ; but he will, for this purpose, cause iil I 11 I i ' I i ! f •I ■' I M t82 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 fish''rmen 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 10 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 thi.s 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 likewise delivered to-day by his Britannic Majesty's Ambassador Extra- ordinary and Henipotentiary ; and his Majesty declares that he \z 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 bhall not go beyond this line. 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 Vergknnes. 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. 183 The preliminaries of the " (jth Vendemiaire 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 VUL 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 Kodrigues and Les Schelles, which several colonies and possessions bis 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. I th;; 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. Pitirre I of the iermen : Great NES. Treaty of Paris— 181$. 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 17 13, 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. m i84 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. i; 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-d-vt's with England and Newfoundland from a commercial point of view, as its chief customer of the bait, wherewith to prosecute the cod fishery. The llsheries 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 Newf^^undland 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 3d men; and if 100 tonnage, say not less than 20 men, 30 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. 185 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 Oanquier, can earn, during the fishing season about 1,000 francs, equivalent to jQ^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 cafot, 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, m m Vi 1 86 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY 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. ■ I : U i 1 I: 188 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. At preliminary confLTuiiccss held 111 Xev/rouiidlaud, these measures had nearly been agreed to by Mr. Tliomas and Captain Kabvre ; uut Captain Fabvre was dosirous of retaining for France:, in addition to the exclusive rights above mentioned, her right of fishing, curing tish, &c., at Cod Roy, Red Island, Port-^-Fort, 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 13ay of St. George, or, in other terms, to give up the exclusive right of fishery in that bay, to which they considered themselves entitied by the Treaty of 1783. In return for this concession be demanded : — I. The right to purchase and fish tor bait (herring and capelin) on the south coast of Newfoundland, without restriction, a. The r;{;ht to tish 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 were 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 tht rights of the fishermen of the two nations were Icepi separate and distinct. In order to carry out this suggestion, he proposed that tlie 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 tiie 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 coaat ; but he contended for the retu.i- 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 Isk\ 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 Biitish 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- been 3US of ght of rbour, f Lab- of his s were e nego- snewed, issioner, French. right of e up the titled by :he south drying on the Isles le French, ithout any ed admis- sing out of the que»- were kepi d that the )eSt. Jolia le north of ther on tac een in the tie requiie- the Frentli the retca- exclusive ission, coii- Belle Isle. ained, were concurrent French so all restric- jld entirely 855 he for- THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. i8g 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 wouW only be a reciprocal abandonment of barren rights and useless or nominal restrictions; and he prepare^, 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 I J i! 'I ! I the sMus 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 hands 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 follow, : — t. — Momination of a mixeri 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 n. i suppress or injure the interests of the French fishermen on the littoral grar ted 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 h.ive the exclusive right to the salmon and other fish of the rivers, wherever found. g. - 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 ins are eemed lose of isisting •f things resolved ises for rived at I in the indland, nd in its >rtant on arrived at lerve as a and and Newfound- the affairs [ay, at Cape id are to be the French I to be given Iments; any Id they have Iclaimed for ]vvithout the 1 the French fish of the kll be clearly Led, and the Ited. Parliament Iterms, the THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 193 right to consti ct 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 circumstance . 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, was 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 take 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, aind White Bay should remain undisturbed, and no interruption to be made by the French to iiahing by the British in those bays, O w i 1 1 Ti IP PI- w ' , ■ P |:.| i:! * i li !^ I ! f.i ( U ^ i ii-'i i< !. .198 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. Mi !!: 3 settlement, and they believe that the acceptance of the modifications above 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 tl;e 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. 199 e sug- >urable \ment I 26th tween erable actory he de- ntially for a oposed rations )y their itaining 3 raised mining jgard to iianship ht Hon. mge of idressed manner in con- ade in the y question foundland the same ch subjects rislature of ments of jundland icil, and inted by and in consider- 1. 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 nf 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. 2. Whereas the arrangement would pkce 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. 5. 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 m m 200 r THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. If I;; ■,i: t:|i 1 1 i r !'■ i 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 17 th, 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 \ct should be passed to prohibit the sale and exportation of bait to the French, except under special licence, and on i8th 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 urgtmt 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 ^.d February, 1887, set forth the reasons for that refusal. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 901 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 Frenc'i 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 representing a fairly estimated sum of ;^25o,ooo per annum, under conditions that menace us with a still more serious decline. In these facts, our change of view of the bait traffic 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, 1887, 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-k-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 2Sth August last, against the continued infraction of the rights conferred on France by Treaties. uH i I w wmm aoa THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. I f t i-it t- 1 !■ ! - (■ i r 1 I ; ( 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 I sth 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 spot for sale," and on these grounds they insisted on the closing of Mr. Shearer's factory. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. «03 The protest and demand of the French Government was renewed on March 15th, 1889, and they pressed the British Cabinet to give a decision ; and accordingly the Marquis of Salisbury on March 28th replied, 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- I n 204 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. t'i 1 > II 3 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 assuftiption 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 . ^.opatch by maintaining the French position " as an unrestricted ri^ht 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 'here 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 dacision 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 : 1. 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. 2. 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. ao5 ffice on nt con- ip was views t verbal I States- e best partial settle- illowing Bdered as ]>f fishing said to ent as to The Marquis of Salisbury further observed : There may be said to be three different contt.-.ions in regard to this matter. The French Government hold that the Treaties secure to them the fullest rights of Hshery 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 of fish 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 oft 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 limitation 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 willing 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. t in 206 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. i i' : 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 ' ; year by the French Government on the fishing grounds occupied by British su previously to ist July, 1889. Whenever any case of comf .'.tion may arise in respect of Lobster Fishery between the French and British fish"- nen, the Commanders of the two naval stations shall proceed on the spot to a provi.'onal 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 effect 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 refus- itch of erence ctually iculties ih and jserved lication ivendi," dement ; fishing ti : ty of the inderstood blishmenls :orded ' shsu y between itions shall Grounds, [ngement to the lessages, French I" Modus >ndition, lobster Ive effect [d of ist as they [s desired jtance by rivendi " ley were Ibjections 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 vivtndi appear to be admission of concurrent rights of Lobster Fishing, and u.e 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. The> consider that as this modus Vivendi has been concluded without their concurrence it ii> 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 agains. 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 tlve 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- III 'S ! Mi S-il If II ... 1. ' 9991 ■r I : I 1 1 ) »;.« !■ i ^1 208 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 vtvendt, 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 New- foundland w^^e 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 and, 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; collisions 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 Secretaiy 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 der the of that to meet sffect of Lobster ;eived at je of the ms pro- y, to the England, le coast, removed of New- lent, and )ut unfor- iny modi- lad been decision 2nd, and adopted Majesty's critical, ions of a ies at St. Baldwin ishermen on of the Houses le Queen, submit the the Treaties tration. A laim a right ach claim to othing short shores of nent of this 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, ana 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 abro^i'ition 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 fisherip?, -.viljout^mjury 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 that 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. ill' M III i- ai; 210 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. Ill ;. :(iii|] ii>! ,» 1' m .1., ■I ., 3 ■ < > I;! V. I I I • I II 11 t I Accordingly, on the 29th October, the French Minister for Foreign AflFairs expressed a willingness 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 them to exchange their rights either for a money payment or for certain facilities with regard to tha 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, v>r 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 17 th 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 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. And on the 29th November, the French Amba;,oador in London replied that these proposals were not favourably received by the French Government, and Lord Knutsford addressed th 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 wil^ nrobably occupy a considerable time. An agreement requires lengthened negotiaic and unless a very Isige discretion indeed is given to the Arbitrator, the preparations for submission to Arbitration must be lengthy. A renewal of the modus vivendi so as to give time for further action is therefore indis- pensable. But after what has taken place, to renew it would he useless, unless statutory force is given to its provisions. I very earnest'/ 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." ! ■ !l ! I Foreign rith her 1 of the f 1885, ii: desire of •Ives, they ange their ; purchase ) consider lether they sy contem- ^ opinions g had an undland, following afterwards ghts on the ontinue the London I by the )vernor of ere lately in rernment to ait as a con- ial waters of in French It of France :ed either by ;er Majesty's ferred by the n agreement td is given to lengthy. A erefore indis- leless, unless four Govern- Government iminished by THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 211 To this Despatch, Sir Terence O'Brien replied as follows : "Ministers desire to call the attention 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 of the phrase "settlement by Arbitration." My Government cannot assent to any Arbitration which does not includ: 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 Salisbury, 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 population of Newfound- land. But their refusal to give us their co-operation in the matter does not relieve this country from the obligations which it has incurred. '■■: m ,.:■ 4 , ) '■I Ill ^< 212 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. : -' J. i. I I I :, J I, -^ ' h- « ■ 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, jyi 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 1891. 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. ai3 irtest and latter are, ne should ,0 Arbitra- t between le ensuing ome inter- ment made lirough the powers for al proceed- it purpose, le fifth year ibly furnish he perform- ffairs of the 891, Lord evive cer- 28 George ;at Britian 1834, and overnment Newfound- pose of en- and Ver- ig the coast ons of the nee during he Lobster nee, for on on the one other part provisions le questions of heir Delegates, oned portion of ned, to execute ition of lobsters ation of lobsters :e of other sub- 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. 5- — The Commission of Arbitration shall be composed : ( !• ) — Of three Specialists or Jurisconsults designated by common consent by the two Governments, (a.) — 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 differences 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 the 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. :■ I ■ ■t.y lia m 214 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 1 i 1 1 '■ ' ,!m{ ■ 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 <;pisode 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 temporary 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 oi" 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 ot' 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. 2^5 i'l ordinary ire, such of her nique in , struggle h as the ggling by it is, and oundland pts of a industrial :stroy the le Colony years, has ecting the at Britain )r we must question in al, and in we will cite foundland, t to be ceded of submitting lurc- her Majesty's territorial or gislature of telegraphic of twelve ween Great ley adopted jgotiations for unity or Legis- particular en- ernment volun- it, and to which And again, as previously referred to, when the renewal of the Modus Vivendi of March 12 th, 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 vivendioi 1891, without being liable for an action at law in the Colony, have applied to Parliament 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 me 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 enforcement 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. ilif :iM m m 4\ 216 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. r !i)l f ' 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 lo 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. di7 Baldwin ncident 2ting to rem the Walker, t of the equally ver the repeated i in the land, or ive been to cease and it is he cover sly pro- y of title, rsof any ve fishing of these to the esult has resources valuable seen wil- resources er Treaty i valuable !olony. gnty been id and the arry out a :cause the lave been ts. 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 brir.i^ jefore the people of England, by this delegation, their grievances, or, to use their own words, iAe 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 uf 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 »:a Rl« 2l8 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. lit . ' I fr^^: if I 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 Imperial considerations represented by the words, Civi's Homanus 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 kad 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. 219 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 277 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 17 13 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 compensation on the part of England. . n 1 !■ II .1 :i ii!r 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 William Whiteway, Premier; the Hon. G. H. Emerson, Speaker of the House of Assembly ; the Hon. A. W. Harvey 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 ^hey 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 fiom the GoverriT>fnt and Joint Legislatures of Newfoundland, entrusted to the Delegates for present ation to the Imperial Parliamtnt, was telegraphed from l;«;w York on the 17th April, c^nd appeared in >i.^ columns of the Times on the following day, and as this Address represents the calm and deliberate judgment of the Executive of thi Colony, ue 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 ParUament, and to appeal for your protection and sup- port under circumstances which have filled the riinds 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 'he last year to represent 10 Her Majesty's Goverment the exorbitant claims of the French under .iie alleijeJ sanction of the Treaties referred to, and, further, to point out the inji;jtice wrought upon the natives of Newfoundland. Their efforts for redress have been so far unsuc- cessful, and we are now confronts •. with a new evil essentially more intolerable than any of those with which experience has rendered us so familiar. We refer to the pro- posal of Her Majesty's Government, by the Bill now before your honourable Parlia- ji. nt, to re-enact the Act George IV., cap. 51, for the better conduct of Treaties between Great Britain and France respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries, which Act expired in 1834. THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 331 nted, in Colonial William • of the art Pitts, ;mber of ril, 1 891. [he views jland, in d to the ^ernment, :han that 3 weighty, he Parlia- ot stop to egislatures i',ation to on the es on the deliberate full text. .nd beg leave ion and sup- country with consequent ewfoundland painful and to represent .lie allejei itice wrought so far unsuc- olernble than fer to the pro- urable Parlia- ct of Treaties ■s, which Act " This Act embodied provisions of an arbitrary and opi^ressive character, wholly repugnant to those principles of liberty and justice which are held to l)e 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 resuUs. " It may be alleged that while the Act in question was yet upon the Statute-book it had been allowed to lapse into comparative desuetude, so incompatible with modern civilisation would have been the pplication 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 the 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, whi ^h 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 police. They are periodically visited by the Supreme Court of Circuit ; they have regular communication with the rest of the country and with 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 assured and recognised, it can hardly be necessary to point out with 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 in 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 i Rlii II! 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 true 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 Assemoly the Delegates from Newfoundland, and, u 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 vivendi for 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 ^.Vhiteway, Prime Minister and Attorney General of the Colony, be heard in propria persona v.\ support of the Petition, and this proposition havmg been secon< ed by H.M. Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Knutsford, it was agreed to nemine coniradiunte. The Delegates having advanced to the Bar, thieir spokesman, Sir William Whiteway, delivered an exhaustive speech tc their Lordships, which set forth the objections, and the reations 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 L'^^^nal 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 17 13, 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 I. " It shall anO 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 r; 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, flakes, 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 notwithstanJing. 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 ;^200, to be recovered in the Court of Session or Court of Vice-Admiralty in the said 'jland of Newfoundland, or by bill, plaint, or information in any of His Majesty's C »urts 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 persons 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 any of His Majesty's Courts of Record at Westminster, within la months, from the time of the commission of such offence. " m¥ I'^f [ ! ■■ ' ■ . ■ l^^ii [t !i; ,1 I « 1 t • .1 !S'! 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, dc 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 spaceentirely sufficient so that the fishermen of both nations might fish therein without coming in contact with each other, we are inclined to think 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 1^91, 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. CONCl UDING 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 * ; 1, ! m i 1 I !' 226 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. t' ; f ..' I it 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 difficulty 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 Btiit Bill, and a sum of money to be afterwards agreed upon, the French Government should abandon all their sp)ecial 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. 327 nission red for he de- ly to be Colony reaties. wfound- between tion, yet jind and ch really re it is lat H.M. worthily, France to )f all the uly, 1890, nd having to in the ber, 1890, e afterwards ights on the scontinue the le approval ipproached jptance by ;ulty, in the Agreement, ,n probable, considered. F lobsters shall ther subsidiary coasts of New- lave previously proposal of estion of the i of eminent Jurisconsults, such as Frederick de 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 period 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 15th and i6th 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. ill i': i: IM 'ii' m ^l Bi * ; 228 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 'Mih , ' 1 r, 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 leches, 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. MOOQOooai ed the lent, in s ques- ly have id past id skein ver the tid even le claim imen of they are the two d fanned that the t only in but also I Boling- itocols of d France ^er to re- he Parlia- ,re within lement of patience, unshaken triotism of : a modus he reason- istrial and tie fruition ; freedom, 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 at present about Newfoundland, who aie 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-' Encyciopcedia, 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, .'\ccordingly, in the following year, he {irepared for two expeditions, and obtained the King's permis- sion to take up six ships of 20c tons burden and under, in any harbours of the realm, and to engage a sufficient number of mariners. His Majesty was at the expense of fitting one ship at Bristol, and the mercha; ts of that city and of London added three or four small vessels, freighted with suitable ci immodities. " With this fleet, John Cabot, and his son S ibastian, 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 en its coast, but now known by the name of Newfoundland. R '>ii I I ' : t 1' I 1 1 ' 1 rf jf." ' li if 1' ■ ;: '■ 1 1 v It ! '' 1 1 i 1 1 1 ii: MM 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 w.is 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," T/ie Encyclopadia 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 Western America was discovered for England by Giovanni Gabcto, 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 ditiiculty 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 lirst 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 N^ay, 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 Zeni, having been there in 1389, has, since that time, as no intelligence could be had, been counted a fiction." ! ! THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. 231 m which of Ncw- and who Eovery (of ) Enghsh- igland by ,ns, before had httle ommission il for that Columbus ake posses- istian sove- n exclusive ition of his icquirc, and itian, whose , and accom. the courage J a. westerly islands, from oductions," jrtant transac- ge to the East h America and r fine Colonies, 1 more durable nd Peru. The been there in 1 a fiction." Morse, in his American Gazetteer, published at Boston, New Eng- land, in 1 798, says : — "Great Britain 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 her 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 Henry 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 England), 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 : — I I ,h Ik I I 232 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION ;: J h\ " August lotli, 1497. Gave to him that found the New Isle, ;^io. 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 1537, with two ships, one cast away about Labrador, and the other landed not far from Cape Breton, supposed to be in Newfoundland." " In 1536, Mr. Hore, of London, set out thither with two ships, the Trinity and the Minion, with a company of 120. So great were their sufferings that they slew one, upon whom they repasted, and a French ship accidenily 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 rklward VI., an Act was passed, exempting the traders to Newfoundland, for fishing, from all duties or taxes to sail thitherto fish." "In 1597, Chas. LeighnnA Abrakam Van Hernick, London merchants, fitted out the Hopewell md the Chancewell for an expedition towards Newfoundland," "In 1610, Mr. Guy, of Bristol, having writ, in 1609, a treatise concerning the importance of a Colony in Newfoundland, {where the English had continued^shin^), prompted the Earl of Northampton to procure a patent from James I. of this islaiul, (signed April a9th, 1610), and that nobleman, in partnership with Guy, and a fleet, sent the projector, who was appointed Governor." Afterwards, the same nobleman, i Earl of Pembroke, and others, formed a Syndicate, for the v orking 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 165 1, 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 Parliament doth forbid and prohibit all ships of any foreign nation whatsoever to come to, or trade in, or tmffic with, any of the English 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 15Q6, and had taken Caralos, in the Bay of Honduras, he 'sailed for Ncwtoundlani to gel recruits of men and provisions.' " THE NKWKOUNnLANI) KISHKRV QUESTION. 233 FRANCE AND NEWFOUNDLAND. The claims of France to the use of this island's materiel arc 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 o{ first comiih^. Following "Barclay's" Narration, the references therein being verifiable, we may summarise the facts as follows : — It is clear, that the Queen Regent of France, in 1524, while her son, Francis I. was a minor, commissioned i 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 nativ-- port, reaching Newfound- land in 49 days. The next French effort was that ot 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 1^)03. Henry IV'. made the leader, (iovernor 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 Canada, (where he fought against th( 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 f i' I sun 234 THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERY QUESTION. m IK '■'J ■Jc ■11 ' l' ^ ^fi 1 ^ii -;. 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, a/ the first, con- sidered as an appanage of France. Secure footing in Canada was chiefly aimed at. In the work Rook of Days it is stated : — " It is little known that it was mainly by the advice of Benjamin Franklin that the Enp;lish Government resolved to conquer ( 'anada, and, fur that purpose, sent out Wolfe's F.xpevlition." THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. i The Maritime Canal of the Istlimus 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 engmeering works, and their favourite form of operations were Canals, the remains of which have been found., and are still to be traced, in tiifleront parts of Egypt. According to Champol!'' n, a comi Ute water-way from sea to sea was achieved by Sesostris 'tocnu 1300 j.c. ; and Herodotus ascribes its construction to iiecy^s, ?on ( f r' ammetichus, 600 B.C.; whilst other ancient writerr, p.: sign i ? b nour 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. no, but was again rendered useless from the same cause, until Amrou, the Arab General of the Khalif s r: 836 THE MARITIME CANAI. OF SUVZ. ■'fl.;: !i 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 Abdoullnh-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 tc Asia by tiic Isthmus of Suez, and thus be enabled to conquer India. He sent Le Pbre, and a Commission of Engineers, to decide on the best means of carrying out the scheme, but as their report declared that the vaters of the Mediterranean were a considerable distance below the level of the 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 tamous modern projector, Ferdinand de Lesseps, unearthed at Alexandria the researches of Le Pfere, 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 Pere'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 hi» 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. do 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 MARITIMK CANAL OF SUEZ. 237 ier of )ver a igious laving were [ed-el- sd the g com- id thus mission scheme, rranean s of the the two iS aban- jrdinand ?^re, and i itself to lonsul for nd made interested Drt on the :mpts that 'haraoh to and for a and study, , which he considera- sha was a vas obliged Lventually, laid Pasha, ge in the of M. de 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, when' 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 smoothe 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 i i ' I \ i38 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. Mi \ii 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 : — Ac/e de Concession du Vice-Roi oCEgypte pour la Construction et P Exploitation an Canai Maritime de Suez et D'ependances entre la Mer Miditerranh et la Mer Rouge. — Caire, le 30 Novembre, 1854. Notre ami II. Ferdinand de Lesseps ayant appele notre attention sur les avantages qui r^sulteraient poar I'ligypte de la jonction de la Mer M^diterran6e et de la Mer Rouge par une voie navigable pour les grands navires, et nous ayant fait connattre la possibilite de constituer, a cet 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 presenles, pouvoir exclusif de constituer et de dinger une Compagnie Universelle pour le percement de I'lsthme de Suez et I'exploitation d'un Canal entre les deux mers, avec faculty d'entreprendre on de faire entreprendre tous travaux et constructions, a la charge par la Compagnie de donner pr^alablement 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'lsthme 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 Directeur de la Compagnie sera toujours nomme par le Gouverne- ment Egyptien, et choisi, autant que possible, parmi les actionnaires les plus interess^s 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 n^cessaires n'appartenant pas i des particuliers seront concedes a titre gratuit. Les fortifications que le Gouvernement jugera a propos d'etablir ne seront point a la charge de la Compagnie. Art. 5. — Le Gouvernement Egyptien recevra a.:nuellement de la Compagm 15 pour cent des benefices nets resultant du bilande la Societe, sans prejudice des interets et dividendes revenant aux actions qu'il se reserve de prendre pour son compte lors de leur emission et sans aucune r;arant'e de sa part dans I'execution des travaux ni dans les operations de la Compagnie. Le reste des benefices nets sera reparti ainsi qu'il suit : — 75 pour cent au profit de la Compagnie ; 10 pour ; ,..' au profit des membres fondateurs. Art. 6. — Les tarifs des droits de passage du Canal de Suez, concertos entre la Compagnie et le Vice-Roi d'^gypte et pergus par les agents de la Compagnie, seront toujours 6gaux pour toutes les nations, aucun avantage particdlier ne pouvant jamais ctre stipule au profit exclusif d'aucune d'elles. THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 239 Art. 7. — Dans le cas ou la Compagme jugerait necessaire de rattacher par une voie navigable le Nil au passage direct de I'Isthme, et dans celui oil 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 k 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 ; apr^s quoi, elle ne pourra continuer a jouir des terrains ci-dessus mentionnes qu'autant qu'elle payera au dit Gouvernement un impot e£al a celui qui sera affecte aux terrains de meme nature. Art. 8. — Pour eviter toute difficulte 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 traversee, et les etablissements du Canal Maritime et du Canal d'Alimei^tation d^riv^ du Nil, que pour les exploitations de culture, conforme- ment aux stipulations de I' 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 ant^rieurement 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 libre 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 Egyptien sera substitute k la Compagnie, jouira sans reserve de tous ses droits et entrera en pleine possession du Canal des deux mers et de tous ses etablissements 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 rev8tus de notre approbation. Les modifications qui pourraient etre intioduites 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 antdrieure- ment contribue a I'ex- cution de la grande entreprise du Canal de Suez. Art. 12. — Nous promettons enfin notre bon et loyal concours et celui de tous Its fonctionnaires de I'^gypte pour faciliter I'execution et I'exploitation des presents pouvoirs.. Cachet du Vice-Roi. Caire, le 30 Novembre-, 1854. !'3 I lit' il r' lit V'' 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 pf»riod, considerable opposition was shown by influential circles in England, which was reflected by the adverse criticism of the English Press, and 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 "iovernment. In consequence of the delay in the issuing of the necessary authorisation by the Porte for the prosecution of the workt; 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 J/rocSs 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; and on the 5th 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 {corvces), after the system adopted in Egypt for all works of public utility. To induce the Viceroy to give a vigorous support to Ihe Dew- THE MARltlME CANAL OK SUKZ. 241 born scheme, he was guaranteed 15 per cent, upon the annual revenue of the Company, as by the XVIII. Article. "Toutefois, en raioon des concessions de terrains et autres avantages accordt's 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 chatjiit: annee, arretes et repartis par I'Assemblee Generale des Actionnaires." The concessionnaire^ Ferdinand de Lesseps, thus strengthened by the support of the Viceroy of 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 'ipon them ihe 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 1 85 7 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 5th 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 Sij246 Russia England United States Spain Holland Tunis Sardinia 24, J 74 5.085 5,000 4,046 2,615 1. 714 1. 353 Shares. Brought forward 398,861 Switzerland ... Belgium Tuscany Two Sicilies . . . Roman States Prussia Denmark Portugal Sweden 460 324 176 97 54 15 7 5 I 398,861 Total 400,000 France, where the subscription found a great support, was inscribe ' for mere than one-half of the shajres, divided between ;=r 242 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUE2. I' m 23,300 persons ; Egypt, represented by the Viceroy personally, came next. This practical manifestation of Europe ard 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 25th April, 1859, surrounded by a staff of 150 workmen and employes ^ 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 Pdluse. 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 corvies 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 Steplienson, C.E,, the Member for Whitby, and a son of the eminent Engineer, George Stephenson. THK MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 243 y, came I in the ts to the itied the siness a elivered, iterprise, nd ship- ic meet- declared the com- L its sub- President 'ouncil of ith a con- vorks and ril, 1859, nd of the Larouse, :axe upon had been s selected, ;p interest ided with o be con- :nts in the arly made, from the upon the le service, s were dis- ig as much erse opinions the eminent as possible the welfare of the labourers. Thousands of voluntary workmen, chiefly Arabs, recruited the staff of the Company's employes^ 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 Tasha, 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 (corvie) in the whole Empire, in- cluding Egypt, the works of the Maritime Canal, had, by tha 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. Consequently, 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, nd also the concession of the territory which bordered the two Canals. f:1 f'iti Ihf" t ■ !i,i' 1(;i 'f i f 1 »u 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 puLlished 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 tjuestions in dispute. THE ARBITRATION OF NAPOLEON III. The Emperor Napoleon III. promptly accepted the role 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 Khedive, 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 ;^ 1,5 20,000, 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 ^^400,000 for the cost of the construction of the said Canals, and ;;^2 40,000 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, M5 title to all lands capable of ciltivation, by means of irrigation fiuui the Fresh-water Canals, ar d 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 Khedive, 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 Khedivial Government of Egypt, with Ferdinand de Lesseps, for the construction of the Canal. The following is the text of the Firman of the Sultan : — "Alontllustre Vizir, Ismail Pacha, Vice-Roi d £gypte, ayant rang de Grand Vizir, dkorS de VOsmanii et du Medjidieh de premilre classe, en brillant : " La realisation du grand oeuvre destine k donner des nouvelles facilites au commerce et ii la navigation par le percement d'un canal entre la Meiliterranee f ^s 'r I ff^ 246 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. ct la Mer Rouge etant I'un des evenements les plus desirables de ce siicle de science et de progres, des conferences ont eu lieu depuis un certain temps avec la Compagnie qui demande k. ex^cuter c travail, et elles viennent d'abouter d'une fa9on conforme, pour le present et pour I'avenir, aux droits sacrcs de la Porte comme k ceux du Gouvernement Egyptien. Le contrat dont ci-apris la teneur des articles en traduction, a ^te dress^ et sign^ par le Gouvernement Egyptien con- jointement avce le representant de la Compagnie ; il a ete soumis i notre sanc- tion Imperiale, et apr^s I'avoir lu, nous lui avons donne notre acceptation. " Le present Firman, dmane de notre Divan Imperial, est rendu k cet effet, que nous donnons notre autorisation souveraine a I'ex^cution du Canal par la dite Compagnie aux conditions stipulees dans ce contrat comme aussi au r^glement des tous les accessoires selon ce contrat et les actes et conventions y inscrits et designee qui en font partie integrante. " Donne le 2 ZMhidje, 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 "m;in 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 r-i THE MARITIME CANAI, 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 Ptiluse, 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 ; promirent 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 HohenzoUern ; 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 ^o the Porte, and Colonel Stanton, the British Minister to the Khddive, 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, ^ i:.i I H ■'■ p ; f: 1" i! 'm 1 ,. ; iMfl I't^l mm ' ill 1^ 1 I- .', 1 .' i: w|; i' ill 1 i ir D Blttl IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ^ 124 m u |4f L25 iu ■ 2.0 ■ 1.6 I^iolDgrapiiiic ^Sciences CorpoTEdion :i>^ 23 WIST MAIN STMIT WnSTIR.N.Y. 14SM (71«)t7a.4S03 Is 248 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. tV , J 1: 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 Baiier, 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 tlie Pharaohs he had stiacK oil 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 mors 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 canied 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 inscri red 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 Khedive, 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 prominent part in the morrow's proceedings. Punctually at 8.0 the following morning (Wednesday the 17th) the French steamer Aigk^ 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, jnd 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, because the Aigle was carrying the Imperial Consort of Napoleon III., 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 ■I ■- \ I I f^ i ■¥ i 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 er'ertained 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, to the " Compagnie Universelle " was ;^8,ooo,ooo, equal to 200,000,000 francs, divisible into 400,000 shares of ;^2o, equal to 500 francs per share. This Capital of ^^8,000,000 carried the Company smoothly along up to 1867, to ™eet 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,ooo,ooo, equal to ioo,ooc,ooo 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 12^ 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. 251 ay, the ts, and if their d, next at ii.o to this J, and the ngs in the ;d of this AL. , that the of funds, :redit and ), that we November, ,, equal to 0, equal to arried the sary outlay exhausted ;o increase equal to lortgage on f the deno- ing interest ; expiration it ;^2o per ng that the irable terms, ked for, viz., ■aled to the unsubscribed ng the deep interest that France had from the first taken in the enterprise, and her anxiety that its complete execution should not be delayed nor imperilled, tna^ 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 ;^i 2,280,000 had been received on Capital account, yet there had been incurred on Expenditure account the sum of ;^i8, 144,000, 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 01 ;^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 ;^7 50,000,. 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 disasiier, 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, 1871, Ferdinand de Lesseps stated, that the balance on Profit and Loss account was still large, amounting to ;^7So,ooo, and it was, there- fore, resolved to have recourse to a loan of a nominal amount of ;;^i,ooo,ooo, in 200,000 Bonds of ;^5 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. 11 [i ; m 252 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. ! : ! Under this arrangement the Bonds were fixed at ^^5 per Bond, bearing interest at 8 per cent., to be repaid over a period of thirty years, by annual Lottery drawings, and tc be issued f»» the price of j£4 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, rep'.yable in forty years, at the price of issue of 85 francs, equal to, say £3 7s. 6d. • , ! ! I ENGLAND BUYS THE KHlfcDIVE'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 AfTairs, 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 Compan5' 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 Bond, >f thirty price of ince the ng from 12, 1873, id share- the total e to the this sum, ;d to the of script, , equal to, RES. 1 to dispose ed with the formed him pany under nly to place the general iversation to irs, and the onel Stanton position of the financial I de Lesseps the manage- to England; ■dive, that the purchased by was supported The Khedive lengthened in 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 afiairs 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 sth November, 1875, ^^^ 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 Khedive 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 Government 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 the i8th November, Major-General Stanton informed the British Foreign Minister, by tele- graph, that Nubar Pasha admitted the Khedive was in urgent need of ;^3,ooo,ooo to ;^4,ooo,ooo, if possible, by the 30th November, and ^1 ■'11 r I 254 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. m ) mm I h::i that the French combination formed foi the purpose of raising this large sum, consisted of the Socidtd Gdndrale 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 Cantl shares held by the Khddive. Upon further telegraphic instructions from the Foreign Minister, the English Consul-General at Cairo proceeded to the Palace of the Khedive, 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 Khedive'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 Chargk 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- differenc:." Three days after this conference at the Foreign Office, between THE MARITIME CAVAL OF SUE2;. 255 Lord Derby and the Charge 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 Slanton : — "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 ot Her Majesty's Government in London to carry out the transaction. They will be prepared to hold ;^ 1,000,000 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 j^3,oco,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 revenues 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 Khddive 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,ooc ; ;^i,ooo,ooo 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. WW 256 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. of 2^ per cent, upon the ;^4,ooo,ooo, and 5 per cent, interest per annum, until the date of repayment. The transaction with Rothschild and Sons, stood as follows : — I;:i»' ';»>■' ,'i '"' No of Shares. £ S. 2 II 14 d. 6 I 10 176,602 Representing an amount of Commission at 2^ per cent. to N. R. and Sons Other Expenses Total ... 3,976,582 99,414 625 ; 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 3 J per cent., redeemable in a probabl? 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,coo, 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 expectt- 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 176,602 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 17 th 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. P! THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 257 s. d. 2 6 II I 14 10 8 5 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 attit ule 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 close community of interests about to be established between French and English capital, lor the purely industrial and necessarily peaceful 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 Officially 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 could 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 Khddive, under the advice of his Ministers, was so sudden, and the necessity for promptitude so urgent, arising from his financial embarrassments, that neither time •'-'•'i \] 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 Khddive 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 Irrge 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 the 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 >nvoke curing, )recipi- ity, the ; Press, amount )e said, its con- :hereby, ssion of lades of n public ess, who vourable iisputed; iship, for interests ley were r of the ite nego- jwledged he policy noreover, ural, nay, e interest ould also tionate to occasion, tated what ve what we or of the oceedings important stone and Mr. Lowe, and t'.n: result was, after an able defence by Mr. Disraeli, that the Resolution by the Government was agreed to, without a division ; Nemine coniradicente. {1 N INTERVENTION OF ENGLAND IN EGYPT IN 1882. The next important event, affecting the Suej; Canal, arose in 1882, when England, under the Government of Mr. Gladstone, unfortunately broke through, what had become a traditioral 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 Su ^ 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 aflfairs 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. Bi 260 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. i'l I::' ,:i ,'1 In the East, England finds the largest market for her manu- factures, aod, from the East, (for the Colonies are as much interested as the Mothei' 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 prospeiity of the S lez 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 t!ie 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 hi: t THE MARITIME CANAL OK SUEZ. 261 r manu- iterested u should ucts and Manufac- iis, which ;mpire, so ntre and s of that foes who :anal, and 1 1882, for rty, and of iious, were to all that Its illub- one of the as one of by the fact; Egypt; the traditional jtorical part, mind of the is a national I with which i. in illustrious e of piercing ink added to rder to make France made made Peace in the midst 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, -vhich 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 C^nal to the ships of other Nations. Whatever, therefore, may have been the bh'.i^ Jers 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), v;as, 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 I ■I 1 ■ m i m m THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ, onset, and refusal at the last moment, was a g: eater 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 ! II THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 263 , for she ve acted the two ad, it was d, by the basis of a i influence It injuring isideration return will be needed, the World, Canal, by interests of in all that Frenchman, id thus this with equal >rld. re ferocious ; , that public Government oured. difficulty, the le Suez Canal ;e, and which ich gave him ; she was, and irtners in the ns right that ive due con- [ the partners, 1, as she makes all the rest of 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. 1 > 1 Vessels of other Nations. tal Number of Ships. itish Tonnage. 1 tish receipts in francs. othrr Nations in francs. i M n »- ^ PQ 6,834,815 H « 15,500,000 e2 2.734 890 3.624 2,130,596 8.985,411 46,707,439 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 civilisation, 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 placa 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 qu^'stions 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 o: 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/acfo, of its neutrality. He submitted a project for the I i )» fir 264 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 1 1'" '.■•^1 m 11 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 Governmep.t, 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 aecisive, and does him 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 Schouvaloff, 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 complications, especially with Russia. ii:iii 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 iWiii THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 265 national d Derby ris, Lord lestion of , political unending emphatic ; to Great g injured or attempt to , be regarded world." , and does 3 forgotten, 11 the other lia, and the lunications, declaration ince of the not wishing ;nd to inter- al. the part of ;ign Affairs, spare Great Russia. ;OMPANY. international f, from those It of the Suez tid neglect of indignation consider the i the Isthmus of Suez. This Meeting, representing upwards of three million tons of shipping, advocated the constructipn 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 156 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 suffice for a traffic of 10 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 Company declared, that these improvements were absolutely necessary. On July 6th, M. ^e Lesseps, and his son arrived in London, and the Governmeni 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 rhe 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 Parliameilt for confirmation. When the result of these negotiations were submitted to Parlia- ment, it is not surprising, that chey 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 management, and, for providing the ;^8,ooo,ooo necessary for its construction, at 3J per cent., which was a far lower rate of 'I :» m I'd I , ! I :ii!'i , ml % ..>! :«l I I'l 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 secoiid Maritime Canal. These proposals, practically made Ferdinand de Lesseps master o" 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 ; further, Lesseps, and also , to Port Canal of I of 1866, wenty-five inety-nine [ Maritime ;ps master I credit for lowed him to proffer, ; passage to lir toll, vould have t which the ternational, sal, as uis- inder these ;rms of the id approved ly, but else- Shipowners' dent Canal, onsidered it condemned ave notice to pularity, and ) abandon it, the House of s, announced nth the Con- ly withdrawn. Lesseps, and y an unhappy 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 difificulty, 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 the 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 occupa- 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 unimpeded 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 c: the Canal for the future, and to provide against possible dangers, they aie of opinion that an agreement to the following effect might with advantage be come to between the Great Powers, to which other nations would subsequently be invited to accede." " I, Thai the Canal should be free for the passage of all ships in any circum- stances. 'i I'll 1' ' '*• II m .'1, ' 1 iM ii ! 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 ihe Government of Egypt, further than is therein expressly provided." This was followed by a voluminous correspondence from each, and all of the Govemments of the Great Powers, agreeing generally to these proposals ; and France, so largely interested in the question, suggested th& 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 mouths 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 coalition, .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 coalition, because, although Italy THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. 369 belligerent ivar should roaches, or irkey being ill apply to mage to the enforce the :anal in time s vicinity, or affect the tein expressly from each, ig generally he question, »nsideration, IS. and, Spain, to be repre- t to ; and in rongly repre- :ope ; and at Sir Rivers ided at the mitted as a France ; and occupied the f isolated, for consisting of ves on every is believed, by ought step by rerless, single- although Italy 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 uf an International Commission, similar to the International Danubian Commission, for the control and navigation of the Canal, and over this proposal a stubborn diplomatic ba \e 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 repre^ontatives 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* ;'i m -jV. m ■!i .'i' ' . !l 270 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. I' I IN, ) feature of its deliberations, and was not unobserved by, or without its influence upon, tho 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 for 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- posal 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 tHE MAklTIMli CANAI, OF SVEZ. StTi 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 ^gypt, 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 measures 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 eng!^e 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 mm Pi - fcrf'' \ Pf ^^' ' li ! .' , 1 I fl I! 372 THE MARITIME CANAL 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 ne)X to take the necessary measures for the defence of Egypt, whether ag?inst a l)elligerent 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 prkis 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 Oiifice, 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 Freycinet 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 THE MARITIME CANAL OF SUEZ. *73 otest in /our her Granville's 11 be made t Palis for tnt of His y measures pt itself, in ISURUS." the 30th (imer, and e various was indi- ement was important, h January, ews of the he Govern- favour of jmmission, ;e ; and the in the first i in dispute, course the actory solu- -occupation Moreover, ly assumed cal forecast It his Lord- )tiation. »t, however bar the way within three weeks, of the return of Mr. Gladstone to power, on the 19th Feb- ruary, 1886, the French Ambassador was instructed to interview the new Foreign Minister, Lord Rosebery, and to inform him, that the .""rench 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 '>f urgency, suggested that the French Government should formulate in writing their proposals j 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 in Egypt, 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 I^rd Lyons by De Freycinet, Lord Rosebery replied, on the 1 7th 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, ©n 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 '■' .1 i ml VHff fir: ii ^ ^fr :{.. 1 '':■( • '\ I ■ •,! ' .'< ' '. 4 11 9 I I. !J :| i Hi;; I'll m i74 tH£ MARITIME CANAL OF SUE2. outlines of the proposed Convention, upon which differences ot 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 XL, 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 Fr^ycinet 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 i886, the diplomatic duel was continued without much advantage to either side ; and, upon 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 intv'irview the new Foreign Minister, and press him for a reply to his numerous Despatches, and, to add, that he considered the moderatiori of the proposal"? 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 ; and it was not until the Marquifi of Salisbury became THE MAklTlME CANAL OF SUEZ. ^75 rences ot Dpened in ility in the in opinion limit, or a , or of the ■ the super- on, France of all the legate from ould be the and, that in mplications , that they await their ice differed ition of the State, the desira- derstanding ; :ence of the ust, of 1886, age to either accession of eigh became jery, and De to interview reply to his nsidered the jeen equalled awaited the Minister, was e little, if any, sbury became 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 of 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 1 7th 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- m w n * it »^'' ri if m *:■ V id ¥1^ fir ) , I ' ^ r ■i'.l J'' '■ i ;i;:i f) i i i: t ■', 276 THE MARITIME CAKAL Ot" StJE^. 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 diiTerences 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 f rrangement 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 nay 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 k garantir le libre usage du Canal de Suez, pensent qu'il est de leur devoir de formuler une reserve generale quant k I'appli- cation de ces dispositions en tant qu'elles ne seraient pas compatibles avec I'^tat transitoire et exceptionnel oit se trouve actuellement I'Egypte, et qu'elles pour- raient entraver la liberty 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. T 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. 211 by the De- whether the 85 unfruitful crrangement pulations on rnments may TO years ago ins by which r hoping that lested by the t upon special ng in order to they set their assint of the lew the words ian Pauncefote the following »xte de Traite Canal de Suez, quant k I'appli- ibles avec I'^tat ■t qu'elles pour- it la periole de urens a copy of Salisbury." the accession, [. Flourens as issue of this :oughout this worthy of his ft Convention, nself and col- li negotiations en thus arrived the Canal, on in time of war rpt of the pro- 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. Fr^ycinet, 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 military 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 *'j< % % :|| III i 278 THE MARITIMli CANAL ot' SVeZ. 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 Salisbury, 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. i! 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 /radfe, accepting the Draft 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 adhesion 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 ory, for on addington, disposed to 3ody, when the security rs were dis- the right to coast of the Y. gland readily Ambassador 3 \l PI) a»3ac»»iv . .^ ^.^qv ^__^iH3 1'l f WlM I I I ii! I I 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, commonly called, "The Rhodian Laws." These rules of commerce and navigation formed the lex mcrcatoria 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 ^ editerranean States, and this code received the title of the Jugements (VOleron; 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, irom 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 Contnmes d^ Amsterdam MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 287 jmmercial ime inter- d to form ENTURY le Romans Laws of the vs." These oria of the he -^gean lised them, re generally of Maritime customs of le received from the nder whose by English ne relations, nturies, the guided by fugements de r Bruges, in ,oisde West vn in West se codes of ^Amsterdam — {.) the Laws of Antwerp — (3) a celebrated Code of Maritime Law, called the WUbische 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 Jiaw 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 published the learned work entitled Mare Ciausum, which claimed a Maritime Domain, an exclusive right, over the waters, within certain prescribed limits, of a Maritime State. 1 1] m ■4 m ' i>'m iisiiiiii l!;|i 288 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. Towards the dose of the XVIIth century, Louis XIV., King 01 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 1 68 1, 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 19th 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. > » 'f^ i 'I 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 ix&ey—free ship, free goods ; an enemy's vessel carrying neutral goods should not be free, — enemfs ship, enemy's goods ; but the Treaty left untouched the Ordonnance de la Marine of the French Code of -33 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 166 1, Holland gave in her adhesion to the Maritime dicta in MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 289 ., King 01 :he title of bends, not )d of 200 wn in the iubjects of jutrals. In Marine ot 1744, were ecisions of held. Df Maritime ch became th century, which have Paris, 1856. DF PARIS. in Europe, le European policies, and derably with in time of of Maritime the right to is right was in ler Maritime 1668, by the n France and essels should rying neutral ods ; but the )f the French lan Law, "/a ;h formulated ly's goods." time dicta in 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 17 16, which acknowleged only free ships, free goods. These rules were the utmost or" the concessions contained in the Treaties of Navigation a: id 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 1 742, 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. :i!:; \i',\i ARMED NEUT^RALITY 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 attion 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. V i'.i n ■)p \ I 1 ■ ' t ' "1 1 \.f ii f 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 freCj 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 Consolaio del Mare, and the following were the principles of the first Code of Maritime Law, in reference to the rights of neutrals in war. I. — 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, and 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 tl e 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 ho 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 1. c original amount of freight which would have been payable ;> 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. 291 •orts, and exception le entering uough the ce of Prize led acquies- rals, for she d Mare, and aritime Law, le enemy, the cargo to the conduct ship rerent captor, for the cargo ng subject to the cargo to )r to buy the the cargo is |to one of bis captor ot t.vc )een payable H Le action of the M, were not of Jered nugatory |nd, during this principles and of the Armed IS of war, such as iltpetre, sulphur, Sidles. 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 tl j 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 loUows : — " 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 Continental 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 Berlin, 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 25th, 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." I' rij 1,1 1 ■1 ri^ki . \ I'i 292 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. ACTION OF ENGLAND, IN 1854. i.>r From this date, during a period of half a century, no perceptible change for the better was effected 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 concession 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. «93 r erceptible not until ition in the Russia, the jrents, and ;he enemy's It by them, , and 29th n and Ireland, is desirous ot with whom she ostruction, Her Uigerent rights right of seizing ing the enemy's prevent neutrals nth an adequate operty laden on jt Her Majesty's ig contraband of declares that, Lttd to restrict its not Her present Leers." ited, mark an the question ; y doctrine of the Congress f carnage that of Belligerent d, from various e was a step in the direction of 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 difficulties, and even conflicts ; "That it is consequently advantageous to establish 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 ^n 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 ." i Ul I' !-n m :'i*l ■1 m n ■ UJ ,'.■'■ :;1 1 ■ '" ■ ■' 'id "■ : ;fi| M H B! ,, . . i i H 4 J' i ,1; *■' i it r' ■U ' rM 1 ■ ^il ■! ■ 't '1 Li l|ll •y MARITIMK 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 i6th of April, 1856. " (Signed.) " BUOL-SCHAUENSTEIN. HUBNER. Walewski. bourquenev. Clarendon. COWLEV. Manteuffel. Hatzfeldt. Orloff. Brunnow. Cavour. De Villamarina. Aall Mehemmed Djemil." This Declaration of Paris, therefore, as ''■: 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. :r ■W i ' 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 ite them to I cannot but undersigned ernments to full success, iding, except ie to it. INA. ►JEMIL." ;d, is binding to invite the ; the Congress. 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 of 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 tltis proposal was made, in 1856, the Governments of Russia and Prussia declared themselves prepared to give their consent 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 iftli ■I •' i'' \ 4 Ui:^ i'l 8 I'' I ''31' r \ 111 m r f' 296 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. Maritime Right in her hands was most effective, 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 Ml I, as Lord rous to her the aspect d States, or :rcial trade, teers of the ; of Marine a her to that tead of being rould be the iaritime Law :ircumstances would prove creed that a \ capture, and not liable to was a great )ns, extending It is all the Britain to the of 1780, and and Prussia, contained the many doubts, been a pretext, of their rights, as arisen much Lme sentiments 'reaty of i785» [his Declaration thorough, and iitely necessary luld take a step jperty at sea is MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. a97 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 pract'sed by a nation with no Navy, or by a nation with a Navy, are iilike 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 ; £t quidem mare commune omnium est, et littoria stent 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 I)' \i if 1 1;; ■^■'3 'm . •ill II II 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 tl waters of the Mediterranean was hindered by its depredations, thut 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 15th 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 thf; 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 regime, 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 formeny, 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 pillage. . iiJ. I: ^! iii'i t ■|!i ! MARITIME INTEPNATIONAL LAW. 299 racy, but it when the ered by its srchants of snlightened iracy, which reatness of ess piracy in latic League, 2booters, " as tttury refused nement as a ,f the policy to check it. tnd thus sup- ations on the Inning of this predations of ranee, issued 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. Ill I '. U! Tr ire upon your the Chief, and the Algerines josition of the •ia, which then iplete, are yet land considered ley were bound privateering, is U the laws of laritime Rights jf degree only, Eiws of nations, plunder, and 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 the 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 1^- M 11 II 'i ^.1 n 300 MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. I:.. ; :•: VI 1 1 were crealcd and fomented by, and through, the cxistmce 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 difficult 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, iV tredations she committe'i is a privateer, that we would make rt ce. The United Staf..- throughout their great struggle, were sorely tried by having to cope ./ith 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 ■■•n MARITIME INTERNATIONAL LAW. 301 ice of this upon the icceptance America, e necessity assembled 'he success within the nlightened, avoid the iistant date, jaceful and ipe of the or no other lington and iredations ....v:e. The prely tried by ixce and no to burn, and narine. gn agencies, commerce, The injuries obbery, were not include the United -eign nations, Jesides, there severity in its rder to main- and all this in any way flusion of the Itical depreda- Ithe Southern linion against privateering, especially with merchants and ship-owners, who arc 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, ar ], 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 h 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, represented at the Congress of Paris in 1856, in favour of the abrogation of the right of blockade, she was I f 1)1 III ' I . i : ;fl. liPi i : 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 eflFects 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 Uniteu 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 18^ J 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 wstltss; 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. ^'Mli 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 Ihe 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 displeacjre, 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 v/ill 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, 'I ' i p I- .■ ■ ■ 1 f > ■ ; ■ V ■■ t '■ ■ M J I.'. .! : il 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." January 9th, not forgetting most vexatious onnents. The »f peace, instead [ from shore to ommcrce of the M ' I'l " '"■'""■"" T rx^rrrf 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 d onfroftce, War to the knife! I'll m i\i< If J- ik ^'l\ BM"5 I : .1 ill ' 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 prep -ations 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, " St vis pacem parem 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 preservatio:i 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 European nation. * Pax quxrit bello, !■; CONDITION OF EUROPE. 307 m lit constant pe there is sturbance. icious, and e, many of influence of adiction, an ind homes of dmitted that xtensive mili- Great Powers ; an iniquity. :he first place, ipotic govern- dangerous in ,w of govern- 1; and in the hdance with the ;to seek peace are perpetual war between xist, peace is and the worst it compels the er Powers, and ond what they 1 order within actually afford regard to the ave taken con- tatement, show- iries, with their ^nal Debts, and d followed by a each European AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE.* THE ARMY AND NAVY. The standing army of Austria-Hungary, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, is formed on the Prussian system of universal liability to arms, and is based on the Statutes passed in 1889, by which military service is obligatory on all men on reaching their twenty- first year, and at nineteen for the Landsturm. The term of service is 10 years, 3 of which the soldier must spend in active service, after which he is enrolled for the remaining 7 years in the Army of the Reserve, with the further liability to serve 2 years in the Laudwehr and lo years in the Landsturm. In the Navy, the term of service is 4 years in the Marines, 5 years in the Reserve, and 3 years in the Seewehr. The military forces of the whole Empire are divided into the Standing Army, the Landwehr, and the Landsturm ; and the Navy into the peace footing, and the Seewehr. Standing Army, and Reserves, 1890. 1,813,413- Population, 31st Dec, 1889. Standing Army, 1890. 41,076,804. 336,717. 24 Navy. The "Seewehr." Men, Officers, 13,750 811 Navy, 1890. ( Ironclads, Cruisers, \ and Monitors. Frigates, Steamers, 104-5 '^orpedo Boats, &c. 128 Total Fleet. 14,561. In case of war the number of men who could be obliged to serve in the Landsturm is over 4,000,000. THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE.f In accordance with the political constitution of the Austrian Empire, which recognises three distinct Parliaments, there are three distinct budgets ; the first, that of the Delegations for the whole Empire ; the second, that of the Reichsrath for Austria ; and the third, that of the Hungarian Diet for the Kingd om of Hungary. j : * The Compiler of these Facts and Figures is indebted to the following authors :—" Almanach de Gotha (1871)," by Justus Perthes ; " Conditions of Nations," by G. F. Kolb; " Statesman's Year-Book (1891)," by J. Scott Keltic ; " National Debts," by Robert Dudley Baxter. t Under the head of the Annual Expenditure of each nation is included the Army and Navy, the Interest of the National Debt, and the Civil Expenditure. X Including Croatia and Sclavouia, there are four distinct budgets. .■.I -li ■I, . it f ^i- 3o8 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAI- By an Act passed, in 1883, for regulating and reducing the payment for interest of the National Debt, Hungary contributes ^^3,031,573, and Austria ;i^z2,229,i83. The following figures embrace the three divisions of the Empire : — Annual Army and Expenditure, Navy, 1890. 1890. ;^9i,530,757- ;^i2,863,48i. Interest of the National Debt, i8go. ;^26,332,288. National Debt, 1890. ;^S4S.3i3»9SO. The National Debt includes the General Debt of the whole Empire, Austria's Special Debt, and Hungary's Special Debt, and has grown up gradually since the middle of the last century, and is the direct result of wars and the gigantic preparations for war. In 1789, it amounted to ^^34, 900,000 ; in 1815, to ;^82,5oo,ooo; in 1820, to ;^98,7oo,ooo; in 1830, tO;^io8,40o,ooo; in 1848, to ;^i 25,000,000; in 1868, to ;;^300,890,4i3 ; in 1886, it reached the great sum of ;i^5 23,938,381 ; and in 1890, ;^54S»3i3»95o. which includes the large floating debt created to meet the recent heavy deficits of the Empire. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. By Article 23 of the Treaty of Berlin (1878) the Provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina are occupied, and their military and financial affairs administered by Austria-Hungary. The Austrian army of occupation consists of 28,648 men, the native army of 4,y88 men, total of army, 33,436. The Budget for 1890 shows a total of receipts, ;^i,oi8,765, and expenditure, ;^i,oi3,6i4, which is exclusive of the cost of the Austrian army of occupation, amounting to ;^428,2oo. According to a census taken in 1886 the total population is 1,404,000, and is composed of Greeks, Mahometans, Catholics, and Jews. ■ if i i '1 i' \ \ 1 1 ': i " i ! BELGIUM. THE ARMY. The Standing army of Belgium is formed by the law of 1870 and 1873, by conscription, to which every able-bodied man who has completed his nineteenth year is liable. Substitution is per- mitted. The legal period of service is 8 years, of which two-third are allowed on furlough. CONDITION OF EUROPE. 309 the payment /3.031.573. embrace the Reserves Population, Standing Army, Civil Guard, and Civil Guard, 31st Dec, 1889. 1890. 1890. 1890. 6,093,798. 47,570. 42,827. 220,000. National Debt, 1890. C545.313.950- of the whole cial Debt, and I last century, reparations for in 1815. to ;£io8,400,ooo; 13 ; in 1886, it ;£545.3i3.95o, neet the recent le Provinces of \x military and The Austrian native army of 1,018,765, and [he cost of the al population is [ Catholics, and ne law of 1870 lodied man who T)stitution is per- which two-third THE MILITARY EXPENDITURE. The public income and expenditure in recent years have mostly been balanced with an occasional surplus, and for 1 890-1 there was an estimated surplus of ;^329,24o. 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. li-t:' Annual Expenditure, 1890. ;^'3,3I2,S62. Army, 1890. ^2,042,266. Interest of the National Debt, 1890. ;^4,oo2,624. National Debt, 1890, ;^89,263,3ir. DENMARK. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The Army and Navy of Denmark consists, according to a law of re-organisation passed by the Rigsdad, 6th July, 1867, and supple- mented the 25th 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. Population, 1st Feb., 1890. 2,298,367- Standing Army, 1890. 42,909. Navy. Men, 1,137 Officers, 181 J,3i8. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. 59.562. II 57 68. Navy, 1890. Ironclads and Monitors. Frigates, Torpedo Boats, Steamers, &c. m :h i 3IO THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL Ml I 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 ;^99o,o99, the object of which is to provide means at the disposal of the Government in the event of war. Annual Expenditure, 1890-1. Army and Navy, 1890. ;^3,46i,i55- ;^i.933.773- Interest of National Debt, iSgo. National Debt, 1890. ;^lo,5 14,503. 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. ' i THE ARMY AND NAVY. The military forces of France are based on a new " loi sur le recrutement," passed in 1872, and supplemented in 1875, ^882, 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'arm^e 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. al period has oyed for the ily incurred in >art for railway es, and other finances of the :h amounts to at the disposal National Debt, 1890. ;£l 0,5 1 4,503- ;» and "active,' 22, considerable nue. • CONDITION OF EUROPE. r 3" Standing Standing Army and Population, Army, Reserves, Navy, May 31st, 1886. 1890. 1890. 1891. 38,218,903. 547.482. XT 1 4,190,000. 57 1 Ironclads and Cruisers. |new "loi sur le in 1875, 1882, , arms from the in, not declared in the "armee I" 6 years in the serve de I'arm^e Iconscription, and Irvice is 3 years in tpiration of these vhere they remain Navy and Marine Infantry and Artillery. 39,784 17,921 375 432- Torpedo Boats, Ships, Steamers, &c. 67,705. 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. '.ween 1814 and 1829, the expenditure of France was about ;^4o,ooo,ooo a year, and she made no addition to her debt; between 1829 and 1847, the expenditure of France rose to ;^s 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, 500,000, but the expenditure had enormously increased, and the budget for 1883 is ;^i36, 137,607."* The budget for 1890 reached the enormous total of ;^iS 1,943,3 18. In the year prior to the war in 1870, the revenue was ;^7 1,927,742, and the expenditure ;^69,6o8,556 ; and according to the budget of 1890, the latter has increased, in consequence of the 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, ue.y for 1870, ;^69,6o8,5s6, and for 1890, ;^i5 1,943,3 18. Annual Army and Expenditure, Navy, 1890. 1890. ;^i 5 1,943,3 1 8. ;^36,4i2,409. Interest of National Debt, 1890. ^^52,022,767. National Debt, 1890. ;^85o,o68,ooot 415,680,804^ ;^i,265,748,8o4. \-'.\ Speech of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.F. f Funded. % Unfunded. 'Pn .^12 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL .' Mil 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 18 14, 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,ooo,ooo ; in 1815, under the First Empire, at ;^70,645,ooo ; in 1830, under the Bourbons, at ;^i4i, 770,000; in 1848, under the Orleans, at ;^ 18 2,000,000; in 1852, under the Republic, at ;^245, 250,000; in 1870, under the Second Empire, at ^550,000,000; and in 1890, in consequence of the Franco-German War, and Colonial Wars since 1871, 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, 575,280, 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 1814 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 185 1, under the Second Republic, to ^^14,374,960; and from 185 1 to 1870, under the Second Empire, to ;^85, 541,580; and from 1870 to 1874, the first four years of the Republic, to ;^i2,i98,962, amounting in all, in deficits alone, to ;;^i 52,840,902. 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,coo. m 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 ■Id, has been rs from 1800 apoleon, and and the last ;bt stood at ^70,645.000 ; , 1848, under Rt public, dt 3550,000,000; an War, and lendous total, rmous sum to the enormous 1 to this, the jnditure, have r the Bourbon 1830 to 1848, 1848 to 1 85 1, i from 1 85 T to and from 1870 ;^i 2,198,962, 12. Since 1874 lome surpluses ; ;ressive foreign letta, Fr^ycinet, years consider- ludget that the If the Constitu- Ltitution, to the Ig arms, has to lend 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 in 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 : — 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 ;^i6,i3i,i75. 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 1 87 1 as war indemnity, was not entered, but placed to a separate * Landsturm. If '! ^ I* Population, I Dec, 1885. 46,857,705- Navy 16,770. Standing Army, 1890. 511,492. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. 2.393.500. 700,000* Navy, 1890. 27 Ironclads. r Frigates, 185 j Torpedo Boats, ' Steamers, &c. 212. 3.093.500. i ! i ■ : ::M " i ; •'« ',; r ^ '1 ■-- it ■i- m i ! I ii J.r ; 'li * f ' ii'V ' J '' '■ ]'■•'■ ' 1 ; : !^ t ' i i ||f • > ■ iH 't Iw !*• 3M 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 a6 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-ofT 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 Expenditure, 1890. Army and Navy, 1890. Interest of National Debt, 1890. National Debt, 1890. ;^56,532,294 ;^22,768,479* ;^26,93o,25o. ;^48,875,iooJ cS ;^^6,i3i,i75 ;^i6,9o7,285t ;^i2,8so,35o§ butions. ^40,401.119- £'^9,(^1 5>1^4- ;^6i,725,4So. THE NATIONAL DEB7 \:;d ANNUAL INTEREST OF THE STATES OF GERMANY. The amount of annual e\jjenditure 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 extraoidinary military expendi- ture involved in the wars with Prussia, /raxir^, 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. J Funded. § Unfunded. !':i CONDITION OP EUROPE. 315 j^220,000,000, . Other French imongst the 26 o-German War, in 1871, but it ,ry exigences of set-off against s amounting to demnity, to be the construction I which can be National Debt, 1890. D. ;£48,875.io°t ;£i2,8so,350§ ;£6i,725,45o- )F THE STATES of the States of I to the Imperial md navy is not re. lan Empire were [te railways, tele- large proportion, iria, Wurtemburg, military expendi- lr3, and Austria. " and "Vactive," lo interest is paid. I'active," with or Annual National Annual Intereit} Expenditure, Debts, and Charge!!, 1890. 1890. 1890. /79. 583.697 ;^2I0,236,2I3 ;^i2,728,i78 14.014,532 66,804,562 2,487,067 4,628,303 32.394.345 1,561,839 3.047.059 21,273,566 1. 019. 763 2,457.530 19,548,753 882,750 2,647,790 16,888,389 504. 100 1,072,698 1,784,765 60,50! 376,080 1,835,960 91.793 605,300 3,394,153 t 995.534 3,432,660 176,633 2,218,477 1,290,07s 38,700 864,550 362,862 • • 285,814 688,183 192,228 •\ 384,802 • • 166,126 382,628 • 103,720 431,678 ■ ■ 111,710 330,415 4.130 123,122 179,411 8.975 172,995 679.324 33.966 87.717 52,027 2,601 54.088 10,687 534 59.340 112,275 5.613 36,658 25.500 I.27S SI.J5S 40,519 2,025 4> 300,000 15,000 800,000 3,001,780 ;^385,667,959- t ;^l 14,948,797- £i9,62Sa63- § Unfunded. Prussia (Including Pomcrania, Saxony, Schleswig- HoUtein, Hanover, Hesse-Nassau, West- phalia, &c., &c.) Bavaria Saxony Wurtemburg Baden Hamburg Hesse Oldenburg Brunswick Bremen Alsace-Lorraine Anhalt Saxe-Meningen Saxe- Weimar ... Saxe- Altenbourg Saxe-Coburg-Golha Schwarzbourg Sonderhausen Lubeck Reuss-Schleiz Reuss-Greiz ... Waldeck Schaumburg-Lippe Lippe Mecklenbourg-Strelitz Mecklenbourg-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 1 2 years — 7 years in active service, and 5 years in the Reserve. Exception is made to this rule to the Horse Guards, who remain 12 years in active service. The non-commissioned officers and subalterns, under certain conditions, '" Not positively known. X Includes Interest and Management, &c. t Active Debt exceeds the Passive Debt, and therefore no Interest charges. m I *: ,1! % %. ] ' I ! i 316 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 Volun:;eers, 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 police 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. 38,583,955- 2IO,?l8. , >. , ( Ironclads, and 696,04s. 91 1 Cruisers. British Navy .'nd { Gunboats, Empire. 333r777,877- Naval Reserve. 94.859- 282 -J Torpedo Boats, (^ Steamers, &c. 373- in 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 ;^243,o63,i45. The 20 years' warfare with I<'rance, 1792 to T815, increased it to ;^36i,o39,o49, since which, by means of a Sinking Fund and Terminable Annuities, it has been reduced to date, 31st March, 1891, to ;^585,959,852, notwithstanding the following additions : Slave Compensation, ;^2o,ooo,ooo ; Irish Famine, ;^8,ooo,ooo ; Crimean War, ;^39,o26,i73. The Amount of ;^585,959,852 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 expeditifons, amounting to ;^32,252,oo5. These sums, added to the Consolidated Debt, make the sum total of the nation's liabilities — in other words the Nadonal Debt — to ;^689,944,o26. The large increase in the Army and Navy ?ars, which ;ion to the g Auxiliary , and the egular and the military police force iteers in the Navy, 1890. )nclads, and Cruisers. iunboats, )rpedo Boats, teamers, &c. Dr the interest 84, has more )o years, conclusion ot 45. The 20 teased it to ng Fund and , 31st March, g additions : ;£8,ooo,ooo ; £585.959.852 ilidated Debt luities, and of eated to meet ,005. These total of the al Debt— to y and Navy CONDITION OF EUROPi;. 3>7 Estimates, is attributable to the amounts involved by the wars in Afghanistan, South Africa, Egypt, the Soudan, and other extensive military preparations. Annual Expenditure, 1890. ;£86,o83,3i4. Intevest on National Debt, 1890. ;£i3,836,465. interest. /; ..HP. ..«/; J Terminable 6,555,596. I Annuities. Management 942,363. \ 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. m-, m^-, QA,> / Terminable 71,731,869. I Annuities. aC24,334,424- Note. The sum of ;^io, 929,949 re- presents the following amounts, applied for remunerative purposes, and returnable to the Treasury : — Sardinian Loan ;^84S,I77 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- ) ^ otnniA land and Ireland \ 5,220,914 ;i"io,929,949 ;£689,944,026. 719,812. Savings Bank Deficit, and other obligations. ;£69o,663,838. 10,929,949. ^£679,733,889 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 universr.1 liability to arms on all able-bodied men. The term of service i^^ 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, i ill .::, S t. *i I.;V! ill, "' 7; !|., . ml ''! ri ■I It .' ; I 1 i Ji I, Si .. 318 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL Population, 1889. Standing Army, 1890. Standing Army, and Reserves, 1890. Navy. 2,187,208. 26,134. 276,634. Navy. 3.361. 5- 21 26. I Ironclads and Monitors. Cruisers, Torpedo Boats, Steamers, &c. 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 ;^29,5T5,4i5 does not include the Greek portion of the Ottoman Debt, and, including this, the National Debt of Greece stands at ;^38,ooo,ooo. Annual Expenditure, 1890. 3,643,279. Army and Navy, 1890. 930,7^3- Interest on National Debt, 1890. 1,183,089. National Debt, Internal and External, 1890. 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 OP EUROt>£. 310 clads and lonitors. bruisers, )edo Boats, amers, &c. Standing Standing Army and Population, Army, Reserves, 31st Dec, 1889. 1890. 1890. 30.947.306- 849,192. 2,852,323. Navy. 20,429.* 44. Navy. 1890. Ironclads and Monitors. Cruisers, 208 «J Torpedo Boats, — ( Steamers, &c. 252. M 1 Mil ■t ing in part ol ttce the estab- have been few jcurring deficit ► the excessive twelfth of the :hmas, equal to External Debt, in, France, and :lude the Greek the National National Debt, Internal and External, 1890. 29.515.415- ms the basis of ►m of Italy, in There are three tive Militia, and years : 8 years of their time in THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. Since the establishment of United Italy, in 1861, in consequence of the costly military expenditure, there have been frequent annual deficits. In 1889 the deficit was ;£^2,26o,363, and 1890 it was ;^875,405. In i860, the j'ear before the establishment of United Italy, the National Debt stood at ;^97,48o,ooo, and it now stands at nearly ;^45o,ooo,ooo. Annual Interest on Expenditure, Army and Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^74,88s,33i. ;^i6,i5S,48s. ;^23,i59,393. ;^449, 262,660. HOLLAND. THE ARMY AND NAVY, The Army of the Netherlands is formed partly by conscription and partly by enlisuaent, and there is also a militia. The men drawn by conscription at the age of 20 have to serve 5 years. The militia is divided into the active and reserve, the former comprising those between the ages of 25 and 30, the latter from 30 to 35. There is besides, the Landsturm, or levy en masse, of all the citizens from 19 to 50 years, capable of bearing arms, and who do not belong to either categories named before. The following figures of the Army do not include the Colonial Forces, 31,627, which are recruited from Holland and the Colonies : — * There is a reserve naval force of 41,137, and thus the total of the marine, infantry, and reserves of all ranks is 62,910. ■ It 'I f!., .'::8 J? i ' ili M ! 320 Population, 31 Dec, 1889. 4.548.596- THE MlLItARY ANt) FINANCIAL Standing Army, 1890. 65,849. Navy. 12,578. Standing Arrny and Reserves, 1890. 184,902. Navy, 1890. r Ironclads and *S I Monitors. {Cruisers, Torpedo Boats, Steamers, && 150. THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. Jn the Budget estimates of Holland, the largest branch of ■ expenditure is that of the National Debt, which was created in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by wars, and reached its highest at the time of the wars of the French Revolution. The annual Budgets for many years show large deficits, caused by paying out of revenue the expenditures on public works. The last Budget shows a deficit of ;^i, 07 2,090. Annual Interest on Expenditure, Army and Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^i 1,256,249. ^^2,906,786. ;^2,9i 1,843. ;692,626,43o. |i THE DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG. By the Treaty of London (May 11, 1867), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg remains under the sovereignty of the House of Orange-Nassau, and the King of Holland is nominally the Grand Duke, and nominates the Government, and in virtue of this Treaty it has been declared neutral, and the Capital has ceased to be a fortified city. The Public Debt was created by the construction of railways, and other works of public utility. Annual Population, 1885. 213,283. m\ il Gendarmerie, 1890. 267. Volunteers. 250. Public D6bt, 1890. ^^646, 800. Interest. ;^29,o76. Expenditure, 1890. ;^329,884. Military. ;^lS.o6o. MONTENEGRO. There exists no standing army, except a Life Guard of the COMdITION ok tiUkOPE. 32t nclads and Monitors. Cruisers, jedo Boats, jamers, &c. St branch of :reated in the led its highest The annual paying out of Budget shows National Debt, 1890. ^92,626,430- [and Duchy of the House of illy the Grand of this Treaty leased to be a in of railways, Annual Expenditure, 1890. ^329,884. Military. ^15,060. Hospodar, but all the inhabitants, not physically unfitted, are trained as soldiers, and are liable to be called under arms. The country is organised and divided into five military divisions. Population, 1881 236,000. Revenue, 1890. ^60,000. Gardes du Corps. 650. Army, 1890. ;^3»ooo. Interest, 1890. ;^'8,000. Pied de Guerre. S9,ooo. Public Debt, 1890. ;^I 70,000. As there are no official statistics, the state of the Finances cannot be accurately ascertained. The Prince has an annual income from the State of 100,000 florins. NORWAY. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The troops of Norway are raised mainly by conscription, and, to a small extent, by enlistment. By the laws voted by the Storthing in 1866, 1876, and 1885, the land forces are divided into the Line, the Landvaern, or Militia, raised for the defence of the country, and the Landsturm, liable to be called out in case of great danger as a final levy. Every man on reaching 21 years is liable to the con- scription, with the exception of the inhabitants of the three northern provinces of the kingdom. The nominal term of service is 13 years : 5 in the Line, 4 in the Land\'aern, and at the end of this period each subject belongs to the Landsturm until the age of 50 years. All seafaring men and inhabitants of seaports, between the ages of 21 and 35, are enrolled on the lists of the Active Fleet, or the Naval Militia, and are liable to maritime conscription. ?opulation, 1875- 1,806,900. Standing Army, 1890. 18,750. Navy and Reserves, 1890. 27,000. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. 40,700. Navy, 1890. f Ironclad, ^ \ Monitors. {Frigates, Torpedo Boats, Steamers, &c. ■I villi' U w * i j\4} i, ,.*!;.■ Guard of the 55- ).: i; ■'I - ! 322 tHE MILITARY AWD FINANCIAL THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. The interest on the Passif Debt is only stated. The National Debt of ;^i4,354,oi4 includes the "Passif" and the "Active" Debt, and the latter was contracted mainly for railways, steamers, harbours, and lighthouses. Annual Interest of Expenditure, Army and Navy, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. .;^2.S4i.437- .j^Si3.53o- ;^2o6,i5o. National Debt, 1890. ;£i4,354.oi4. PORTUGAL. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The Army of Portugal, based on the statutes from 1864 to 1885, consists of the Standing Army and the Municipal and Fiscal Guards, and is formed partly by conscription and partly by voluntary enlist- ment. Freedom from conscription may be purchased by a 6xed sum, amounting to about ;^8o, payable to the Government. The time of service commences at 21, and continues for 12 years, of which 3 have to be spent in the Regular Army and 5 in the First Reserve, and the remaining 4 years in the Second Reserve. Population, 1881. 4,708,178. Standing Army, 1890. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. Navy, 1890. 37.273- Navy. 3,600. 125,057. I Ironclad. [ Gunboats, 5 3 J. Torpedo Boats, ( Steamers, &c. 54- THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. For the past 30 years there has been no Budget without a deficit, and in 1890, the excess of expenditure over receipts amounted to ;^i,99i,io7. The Public Debt of Portugal dates from the war, 1796, when the first loan of ;^9oo,ooo was raised. It has steadily increased since then, chiefly on account of the wars that have been waged, and through the necessity of raising loans to meet the great deficits. In 1826 it amounted to ;^7,7oo,ooo; in 1856 to ;^20,974,ooo ; in 1866 to ;^45,2S5,ooo; in 1871 to ;^64,333,ooo ; in 1886 to ;^i 15,384,000; and in 1890, including funded and CONDlTiON OF EUftOPE. 323 R'l ■ :he National ke "Active" ,ys, steamers, tional Debt, 1890. [4f354.oi4- 1864 to 1885, Fiscal Guards, luntary enlist- ed by a fixed nment. The »r 12 years, of I c in the First I ^ serve. iclad. iboats, pedo Boats, ,mers, &c. Le. \ho\xt a deficit, amounted to Ifrom the war, lit has steadily Vhat have been (leet the great in 1856 to j64,333,ooo ; funded and unfunded, ;;^i28,72o,92i. Interest is only paid on a portion of the Debt. Interest and National Debt, amortisation of including Army and Navy, National Debt, Foreign Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^i,664,293. ;^4,o6i,94o. .:^ii9.996,205» ;^8,724,7i6t Annual Expenditure, 1890. ;^II,207,7I3. ;^I 28,7 20,92 1. ROUMANIA. THE ARMY. The Military Forces of Roumania are divided into five classes — the Standing Army, Territorial Army, Militia, and levy en masse, with Reserves for each. In virtue of the laws of 1876, 1882, and 1883, personal military service is obligatory. All Roumanians between the age of 21 and 46, are liable to serve 3 years in the Standing Army, 4 years in its Cavalry Territorial, and 5 years in the Infantry Territorial Army. Those who finish this period remain in the Reserve until the age of 30, and thence into the Militia until the age of 36, when they are liable to serve in the levy en masse. Permanent Territorial, and Militia, Permanent Territorial and Population, Army, Army, Civic Guard, Navy, 1876. 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. 5,376,000. 51.450- 150,000. 273,000. I Ironclad. / Gunboats, Navy, 1890. 10 Torpedo Boats, I.75I- &€., &c. II. THE MILITARY EXPENDITURE. The Public Debt consists mainly of three foreign loans, contracted in 1864, 1866, and 1868, wi.'ch were devoted to the construction of railways and bridges, and .wo loans in 1885, to cover deficits, reduce Unfunded Debt and other purposes. Annual Interest of Expenditure, Army, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^6,59o,76o. ;^i,456.685. ;^2,462,96i. National Debt, 1890. ;^38,i 13.837- • Funded. t Unfunded. '! n i-n -H iwl ill ;' ■■ ! : I i ! 324 IHK MILITAKV and t'lNANClAL THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE. THE ARMY AND NAVY. The anned forces of Russia, according to the laws of 1876 and 1888, are obtained by conscriptioa, to which all men from their 2 1 St year, capable of bearing arms, are liable. Clergymen, doctors, and teachers are exempt, in time of peace, and all Mahomedans, on payment of a military tax, are also free. The period of service is 23 years — 5 years in the active army. 13 years in the reserve, and 5 in the territorial. The Russian Navy consists of the fleets of the Baltic and the Black Seas ; the duration of service in the Navy is fixed at 10 years, 7 in the Active and 3 in the Reserve. The levies furnished by the Cossacks are regulated by Treaties, and are divided into seven divisions, called Voiskos, each of which furnish a certain number of regiments, fully armed and equipped, ready to enter the field in ten days. The total Cossack force is calculated in time of war to ba 154,015 officers and men. The following figures include the Army of Russia, the Armies of Finland, the country of the Don Cossacks, Orenburg, and Siberia, which may be calculated at 211,441 men; so that the Czar can bring into the field a grand total, on a war footing, of ^,392,327 warriors. Population, including Caucasus, and Transcaspian, 1890. "2.934,592- Standing Army, Regular & Irregular, 1890. Standing Army & Reserves, 1890. 814,000. 2,392,327. Navy. 30,174 men. Navy. 1890. ( Ironclads, and ^^ \ Monitors. I Gunboats, Torpedo Boats. Steamers, &c. 379- THE MILITARY AND NAVAL EXPENDITURE. The finances of Russia, since the beginning of the century, exhibit large annual deficits, partly caused by an enormous expenditure for war, and partly by the construction of railways for strategic military purposes. The finances of Finland and Poland are not included in the Russian Budgets. The National Debt, which dates from 1798, and has been chiefly created by wars, particularly the Crimean War, the cost of which Condition of EUROt'k. iH of 1876 and en from their irmen, doctors, ihomedans, on i of service is reserve, and 5 Baltic and the :ed at 10 years, ted by Treaties, , each of which I and equipped, :ossack force is men. a, the Armies of rg, and Siberia, It the Czar can ig, of i,392'327 Lronclads, and [onitors. runboats, 'orpedo Boats. Jteamers, &c. URE. of the century, an enormous tn of railways for lland and Poland has been chiefly le cost of which was estimated at ;^i 27,000,000, and the Russo-Turkish War, which is estimated to have involved an expenditure, from 1876 to 1881, of ;^i 30,000,000. The total liabilities of Russia in 1890 were as follows : — Consoli- dated Debt, ;£6o4,66i,898 ; Current Debt, ;^94,759,7S7 ; Rail- way Debt, ;^244»229,873 ; Redemption Operations, ;^77,354»94i ; total, ^^920,873,3 74. The following figures are based on the nominal value of the rouble of 3s. 4d., though the actual value ranges from is, 9d. to 2s. : — Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt, National Uebt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^iS7.978,2o6. ^43.539. "i- •;^42,790»340. ;^920,873,374. SERVIA. THE ARMY. The Army of Servia consists of the Permanent and the National Army, of which the King is Commander-in-Chief. In virtue of the law of 1889, the service in the Army is obligatory. It is divided into three classes, the first the Standing Army and its Reserves, foi men from 20 to 28 years of age ; the second, those who have served in the former, from 28 to 37 years of age ; the third, from 37 to 50 years of age, only liable on extraordinary circumstances. In time of peace the Army numbers 18,000 men, in case of mobilisation 60,000 men are added, and with the Army of Reserve of 58,415, and the Militia estimated to furnish 73,500, the effective for war is equal to 210,000, when called upon by the Royal ukase. In addition there is a gendarme force of 800 men. ii'J Population, 1st January, 1890. 2,096,043. Standing Army, 18,000. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. 210,000. THE MILITARY EXPENDITURE. The finances of Servia are well administered, and the Budgets have generally shown a surplus, although it is estimated, that the Budget for 1891, will show a deficit of ;^i38,836. Prior to the war of 1876-7, the Debt of Servia consisted of two loans for two railways the one from Belgrade to Vragna, and the other from Nisch to Pirot, amounting to ;^5,2oo,ooo, but to enable her to prosecute the war n j i ■ i. ■ .'i'l a I I ;■!,'' 326 THE MILITARY AND riNANCIAL against Turkey in 1876, an 8 per cent, loan was raised of ^480,000, and in 1877, a further loan became necessary, of ;^i,ooo,ooo. Since then, in consequence of the outlay involved by the war against Bulgaria, two loans have been raised of ;^2,ooo,ooo. Annual Expenditure, Army, 1890. 1890. ;^2,307,624. ;^392,000. Interest of National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. ;^796,037. ;^i2,i6i,84o. 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 serve ;heir 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 jC6o, 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 : — Population, 1887. Standing Army, 1890. i7f5So»246. I44i9i2. Navy and Marine Infantry. 18,478. Standing Army, and Reserves, 1890. 831,642. Navy, 1890. j Ironclads, and Monitors. I Torpedo Boats, ii4< Cruisers, ( Steamers, &c. i l! 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 4i379 28,699. 3,802, 14,270. 46,771. CONDITION OF EUROPE- 3*7 lof;^48o»ooo» )o,ooo. Since e war against National Debt, 1890. C12, 161,840. le obligation to of a permanent B liable to serve composed of all ment Army, and serve, but by a fhe service in the , and four in the icruited by con- Ironclads, and vionitors. Torpedo Boats, Cruisers, Steamers, &c. anies stands as Total. 42,392 4.379 46,771. 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 nt ;^9,ooo,ooo. Since then, in consequence of the extravagance ot 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 ;^237,4oo,ooo, 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 ;i^233,099,77i, upon which interest is paid. Since 1882, the Con solidated Debt has increased to ;^2 5 0,2 94, 7 39, 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 ^^27 1,583, 139. Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. National Debt, 1890. Funded. ;^32,4S6,536. ;^7»i32,365- £^^,3^2,126. ;^25o,294,739. Unfunded. ;^2 1, 288,400. ;^27i,583,i39. 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 1 2 years in the Army, which is composed of four distinct classes of troops, the Far/vade, or enlisted troops, the IndeUa, or National militia, the Bevdring^ or conscription troops, drawn by annual levy from the male population between the ages of 20 and 25 years (the law ot substitution being abolished), and lastly there is the Gothland Militia, who are noi 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. f! :| f' 'w' i ■liJ I li !^ 3*8 Population, 31st Dec. 1889. 4,774i409- THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL Standing Army, 1890. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. Navy, 1886. 38,14a. 330*480. l6 Navy and Reserves. 28,000. 53 69. Ironclads and Monitors. dun Boats, Torpedo Boats, Steamers, &c. THE MILITARY AND NATAL 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 ;^542,43o. Annual Army and Interest of Expenditure, Navy, National Debt , National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. i^5»i89,833. ;^i,625,287. ;^542,43o- ;^i4,024,467. 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 £lite or 1st December, Regular Army, Landwehr, 1888. 1890. 1890. 2i934»o57- 126,444. 80,796. THE MILITARY EXPENDITURE. The Public Debt has been recently created by loans in 1857, 1S67, 1871, and 1877, either for real acquisitions, or for national defence. Elite, Landwehr, and Landsturm, 1890. 268,715. CONDITION OF EUROPF. 339 tnclads and Monitors, iun Boats, irpedo Boats, learners, &c. ire, but also of snues of State raph Receipts. le construction 3-thirds of the mortisations to National Debt, 1890. ;£ I 4,024,467. of a Standing ovide, however, irevented from \\\ cantons are to furnish at Army, which is years, and of years, and the 17 to 50, not Elite, Landwehr, and Landsturm, 1890. 268,715. loans in 1857, 3r for national It should be stated that, as a set-off against the Public Debt, which amounts to ;^2,36o,945, 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, A>:r.y, Nationrl Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^3,i22,76o. ;^i, 245,606. ;^io6,o9o. ;^4,204,642 Active Debt 2,360,045 Passive Debt Excess in Active Debt <;^ 1,843,697. 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-established privilege. Non- Mahometans are not liable to military service, but have to pay an exemption tax of jC^^ 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 ^ iJ ,e»i partly by conscription and partly by voluntary enlistmei>t, {»nd V <. figures include 80,000 sailors and 9,460 marines. I'.eti.Tjf, )f service is 12 years, 5 years in the Active, 3 ycc-'^ in :hc Rcst and 4 years in the Redif. The follow' n< fiHu;:^ erii^race the Turkish Empire, reorganised under the Treaty of BeiiUi, but excluding the Tributary States of Bulgaria and Egypt, and the Asiatic possessions of the Empire : — Standing Standing Army and Population, Army, Reserves, 1890. 1890. 1890. 33.3591787. 170,400. 852,000. Navy. 40,572 Men. Navy, 1890. 15. Ironclads. C Monitors, J Gunboats, °5 "^ Torpedo Boats, [steamers, &c. 120. ^\ ■>■■ i '% 1 I, V'l ,\ w ■M 'Hit i '.-•I II 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. Thic sum has been reduced by the Convention to ;^ 1 06, 43 7, 2 34. 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 '•evenues, 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, 1 87 1, 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 ;^3 2, 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 ascerc„l , i, based on the agreement of 1881 : — Annual Interest of Expenditure, Army and Navy, National Debt, National Debt, 1889. 1889. 1889. 1889. ;^I9,260,000, ;^6,2 10,000. ;^2, 136,962. ;^I 04,458,706. EASTERN ROUMELIA, AND BULGARIA. Conformably to the Treaty of Berlin (1878), Roumelia enjoyed an autonomous administration under the immediate authority of Turkey, but by ilie Revolution which o^cu'red in 1886, its union :'i CONDITION OF EUROPE. ?/3' 1 published an official adget Com- ieficit to be s, chosen by rganising her nctioned by following is a jst (excluding estimated at i:onvention to debt, Turkey »ers, represent- l the Galatea 1 follows, four- >o, will be re- which, with [he proportion Bulgaria, and |of these debts. )f 1854, 1855. [on out of the id and France, paid, without lain sources of ig to the last lear as can be National Debt, 1889. ;io4,458.7o6. lRIA. Imelia enjoyed te authority of 1886, its union Population, 1888. 3.i.'^4.375- Standing Army, 1890. 35.807- Navy, 1890. 13- 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. Standing Army and Reserves, 1890. {Monitors, Torpedo Boats, &c. 346 men. The Public 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 liabilities of the Old Turkish Debt. Annual Army Interest of National Expenditure, and Navy, National Debt, Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. ;^3»^43.727- ^956,472- ;^266,7i7. ;^4,o68,ooo. EGYPT. In 1882, a Revolution broke out in Egypt, which led to the intervention of England, without the assistance of P'rance, and accordingly, after the restoration of the authority of the Khedive, a decree was issued abolishing the joint control of England and France 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. 6,806,381. 13,000 Egyptian. 3,300 British. Annual Army Interest Expenditure, Expenditure, National Debt, National Debt, 1890. 1890. 1890. 1890. .^^9.730.750- i:786,42S- p^l09,6l 1,208. ^4,844,228. 8 A I: * ■I ■ '"* i ill t If I li' t: ' :^: ■ i ! ! mm 332 THE MILITARY AND FINANCIAL THE FINANCIAL SUMMARY FOR 1890. NATION, AUSTRIA-HUNGARY .. Bosnia & Herzegovina BELGIUM DENMARK FRANCE THE GERMAN EMPIRE Do. do. STATES GREAT BRITAIN) AND IRELAND i ANNUAL EXPENDITURE, iSgo. GREECE HOLLAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG MONTENEGRO NORWAY PORTUGAL ROUMANIA IIRUSSIA SERVIA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TURKEY Bulgaria & Roumelia.. Egypt Totals 91,530,767 1,018,765 13,312,562 3,461,155 151,943,318 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 i).,207,7i3 6,590,760 157,978,206 2,307,624 32,4^6,536 5,189,833 3,122,760 19,260,000 3,243,727 9,730,750 ARMY AND NAVV ESTIMa-ES, 1890. 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 3,000 513,530 1,664,293 1,456,685 43,539,111 392,000 7,132,365 1,625,287 1,245,606 6,210,000 456,472 786,425 INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEBTS, 1890. 210,764,377 £ 26,232,288 4,002,624 52,022,767 2,693,025 19,625,463 24,334,424 1,183,089 2,911,843 23,159,393 29,076 8,000 206,150 4,061,940 2,462,961 42,790,340 796.037 11,3;^- .6 542,430 106,090 2,136,962 266,717 4,844,228 FUNDED AND UNFUNDED NATIONAL DEBTS, 1890, £ 545,313.950 89,263,311 10,514,503 ( 850,068,000* i 415,680,804+ C 48,875,100* I 12,850,350! 385.667,959 235-727.973 679.733.889 29,515,415 92,626,430 449,262,660 646,800 i7o,ooo§ 14,354.^14 128,720,971 38.133,837 920,873,374 12,161,840 271.583.139 14,024,467 1,843.697 104,458,706 4,068,000 109,611,208 5,230,022,434 • Funded. t Unfunded. i Approximate. II Rouble estimated at 3s. 4d. FUNDED AND UNFUNDED NATIONAL DEBTS, 1890. 545.3i3.95«> S4 89,263,31' 10,514.503 ( 850,068,000* 67 [ 415.680,804 If 48.875.10°; 25 [ i2,85o,35ot ^63! 385.667,959 424' 089 1 ,843 393 ,076 ,000 I ,150 ,940 679.733.889 29,5»5.4i5 92,626,430 449,262,660 646,800 170,000! I4.354^H 128,720,971 ,961 I 38,133.837 920,873,374 12,161,840 ,340 ^5! 27 1. 583.* 39 14,024,467 1,843.697 104,458.70^ ,430 ,090 ,962 ,717 4,068,000 ,228 109,611.208^ ,973 5.230,022,434 lie estinvated at v- 4d. CONDITION OF EUROPE. THE MILITARY SUMMARY FOR 1890. 333 NATION. POPULATION ACCOKDING TO LAST CKNSUS. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY *Bosnl •Herzegovina BELGIUM DENMARK FRANCE THE GERMAN EiMPIRE GREAT BRITAIN^ AND IRELAND) STANDING ARMY, 1890, GREECE HOLLAND ITALY LUXEMBOURG MONTENEGRO NORWAY PORTUGAL ROUMANIA RUSSIA SERVIA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TURKEY Bulgaria & Roumelia Egypt 41,076,804 >- 1,404,000 6,093,798 2,298,367 38,218,903 46,857,705 38,583,955 2,187,208 4,548,596 30,947,306 213,283 236,000 1,806,900 4,708,178 5,376,000 ii2,934.592§ 2,096,043 17,550,246 4.774,409 2,934,057 33.359.787 3.154.37s 6,806,381 336,717 \ 47,570 I t42,827 42,909 547,482 511,492 2IO,2l8 26,134 408,264,893 NAVY, 1890. 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 RESERVli'., 1890. 1.813,413 4,788 220,000 59,562 4,190,000 (2,393,500 ^ t7oo,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 T3 B 'J O n (35 24 Officers, and Men ard Re- serves, 1890. 104 II 57 27 91 5 25 44 14.507 57 375 69 282 21 125 208 4 I I 39 1.318 67,705 13,955 94,859 3,361 12,578 20,429 51 53 10 340 6l 114 16 15 4,146,485; 18,909,6081 366 53 105 13 27,000 3,600 1,751 30,174 18,478 28,000 40,572 346 19081 378,633 * Occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary. 8 Including Caucasus and Transcaspian. t Landsturm. t Civil Guard. 2 A* 11 ! IM: ^ I :|| 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, .lot 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. Durmg 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 commt.ce, 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 navu.b, .u;A, as an inevitable CONDITION OF EUROPE. 335 ous men, the rhen the tocsin obilised, when ors, the bread- )thers amongst n Europe, the iction, increase I disciplined for year 1890 the »f Six Millions iraging, but it is )r later, must be rwhelm Europe, t a quarter of a ar (would that it catastrophe, from Iture of man, may DO soldiers of the but a conflict of the resources of achinery will be beginning of the each village, town, human slaughter, and disgraced by r witnessed. J90, it is generally pe have advanced, arts, in commence, lolitical, civil, and vance in political, unhappily, been a tice of feudal times^ igmentation of vast as an inevitable 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 ^^389,000,000 to ;^847, 000,000, 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 projiortions, from ^^2,626,000,000 to ;^5r228,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 ;^6s,ooo,ooo ;^ 1 6,000,000 280,000 32,500,000 In 1890 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 i8go 10,514,503 3.461,15s 59,562 2,298,367 FRANCE ... In 1840 658,000,000 49,000,000 480,000 34,000,000 In 1890 1,265,748,804 I5I.943.318 4,190,000 38,218,903 GT. BRITAIN In 1840 834,500,000 50,000,000 120,000 24,000,000 In i8qo 679.733,889 86,083,314 696,048 38,583,955 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 "2,934,592 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 i] I ! J fit*' ! ., ill I': III |, . i ; III '■I i: : lii HI 336 THE MILITARY AND FIN VCIAL 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 Dat'/y Telegraphy 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 £tnd has never seen. If this tremendous fact be not a black blot upon our boasted civifisation, 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 flay 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 .;uperb 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 imiiediate cause of countless sufferings and sorrows. Russia and Germany, Austria, and Turkey, Italy and Spain groan under the crushintj 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 one, 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 rman States, it retrograd- ig headlong ruin, jmber, 1886, n millions (now liable within a in the strenuous om he bears no I has never seen. Rsation, there is a it chiefly owes 1 the ground that lestly judged by jer that menaces r of Christendom unvbling volcano, ,nd overwhelm us , monarchs and vet ready to their d unintermittently )eace ;es afflicted by the ion, business, and ses industry, lames than France and nation, and is the .ia and Germany, Z pressure of their elief." on the military lown, is, that each s neighbour's open all round by half, an ell's breadth, e, and the leaders fact, that European •ated speed in one, )repavations in one .rify the very State the tread of their imarkable letter addressed to Frederick Passy, the eminent French political economist, which is full of force and wisdom : — "As things stand, nations fnd their resources swallowed u[) 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 T'iew of such a stormy outlook over the sky of European pontics, 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 industry and the hives of commerce will be emptied of their hands, some of whom will go to swell that mournful pro- cession 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 civilisation, her vaunted progress, her scientific discoveries, her political, civil, and religious liberties, her free press, L^fl ii m 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 ot 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 fioating 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 warnings 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 wil'ingly 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 great catastrophe 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 ill, it would when the they are ling at, and ng, with the , the task ot ind perilous ismen of the ;y, it may be ich seems so ing navies in svery lover of :ious counsels ds of warnings more forcibly accord, so as to )elong to a state ils will not, that le. •n urge upon iiate reduction ilries, foment IS of war, and J anddevelope U nations of I true interests of Peace ; to Id intercourse gudices will be I family united lations, com- ^ch nation, to to settle by be decided in The words of the poet Longfellow, in his admirable poem, " The Arsenal of Spring ield," 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 I 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." '■( ,:'V 1 t. i! '*"l ll i 1^1 LJ li r, .; I w •■ mmmmm J- ! i • 3: i:: ! Jl lit I I 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 burdehsome, 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 like 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. I : '. AN INTERNATIONAI, TRIIIUNAL FOR EUROPE. 341 FOR But though civilisation and justice have denjanded, 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, has 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 tarism which naments, and le absence of )unal to apply tarbarous, and mmunity, and condition of a d magistrates such judicial the result ;an we expect md ambitions, ;d arbiter for ; men, aye, and the absence of luarrels in the nterruption to needs would lited States of the power of a is illegal for to brute force their individual nly forfeits the shnient he did 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 IL, and James IL, 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 IL 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 Thrcne 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, I '1! h ^, IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) % ^/ vV .^* .* ^0 ^ 1.0 ^1^1^ 1.1 l.-^ra = m 1-25 i^ u^ rjnm P- '/ Photographic ^Sciences Corporatton 23 WEST MAIN STRUT WMSTm,N.Y. MSM (716) t72-4S03 1 vV i I m^ 1 1 i^iii 1 I r- I 1:1 I i i !' i 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 and 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 ;^62,5oo,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 FViorland ;^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 Ar.erican Continent, upon the question of the boundaries of Nova Scotia and Canada, and the disputed possession of several of the West India Island..— St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Vincent, and Tobago. From these, and other disputes in European affairs, a long and bloody war, which lasted seven years, was waged between France and England, wiiich 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 ,t Ryswick, the V. recognised igland, and the followed, le originator of of the Spanish [Jueen Anne, in preventing the rheresa, to the e ahd force the n years, during heim, Ramilies, e was signed at lexed Gibraltar, t it cost her vigour, England a, and Hungary ; rland, in the first ■d to the Spanish in 1741. war was succession to the Aix-la-Chapelle, jng duration, for, ided France and d between them, upon the North mdaries of Nova )f several of the . Vincent, and iropean affairs, a ears, was waged its ravages over America, until jxhausted. Peace ^63. The cost of this war to England was ;^ix 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 France ; 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, and 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 1775, 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 the 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. m . I -■ 8 ■ ;• k i which cost Great Britain ;^ 136,000,000, 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 Holy Places ; the Churches that have been built o' er 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 ',vith 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 yiel'1 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, ;;^34o,ooo,ooo, and the lives of upv/ards 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> PE. :oncluded, and was forced to as being free, ranee, Sardinia,, le causes which ; regarding the r those spots in f are supposed the Church of »f Turkey ; and Star, which had the Church of tins charged the was made the and, eventually, .tholics in France nd demanded of ictuaries. Great ;h, Russia, as the n the grounds ot that to yieH any enjoyed, to the 2nce in the East* ngland to resist^ disement; (i) to the " Balance of and the integrity lat objects of the England were Britain, France,, i of upv/ards of irk to secure the 1. This claim by ;o, for the purpose Holstein, distinct ted the Duchies^ AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 345 and by the Treaty of Peace which followed, their independence was secured. In 1863, "PO^ t^'C accession of King Christian ;o the Danish Throne, the question was raised again, and Prussia claimed the recognition of the Duke of Augustenburg as the Duke of Schles wig- 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 1870-7 1, 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, Graveiotte, 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 tht Dark Ages, when private wars^ and judicial combats were the ]'i\ 346 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. i- I t ■' 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 o* those media" al and barbarous times, that Grotius, a brave man, a genius, and an authority on International Law, was so impressed with this unbridled lust for mili- 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 Pacts" 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 npon every 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 2,0 50 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 '\ : }PE. ople, regulated, yet they were, , their disputes, and barbarous in authority on ed lust for mili- i animated and led to the world h Jure Belli, ac i to that remark- ; it. He said : — ;ss in regard to war, ining to arms npon n up, there remained iust as if, from that ill manner of crimes 2, in International rtain maxims and [ality,yet,thatitis , "An appeal to s occasion," that I from the days of le 2,0 5o years of ences of Christian er taken the law jitrament of war, ill justice. Judicial Tribunal te of Society, and rism, yet now that mder the benign more dependent and commercial ;rnal machinery of irderous, a system, Dt becoming more ler by interests so 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 R.omans, 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 Amphictyonic 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 Heei, " 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, m 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 le.-gue 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 ^H;: WmW^^ i i ■ i i i fi 1 1 ^ !'' ^ : .1'!: '^ i ; ' t ' ■ • :-: ;^ 1 ! il 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 Aran, 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 ot England, gave the scheme her warmest supr< )rt, and, had it not been for the dagger of Ravaillac, who cruelly PE. ards extended iirished, main- ning rich and ged successful reated jealousy some years, it isisting of the established in only called the \patch, of i393> me a perpetual lin, from insur- jnemies of the Switzerland, con- ■)ther in language, ad customs, has ig foreign aggres- 3ther, and it has to this day, an i the admiration ;ion. commonly called t was drafted by the model of the 'rs of all Christian late, "to pacify ivil, political, and a Court, for the . to unite all the )lic of Arbitration irchies, and four erne her warmest ^aillac, who cruelly AN INTERNATIONAL TRIOUNAL 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 ot 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 18 16, 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* ■ r I 35° AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. il '^: '! created amongst neighbouring states, from their unjust exercise oi 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 fol'ows : — "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 remedy should supply their place. The Supreme Court of the Federation dispenses International Law, and is the hist great example, of what is now, one of the most promin'jnt 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 difficulty 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 the Tribunal, 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 t^ie 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 INTKRNATIOXAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. t exercise ot mfall, was an he executive lot prove the ) Switzerland, id foremost a es of America International e Washington, reat American ited States of , and is thus jtween the Federal •tween two States, g precluded by the supply their place, il Law, and is the romiri'^nt wants of ct,that,through- lepublic, during of its wonderful uch conspicuous , has proved so pute, which have lington, and the Union, they have e to the Tribunal, he most memor- d the decision of jf the difficulty, the Federation ground, that no lat Union without Union, and the :^orth and South ; will contend that 35 » 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, lo 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 *■ • li 1 '. , ; li !^, H t > ' ' 1; iirlilMH >Ih i I ,' ■ i^ i ■ ' ; i ! 1 1 i i: !i 4( 35 2 AN INTKR NATION' AT, TRIBTJNAT. FOR RUROPE. 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. Having 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, publicistSi 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 ETTROPK, .153 tission of the » Congress at F Arbitration, , and philan- al differences. GH COURT ►N. ressed in every y reason of the Df large armies ; of civilisation merce, and the :tendants ; lich states have arbitrator or mrt of justice, la' Arbitration) perfect success n clauses have :ed of providing he same, where r, thus avoiding the purpose of mergency ; he International ids of peace in ernments of the communication in International expediency of \rbitration, with nbers, publicists, ind standing, to isoon as any two 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. " 10. 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 and locality of the dispute, and shall terminate, on the settlement of the dispute, or abandon- ment of the arbitration. " 1 2. 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 occurrence of v^y dispute, the action of the Council is ignored by the contending states, it will be within the competency of the Council to consider the facts in dispute, and to report thereon to the states which it represents, and, likewise, when its award, or any dispute referred to it for arbitration, is set at nought, to communicate the facts of the case, and its decision her eon, to the same states. " 14. The Council will make rules for its own conduct, and for the procedure of the High Court of International Arbitration. The rules adopted in the ' Alabama ' Arbitration, and those proposed by the Institute of International Law, may supply valuable suggestions for the framing of the same. "15. It is suggested, that the seat of the Council shall be a neutral cityj such as Berne or Brussels. ' ' •• 16, The appointment of members of Council should be for 'a I' : ^^nai fh ^Hi t-IM H {M' 1 : ■! i: ^Mi ■ t ^^1 1 ' '''^' 1 i l;ivj ^nli ,' 'S , Bll ■ f'5:'» i.:i| ■HI : ! 1 1 ^^^nHrl ' ii.'( 1 'Tj,; ^RflK ■ji ; '■' i- ' ■h 1 '• * In * i 't Hn ! ma ' 1 Ik ' [■ .'\ : ^H^H . , Hh , 1 » 1 i 4 Km ! 1 ■ i 1 1' H'^ 1 i ^^ ii' 1 1 i ■ I ^ 1 : 4 i 'PI 354 AV INTERNATIONAL TRIRUNAL FOR EUROPE, definite number of years, provision being made for the appointment of new members to supply those who may cease to be members by retirement, or death. " 17. Ti." members of the Council, though appointed by the Governments, will not hold any representative character. " 18. The cost of maintaining the Council shall be borne equally by every state concurring in its organisation. The cost of any reference to arbitration shall be borne by the contending parties in equal shares. " 19. The preparation of a Code of International Law will be of great value for the guidance of the Council, and High Court of International Arbitration. Attempts have been made in this direction by Bluntschli and Field. It will be the duty of the Council to prepare such Code as far as possible. That the Code may be valid when made, it must be authoritative, and must be adopted by the Council, by the authority, and in the name of the States therein represented, in the same manner as the Declaration respecting Maritime Law in 1856. "Leone Levi." This scheme of Professor Leone Levi, as foreshadowed in the above clauses, proposes the establishment in Europe, and for Europe and America, of a High Court of Nations, based on moral and not physical power, for the 1 2 th clause declares that, " It is not contemplated to provide for the exercise of physical force, 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 Court is moral, not physical." Its executive authority, therefore, has nothing to do with potential power, but depends entirely, upon the efficacy of moral influence for the enforcement of its decrees. . > AN EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY. This proposition raises the important question of executive power, which has long been a matter of stubborn controversy, amongst jurists, and statesmen, on the ground, that the teachings of history, and the practice of nations, are opposed to a tribunal based, only on moral power. The argument is an interesting one, and deserves careful consideration, and we therefore submit instances of recent AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 355 ppointment nembers by ited by the orne equally cost of any ig parties in LW will be of igh Court of lade in this duty of the lat the Code md must be name of the B Declaration E Levi." lowed in the id for Europe loral and not e of physical or to compel , when made. with potential il influence for ;cutive power, jrersy, amongst Ings of history, Tial based, only and deserves Inces of recent date to support tlie contention, in favour of a Tribunal, based upon moral, as well as upon potential power. 1. In 1853, a Congress assembled at Vienna, in order to deliberate upon the Affairs of Turkey, and to prevent a war which thre-.tened between the Allied Powers and Russia. Lord John Russel! represented Great Britain at the Congress, and, after prolonged negotiations, the Congress unanimously decided in favour of certain recommendations to Turkey, as embodied in the celebrated Vienna Note. Now mark, the declarations contained in the Vienna Note were the unanimous decision of the Congress ; they were accepted by Russia and Turkey at the Congress, but on their presentation by Lord Stratford De Redcliffe to Turkey for its acceptance, Turkey, for some unexplained reason, obstinately refused to carry them out, Russia then insisted that the Great Powers, who had signed the Note, should call upon Turlrey, in the interests of peace, and of the good government of her Provinces, to caiTy out the declarations it contained, but Great Britain, France, and Italy, instead of enforcing its acceptance upon Turkey, sided with the latter, and Russia, finding that the Vienna Note was not to be enforced, sent her Army across the Pfuth, an event which was followed by a Declaration of War by the Allies on behalf of Turkey, against Russia. Had Great Britain, and the Allied Powers, determined upon enforcing the decision of the Vienna Congress ; had they abandoned, as useless, all hope of the moral influence of the Vienna Note, upon Turkey, and conveyed to Turkey, in unmistakeable language, an intimation, that her refusal to accept the proposals would be a declaration of war against her by the Powers represented at the Congress, it is generally admitted, that Turkey would have yielded, and the Crimean War would have been averted. 2. In 1867, a dispute arose between France and Prussia in regard to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which France was anxious to obtain as compensation for the victories and conquests of Prussia in the wars waged by Prussia against Denmark and Austria. Lord Stanley (now the Earl of Derby), as Foreign Minister for England, proposed, on behalf of the British Government, that a Conference should assemble in London, and, if possible, secure a peaceful settlement of the question. The Conference met, under the presidency of his Lordship, and an amicable solution of the difficulty was arrived at, by which the tortress of Luxembourg was '■ ■ ; 4 1 i i r ■ fi i ■■ ■ ^ ■ ' 1 if .• I 356 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR RUROPE. dismantled, and its neutrality guaranteed *)y the Signatories to the Treaty. 3. In 1876, a Congress assembled at Constantinople, attended by the representatives of J} the Great Powers, for the express purpose of averting another war between Russia and Turkey. The Governments, represented at the Congress, were anxious for Peace, arid every effort was made to secure it, but failed, and why? because, behind it, there was no executive power to enforce its decision ; and the result was, that the recalcitrant power, Turkey, knowing that the decisions of the Congress were not to be enforced, refused to carry out the verdict of Europe. Had Great Britain, and the Allied Powers declared to Turkey, that the decision of the Congress must be carried out, at the risk of war, Turkey would have yielded, and that disastrous conflict, between Russia and Turkey, would have been prevented. 4. In 1878, a European Conference assembled at Berlin, when England was represented by the late Lord Beaconsfield, for the express purpose of averting war between England and Russia. All the Powers were anxious for peace. Russia was obstinate. But as soon as she saw that England was resolutely determined to enforce her decision, she yielded, peace was secured, and the Treaty signed. 5. Lastly, in 1881, another danger arose to the Peace of Europe, consequent on the refusal of Turkey to carry out the decisions of the Congress of Berlin, regarding the cession of Dulcigno to Montenegro, and the rectification of the Greek frontiers. The moral power of Europe was brought to bear upon Turkey, but she refused to yield, and not until coercion was chreatened, and the British Fleet, backed by the approval of Europe, appeared in the Dardanelles, prepared to enforce, by force majeure, the will of Europe, did Turkey consent to carry out the decision of the Berlin Congress, and thereby, a great war was averted. THE CONCERT OF EUROPE. This action of the Great Powers, consisting of England, France, Germany, Russia, Austria, and Italy, has been described as the Concert of Europe, of a powerful International Court of Appeal, exer- cising a control, and superintendence in the weighty affairs of Europe, in the name of Europe, but, without at present, at any rate, any internntional jurisdiction, nor any clear and definite rules of pro- AN INTERNATrONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 357 tories to the pie, attended r the express :urkey. The us for Peace, id, and why? to enforce its power, Turkey, to be enforced, eat Britain, and iecision of the key would have ia and Turkey, at Berlin, when jnsfield, for the nd Russia. All )stinate. But as nined to enforce le Treaty signed. Peace of Europe, ; the decisions of of Dulcigno to frontiers. The Turkey, but she :d, and the British ppeared in the le will of Europe, of the Berlin England, France, described as the irt of Appeal, exer- jr affairs of Europe, at any rate, any mite rules of pro- cedure, as to its functions and executive authority. Its existence, however, is undisputed, and its action and authority has been usefully and vigorously displayed on many occasions, when critical events in Europe called for its intervention. This Concert, or Agreement of the Great Powers of Europe, is not a modern institution, tor it has a record of great achievements in the settlement of European affairs, and the safeguarding of European interests, reaching back to 1814, commencing with the Coalition of England, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, to rescue Europe from the thraldom and aggressions of France, when she was under the masterful spirit of Napoleon Buonaparte. This Union triumphed, we are free to admit, hy force majeure^ for it led to the overthrow of Napoleon, his banishment to the rocky Isle of St. Helena ; to the restoration of Louis XVIII. to the Throne of the Bourbons; but, further, it triumphed in diplomacy, for in accordance with the provisions of the Secret Treaty of Alliance, by which no Treaty of Peace with France was to be signed without the consent of the whole of the Allied Powers, the action of the Alliance led to the adoption of a uniform policy at the Congress in Vienna in 1 8 15, by which Switzerland was guaranteed her independence and neutrality ; Holland and Belgium were created into the United Netherlands under William I. ; the sovereignty of Prussia was re- established under the Hohenzollerns ; Wiirtemburg, Saxony, Bavaria, Hanover, and the other German States were acknowledged as free and independent, yet allied in one confederation ; and Italy was divided into its numerous kingdoms, (one of the worst arrangements of thf Treaty of Vienna), Lombardy and Venetia forming part of the Austrian Empire; Piedmont, Genoa, and Sardinia forming the Kingdom of Sardinia under the re-instated House of Savoy ; Tuscany, Modena, and Parma forming three Dukedoms, subsidiary to Austria ; Naples, with Sicily, forming the Kingdom of the two Sicilies. The Pope was made Temporal Prince of a large territory, called the States of the Church, extending from Naples to Tuscany, and the River Po. By this internat;ional instrument, the Signatory Powers, in effect, declared, that the paramount object in view, was a close and durable alliance, foi no isolated or selfish considerations ; that their desire was the security of the general tranquillity ; and, for this end, they avowed their determination to maintain the faithful observance of treaty engagements; their recognition of Public Congress, as '*f 1 m\ 358 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR KUROPE. ■II'' } .;'H superior to the conflict of armies, for the friendly discussion and pacific settlement of questions of difficulty and dispute ; and finally, by the astute statesmanship of Talleyrand, — who secured for France, Spain, Portugal, and other States, a position at the Councils of the Congress, — France obtained her territorial sovereignty as it existed prior to 1792, and, also, her ancient position in the comity of nations, commensurate with her acknowledged influence and power, as a great European State. This Concert of Europe of 1815, was subsequently ratified by the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 18 18, consisting of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and an Agreement of the Five Powers, embodied in a Secret Protocol, was signed i8th November, 18 18, and was as follows : — " I. The Sovereigns whose ministers are undersigned, are determined never to deviate, neither in their mutual relations, nor in those which unite them to other States, from the principles which have hitherto united them, and which form a bond of Christian fraternity, which the Sovereigns have formed among themselves. " 2. That this union, which is only the more close and durable that it is founded on no separate interests or momentary combination, can have no other object but the maintenance of the Treaties, and the support of the rights established by them. "3. That France, associated with the other Powers by the restoration of a Government at once legitimate and constitutional, engages henceforth to concur in, and can alone secure its duration. " 4. That if to attain these ends the Powers which have concurred in the present act should deem it necessary to establish different re-unions, either among the Sovereigns themselves or their ministers, to treat of subjects in which they have a common interest, the time and place of such assemblages shall be previously arranged by diplomatic communications ; and in the event of such re-unions having for their object the conditions of other States in Europe, they shall not take place except in pursuance of a format invitation to those by whom these States are directed, and under an express reservation of their right to participate directly or by their representatives : — " Mettemich. Nesselrode. Castlereagh. Alex, de Humboldt. Richelieu." No doubt the disinterested character of the compact entered into at Aix-la-Chapelle in 18 18, was seriously compromised, and even endangered by the Triple, or Holy Alliance entered into at Paris, in 181 4, by the Allied Sovereigns of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, especially, when they directed their absolutism in 1820, in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, for the suppression, by force if necessary, of the aspirations of the people for political freedom, and it is to the great credit of England, that at the Congress of Verona in 1822, she >F.. discussion and te ; and finally, red for France, Councils of the ity as it existed the comity of ince and power, y ratified by the England, France, the Five Powers, November, 1818, determined never to unite them to other I, and which form a id among themselves, able that it is founded e no other object but 5 established by them, the restoration of a Ihenceforth to concur ncurred in the present is, either among the , in which they have a iS shall be previously [nt of such re-unions irope, they shall not [hose by whom these ir right to participate Casthreagh. ipact entered into [omised, and even led into at Paris, in issia, and Austria, fin 1820, in Spain, 1 if necessary, of the id it is to the great Irona in 1822, she AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 359 declared in favour of non-intervention in the internal affairs of a Sovereign State, an action which justly earned for her the gratitude of all friends of political and religious freedom. Op that occasion, the Duke of Wellington, the Ambassador of England, declared : " His Majesty's Government are of opinion, that to animadvert upon the internal transactions of an independent State, unless such transactions afiect the essential interests of His Majesty's subjects, is inconsistent with those principles on which His Highness has invariably acted, on all questions relating to the internal concerns of other countries." Happily, the policy of England triumphed, for, whilst resisting in Europe with great vigour the polirv of the Triple Alliance, she raised up on the American Continent, an unexpected and powerful opposi- tion, and by consummate diplomacy, allied the United States of America with England, which led to the famous Declaration of President Munroe, that the interference of Europe, or of any European Power, in affairs on the American Continent, would be firmly resisted. This was the coup-de-gr&ce to the policy of the Triple Alliance. Canning, as it was we. ' described at the time, having " called a New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old," recognised the independence of the revolted Spanish Colonies, and hurled a blow at the despotic policy of the Holy Alliance, that caused it to reel, and, finally, to crumble in the dust. This historic statement will doubtless be considered a slight divergence from the main argument, but it seemed necessary, in ordei to prevent, possibly to correct, any misapprehension arising from the similarity of the two Alliances of the Great Powers, of 1 814 and 1818. As in the past, so in the future, statesmen, of large experience in foreign Affairs, place considerable reliance upon the concert and agreement of the Great European Powers, for arriving at a pacific and satisfactory solution of international questions, provided, that intervention does not affect the internal affairs of States, except so far as those affairs are not of international interest, and are not likely to involve Europe in a general war. We have seen, in the past, numerous instances of the beneficial effect exercised by this alliance of Europe, which augurs favourably for the future. The Revolution in Greece for the overthrow of Turkish domination * mI ( : i 'li "i' '! t .1 '"'M- 1; 1 1 Ml "'■ f i ' i ' ':: ' 1 * Hi 360 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. from 182 1 to 1832, was a European question bristling with compli- cations that threatened a great Euro^^an war, but it was apprehended, and finally solved by the intervention of the Allied Powers, and Greece won her independence ; and its Sovereignty was guaranteed by the Treaty of London, 7 th May, 1832. The Revolution in Belgium and Holland against the union of the two States under the rule of the Royal House of Nassau and Orange, was arrested by the action of the Allied Powers, and finally by the Treaty of London, of 1839, Belgium and Holland won their separate independence, guaranteed in their sovereignty by the concert of Europe. The Revoiutic/n in Egypt of Mehemet Ali in 1839, against the Suzerainty of the Sultan of Turkey would undoubtedly have led to serious consequences but for the intervention of the Great Powers, and to their concerted action, and the subsequent European Con- gress which assembled in London, in 1840, a general European War was probably averted. Numerous, indeed, are the instances that might be cited to prove the contrary, wherein the laissez de/aire doctrine of the neutral and powerful states in Europe, has on critical occasions prevailea, it may have been from weakness, or pusillanimity, or from a divergence of opinion, and policy, but still, failed, to arrest the course of political events, drifting, and sometimes driving the ligitant nations into the dire calamity of war, that ultima ratio regum, the last appeal of kings. The Crimean War of 1854-5 ; the Dano-Prussian War of 1864 ; and the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 ; — which was the sequence of the latter — the Franco-German War of 1 870-1 ; and the Russo- Turkish War of 1876-77, all of which have le.'. bitter memories behind them, that are so difficult to efface, one and all might have been averted, had the Allied Powers of Europe been unanimous and firm, had there been no wavering on the part of one, sometimes more than one, of the most powerful and influential of the European Alliance for peace. Whether, in the future, this Alliance of the Six Great Powers in Europe — England, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, and Italy — can, in face of the deplorable divisions that have of late unmis- takeably sundered them, be again realised, time and events only can reveal ; but, of one thing, we may be certain that, without this Alliance, without the concerted agreement and action of United Europe, and of the statesmen who direct the policy of the most powerful states, OPE. g with compli- s apprehended, i Powers, and vas guaranteed le union of the af Nassau and vers, and finally jUand won their reignty by the 839, against the edly have led to tie Great Powers, European Con- al European War be cited to prove jf the neutral and ions prevailea, it from a divergence course of political It nations into the ist appeal of kings. [an War of 1864 ; is the sequence of and the Russo- bitter memories md all might have ;en unanimous and of one, sometimes [ial of the European fix Great Powers in [ussia, and Italy- lave of late unmis- knd events only can fithout this Alliance, Jnited Europe, and tost powerful states, AN INTERNATIONAL TKIllUNAL FOR EUROPE. 361 will it be possible to secure a satisfactory and pacific solution of any one of the burning questions in dispute, that unsettled, are so full of peril to the general peace ; nor even to secure the formation in Europe, and for Europe, of that august Tribunal of Arbitration, which is not only the great want of this age of civilisation, but which has been, and, is still, the cherished ambition of all friends of peace, progress, and prosperity. These instances, and others that might be mentioned, in recent years, of the failure on the one hand of Congresses to enforce their decisions by moral power, and which consequently resulted in war ; the war between Russia, Great Britain, and the Allies, called the Crimean War ; the war between Russia and Turkey, in 1876 ; .ind, on the other hand, the success of Congresses where an executive authority, whether potential or otherwise, was exercised, and which by its exercise, resulted in the prevention of a disastrous war, are sufficient to prove the impracticability, under all the circumstances of the case, of any scheme for the formation and establishment of a Tribunal of Arbitration, based only upon, and having for its executive authority, moral power. OPINIONS OF EMINENJ JURISTS. And further, in support of an executive authority, allied with moral power, we may quote opinions of some of the most emi;ient writers on International Public Law. We exclude in this category the opinions of the early writers on the Law of Nations, such as Grotius, Vattel, and Puffendorf, on the ground, that their writings, interesting and valuable as all their con- tributions were, yet, they must be described rather, as speculative and philosophical treatises on the Public Law of Nations, than as affording any clear indication for a direct and immediate practical application of them. EMMANUEL KANT, PHILOSOPHER OF KONIGSBERG, ETC. "Nations must renounce, as individuals have renounced, the anarchical freedom of savages, and submit themselves to coercive laws ; thus forming a community of nations (civiias gentium) which may ultimately extend, so as to include all the people of the earth What we 363 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. mean to propose is a general congress of nations, of which both the meeting and the duration are to depend entirely on the sovereign wills of the several members of the league, and not an indissoluble union like that which exists between the several States of North America, founded on a municipal institution. Such a congress, and such a league are the only means of realising the idea of a true public law, according to which the differences between nations would be determined by civil judicature, instead of resorting to war — a means of redress worthy only of barbarians." — ("Metaphysics of Law," 1797.) ! m nil \. " 'I. HENRY WHEATON, LL.D., MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE OF FRANCE, ETC. " If the present political system of Europe cannot be shaken by the preponderance of any one Power, it must be admitted that it is only maintained in this position by an action and reaction, which keeps its different parts in a perpetual agitation, unfavourable to the internal prosperity and development of each particular State. In order to sub- stitute for this imperfect association a solid and durable confederacy, all its members must be placed in such a state of mutual dependence that no one shall be able to resist all the others united, or to form separate alliances capable of resisting the general league. For this purpose, it is indis- pensable, that the confederacy should embrace all the European Powers; that it should have a supreme legislature capable of establishing general regulations for its govern- ment, and a judicial tribunal adequate to give effect to those regulations ; that it should possess a coercive power capable of restraining and compelling the action of its members, and sufficient authority to prevent any of them from withdrawing from the union, whenever caprice or interest may dictate. Nor would the establishment of such a confederacy be attended with insurmountable difficulties. It is only necessary that statesmen should renounce the puerile prejudices of their craft ; that sovereigns should abandon the uncertain objects of vulgar ambition, for the certain security which would be -afforded to themselves, their AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 363 jns, of which id entirely on le league, and s between the n a municipal le are the only ir, according to be determined xt — a means of .letaphysics of ETC. ,ot be shaken by tust be admitted y an action and in a perpetual prosperity and n order to sub- >lid and durable :d in such a state able to resist all [iances capable of irpose, it is indis- [embrace all the ipreme legislature iS for its govern- five effect to those ive power capable of its members, ly of them from :aprice or interest iment of such a itable difficulties, luld renounce the jsovereigns should : ambition, for the o themselves, their dynasties, and their peoples, by the proposed innovation ; and that nations should relinquish those absurd prejudices, which have hitherto induced them to consider difference of language, race, and religion, as constituting insurmountable obstacles to a more perfect union among the members of the great European family." — (" History of the Modern Law of Nations," 1845.) J. C. BLUNTSCHLI, DOCTOR OF LAW, PROFESSOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG. "On ne pent mettre en doute que le besoin de lois Inter- nationales ayant une autorit^ reconnue ne soit devenu de plus en plus urgent. On est devenu intellectuellement capable d'exprimer sous forme de lois les principes inter- nationaux. Ce qui manque, c'est un legislateur reconnu. Dans chaque dtat particulier, la constitution a crdde un organe exprimant la volontd de I'^tat tout entier, a ci€€e un legislateur. Mais oii trouver le legislateur universel dont la voix soit entendue par tons les etats, et dont toutes les nations exdcutent les ordres? L'institution d'un Corps L^gislatif pour le monde entier suppose une organisation du monde, et celle-ci j./^cisement n'existe pas. *• L'avenir r^alisera peut-etre un jour cette grande idde ; il cr^era peut-Stre une organisation centrale de I'humanitd ; celle-ci, toujours divisee en nations et en etats, aura cependant une volont^ unitaire reconnue par tous. Le passe nous montrait les peuples s'organisant peu h. peu en etats unitaires; le present fait d^jk presenter, dveille I'id^e que I'humanite n'est pas seulement un tout au point de vue de la nature, mais encore qu'il y a des principes communs et qui doivent etre reconnus un jour par tous. Si on arrive k organiser toute I'humanite, on aura ^videmment un legislateur du monde ; la loi uni- verselle, r^glant les droits et obligations des differents etats vis- k-vis les uns des autres, et vis-k-vis de I'humanite, sera aussi claire, aussi efficace, que les lois actuelles reglant les rapports des difrerents individus entre eux, ou avec un etat donne." ("Le Droit International Codifie, 1877.") a c «l I ., <'\, 364 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. IJ I : JAMES LORIMER, LL.D., REGIUS PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC LAW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, ETC. " It, unfortuni i^ely, is not true that reason, self-interest, or any motive whatever, short of physical necessity, will form a sufficient guarantee for obedience to positive law by ordinary men whenever it is at variance with their apparent or immediate self-interest, or is in conflict with their passions. Positive law is a dead letter which force alone will bring to life. Even municipal law, though defined by the joint action of legislation and jurisdiction, is not self-indicating. It requires the further guarantee of an irresistible executive to secure its peaceful acceptance. * ♦ * • "The only condition on which tribunals of arbitration could perform the offices which many are willing to assign to them, would be the previous existence of an international organi- zation, strong enough to support them from without, as they are supported in municipal j urisprudence." — (" The Institutes of the Law of Nations, 1884.") HENRY SUMNER MAINE, K.C.S.I., MASTER TRINITY HALL, CAMBRIDGE, ETC. " But after all qualiflcations have been allowed, the denial to International Law of that auxiliary force which is commanded by all municipal law, and by every municipal tribunal, is a most lamentable disadvantage. ♦ ♦ * ♦ Its efficiency and its improvement are alike hindered. ♦ * ♦ * "The want of coercive power is, in fact, the important drawback which attends all aticinpts to improve International Law." — ("International Law," 1888.) LEONE LEVI, LECTURER ON COMMERCIAL LAW AT KING's COLLEGE, LONDON, .ETC. "The first subject which should occupy the attention of the Congress of Nations ought to be the formation of a Code of International Law, to comprise the most approved principles of the Law of Nations, which once established, by the unanimous consent of all the Nations represented at the Congress, and ratified by the Governments of ihese AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 365 iRSlTY rest, or any wiU fonn a ive law by leir apparent neir passions, will bring to by the joint elf-indicating, ible executive itration could issign to them, itional organi- ithout, as they 'The Institutes the denial to ,, is commanded fl tribunal, is a Its efficiency ♦ • ♦ jrtant drawback [ational Law."— LONDON, .ETC. ittention of the lation of a Code Imost approved Ince established, tons represented [nments of these Nations, should become binding, ancl acquire all the force of a specific Treaty upon each and every point. • • • • It would be a real benefit to the interests of Nations were the principle of International Law reduced into the form of a Code, as it would have the effect of stamping with greater authority the dictates of the Law of Nations, by bestowing on them a fuller and more specific concurrence. It must, however, be admitted that it would still remain defective, for want of an enforcing power such as is awarded to Municipal Law." — (" The Law of Nature and Nations, 1855.") T. J. LAWRENCE, M,A., LL.M., DEPUTY WHEWELL, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, CAMBRIDGE. 'We have not yet arrived at a formal European Areopagus. All we have at present is a very real superiority before the law on the part of the Great Powers. Whether that superiority will develop into a properly organized Court of Appeal, with sufficient wisdom and justice to decide inter- national controversies aright, and sufficient power to enforce its decisions, time only can decide. It is certain that such a Court will never be created all in a moment, in accordance with the provisions of some cut and dried scheme. If it ever exists at all, it will come into being slowly. The circumstances of each age will help to shape and form it according to current needs. It will be gradually developed from the germ at present existing." — (" Essays on Modern International Law, 1884.") FREDERICK SEEBOHM, LL.D. " It is submitted that the second great branch of International Reform must be the establishment, not necessarily of any fixed judicial tribunal, but of some kind of really judicial international machinery for interpreting international law, for giving such an impartial and authoritative decision of what is the law as it should be no stain upon a nation's honour either to sue for or obey. * * * # What is required is, an authoritative judgment which shall settle the disputed forms of law for all time, and for all nations over whom the law has no force ; not merely a clumsy expedient whereby the 2 c * t ■ M VfM ■ $•> ''■ r, 4 1 f\^ i 366 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. single dispute in hand may be adjusted. What is required is therefore not a Court of Arbitration, but something tantamount in principle to an international judicial tribunal^ After quoting Mill, Wheaton, and Vattel, he says : " I think I am not mistaken when I say, that the tide of intelligent feeling in this country has recently turned in favour of the view that a judicial system for the interpretation of inter- national law affords the only grand expositor of it in the settlement of international disputes, and as such sooner or later will ultimately be adopted by civilised nations." The italics are Mr. Seebohm's. — ("International Law Reform, 1871.") ilMILE DE LAVEL^YE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LlilGE. *' The hour will arrive for the establishment of a federation of nations with a Supreme Court, like that of the United States, the decisions of which will be carried out by authority; but it is not yet come. True civilisation, true Christian sentiment, do not as yet exert a sufficient general and undisputed sway over nations." — (" Causes of War, and the Means of Reducing their Number, 1874.") THOMAS DE ST. GEORGES-ARMSTRONG. '* S'il est vrai qu'il n'existe pas de Cour Supreme international, l^galement ^ablie pour r^gler et aplanir les diifdrends survenus entre les Etats ; nous croyons ndanmoins reconnattre son role, tacitement exerc^, dans le concert des grandes puissances, qui ont accoutum^ de se r^unir en Congrbs, en vue d'ap- porter une solution definitive aux questions Europdennes. • • * • Les precedents que nous avons successivement invoqu^s, et, d'autre part, la consideration de la forme et de la constitution imparfaite de ce tribunal supreme auquel i'acquiescement et I'adhesion deiiberee des nations a donne une pleine autorite, nous mbnent ^ deduire la necessite d'un tribunal supreme d'appellation pour resoudre les divergences Internationales, et nous mbnent aussi \ esp^rer que ce tribunal s'organisera suivant nos vceux avec le temps. • • • • On aurait de cette sorte une Cour Supreme de justice ana- logue k celle des Etats-Unis, qui a ses tribunaux de premibre B. .t is required It something cial tribunal lys : " I tWnk of intelligent favour of the ition of inter- r of it in the such sooner or nations." The Law Reform, ^SITY OF Ll^GE. a federation of of the United carried out by civilisation, true sufficient general ises of War, and .") ^ONG. .le Internationale, [iffdrendssurvenus s reconnaltre son [randes puissances, ;rfes, en vue d'ap- )ns Europ^ennes. ,ns successivement de la forme et de il supreme auquel >s nations a donn^ Ce la n6cessit6 d'un We les divergences Urer que ce tribunal • • • • tmps. jme de justice ana- mnaux de premiere AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 367 instance, avec le nombre d^sign^ des circuits judiciaux, ct avec un fixe de maf^istrats, auxquels leur responsabilite excellemment d^finie impose une rbgle de conduite non moins excellente. # • • • pour donner plus de garantie en- core aux d<^cisions internationales et ^ la sanction des sentences arbitrates, on pourrait adopter la forme juridique qui est en vigeur dans I'organisation judiciaire des Etats internes ; on soumettrait les jugements arbii.-^Mx ^ deux instances, qui pourraient etre etablies comme il suit." — (*' Principes G^n^raux du Droit International Public, 1890.") JOHN .STUART MILL. " The tribunals which act as umpires between the Federal and the State Governments, naturally also decide all disputes between two States, or between a citizen of one State and the Government of another. The usual remedies between nations, war and diplomacy, being precluded by the Federal Union, it is necessary that a judicial remedy 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." ("Considerations on Representative Government," 1865.) A few particulars relating to the establishment of this Supreme Court, so highly and justly extolled by that eminent political economist, John Stuart Mill, and the text of the Articles in the Con- stitution may be of service to the reader. The Declaration of American Independence was made on the 4th July, 1776, exactly two years after the outbreak of the Revolution, but owing to the disputed powers of the de facto Government, discussions arose among the several States of the Confederation, which were prolonged for several years, and it was not until the ist March, 1781, that the whole of the thirteen States assented to the " Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," and on that date the final ratification by the Congress was effected, and the Government of the Confederation was proclaimed and recognised. On the subject of peace and war it was provided by Article IX. : " The United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole and «;:; 368 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. ■i- h J ) iU exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth Article ; of sending and receiving Ambassadors; entering into treaties and alliances, &c., &c." The sixth Article referred to declared : *' No State shall engage in any war, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, Uiiless such State be actually invaded by enemies, &c., &c." This Confederation of the thirteen States, however, had many political defects, and after many years of trial and struggle to adjust conflicting powers, and to reconcile adverse interests, a Convention of the States finally adopted, on the 17th September, 1787, a new Constitution to take the place of the Articles of Confederation, and on the 4th Mjirch, 1789, the first Congress under this Constitution assembled under the presidency of George Washington. Under Article III. of this Constitution the judicial power of the United States became vested in one Supreme Court, and the limits of its judicial power were declared as follows : *' To all cases of law and equity arising under this Constitution ; to all cases arising under the laws of the United States ; and Treaties made or which shall be made under their authority ; to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls ; to all cases of Admiralty and Maritime juris- diction ; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party ; to cpntro»rersies between two or mere States ; be- tween a State and citizens of another State ; between citizens of different States ; between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States ; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and Foreign States' citizens, or subjects." A TRIBUNAL WITH EXECUTIVE POWER. We contend, therefore, that what is required in the Comity of nations, and what we believe it is possible to secure, is the establishment of an International Tribunal, strengthened with the judicial machinery for interpreting, and if necessary for enforcing its decisions, to give an impartial and authoritative decision, a decision, which will be no stain upon a nation's honour, nor injury to a nation's interests to accept, but which any nation, whether it AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE, 369 ace and war, e ; of sending treaties and consent of the such State be ret, had many ruggle to adjust i, a Convention er, 1787, anew ifederation, and Ills Constitution ton. al power of the t, and the limits lis Constitution ; ited States ; and their authority ; lublic Ministers, Maritime juris- :d States shall be icre States ; be- between citizens the same State es ; and between itates' citizens, or POWER. In the Comity of lo secure, is the Igthened with the [ary for enforcing lative decision, a lonour.nor injury kation, whether it be the mightiest or the weakest, will be able to obey, without out- raging its amour propre. What is required at the present time, is not the decision of an umpire, but the decision of a judge, not the decision of an arbitrator, one chosen by each of the disputant nations, but a decision, given under the executive authority of a Tribunal of Arbitration, deciding, what is the Law of nations, a decision which shall be binding upon both nations who are in dispute, and which shall serve as a precedent for this tribunal, on all questions submitted to them in the future. In illustration of this, we might point to the Paris Congress of 1856, on the subject of Maritime Law, which met at the close of the Crimean War. At that Congress, forty-six of the civilised powers of the world, assented to a certain line of action to be pursued by maritime nations, in the event of war, which affected both belligerents and neutrals, and the declarations, or decisions of that Congress constitute, undoubtedly, a great reform towards mitigating the horrors, and removing some of the evils of conflict, and, therefore, this reform was a work of humanity and civilisation. Yet, although these forty-six Maritime Nations have agreed upon a uniform Code of Maritime Law, in case of War, it can only be treacherous and insecure, whilst it is without an organised judicial tribunal for a correct interpretation, and, if need be, for an en- forcement of its decisions. For, in the event of any dispute, or any refusal on the part of any one of these forty-six nations to carry out the Code of Maritime Law agreed upon, the other powers to the Treaty of Paris, have no judicial redress ; each appeals to its law officers, and, guided by their opinion, each nation acts as it thinks best. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance, not only to meet such an instance as we have referred to, but many others which must inevitably arise in international relations, to establish a Sovereign authority for a just interpretation of what is International Law, and, should the necessity arise, to proceed against any delinquent nation or state that may refuse, from whatever motive, to abide by its decisions. There are, doubtless, many obstacles in the way, and many dangers to be surmounted, in the carrying out of the authority of such a Tribunal for the settlement of national disputes, but there are one or two considerations that warrant the belief that these difficulties 370 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. mi !l: ' t .!: ii,--: ', :!! are more apparent, than real, and that they may be eventually overcome. Firstly, in civil society, in a national community, we are aware that the concentration of legal power in the hands of tribunals has tended to, and necessitated, the surrender of the machinery of force, formerly exercised by individuals, and therefore we may reasonably conclude that when a system of International Law is adopted amongst nations, when the whole community of nations become, as they are in the United States of America, a united international police, and especially when more and more relianoe is placed in the executive character, and authoritative decisions of an international tribunal, we say, it is reasonable to hope, that less and less reliance, as less and less necessity, will be placed on military force, and military establishments, as a guarantee of peace amongst the nations of Europe. Thus these burdensome and dangerous systems of armaments will become less and less needed, and gradually a policy, so much to be desired, of mutual reduction of the vast armaments, will be easily attained, and safely secured: And secondly, in civil society, in a national community, it is generally admitted that inst^^nces of refusal to agree, or to abide by a judicial decision are exceedingly rare occurrences, and, therefore, is it not equally possible, that in proportion as civilisation advances amongst the peoples of Europe, as the system of International Law becomes more and more relied upon, and more and more con- solidated, that instances of refusal by a nation to obey, and to abide by the decision of an International Tribunal, will also become equally of rare occurrence, and thus, as the civilising influences of a more humane policy exercise their sway in th^? world, the dire necessity, of an appeal to violence will be averted, and recourse had to other forces, than the display of military power, and the effusion of blood? CONCLUSION. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that we are engaged in a mighty struggle in favour of a great reform, to secure the triumph of law over war, of justice over brute force, and to hasten that glorious day when, " The pen shall supersede the sword, And right, not might, shall be the word." AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 371 e eventually ^ we are le hands of ;nder of the md therefore International ommunity of )f America, a ore and more I authoritative reasonable to cessity, will be as a guarantee irmaments will so much to be , will be easily immunity, it is or to abide by a nd, therefore, is sation advances iternational Law and more con- ■, and to abide by |ecome equally of ■nces of a more [e dire necessity, irse had to other the effusion of are engaged in a [re the triumph of Isten that glorious h." At the same time this great reform is not to be achieved at once, it must be by gradual steps, by tentative advances, yet that it will be achieved we may rest assured, scoff who may. War, v/e must remember, is an institution of 2,000 years* growth, nay, we must add 4,004 with i89i,and say 5,895 years' growth, and cannot be overthrown in a day. It has struck its roots deep down into the custom and practice of nations, around it has been thrown a halo of false prestige, false renown, false patriotism, and false glory, which will take long and strong efforts to overthrow. Of one thing we may be quite certain, Europe has had enough of- Conferences of Crowned Heads, of the meetings of the Imperial Sovereigns of powerful States, of men who have, at one period or another, taken part in an aggressive policy; for have not these Conferences of the Emperor of Russia, of the Emperor of Austria, of the Emperor of Germany, and formerly of the Emperor of France, generally unsettled the sea of politics, and cast a dark shadow over the surface, and have they not generally preceded an overt act, either the partition of a kingdom, or the appeal to the wager of battle ? Europe has had enough, too, of Congresses of men, who have met after desolating wars, under the high-sounding titles of Ambassadors Plenipotentiary, in order to give greater authority to the terms of peace, dictated by the conqueror to the conquered. Such was the Congress which met at Vienna in 1815, after that prolonged p^iod of human carnage that culminated in Waterloo, and which unmapped the map of Europe, distributed kingdoms, divided states, not only without consulting, but in direct opposition to, the will and wish of their peoples. Such was the Congress which met at Paris in 1856, after that measureless calamity, the Crimean War, which cost the Allies and Russia 1,000,000 of lives, and ;^34o,ooo,ooo of the hard-earned earnings of the people. Such was the Congress which met at Frankfort in 1871, after that unjustly-declared, and cruelly-waged Franco-German War, which involved the slaughter of 250,000 of the manhood of the two nations, and the expenditure of ;^4i7,ooo,ooo sterling, "a terrible bill of blood," leaving a dire legacy of hatred and thirst for revenge. These Conferences of Crowned Heads, these Congresses of unhappy memory, Europe has had enough of, and now longs for peace, for 372 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. M u m iWl •li ;. M i ; ! the cry has gone up to Heaven, "Give peace in our time, O Lord." Of late years there has grown up in Europe, and in America a powerful public opinion, against war, which is gradually penetrating everywhere, and its watchful eye is steadily fixed upon those schemes of diplomacy and of military ambition, which are opposed to the true interests of mankind. That public opinion, as the Italians well call it, is the "QUEEN OF THE WORLD," and upon it we must rely to checkmate the schemes of ambitious statesmen and Rulers. It says to the statesmen and governments of Europe, since you can find no other mode for settling national disputes than that of war, since war is not only a blunder but an unmitigated curse, and that after you have been fighting you have always to meet in Conference or Congress, to arrange by mutual concer and concession the matter in dispute, we ask you, Would it not be better to meet before, before the expenditure of countless millions of money, and before the slaughter of vast numbers of valuable human lives ? We ask you, in the name of the millions slain by war, in the name of the widows and orphans, in the name of our common humanity, to accept and to carry out in practice this great principle of International Arbitration. Unfortunately, we shall have but a very lame reply to this just demand, for governments are too much under the power and the control of the war- vested interests of Europe. The military class, with some exceptions, sunound every throne, in fact, they occupy the thrones of Europe, and are the Generalis- simos of their gigantic Armies and Navies ; they fill up every avenue to Royalty and Diplomacy; they have the ready ear of Monarchs and of statesmen ; they occupy, in overwhelming num- bers, seats in the Legislatures ; and, by the power, and, through the influence of the Press, they almost dictate terms to the Governments. It is, therefore, with the peoples of every nation that this great question must rest. To them we must address ourselves, and say : If your Governments, whether they be Imperial, Monarchical, or Re- publican, become involved in a dispute with another nation, with whom you are, and with whom you desire to be, at peace, and from some sinister motive, personal pride, personal honour, or personal ambition, refuse peaceful arbitration and rush madly into war, visit those governments with the greatest amount of censure* deprive them of power, remove them from oflice, and let them make lOPE. in our time, in America a illy penetrating 1 those schemes jpposed to the the "QUEEN checkmate the irope, since you han that of war, curse, and that ;t in Conference ission the matter before, before the ore the slaughter ask you, in the ; of the widows to accept and to ional Arbitration, reply to this just le power and the ,nd every throne, are the Generalis- iy fill up every the ready ear of erwhelming num- and, through the the Governments. 3n that this great selves, and say: If )narchical, or Re- i another nation, ) be, at peace, and rsonal honour, or i rush madly into mount of censure, and let them make AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR EUROPE. 373 rw"r'irrw-:';"i^'° ''""' ^^^ ^"^ P-^^ arbitration to war. and who will do their very utmost to secure the nriceless blessings of peace to the nations of the world ^ In the language of Cowper, we may truly say, "But war's a game, which, were their subjects wise. Kings would not play at. Nations would do well 1 extort their truncheons from the puny hands Of heroes, whose Infirm and baby minds Are gratified with mischief ; and who spoil, Because m-n suffer it, their toy the world " i f !/■ t ' ^(1: P^ ■ ''ill if • 'fP! ft I '''11 ' i ■ "Ji'. •''I i :m APPENDIX. INSTANCES OF SUCCESSFUL INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ; DECLARA- TIONS OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES ; RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRESSES ; AND OPINIONS OF STATESMEN, JURISTS, AND DIVINES. The different modes at present adopted of adjusting international differences, are Arbitration, Amicable Reference, Conference or Congress, and Mediation. The following, in chronological order, are the various historical cases in which international differences have been successfully referred to these various systems for settlement. It is a pleasing fact, that, amongst the large number of instances in whicfi inter- national differences have been so referred, one only is recorded in which the decision was not cheeriully accepted, and the award faithfully carried out ; viz., the Arbitration in 1839, in the dispute between Mexico and the United States. ARBITRATION, is the settlement of a dispute when two States, by common consent, refer the question in dispute to thi decision of a third party, on the condition that they will abide by the decision ; and the following are the cases, under this head : — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES. In 18 18, by the Convention entered into between Great Britain and the United States, and signed 20th October, 1818, for the adjustment of differences respecting the Fisheries on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and various questions arising out of the Treaty of Ghent, 1814, it was agreed in Article V. of the Convention : — " The High Contracting Parties hereby agree, to refer the said differences to- some friendly Sovereign or State, to be named for that purpose ; and the APPENDIX. 375 ON ; DECT,ARA- ONGRESSES ; DIVINES. ig international Conference or jious historical sen successfully It is a pleasing I in whicfi inter- y is recorded in and the award 5, in the dispute otnmon consent, lird party, on the nd the following ES. en Great Britain , 1818, for the s on the coast of Dns arising out of /Article V. of the jr, e said differences to hat purpose ; and the High Contracting Parties further engage to consider the decision of such friendly Sovereign or State to be final and conclusive, on all the matters referred to." GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1822, the Governments of Great Britain and the United States having agreed, in accordance with the Convention signed at London, 20th October, 18 18, to refer the differences which had arisen between them upon the true construction of the Treaty of Ghent, 24th December, 1814, to the friendly Arbitration of the Emperor of Russia, and on 22nd April, 1822, his Majesty gave a decision in favour of the United States. To give effect to this award a Commission was appointed, con- sisting of Count Nesselrode and Count Capodistrias for Russia, Sir Charles Bagot for England, and Henry Middleton for the United States, who met afterwards at Washington, but it was not until 1826, that a Treaty was signed for the full and complete satisfaction of all claims. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1 83 1, the boundary dispute between Great Britain and the United States, arising out of the Treaty of Ghent of 1814, was submitted to the Arbitration of the King of the Netherlands, who gave an elaborate decision on the loth January, 1831. THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO. In 1839, it was agreed by a Convention between the United States and Mexico, that all claims of the former Power upon the latter should be referred to four Commissioners, two to be appointed by the Government of each country. In the event of any difference of opinion between the Commissioners it was agreed to appeal to the decision of the King of Prussia. The Commissioners met at Washington in 1840, with Baron Roenne as Arbitrator for the King of Prussia. In 1842, under this Convention, the power of the Commissioners and of the Arbitrator ceased. Eleven claims, amounting to 439*393 dollars, were allowed by the Commissioners, and the Umpire, upon claims disputed by the Commissioners, allowed fifty-one, amounting to 686,745 dollars. This Arbitration was not a success, owing to the refusal of Mexico to fulfil the terms of the Convention, and it is the only instance on record in which an Arbitration, once entered upon, has failed between two States to prevent war. i^i 376 APPENDIX. ^■>i FRANCE AND ENGLAND. In 1842, Frederick William IV., King of Prussia, was appointed Arbjf^rator for the settlement of disputed claims between England and France, arising out of the war which France waged in 1834-5 with the Moors, during which British ships had been seized on the Portendic coast. The Arbitrator declared in favour of the claims of the English merchants, and in accordance with the Convention, Commissioners were appointed with an umpire (Baron Roenne, a Prussian), and under this Commission the whole matter was settled. PORTUGAL AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1850, the Emperor of the French acted as Arbitrator between Portugal and the United States, for the settlement of the dispute for claims, arising out of the destruction in the Portuguese port of Fayal in 1814, of the American vessel General Armstrong. The unusual length of time that had intervened from 18 14 to 1850, and the repeated attempts made by Portugal to secure an amicable settlement, invests this Arbitration with peculiar interest. The Emperor of the French considered the question with great care and a**ention, and finally gave his award against the United States. GREAT BRITAIN AND PERSIA. In 1857, by the Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and Persia, signed at Paris, 4th March, 1857, it was mutually agreed to insert the following clause in the Treaty : — " In case of differences arising between the Government of Persia, and the countries of Herat and Afjghanistan, the Persian Government engages to refer the .n for adjustment to the friendly offices of the British Govern- ment, and not to take up arms unless those friendly offices fail of effect." CHILI AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1858, the King of the Belgians acted as Arbitrator between Chili and the United States, for the settlement of claims, arising out of the seizure of property by a Chilian Admiral in 182 1. The two Governments agreed to abide by the decision of the Arbitrator, firstly, whether the claim was just ; secondly, what should be the indemnity ; and lastly, the amount of interest to !< i paid. GREAT BRITAIN AND MEXICO. In 1863, Leopold I., King of the Belgians, acted as Arbitrator between Great Britain and Brazil, for the settlement of differences which arose in consequence of the seizure, 17th June, 1862, by the APPENDIX. 377 ras appointed een England id in 1834-5 seized on the of the claims ; Convention, on Roenne, a er was settled. trator between of the dispute uguese port of 'tnstrong. The [4 to 1850, and re an amicable interest. The \ great care and ited States. lat Britain and :ually agreed to of Persia, and the lovernment engages Ithe British Govern- ices fail of effect." Ibitrator between if claims, arising il in 1821. decision of the secondly, what I of interest to li ted as Arbitrator ;nt of differences ine, I 862, by the Brazilian police, of three officers of the British Navy, belonging to H.M.S. Forte, and His Majesty gave a decision in favour of Brazil. PERU AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1863, President Lincoln signed Treaties for the settlement of claims between the United States and Peru, arising out of the capture of the vessels Thompson and Georgiana. The King of the Belgians acted as Arbitrator in the one case, and a Joint Com- mission in the other. GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL. In 1869, the Governments of Great Britain and Portugal agreed, by Protocol, signed at Lisbon, 13th January, 1869, to refer their respective claims to the island of Bulama, on the West Coast of Africa, to the Arbitration of the President of the United States, and on April 21st, 1870, Ulysess S. Grant gave his decision in favour of Portugal. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC. In 1870, the Governments of Great Britain and the Argentine Republic agreed to refer to the President of the Republic of Chili, (jose Joaquin Perez) various claims of damages sustained by British subjects during the war between the Argentine Confederation and the Republic of Uruguay, and on ist August, 1870, the decision was given against the claims of Great Britain for an indemnification of losses. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1871, one of the most remarkable and successful instances of the practical value of International Arbitration was displayed by the settlement of several long-standing differences between England and America. In 1863, when America, through her Ambassador, Mr. Adams, first proposed Arbitration, it was refused by the Foreign Minister for Great Britain, Earl Russell, on the ground that Her Majesty's Government were the sole guardians of their own honour. For some years the question remained in abeyance, but in 1867, by the efforts of the present Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley, the pro- position of Arbitration was accepted. Upon the retirement of the Conservative Government in 1868, the negotiations were continued by the new Foreign Minister, Lord Clarendon, and on his death, by his successor, Lord Granville. '^' m ■ 1 'i I I 1 i ■i :!/■; J- !i I ■ill 378 APPENDIX. In the first place, the Joint High Commission, consisting of the Earl de Grey and Ripon (now the Marquis of Ripon), Sir Stafford H. Northcote, Sir Edward Thornton, Sir John Mac- donald, and Mr. Montague Bernard, representing England ; and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Mr. Robert Gumming Schenck, Mr. Samuel Nelson, Mr. Ebenezer R. Hoar, and Mr. George H. Williams representing the United States, assembled at Washington, and drew up the Treaty of Washington, which will ever form an epoch in the history of international relations. According to this Treaty, the Alabama claims were referred to a Court of Arbitration, composed of five members, one nominated by the United States, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, one by England, Chief Justice Cockburn, one by the President of the Swiss Con- federation, M. Jacques Staempfli, one by the King of Italy, Count Sclopis, and one by the Emperor of Brazil, Viscount d'ltajubd. This Tribunal met at Geneva, to decide whether Eugland did, or did not, in the Alabama case, fulfil her duties as a Neutral Power, and the result was, that the Tribunal arrived at a decision adverse to England, and assessed at ;^2, 800,000 sterling the damages to be paid by her to the United States. By the same Treaty of Washington, it was agreed that the other disputed claims should be submitted to a Court of three Arbitrators, one to be appointed by England, another by the United States, and the third by the King of Spain. By the same Treaty it was also agreed that the Canadian Fishery question should be arranged by a Commission of three members, two appointed respectively by England and the United States, and the third by the Emperor of Austria, The last question for settlement under the Treaty — the San Juan Boundary difference — was decided by the Emperor of Germany. ITALY AND SWITZERLAND. In 1874, a dispute was settled between Switzerland and Italy, on a question of boundary respecting the frontier near Peschiaro, which was just one of the questions that formerly would have led to war. These two countries referred their differences to the Honourable Mr. Marsh, Ambassador of the United States at Rome, who, after a careful investigation of their rival claims, pronounced his award in favour of Italy, and Switzerland cheerfully accepted his decision. APPENDIX. 379 :onsisting of Ripon), Sir John Mac- ;ngland ; and , Mr. Samuel H. Williams ton, and drew 1 epoch in the e referred to a ,ne nominated le by England, he Swiss Con- of Italy, Count : d'ltajubi. Eiigland did, or Neutral Power, decision adverse e damages to be id that the other hree Arbitrators, ited States, and :anadian Fishery three members, lited States, and fy_the San Juan of Germany. |ind and Italy, on near Peschiaro, would have led lifferences to the States at Rome, (aims, pronounced leerfuUy accepted GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL. In 1875, the question between the British and Portuguese Governments with reference to Delagoa Bay, on the East Coast of Africa, was submitted to the adjudication of Marshal McMahon, President of the French Republic, who pronounced his decision in favour of Portugal, and the award was accepted. CHINA AND JAPAN. In 1876, a most dangerous dispute arose lietween China and Japan, in consequence of the outrages committed by the Chinese on the Japanese in the Island of Formosa. The Chinese Govern- ment having refused reparation, war became imminent, when the British Minister at Pekin, Sir Thomas Wade, intervened, and ofiFered to act as Arbitrator. This offer was accepted, and ultimately an arrangement, satisfactory to both nations, was obtained. PERSIA AND AFGHANISTAN. In 1877, a question of disputed boundary between the Shah of Persia and the Emir of Cabul, v/as amicably settled by the mediation of two British officers. General Goldsmid and General Pollock, at Teheran. SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1879, the Italian Ambassador at Washington acted as Arbi- trator between the two Governments, in reference to certain claims of indemnity put forth by American citizens in Cuba, for injuries inflicted during the late Civil War in that island. GREAT BRITAIN AND NICARAGUA. In 1879, the Emperor of Austria acted as Arbitrator in a dispute between Great Britain and Nicaragua, in regard to the interpretation of the Treaty of Managan of i860, and under this Arbitration, Herr Unger, an ex-Minister, and the two Presidents of the Court of Cassation, were appointed as Assessors. UNITED STATES AND FRANCE. In May, 1880, a Convention, consisting of thirteen articles was agreed to between the United States of America and the French Republic, signed by their respective plenipolentiaiies at Washington, and in the following month ratified by the Presidents of the two nations, for the settlement of certain claims of the citizens of both countries, arising out of the war between France and Mexico in 2 D ■j: ' U'.i mhn 3" '5'' ; I;' l1 - . 1.' If I Iv J ■ I 1^1 ■M. 380 APPENDIX. I'M' I > ,1 I H t:3 'm 1864, the Franco-German War in 1870-T, and the subsequent civil war in Paris. Under this Convention three Commissioners were appointed, one, nominated by the President of the United States, one, by the French Government, and the third, by the Emperor of Brazil. The high contracting parties engaged to consider the decision of the Commissioners, or any two of them, as absolutely final and con- clusive upon each claim decided upon by them, and to give full effect to such decisions without any objections, evasions, or delays whatever. UNITED STATES AND COSTA RICA. In 1881, the several Governments of the United States, Costa Rica, and Columbia agreed that the difficulties which had for several years existed between them on the question of disputed lines of frontier should be referred to the Arbitration of the King of Belgium. In this Convention, drawn up and accepted by these States, it was expressly stipulated that under no circumstances should the question be decided otherwise than by Arbitration. FRANCE AND NICARAGUA. In 1 88 1, an Arbitration was successfully carried through for the settlement of a dispute between France and Nicaragua, arising out of the seizure by the Government of Nicaragua of a French vessel called the Pharos, containing, as it was supposed, contraband of war, and intended for the Revolutionary party in Nicaragua. The French Consul demanded reparation, and in support of his demand two French men-of-war anchored off the coast. The Government of Nicaragua immediately proposed Arbitration, which, to the honcur of France, was agreed to, and thus the matter was referred to the French Court of Cassation in Paris. The decision of the Arbitration was given in favour of France, and substantial damages were awarded to the owner of the vessel, which have been paid, and the difficulty, which might have resulted differently, terminated satisfactorily. CHILI AND COLUMBIA. In 1 88 1, the difficulty between Chili and Columbia, arising out of the transportation of munitions of war to Peru, was referred to the Arbitration of the President of the United States. The acts com- plained of being regarded as a violation of the laws of neutrality. APPENDIX. 381 lequent civil 5 appointed, States, one, Emperor of lecisionofthe nal and con- i to give full ions, or delays I States, Costa »hich had for I disputed lines of the King of :epted by these I circumstances .rbitration. hrough for the tgua, arising out a French vessel mtrabandofwar, -licaragua. The rt of his demand losed Arbitration, thus the matter 'aris. avour of France, er of the vessel, eht have resulted ibia, arising out of referred to the |. The acts com- aws of neutrality, Columbia was declared in the wrong, and the decision has been acce ':ed. GREAT BRITAIN AND ZULULAND. In 1882, by the terms of Agreement entered into by Cetywayo and the English Government for his restoration to Zululand, it was agreed in Clauses VI. and X. that in all cases of dispute with any Chief, People, or Government, a reference should be made to the Arbitration of the British Government, through the British Resident. GREAT BRITAIN AND ITALY. In 1883, by the Protocol to the Treaty of Commerce and Navi- gation between Great Britain and Italy, signed 15th June, 1883, it was mutually agreed that any controversies which may arise shall be submitted to the decision of Commissioners of Arbitration. GREAT BRITAIN AND URUGUAY. In 1885, the two Governments of Great Britain and Uruguay, " being desirous of maintaining and strengthening friendly relations, and of promoting commercial intercourse," resolved to conclude a Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, and appointed their respective Commissioners, W. G. Palgrave, British Minister to Uruguay, and Dr. Manuel Herrera y Oles, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and on 13th November, 1885, the Treaty was signed at Monte Video. Article XV. of the Treaty, embodied the principle of Arbitration* set forth in three clauses, and stated in the exact words of the Treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and Italy, which was negotiated nth December, 1882, as follows: — 1. "Any controversies ^vhich may arise respecting the interpretation or the execution of the present Treaty, or the consequences of any violation thereof, shall be submitted, when the means of settling them directly by amicable agreement are exhausted, to the decision of Commissioners of Arbitration, and that the result of such Arbitration shall be binding upon both Governments." 2. " The members of such Commissions shall be selected by the two Govern* ments by common consent, failing which, each of the parties shall nominate an Arbitrator, or an equal number of Arbitrators, and the Arbitrators thus appointed shall elect an Umpire." 3. "The procedure of the Arbitration shall in each case be determined by the Contracting Parties, failing which, the Commission of Arbitration shall be itself entitled to determine it beforehandt" GERMANY AND SPAIN. In 1885, Germany and Spain agreed to refer to the Arbitration of His Holiness the Pope, a dispute respecting the Caroline and Pelew 2D* '.82 APPENDIX. '' M ■'! ■! ! :i ;J' Islands, by which reference the sovereignty of Spain over the Islands was recognised by Germany, and in return, Spain granted con- cessions to Germany touching trade, shipping and the acquisition of land. To the Treaty was attached a Protocol, by which also Great Britain united with Germany in the recognition of Spanish sovereignty, and in return, Spain granted similiar concessions as conceded to Germany. The Treaty and Protocol were signed 19th January, 1886. GREAT BRITAIN AND GREECE. In 1886, the two Governments of Great Britain and Greece, being desirous to extend and facilitate the relations of Commerce between their respective subjects and dominions, determined to conclude a Treaty for that object, and appointed their respective Plenipoten- tiarie , Sir Horace Rumbold, British Minister at Athens, and Stephen Dragoumi, Minister for Foreign Affairs. On the loth November, 1886, the Treaty was signed at Athens, and ratified by the respective Governments, 4th April, 1887, and the clause referring to Arbitration contained in the Treaty of Commerce between Italy and Great Britain was accepted, and inserted, which recommended that any controversies which may arise respecting the interpretation or the execution of the Treaty, or of any violation thereof, shall be, when the means of settling them by amicable reference fails, referred to the decisions of Arbitrators, and that the result shall be binding. ITALY AND COLUMBIA. In 1888, was referred to the Spanish Government, a dispute, arising out of a collision at sea between vessels of the respective countries* and the decision was given in favour of Italy, in February of the same year. NICARAGUA AND COSTA RICA. In 1887, a disputed question of boundaries arose between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and in consequence of the rejection by the Con- gress of Nicaragua of the terms of settlement agreed upon by the representatives of the two States, the respective Gove-nments fell back on the Convention of the 24th December, 1886, which provided for a reference by Arbitration to the President of the United States of America. On 27th March, 1888, President Cleveland despatched, through the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bayard, his decision APPENDIX. 383 r the Islands ranted con- cquisition of I also Great I sovereignty, conceded to . 1886. as Arbitrator, to the respective Governments of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, and the settlement therein proposed was cordially and promptly accepted, by despatches, couched in very gratifying terms from Pedro Perez-Zaledon, on behalf of Costa Rica, and from H. Juzman, on behalf of Nicaragua. PORTUGAL AND MOROCCO On 8th April, 1888, agreed to refer their differences to the Arbitration of France. [Greece, being lerce between to conclude a ; Plenipoten- , and Stephen ;h November, the respective to Arbitration ily and Great ided that any etation or the shall be, when Is, referred to je binding. dispute, arising ctive countriesj ebruary of the ween Nicaragua an by the Con- d upon by the Dve-nments fell which provided e United States tched, through xd, his decision UNITED STATES AND CENTRAL AMERICA. On the 24th May, 1888, an Act was passed in Congress, and approved by the President of the United States, which was as follows : — "To invite the several Governments of the Republics of Central America, also Mexico, Hayti, San Domingo, and the Emperor of Brazil, to join the United States in a Conference, to be held at Washington, at such time as the President may deem proper in the year 1889, for the purpose of dis- cussing and recommending for adoption to their respective Governments some plan of Arbitration for the settlement of disagreements and disputes that may hereafter arise between them, and for considering questions relating to the improvement of business intercourse and means of direct commerce between the said countries, and to encourage such reciprocal commercial relations as will be beneficial to all, and secure more extensive markets for the productions of each of the said countries.'' In accordance with this resolution, the President appointed Ten Commissioners of the United States, and fixed the date of the Conference for November, 1889. The response on the part of the Central and South American States was prompt and cordial, and thirty-five representatives were appointed to the Conference, which assembled at Washington, 1 8th November, 1888. On 28th April, 1890, the representatives of ten of the Governments signed a Treaty, agreeing to submit to Arbitration disputes arising between them. DENMARK AND THE UNITED STATES. On the 6th December, 1888, a Convention was signed between the United States and Denmark, appointing Sir A. Rumbold, the British Minister ab Athens, Arbitrator, upon the claim of the former against the latter Government, for compensation, on account of the seizure and detention by the Danish authorities on the Island of 384 APPENDIX. 1 ^i: 'ii If ^ Hi ^H If ' I'll ■ ' II ' i ! ^^K Iff ^H IE * IM ."( ■ ■ ■ ■ II 1 1 ' ■ V ■ ' ■ hi!' IB i ' I'm" ■ .:1; 1 ' 1 ^ ' 1 1 ' ■' i ' 1 ' * : : -1 i 1 .'i 1 ' I' '. H 1 ' ' Wis i 1 1 1 U ' ' w liyuiij' St. Thomas, so far back as 1854, of the steamev Ben Franklin^ and in 1855, of the barque Catherine Augusta. Upon the question in dispute, firstly, whether the Danish autho- rities of St, Thomas took legitimate measures to prevent the vessels being equipped for an aggression against a friendly Power, the Arbitrator decided that the measures were reasonable, and that no compensation could be given ; and, secondly, on the question whether indemnity could be claimed by the United States for injury caused by the Dutch Commandant firing upon the steamer for leaving the Port of St. Thomas without complying with the regula- tions of the Port, the Arbitrator decided against the United States, and these decisions have been accepted as final by both Govern- ments. The Arbitrator gave his decision on ist January, 1890. GREAT BRITAIN AND CHILI. In 1888, the President of the United States, Mr. Cleveland, declared in his Message to Congress, delivered on the 3rd December, 1888, as follows : — " The claims of nearly all the countries against Chili, growing out of her late war with Bolivia and Peru, have been disposed of, either by Arbitration, or by a lump settlement." ♦ » ♦ ♦ " In pursuance of the policy of Arbitration, a Treaty to settle the claims o Santos, an American citizen, against Ecuador, have been concluded under my authority, and will be r^uly submitted to the Senate." PENDING QUESTIONS OF .ARBITRATION. 'FRANCE AND HOLLAND. A territorial dispute, which has been pending for many years between France and Holland, on the subject of the delimitation 0/ the frontier between French and Dutch Guiana, has been referred, by the mutual sanction of the respective Governments, to the Arbitration of the Emperor Alexander III. of Russia, but up to the present date the decision of the Imperial Arbitrator has not been declared. GREAT BRITAIN, CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1 89 1, the protracted and vexed questions in dispute, arising out of the Behring Sea Fisheries, between the United States and Canada, have been finally submitted to a Tribunal of Arbitration, consisting of seven members, one representing Canada, one Great Britain, two the United States, and the remaining three members APPENDIX. 385 Tranklin, and >anish autho- it the vessels Power, the and that no the question ites for injury steamer for th the regula- Jnited States, both Govern- ary, 1890. r. Cleveland, jrd December, ig out of her late ;r by Arbitration, jttle the claims o concluded under ATION. ibr many years delimitation ci s been referred, nments, to the ssia, but up to )itrator has not STATES. dispute, arising lited States and of Arbitration, nada, one Great three members representing three Neutral Powers. The terms of procedure of the Arbitration were signed 18th December, 1891, and at the moment of going to press the Arbitration is sub judice. The question in dispute arises out of the seal fisheries in the Behring Seas, and of the claim of the United States that Behring Sea and Behrings Strait sepaf^ing the two continents of Asia and America, are a mare clausum (a closed sea.) This claim has ever been contested by Canada and Great Britain, and it is to the great credit of the respective Governments that they have mutually agreed to an Arbitral Reference of this international controversy. GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE. On the nth March, 1891, 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, for a reference of the Lobster Fishery Question, to a Commission of Arbitration, con- sisting of seven members, three jurisconsults chosen by common consent, and tv,o delegates from England and France. ARBITRATION REFUSED. It is satisfactory to observe that ihe only instance in which Arbi- tration was refused, during the past few years, was when Great Britain, through H.M. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lord Granville, proposed to the Government of Portugal, to refer to Arbitration the claim made by the latter, relative to the collision between the British steamer City of Mecca, scad, the Portuguese steamer Insulano. In a despatch, dated 15th May, 1883, the Portuguese Government refused the proposal of Arbitration submitted by the British Govern- ment, on the ground " that it would constitute a violation of the prerogatives of national sovereignty." AMICABLE REFERENCE, between two States, without the direct interference of a Neutral, is where both Governments approach the subject of dispute with a sincere desire to preserve peace, by doing full justice to each other, and the following are the instances under this procedure : — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES. In 1794, after the Treaty of Peace of 1783 between England and the United States of America had been in force eleven years, differences arose in reference to the river St. Croix, which by that If ""' i'i"';i : f'" I i 'i:,f,: i . I ■ i^ 1 III J ■ ' 'J i , 1 ; 1 ., . ... ; j . ■ !■■ ■- 1] 386 APPENDIX. Treaty was to form part of the north-eastern boundary of the United States, and it became necessary that a new Treaty should be entered into, which should provide for the settling of these differ- ences, and accordingly, by Article V. of the Treaty of 1794, they were referred by consent to three Commissioners, one chosen by each nation, and the third by election; and by their efforts a conclusion was arrived at, acceptable to both nations. FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1803, all the claims that had arisen between France and the United States were settled by negotiation. A Convention was signed, which provided that France should pay 25,000,000 francs to the United States for unlawful seizures and sequestrations. SPAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1 81 8, in order to terminate all differences between Spain and the United States on account of the losses sustained by American citizens, it was agreed that a Board of Commissioners should be appointed, to examine and decide impartially the claims in question, " according to justice, equity, and the law of nations." GREAT BRITAIN AND AMERICA. In 1838, the disputes between England and America, of which the principal was the question of the Maine boundary, were, after many years of negotiation, amicably settled under the Joint Commission of Lord Ashburton for England, and Mr. Webster for America. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1853, all outstanding claims between England and the United States, which had arisen since the jTreaty of Ghent of 18 14, were, by a special Convention, referred to a Board of Commissioners. An Englishman, Mr. Joshua Bates of London, was chosen Umpire by agreement. In addition to the award for some thirty claims, amounting in all to $6,000,000, there were other questions settled by this Commission, which had long been a matter of diplomatic negotiation, viz. : the Florida bonds, and the Nassau, and McLeod claims, which, at one time threatened war between the two countries, all of which were amicably settled. No case of Arbitration has been more successful. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1855, a trouble arose between England and the United States in regard to the interpretation of a treaty for the construction of idary of the . ity should be these differ- f 1794. they le chosen by ;heir efforts a ance and the »nvention was ,000 francs to ons. :en Spain and by American tiers should be ms in question, erica, of which 3ary, were, after der the Joint Ir. Webster for PATES. and the United t of 1 8 14, were, Commissioners. chosen Umpire le thirty claims, other questions een a matter of and the Nassau, I war between the ed. No case of •ATES. the United States be construction of APPENDIX. 387 the Darien ship-canal. Lord Clarendon desired to submit the difficulty to Arbitration, on the ground that, when two Governments disagreed in the interpretation of a treaty, the most rational mode was to refer the question to a Neutral Power. In 1856, the United States Minister in London, Mr. Dallas, was instructed to negotiate with, or without Arbitration ; and, without the aid of an Arbitrator, the question was finally settled. PARAGUAY AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1859, a Commission was appointed by the respective Govern- ments of Paraguay and the United States, for the arrangement of certain claims made by the former. Eventually a satisfactory settle- ment was arrived at. GRANADA, COSTA RICA, AND THE UNITED STATES. In i860. Commissions were appointed to settle the claims between the United States and New Granada, and between the United States and Costa Rica. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1864, a Commission was appointed by the respective Govern- ments of the United States and Great Britain for the settlement of claims in regard to land in and about Puget Sound. COLUMBIA AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1864, at a Commission, sitting in Washington, Sir Frederick Bruce acted as umpire under the Treaty with Columbia; and questions, that once would have been causes of war, were settled as quietly and equitably as if they were ordinary difficulties between individuals. ECUADOR AND THE UNITED STATES. In 1864, a Joint Commission was appointed by the respective Governments of Ecuador and the United States, and also of Columbia and the United States, for the mutual adjustment of claims. These five last-mentioned cases of amicable reference were all carried to a successful conclusion. ENGLAND AND SPAIN. In 1867, a difficulty arose between England and Spain, in con- sequence of the seizure by the latter Power of the ship Mermaid^ which was amicably adjusted. Ifl T I (, ( I: I W M : m'h m 3S8 APPENDIX. NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES. In November, 1885, a Conference was held in Paris, composed ot Commissioners appointed by the Governments of Great Britain and France, to adjust the diflTerences, and to prevent differences here- after arising, relative to the Fisheries on the Coast of Newfound- land. The XIV. Article of the Treaty, drawn up by the Commissioners for ratification by their respective Governments, recommended that, in the event of any infringement of the Treaty, or any damages inflicted by cruisers, a reference should be made to Arbitration. This Treaty was not ratified. UNITED STATES AND MOROCCO. On April 8th, 1888, was signed at Tangier, a Convention between the respective Governments of these two States, agreeing to refer their dispute to the Arbitration of a representative of Morocco, and the Consul of the United States of Tangier. GREAT BRITAIN AND VENEZUELA. For several years there have been differences between the two Governments, firstly, upon a question of disputed boundary, then, secondly, in consequence of protective duties levied by Venezuela on goods imported from the British West Indies, and thirdly, in regard to certain British claims which Venezuela failed to satisfy. Through the good offices of Mr. Conrad F. Stollemeyer, of Trinidad, the negotiations for a settlement by amicable reference have been accepted, but up to the present date the decision has not been declared. UNITED STATES, CANADA, AND GREAT BRITAIN. In 1887, the Canadian Fishery Question, which, for a lengthened period, has been a chronic dispute between the United States and Canada, was referred for solution to an International Commission, consisting, as follows : — For England, Right Hon. Joseph Chamber- lain, M.P., and Sir Lionel Sackville West, British Minister at Washington ; for the United States, Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; for Canada, Sir Charles Tupper; and this Com- mission met at Washington on the 22nd November, 1887, and having concluded its labours, the Treaty was signed on the i6th February, 1888. The Treaty was approved by President Cleveland, and thence APPENDIX. 389 composed ot t Britain and irences here- f Newfound- ommissioners mended that, any damages ) Arbitration. ntion between eeing to refer Morocco, and itween the two oundary, then, i by Venezuela and thirdly, in ed to satisfy. stoUemeyer, of cable reference ecision has not TAIN. or a lengthened lited States and al Commission, oseph Chamber- ish Minister at jcretary of State ; and this Coni- iber, 1887, and led on the i6th and, and thence transmitted to the Senate for ratification, but unfortunately, in view of the approaching Presidential Election, its ratification was refused by the Senate by the small majority of three votes. CONFERENCE OR CONGRESS, is resorted to where differences exist between several States, and where they are willing to discuss them in a spirit of conciliation, in order to bring them to an amicable settlement, and also after the termination of a war, for the purpose of discussing and settling questions arising out of war ; at which Neutral Slates, actuated by a •desire to effect a pacific settlemant, are invited to take part. BELGIUM AND HOI-LAND. In 1834, one of the most important triumphs of Arbitration, (inasmuch as it illustrated the signal failure of war to settle international differences) is recorded in the history of Belgium. By the Treaty of Vienna, 181 5, which followed the battle of Waterloo, Belgium and Holland were formed into the united kingdom of the ' Netherlands. For a long period the peoples of these two countries resented this Union, and, finally, an insurrection broke out. The King of the Netherlands, despairing of a good result by force of arms, appealed to the Governments of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Austria, in the hope that they might avert bloodshed by Mediation. A Conference of the Plenipotentiaries of these Powers was accordingly held, in 1834, in London. An armistice was con- cluded, and eventually a satisfactory arrangement was effected ; and thus, by the means of Arbitration, the peace of Europe was secured, and Belgium and Holland obtained their independence. FRANCE AND PRUSSIA. In 1867, a dispute arose between France and Prussia in regard to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which France was anxious to obtain as compensation for the victories and conquests of Prussia in the wars waged by Prussia against Denmark and Austria. Lord Stanley, (now the Earl of Derby), as Foreign Minister for England, proposed, on behalf of the Government, that a Conference should assemble in London, and, if possible, secure a peaceful solution of the question. The Conference met, under the Presidency of his Lordship, and an amicable solution of the difiiculty was arrived at. 390 APPENDIX. Hi: m i: by which ihe fortress of Luxembourg was to be dismantled, and the neutrality of Luxembourg guaranteed by the Signatories to the Treaty. TURKEY AND GREECE. In 1867, the relations between Turkey and Greece were much disturbed on account of the insurrection in Crete. At the suggestion of the King of Prussia, a Conference of the Great Powers was convened in Paris, and the result wa; , that certain resolutions were agreed upon, which were to be submitted to Greece for her acceptance. Greece accepted the recommendations of the mediating Powers, the insurrection subsided, and peace between Turkey and Greece was secured. CONFERENCE AT BERLIN. In 1885, a Conference of the Plenipotentiaries of the European Powers assembled at Berlin, to regulate the conditions most favourable to the development of trade and civilisation in certain regions of Africa, and to assure to all nations the advantages of free navigation of the two chief rivers of Africa flowing into the Atlantic Ocean, and of furthering the moral and material well-being of the native populations. The Conference met at the invitation of the Imperial Govern- ment of Germany, in agreement with the Government of the French Republic, and by the Xllth Article of the Treaty, which was signed at Berlin, 26th February, 1885, and ratified 19th Aprils 1886, friendly mediation was recommended as follows : — " In any serious disagreement originating on the subject of, or in the limits of the territories .mentioned in Article !., and placed under the free trade system, shall arise between any of the. Signatory Powers of the present Act, and of the Powers which may become parties to it ; those Powers bind themselves before appealing to arms, to have recourse to the mediation of one or more of the Friendly Powers," GERMANY, UNITED STATES, AND SAMOA. On 29th April, 1889, a Conference assembled at Berlin to secure the adoption of measures which should lead to the establishment of a firm and stable Government in Samoa, and the maintenance of tranquillity over the group of Islands. The Governments of Germany, the United States of America, and Great Britain, were represented by the following Plenipotentiaries : for Germany, Count Herbert Bismarck, Baron de Holstein, and Dr. Kraul; for the United States, Mr. John A. Karson, Mr. William W. Phelps, and APPENDIX. 391 mantled, and atories to the ; were much te. At the of the Great that certain submitted to immendations i, and peace :he European iditions most ion in certain advantages of »wing into the rial well-being perial Govern- ment of the Treaty, which :d 19th April,, )r in the limits of ler the free trade rs of the present it; those Powers recourse to the Jerlin to secure establishment le maintenance Governments of t Britain, were ermany, Count tCraul; for the W. Phelps, and Mr. J. H. Bates ; for Great Britain, Sir L. A. MaLc, Mr. Charles S. Scott, and Mr. Joseph A . Crowe. The sittings of the Conference continued ^e die in diem, and after nine sessions it closed its labours on the 14th June, 1889, when the Treaty was signed, and the following were the conclusions arrived at : — 1. A Declaration respecting the independence and neutrality of the Islands of Samoa, and assuring to their respective citizens and subjects equality of rights in the said Islands, and providing for the immediate restoration of peace and order therein. 2. A Declaration respecting the modification of existing Treaties, and the assent of the Samoan Government to this Act. 3. A Declaration respecting the establishment of a Supreme Court of Justice for Samoa, and defining its jurisdiction. 4. A Declaration respecting titles to land in Samoa, restraining the disposition thereof by natives, and providinf^ for the investiga- tion of claims thereto, and for the registration of valid titles. 5. A Declaration respecting the municipal district of Apia, pro- viding a local administration thereto, and defining the jurisdiction of the Municipal Magistrate. 6. A Declaration respecting taxation and revenue in Samoa. 7. A Declaration respecting arms, ammunition, and intoxicating liquors, restraining their sale and use. Ratifications of the Treaty were deposited at Berlin, 12th April, 1890. MEDIATION, is the interposition of a Third Party to bring the contending parties to a mutual understanding. He acts the part of a Conciliator rather than a Judge ; he does not decide upon any of the matters in dispute, but merely seeks to reconcile conflicting opinions. TURKEY AND EGYPT. In 1840, the Ottoman Porte having appealed to the Mediation of Great Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, for the pacification of the Levant, a Convention was concluded and signed at London, r5th July, 1840, appointing Plenipotentiaries from the respective Powers for that purpose. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE TAMBOOKIE TRIBES. In 1845, i^ the Treaty of Peace, Commerce, and Boundary between Sir Peregrine Maitland, Governor of the Cape of Good 392 APPENDIX. Hope, and the Chiefs of the Tambookie Tribe, signed nth April, 1845, it was agreed in the XVIIth Article, as follows : — "The contracting Chiefs engage to abstain from making War, as much as possible, on the tnbe-i to whom they are adjacent, and that before doing so, they will request ' c Mediation of the Colonial Government, with a view of settling amicably c diflTerences between them." GREAT BRITAIN AND COREA. In 1883, in the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce, entered into between Great Britain and Corea, and signed 26th November, 1883, it was mutually agreed by Article II., as follows : — " In case of differences arising between one of the High Contracting Parties^ and a third Power, the other High Contracting Party, if requested to do so, shall exert its good offices to bring about an amicable settlement." EGYPT AND ABYSSINIA. In 1884, negotiations took place for the settlement of differences between Egypt and Abyssinia, and for that object His Majesty Negoosa Negust, King of Abyssinia, Mosoo Bey, Governor of Massowah, and Rear-Admiral Sir William Hewett, representing respectively, Abyssinia, Egypt, and Great Britain, met at Adowa, and signed the Treaty of Peace, 3rd June, 1884, which was ratified July 4th, and September 25th, 1884. By the Vlth Article of the Treaty, friendly mediation was recommended, as follows : — " His Majesty the Negoosa Negust, and his Highness the Khedive, agree to refer all differences -.vith his Highness the Khedive, which may arise after the signing of the Ti?aty, to Her Britannic Majesty Queen Victoria, for settlement. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. Closely allied with the principle and practice of Arbitration and Mediation, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, is the arrangement by negotiation and Treaty between colonising and powerful Empires, for the purpose of defining and circumscribing their separate and distinct spheres of influence over continents and oceans. Such arrangements have been entered into by Great Britain and Germany in the Colonisation of the vast territories on the Continent of Africa, and also by Great Britain with Germany and France, in APPENDIX. 393 nediation was the Protectorates of the numerous groups of islands that cluster, either in the Pacific or Atla.itic waters. These arrangements are everywhere to be desired and encouraged by Nations engaged in the extension and development of Colonial Possessions, as they cannot fail to minimise, if not to prevent, terri- torial and boundary disputes arising, which have been in the past, as they are liable in the future, to be threatening causes of serious conflict. The following are the instances under this head : — NEW GUINEA. In 1885, arrangements between Great Britain and Germany, relative to their respective spheres of action in portions of New Guinea, were proposed by Lord Granville, 25th April, 1885, and accepted by Count Munster agth April, 1885. EAST COAST OF AFRICA. In 1885, arrangements between Great Britain and Germany relative to their respective spheres of action, in portions of Africa, Ambas Bay, Santa Lucia Bay, Natal, and Delagoa Bay, were pro- posed by Lord Granville, 29th April, 1885, and accepted by Count Munster, 7th May, 1885. FIJI. In 1885, an agreement between Great Britain and Germany for the settlement of the Land claims of German subjects in Fiji, was proposed by Lord Granville, 4th May and 15th May, 1885, and accepted by Count Munster, i6th May, 1885. ZANZIBAR. In 1886, an agreement between Great Britain and Germany re- specting Zanzibar and the adjoining territories, and their respective spheres of influence in that portion of the East African continent, was proposed by Count Hatzfeldt, 29th October, 1886, and accepted by the Earl of Iddesleigh, ist November, 1886. EQUATORIAL AFRICA. In 1887, an agreement between the British and German Govern- ments for discouraging British annexation in the rear of the German sphere of influence in Equatorial Africa, on the understanding that the German Government would equally discourage German annexation in the rear of the sphere of British influence, was proposed by the Marquis of Salisbury, 2nd July, 1887, and accepted by Count Herbert Bismarck, 8th July, 1887. 394 APPENDIX. I'> ! II.— DECLARATIONS OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES, RE- SOLUTIONS OF CONGRESSES, AND CLAUSES IN TREATIES. THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. In 1789, Mr. Adams sent a letter of instructions to the delegates in Congress at Washington, on behalf of the State of Massachusetts, and though no legislative action resulted, yet it is an indication of the opinion of an influential party in the United States, prominent amongst whom were Noah Worcester, William Ladd, William EUery Channing, in favour of the substitution of Arbitration for war : — " You are, therefore, hereby instructed and urged to move the United States, in Congress assembled, to take into their deep and most earnest con- sideration, whether any measures can by them be used, through their influence with such of the nations in Europe with whom they are united by treaties of amity or commerce, that national differences may be settled and determined without the necessity of war, in which the. world has too long been deluged, to the destruction of human happiness and the disgrace of human reason and government." LEGISL/ ) JRE OF THE STATE OF MASSACHUSEl In 1835, a ;^»tition was presented to the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, nraying for an expression of opinion on the subject of a Congress of Nations. A special committee of the Senate made a report favourable to the petition, and the following resolutions were passed : " Resolved, That, in t^e opinion of this Legislature, some mode should be established for the amicable and final adjustment of all international disputes, insiead of resort to arms. " Resolved, That the Governor of the Commonwealth be requested to som- rounicate a copy of the above report, and of the resolutions annexed, to the Executive of each of the States, to be laid before the Legislature thereof, inviting a co-operation for the advancement of the object in view." HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES. In 1838, Mr. Legar^, a member of the American House of Representatives, brought up a report from the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the following terms : — ••That the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House recommends the reference to a third Power of all such controversies as can safely be confided to any tribunal unknown to the constitution of our country. •' Such a practice will be followed by other Powers, and will soon grow up into the customary law of civilised nations." ii I APPENDIX. 395 )1ES, RE- CUSES IN tie delegates assachusetts, indication of ;s, prominent William EUery [or war : — United States, )st earnest con- l, through their 1 they are united Terences may be , which the.world ippiness and the e of the State \ on the subject e Senate made ling resolutions mode should be all international Requested to :om- ms annexed, to the legislature thereof, t in view." STATES, kcan House of Committee on [lends the reference confided to any llsoon grow up into CONGRESS AT BRUSSELS. In 1848, at the Peace Congress held in Brussels, the following resolution was passed : — " It is of the utmost importance to urge upon the different governments of Europe and America the necessity of introducing into all international treaties an Arbitration clause, by which war shall be avoided in the settle- ment of disputes." MR. COBDEN's RESOLUTION. On the 1 2th June, 1 849, Mr. Cobden submitted the following resolution in the British Parliament : — " That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct her Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communications with Foreign Powers, inviting them to concur in treaties binding the respective parties, in the event of any future misunderstanding which cannot be arranged by amicable negotia- tion, to refer the matter in dispute to the decision of Arbitrators." This resolution was supported by Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. J. A. Roebuck, Mr. Josei h Hume, and opposed by Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, and in the division on the previous question was lost by a vote of 79 to 176. THE FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. In the same year (1849) a proposition was made in the National Assembly, that the French Republic should suggest to the Governments of Europe and America to unite by their representa- tives in a Congress, which should substitute an arbitral jurisdiction for the barbarous usages of war. The Committee of Foreign Affairs, having considered the question, approved of the proposal, but deferred for a time its practical adoption. THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. In 185 1, Mr. Foote, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, presented the following resolution : — " That it would be proper and desirable for the Government of these United States, whenever practicable, to secure, in its treaties with other nations, a provision, for referring to the decision of umpires all misunderstandings that cannot be satisfactorily adjusted by amicable negotiation, in the first instance, before resort to hostilities shall be had." THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. In 1853, Mr. Underwood, Chairman of the same Committee 2 E !' ■ I 'iMi ■1 396 APPENDIX. presented a long and able report on the subject of Arbitration, from which the following is an extract : — " In the treaties which are hereafter made with foreign nations, it shall be stipulated between the contracting parties, that all differences which may arise shall be referred to Arbitrators for adjustment. " Under such stipulation the Board of Arbitrators, or the single Arbitrator, would be selected after the occurrence of the difficJty. " Each party would be careful to select impartial persons, distinguished for their virtues and talents, and each would have the opportunity of objecting to anyone proposed, who might not possess these high qualifications. *' In the opinion of the Committee, the Arbitrators should be eminent jurists, having little or no connection with political affairs." THE PARIS CONGRESS. J". 1856, at the Congress of the chief European Powers which assembled in Paris at the close of the Crimean War, Lord Clarendon, President, the following resolution was agreed to, and appears in the 1 6th protocol of the Treaty : — " If there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more of the other Signing Powers any misunderstanding which might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porte, and each of such Powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the other contracting parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity by means of their mediation." In addition to this, chiefly by the strenuous efforts of Lord Clarendon, the Ambassadors, on behalf of, and with the consent of their respective States, sanctioned the following declaration, and ordered its insertion as the 23rd protocol of the Treaty. "The plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name of their Governments, the wish, that States between which any serious misunder- standing may arise, should, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the good ofHces of a friendly Power. **The plenipotentiaries hope that the Governments not represented at the Congress will unite in the sentiment which h^s inspired the wish recorded in the present Protocol." Of this Protocol, Mr. Gladstone declared that " the proposal to submit international differences to Arbitration was in itself a very great triumph— a powerful engine in behalf of civilisation and humanity." Thft late Earl of Derby referred to it as " the principle, which, to its immortal honour, was embodied in the Procotols cf the Conference of Paris." ■R^THBTT^T'TI APPENDIX. 397 ration, from IS, it shall be ces which may gle Arbitrator, stinguished for lity of objecting lifications. eminent jurists, Powers which rd Clarendon, nd appears in more of the other It endanger the id each of such 11 afford the other an extremity by Pforts of Lord the consent of eclaration, and ty. he name of their serious misunder- IS, have recourse, fices of a friendly represented at the the wish recorded the proposal to in itself a very civilisation and inciple, which, to rocotols oi the TREATIES NEGOTIATED BY SIR JOHN BOWRING. In 1868, a Treaty was negotiated by Sir John Eowring, acting as Plenipotentiary for the King of Siam, and Baron Hochschild as Plenipotentiary for the King of Sweden and Norway, in which a clause was introduced, providing that, in case of any misunder- standing between the Sovereigns or subjects of the two countries, the dispute shall not be settled by an appeal to arms, but by the friendly Arbitration of some Neutral Power. In addition to the before-mentioned Treaties, the same clause was introduced in several others negotiated by Sir John Bowring, viz. : Between Belgium and Hanover, between Italy and Switzerland, between Belgium and Siam, between Spain and Uruguay, and between Spain and Hawaii. SPAIN AND URUGUAY. In 1870, a Treaty was concluded between Spain and Uruguay, and through the influence of Don Arturo de Marcoartu, a Member of the Cortes, a clause was introduced providing for Arbitration, in any differences which may hereafter arise between the two countries in connection with the Treaty. THE PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. On 8th July, 1873, the House of Commons adopted the following resolution, moved by Mr. Henry Richard, M.P. : — " That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to instruct her principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with Foreign Powers, with a view to the further improvement of International Law, and the estab- lishment of a general and permanent system of International Aioitration." ITALIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES. On 24th November, 1873, the Italian Chamber of Deputies unani- mously adopted the following motion, introduced by Signor Mancini, Minister of Justice, the whole House rising in token of approval, viz. : — " The Chamber trusts that His Majesty's Government will endeavour, in their relations with Foreign Powers, to render Arbitration an acceptable and frequent mode of solving, according to the dictates of equity, such inter- national questions as may admit of that mode of arrangement, as well as to introduce opportunely, into any Treaty with those Powers, a clause to the effect that any difTerence of opinion respecting the interpretation and execution of those Treaties, is to be referred to Arbitrators, and to pro- mote Conventions between Italy and other civilised nations, of a nature 2 E ** 398 APPENDIX. .1.1 iF to render uniform and obligatory, in the interests of the respective peoples, the essential rules of private International Law." On 3rd April, 1878, the Italian Chamber of Deputies, again on the motion of Signor Mancini, adopted a resolution in favour of an Arbitral Clause being inserted in all Treaties of Commerce, nego- tiated between Italy and other countries. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITBD STATES. On 17th June, 1874, the House of Representatives at Washington, adopted the following resolution, moved by the Hon. Mr. Woodford, viz. : — "Resolved by the House of Representatives, that the President of the United States is hereby authorised and requested to negotiate with all civilised Powers, who may be willing to enter into such negotiation, for the establishment of an International system, whereby matters in dispute between different Governments agreeing thereto, may be adjusted by Arbitration, and, if possible, without recourse to war." Subsequently the same resolution was also adopted by the Senate of the United States. STATES-GENERAL OF THE NETHERLANDS. On 27th November, 1874, the Second Chamber of the States- General of the Netherlands, adopted the following motion, intro- duced by M. Van Eck and M. Bredius^ viz. : — " The Chamber expresses its desire that the Goverr-iicnt should negotiate with Foreign Powers, for the purpose of making. Arbitration the accepted means for the just settlement of all Intemtional differences between civilised nations, respecting matters suitable for Arbitration ; and that until this object has been accomplished, this Government will endeavour in all agreements to be entered upon with other States, to stipulate that all differences, capable of such solution, shall be submitted to Arbitration." THE SWEDISH DIET. On 2 1 St March, 1874, the Second Chamber of the Swedish Diet, at Stockholm, adopted a resolution, moved by Mr. James Jonassen : — "That an h ar ie address be presented to the King, praying that His Majesty will, in the form and under the circumstances which he may think fit, use his best endeavours to procure the establishment of a Court of Arbitration, either permanent or composed for each special occasion, to settle disputes that may arise between nations." THE BELGIAN CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES. On 19th January, 1875, ^^^ Chamber of Deputies, at Brussels, >ective peoples, again on the favour of an imerce, nego- D STATES. ; Washington, Ir. Woodford, nt of the United irith all civilised )tiation, for the liters in dispute r be adjusted by by the Senate of the States- motion, intro- ald negotiate with ion the accepted fferences between tration ; and that ent will endeavour :ates, to stipulate be submitted to ; Swedish Diet, by Mr. James r that His Majesty L he may think fit, lent of a Court of special occasion, to S. ties, at Brussels, APPENDIX. 399 adopted, by 8i votes to 2, the foUowiAg resolution, introduced by M. Couvreur and M. Thonissen, viz. : — " This ChamlDcr records its desire to witness an extension of the practice of Arbitration amongst civilised nations in all cases to which it may be applicable. It invites the Government to aid, as opportunity may offer, in establishing rules of the procedure to be followed in the appointment and duties of International Arbitrators. And it hopes that the Government, whenever it may deem it practicable to do so, when negotiating Treaties, will endeavour to obtain the insertion of a clause, providing that any differences which may arise, in respect of their execution, may be submitted to the decision of Arbitrators." The same resolution was, on i6th February, 1875, adopted with absolute unanimity by the Senate, or Upper Chamber, of the Belgian Parliament. On this occasion, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count D'Aspremont-Lynden, stated that he did not hesi- tate for a single moment to declare that it was perfectly opportune for the Belgian Government to support such resolutions. CANADIAN PARLIAMENT. On 27th March, 1875, in the Canadian Parliament at Ottawa, the Hon. Mr. Cameron, Member for South Ontaria, moved an address to Her Majesty, praying for steps to be taken with a view to a further improvement in International Law and the establishment of a system of Arbitration. On behalf of the Government, the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie declared in favour of the Resolution. THE FRENCH CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES. In 1878, M. Sigaud, Advocate at Nismes, having presented a petition to the Chamber of Deputies, praying that the Chamber would pass a vote in favour of the introduction of an Arbitral Clause in all International Treaties, the petition was referred to a committee, and MM. Couturier and Bousquet reported upon it as follows : — " That the petition of M. Sigaud be sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to whom shall be left in charge to determine the opportune moment when this idea, already tried with success, should be submitted for the consent of States, whose constitution and principles are best adapted for seeking in concert, its realisation." FRANCE On' 2ist January, 1887, M. Frederick Passy gave notice of a resolution, inviting the French Government to enter into negotiations with other Governments for the purpose of causing the settlement of international disputes by Mediation and Arbitration, and the following year he addressed a Memorial to the Ministers for Foreign 400 APPENDIX. J i- ■ h :! Affairs inviting the French Government to negotiate a permanent Treaty of Arbitration between France and the United States This Memorial was signed by 1 1 1 Members of the Chamber of Deputies, but the reply of the Minister, M. Goblet, on its pre- sentation, was that whilst the French Government were^in sympathy with the principle contained in the proposal, yet they did not see their way to give it a practical sanction. GREAT BRITAIN. On 2Sth July, 1887, the Marquis of Bristol, in the House of Lords, called attention to the subject of International Arbitration, and moved the following resolution : — " That this House, in view of the increasing armaments of European nations, is of opinion that the formation of an International Tribunal for the reference of national disputes in the Hrst instances, is highly to be desired. Lord Stanley of /vlJerley supported the resolution. The Marquis of Salisbury, Prime Minister, whilst deeply sympathising with the object in view, and earnestly desiring the day when the horrors of war may be prevented by the establishment of some system of peaceful reference, yet felt he must advise the withdrawal of the resolution, on the ground " that at present he could see no prospect of the establishment of such an Inter- national Tribunal." DENMARK. On 27 th March, 1888, Mr. Frederick Bajer submitted a resolution in the Danish Parliament, calling upon the Government to take measures for inducing Sweden and Norway to enter into a per- manent Treaty of Arbitration with Denmark, and it was carried by 50 votes to 15. NORWAY. On the 6th March, 1890, the Norweg'an Storthing, at Christiania, adopted a resolution, by 98 votes to ^4, in favour of an address to be presented to His Majesty King Oscar, recommending that in future all differences with Foriegn Powers be settled by Inter- national Arbitration. f^m APPENDIX. 401 permanent tates Chamber of on its pre- in sympathy did not see le House of I Arbitration, fopean nations, ribunal for the y to be desired. rhilst deeply iiring the day establishment ist advise the It present he ch an Inter- d a resolution ment to take r into a per- iras carried by at Christiania, an address to nding that in led by Inter- III.— OPINIONS OF EMPERORS, STATESMEN, JURISTS, AND DIVINES IN FAVOUR OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. NAPOLOEN BUONAiARTE, 1818. "At the Treaty of Amiens, in 1802, I had a project for general peace by drawing all the Powers to an immense reduction of their standing armies. And then, perhaps, as intelligence became universally diffused, one might be permitted to dream of the application to the great European family of an institution like the American Congress, or that of the Amphictyon, in Greece ; and then what a perspective before us of greatness, of happiness, of prosperity — what a grand and magnificent spectacle ! However that may be, this agglomeration of European peoples must arrive, sooner or latter, by the mere force of events. The impulse is already given, and I do not think, after my fall, and the disappear- ance of my system, that any balance of power will be possible in Europe, but this Union and Federation of the great nations." — Vide ''Napoleon in Exile," by B. E. OMeara, M.D. THE EMPEROR ALEXANDER I. OF RUSSIA, 1819. The Emperor conversed very freely upon war, and his desire to establish a Congress of Nations to prevent a resort to the sword. He stated : " His soul's anxiety had been, that w'-s and bloodshed might cease for ever from the earth ; that he haa passed sleepless nights on account of it, deeply deploring the woes brought on humanity by war, and that whilst his mind was bowed before the Lord in prayer, the plan of all the Crowned Heads joining in the conclusion to submit to Arbitration whatever differences might arise among them, instead of resorting to the sword, had presented itself to his mind in such a manner that he rose from bed, and wrote what he had so sensibly felt \ that his intentions had been mis- understood or misrepresented by some, but that love to God and to man was his only motive in the Divine sight." — Vide " Life of Stephen Grellet" by Benjamin Seebohm. RICHARD COBDEN, 1 846. •' I cordially approve of the expediency of recommending the insertion of an Arbitration Clause in all International Treaties, by which questions of dispute shall be settled by mediation ; but may 402 APPENDIX. ■il.P J ' I II I be allowed to suggest that it will be better to recommend that Treaties be entered inio for the express purpose of binding the contracting nations to submit their future quarrels to the decision of Arbitrators. I do not think that it would be easy to find an object more worthy o'." a separate Treaty than that which is con- templated in the clause." — Vide ^^ Life of Joseph Sturge^^ by Henry Richard, M.P. LORD JOHN RUSSELL, 1 849. " 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." — Speech in Parliament. JOHN BRIGHT, 1 85 3. " I believe there are men in the United States to whom alone — as I believe there are men in this country to whom alone — both countries might commit the decision upon a question affecting both countries; and I believe it would be decided according to that which was just to both of them. And there are other countries, — Russians, French, Prussians, Germans, — in fact, you have all the world to choose from, — you have all your great judges and great jurists, your excellent men of every class in every country ; and from these, every nation, having such an arrangement as this, might choose the men of foremost mark in the world, who, for intellect and for moral qualities are unsurpassed ; and who would stake theb whole charicter with their countrymen, and with all posterity, that they give a just decision on the matter referred to them." — Speech at Manchester. LORD CLARENDON, 1865. "I fully concur in this opinion, that it is desirable to have recourse to Arbitration, wherever practicable, for the adjustment of international differences, and am glad to believe that the principle of arbitration is becoming recognised as the most honourable and equitable solution of many difficult and important questions." — Speech to Deputation. EARL OF DERBY, 1 86 7, " Unhappily there is no International Tribunal to which cases of this kind can be referred, and there is no International Law by which parties can be required to refer cases of this kind. If such a APPENDIX. 403 nmend that binding the :he decision r to find an hich is con- ," by Henry d on during :m, I do not oper temper 3t have been it. Iiom alone — alone — both iffecting both ding to that countries, — have all the js and great ountry ; and is this, might for intellect Id stake their )Osterity, that 2m." — Speech able to have idjustment of the principle (lourable and questions." — yhich cases of ional Law by If such a Tribunal existed it would be a great benefit to the civilised ^world* Would that there were such a Tribunal ! " — Speech in Parliament. THE HON. JOHN JAY. (Late American Ambassador at Vienna, 1868.) " In time, these Treaties of Arbitration would be merged into more extensive alliances, and a greater number of umpires would be selected ; nor is it the vain hope of idle credulity that at last a union might be formed of every Christian nation for guaranteeing the peace of Christendom, by establishing a Tribunal for the adjustment of national differences, and by preventing all forcible resistances to its decrees. That such a Court, formed by a Congress of Nations in obedience to the general wish would, next to Christianity, be the richest gift ever bestowed by Heaven upon a suffering world, will scarcely be questioned by any who have impartially and candidly investigated the subject." — Extract from Letter. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, 87 1. " By the Treaty of Washington, modes of settlement h-^vt been fixed for several questions which had long remained in dispute. The President has concurred with me in the application of that principle of amicable reference which was proclaimed by the Treaty of Paris {185 6), and which I rejoice to have had an opportunity of recom- mending by example." — Speech from the Throne.. president of the united states of america (General Grant), 187 i. " This year has been eventful in witnessing two nations which speak the same language, adopting a peaceful Arbitration for the settlement of disputes of long standing, and which were liable at one time to cause conflict. An example has thus been set which, if successful in its issue, may be followed by other civilised nations, and possibly be the means of restoring to productive industry the millions of men now engaged in military and naval employment." — Message to Congress. MARQUIS OF RIPON, 1 87 1. "I believe that the Treaty of Washington embodied a large improvement upon the admitted principles of International Law. * ♦ ♦ ♦ * But even beyond that, I venture to attach yet more importance to another fact. You have here, in a public instrument between two 404 APPENDIX. u . > ■ I ' " ' t jj ■ f ij ' i L i ■ ' !; hi'-i^ lir f''\i m\ 1 [■;i : ;■ \\ ii l! . i : : t :' ' I 'I i i i 1- gKcat countries, the first important consecration, — absolutely the first consecration, as far as I know, in connection with burning questions that might have led to the last difficulty, — of the great prirtciple that nations, like men, are bad judges of their own quarrels. I believe that in that Treaty may be found principles which, if I do not deceive myself, are likely to have a large influence in the cause of the greatest of earthly blessings — the cause of peace." — Speech at New York, THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. (First Minister of the Crown), 1873. " In our view, whether the judgment is a right or accurate judg- ment, or whether some considerations may not have been pressed against us beyond what exactitude would warrant — that, in our view, is a very small matter. It is a small matter compared with the value of the goodwill and the improved and peaceful relations subsisting, and, happily, likely to subsist, between this country and America. Sir, it is a great happiness to see this serious and menancing cause of alienation and estrangement, if not of war^ removed by a great International arrangement. Any amount ot disappointment we may feel at the result is but an inconsiderable deduction from the satisfaction attendant upon an arrangement which removes such causes of difference between two great countries like England and America, and does so much, as I contend, for mankind at large, by the example it sets up of a peaceful settlement of disputes as a substitute for the bloody arbitrament of war." — Speech in Parliament. COUNT SCLOPIS. (President of the Geneva Tribunal of Arbitration), 1873. " No one is more convinced than I am of the importance, the utility, and the seasonableness of the formation of a code of public International Law. This would be so much gained for justice and peace. All wise and enlightened publicists, and good men in general, are of this opinion. " That which appears to me to be the best mode of procedure for the present is, that some gentlemen, specially authorised, should raise their voices in the British Parliament, the United States Con- gress, and the French National Assembly, in order to propose the Assembly of a Congress for the desired object. Allow me, however, to press upon you, before all things, to raise proposals in the APPENDIX. 405 ely the first ig questions ririciple that I believe if I do not he cause of ' — speech at curate judg- been pressed that, in our mpared with 2ful relations i country and serious and ■ not of war» \y amount ot ^considerable arrangement reat countries contend, for ful settlement int of war." — a), 1873- oportance, the :ode of public or justice and good men in F procedure for orised, should id States Con- o propose the w me, however, :oposals in the political legislatures. I am thoroughly persuaded that there is no better way of reaching any real and positive result. If a majority in the Parliaments should pronounce in favour of our views, we shall gain the cause, and the Governments themselves will, in the end, find themselves committed to these resolutions, prompted by a love of public tranquillity and social progress." — Speech at Turin, M. DROUVN DE L'HUVS. (Minister of State to Napoleon III.), 1873. " The idea of submitting to Arbitration conflicts between States was brought forward at the Conference of Vienna, at which the writer oi this note assisted during the first months of the Russian war. Consecrated by the Treaty of Paris of 1856, it has too often remained inoperative. In trying to realise it at present, we obey a sentiment which, evoked at that epoch, will not cease to manifest itself among all civilised nations until it has obtained satisfaction. If any differences were to arise between two nations, what Sove- reign, what Assembly, would dare to refer the decision to the terrible chances of battle, when there would >. a law which had foreseen the case, and a Tribunal of Arbitration, the composition of whicli should be indicated or prescribed? It might be hoped by this means to banish or diminish the terrible scourges that arise to imbrue Europe in blood." — Speech in Paris. SIGNOR MANCINI. (Minister of Foreign Affairs for Italy), 1873. " In teaching from my public chair the science of International Law — first in the University of Turin, and then in that of Rome — I have always recommended the institution of International Arbitra- tion, and the codification, at least of that part of International Law, which might most easily obtain universal attention." — Speech at Rome. M. CHARLES CALVO. (Minister of State, to Napoleon III.), 1873. "The war of 1870, which threw us back to times of barbarism, ought to be a useful warning to the civilised world. It has shown us all the dangers of the endless contradictions in the jurisprudence and practice of nations : the disagreements ceaselessly renewed in international relations, which are govr^rned by no well-defined and invariable principles, are influenced more by caprice than by justice, by force than by the action of law. The Treaty of Washington and 1 f 406 APPENDIX. the Arbitration at Geneva have, on the other hand, made us to see the possibility of arriving at a common understanding for the settlement of such contradictions." — Extract from Letter. EMILE DE LAVELEVE. (Political Economist at the University of Libge), 1874. " This Treaty of Washington, by virtue of which the principal differences between England and the United States have been referred to, and satisfactorily settled by Arbitration, not only restores harmony between the two great branches of the race that rep. esents freedom in the world, but it gives an authoritative sanction to the principle and practice of such Arbitration. Such an example will not be lost ; it will bear its fruit in the future." MR. HAVES. (President of the United States of America), 1878. " The policy inaugurated by my honoured predecessor. President Grant, of submitting to arbitration grave questions in dispute between ourselves and Foreign Powers, points to a new, and comparatively the best, instrumentality for the preservation of peace, and will, as I believe, become a beneficent example, of course to be pursued in similar emergencies by other nations. If, unhappily, questions of difference should, at any time during the period of my administration, arise between the United States and any Foreign Government, it will certainly be my disposition and my hope to aid in their settlement in the same peaceful and honourable way, thus securing tb our country the great blessings of peace and mutual good offices with all nations of the world." — Letter to Alfred H. Love. SIR CHARLES DILKE, BART., M.P. (Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), 1882. "Not only are our relations with all Powers friendly, but Arbitrations are beginning to be decided by those friendly Powers in our favour, which is a pleasing change. In the 1820's there was only one case in which a dispute between the United Kingdom and a Foreign Power was referred to Arbitration ; in the 1830's one ; in the 1840's one; in the iSso's one; in the i86o's one; but in the 1870's no less than seven disputes were thus referred. The vast majority of Arbitrations have been decided against Great Britain. Now it is important in its bearing on the chances of future peace that we should not obtain the impression that Arbitration decisions i^lp APPENDIX. 407 de us to see ing for the r. 1874. :he principal s have been only restores iat rep. esents iction to the example will 1878. sor, President [IS in dispute a new, and reservation of ; example, of : nations. If» ne during the ed States and Dsition and my id honourable s of peace and Letter to Alfred 1882. friendly, but riendly Powers 2o's there was Kingdom and 1830's one ; in le; but in the red. The vast Great Britain, jf future peace ation decisions are invariably adverse to our interests, so I notice with pleasure the fact that a favourable decision by Belgium on the Fisheries dispute has been followed by a favourable award by the Emperor of Austria in the dispute as to the interpretation of the Treaty of i860 with regard to the Mosquito Territory. The increase of Arbitrations induces me to say that the present period of comparative calm in Europe might perhaps be chosen for some abatement of the curse of inflated Continental armaments. Enormous emigration takes place from victorious Germany ; the finances of Austria and of Italy are strained, and even the marvellous resources of France are heavily taxed under the present system." — Speech to his Constituents, THE ARCHBISHOP OK YORK, 1 87 3. (dr. THOMSON.) ** The object of the meeting, to enforce the necessity of substitut- ing for the miseries of war and for the prodigal waste of human life that it carries with it, a system of Arbitration, has my most cordial sympathy. I have no doubt that it will in the end be attained." — (^Speech at York.) THE BISHOP OF MANCHESTER, 1 87 2. (dr. FRASER.) " I am thoroughly in sympathy with your object. Considering the high degree of civilisation at which the world is supposed to have arrived, to say nothing of the legitimate influence of Christian principles, it is nothing less than a monstrous anachronism that nations should still be found settling their quarrels, not before the tribunals of equity and reason, but by the brutal and irritional arbitrament of the sword." — {Letter to Peace Conference) THE VEN. archdeacon SANDFORD, 1 87 2. " Ought we not to feel it a solemn obligation to join hand and heart with those in every land who are aspiring at the adjustment of national differences by a less barbarous process than war ? Happily in these days plain pleas are afforded for enforcing not merely the duty but the expediency of International Arbitration, For is there one of the differences which have been recently referred to the sword, which might not have been arranged so as to have precluded the untold miseries of which war is invariably the cause? Nor need the Clergy fear to be taunted with enthusiasm for handling such a topic. For the tide of opinion is everywhere becoming more 4o8 APPENDIX. t,ii) i i.ti; adverse to war. And while the nations are massing armies and forging implements of mutual destruction, the conviction is spread- ing everywhere that war and the preparations for war are injurious to the interests and happiness of States, and that it would be their wisdom, in every case, to submit their differences to a High Court of Nations, rather than to butcher and ruin one .nother from mistaken principles of interest or honour." — {Charge to the Clergy.) THE REV. CANON NORRIS, 1870. " I seem to hear the voice of Christ's Apostle in this oui Social Congress — ' I speak this to your shame. Is it so that there .is not a wise man among you ' to propose some other appeal than that to the sword ? But nation goes to war with nation, and that to the reproach of our religion. If it be too late, if this present war must needs exhaust itself in blood, yet one hope may surely be ours, that the conscience of Christendom, shocked and outraged as it has been, may be forced for very shame to assert the principle of International Arbitration." — ( Speech at Social Science Congress). » : ^ 11 1' 'iJ ( •';i:, 'ill iir armies and n is spread- ) injurious to uld be their L High Court nother from the Clergy.) Kis oui Social there .is not a than that to 1 that to the sent war must be ours, that as it has been, International PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS OK THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, PREPARED BY LEWIS APPLETON, F.R.H.S., Honorary Secretary of the Association, HENRY RICHARD, THE APOSTLE OF PEACE. Crown 8vo., in Cloth, Gilt, 2/6; in boards, 1/6. Containing Portraits of HKNRY RICHARD, RICHARD COBDEN, JOSEPH STUROE, EDMUND FRY, ELIHU BURRITT, WILLIAM STOKES, and ARTHUR o'nEILL. 224 pages. GRADUAL PROGRESS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. In chronological order, instances of its successful application from 1794 to the present time ; the Declarations of Legislative Bo