Russian influence British Cabinet, for statesmen in Britain were almost as jealous of Russian influence at Teheran as of Russian influence at Constantinople. Conscious, therefore, that Palmerston was desirous to tear up the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi,1 and to restore the influence of Britain at the Porte, Russia renewed her overtures to Persia, and secured a preponderating influence at Teheran. in Persia. The relations between Persia and Britain in the past, inoreover, encouraged the Persian Court to lean upon St. Petersburg. The aid of Britain had always failed Persia in the hour of her trial. The costly missions which Wellesley had sent to her in 1801, and the rival embassies which had been despatched from London and Calcutta in 1813, might easily have induced Persian statesmen to imagine that Britain attached importance to their friendship, and was willing to incur sacrifices for the sake of maintaining it. Britain, in fact, in 1813 had formally undertaken to render Persia help if Persia was attacked by any European Power, and was not the aggressor in the quarrel.2 Thirteen years afterwards the stipulation encouraged the Shah to seize the pretext of a frontier dispute to make war upon Russia. But the condition which had been inserted in the treaty afforded Britain an excuse for declining the assistance which Persia hoped to obtain from her. Persia, in consequence, was easily crushed by her powerful neighbour, and forced to make fresh territorial concessions to Russia; while Britain, through Colonel Macdonald, her envoy at the Persian Court, a man of energy and sense, confined herself to moderating the terms on which Russia insisted as a punishment for the aggression.3 Possibly British statesmen could not have acted otherwise. But probably they were a little ashamed at having availed themselves of a technical excuse to rid themselves from the 1 Mr. Ashley says that Lord Palmerston's persistent aim from the moment of the signing of this treaty. had been either "to neutralise or overthrow " the treaty. Ashley's Palmerston, vol. i. p. 353. 2 Ante, ch. xxv. 3 Cf. Ann Reg, 1826, Hist., p. 284; Wilson, vol. iii. p. 216; Marshman, vol. iii. p. 120; Lord Ellenborough's Diary, vol. i. p. 46. necessity of fulfilling an inconvenient promise. At any rate they took a course which has been rarely pursued by a great Power. They actually consented to pay a portion of the indemnity which Russia exacted from her foe, in return for being released from the stipulations of the treaty of 1813.1 The British in India and at home, after spending nearly a million of money in costly missions to the Persian Court, were paying to be released from the conditions which were the only result of these embassies, and had the mortification of knowing that their representative had no influence in the Persian capital. The Euto India. Thus in 1835, when Melbourne succeeded Peel, Russia had acquired through the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi a preponderating power at the Porte, and she had simultaneously increased her influence at Teheran. Palmerston would have phrates route regarded these facts in any circumstances with alarm. But he had soon afterwards an additional reason for distrusting the growing influence of Russia in Persia. Up to that time the trade of India had almost uniformly passed round the Cape of Good Hope. But in 1836 efforts were being made to shorten the route and to quicken the journey. The fastest passage which had ever been accomplished round the Cape to Bombay had occupied seventy-five days.2 It was hoped, by adopting a new route, to save rather more than one day in three, and to complete the journey in forty-six days. Two alternative proposals had been made with this object. One, which was generally supported by the mercantile community, contemplated the formation of a route by Malta to Alexandria, across Egypt and through the Red Sea. The other was based on a line which struck across Syria to the Euphrates, and followed the course of that river to the Persian Gulf. In 1832 various attempts had been made to establish the first of these routes. But they had failed; and in August 1835 the East 1 Watson's History of Persia, p. 244. 2 This was up to 1836, and is given on Hobhouse's authority. Hansard, vol. xxxv. p. 1061. 3 A correspondence full of interest on the subject will be found in Ann. Reg., 1832, Chron., p. 138. India Company issued a notice that the mails for India through Egypt might not be carried forward; while Hobhouse, speaking as President of the Board of Control, declared that the south-west monsoons blew with such violence in the Red Sea, during two or three months out of every twelve, that gentlemen whom he had seen were of opinion that no steamboat of whatever size or power would be able to face them.1 This failure to establish the Red Sea route confirmed the Government in its desire to make the Euphrates the highway to India; and in 1835 Colonel Chesney was sent to the Mediterranean with the framework of two steamers which he was directed to put together at Bir, and with which he was instructed to attempt the navigation of the Euphrates. Illluck attended the enterprise. Russia used all her influence to oppose it; one of the steamers, the Tigris, was lost in a hurricane; the other, the Euphrates, succeeded in reaching the Persian Gulf. But the expedition, and another which followed it, proved that the navigation of the river was so difficult that it was practically impossible to rely on it, and the. ministry was forced to fall back on the Red Sea route.3 Thus, at the time of Heytesbury's appointment, Britain and Russia were jealously watching one another in the East. The treaty of Unkiar Skelessi had given Russia a commanding position at the Porte, the vacillating policy of Britain towards Persia had confirmed Russian influence at Teheran, and Russia was using her power by trying to exclude her rival from the Euphrates route to India. In these circumstances the appoint 1 Hansard, vol. xxx. pp. 608, 609. 2 Stockmar, vol. i. p. 348. For the preliminary vote for the Euphrates expedition, Hansard, vol. xxv. p. 930. For a supplemental vote in 1836, ibid., vol. xxxv. p. 1060. For the loss of the Tigris, Ann. Reg., 1836, Chron., p. 64. After the acknowledged failure of the Euphrates route a treaty was concluded with France for the conveyance of the mails from Calais vid Marseilles to Alexandria in 402 hours, or rather less than seventeen days (State Papers, vol. xxvii. p. 1004), and it was generally admitted that, while the difficult route of the Euphrates Valley would occupy fifty days, Bombay might be reached by the more direct route of the Red Sea in forty-three days. Ann. Reg., 1837, Chron., pp. 52 and 124. A bi-monthly communication with India via Suez was first established in 1845. Hansard, vol. cxv. p. 640. Cf. for the whole subject, Marshman, vol. iii. ment of a Governor-General free from the prejudices of his fellow-countrymen might have done much for the cause of peace both in India and the world. Such an appointment, Lord however, would have seemed to Palmerston a wilful sacrifice of British interests, and he accordingly persuaded the Cabinet to take the unprecedented step of superseding Heytesbury.1 The Whigs rarely looked beyond a narrow circle for the occupants of office. They selected as Heytesbury's successor the second Lord Auckland. An accomplished nobleman and an amiable man, Auckland had presided over the Board of Trade in Grey's Ministry, while Poulett Thomson, as Vice-President, had conducted the business of the department. He had been chosen, to the surprise of many persons, to succeed Graham at the Admiralty, and he had been replaced in that office in 1835. A cousin of the Minto who had governed India with success, believers in hereditary capacity might perhaps hope for his distinction. He is now recollected as one of the most unfortunate statesmen ever sent to govern India.2 Yet Auckland's administration of India will never be understood by any one who omits to reflect on the foreign policy of the Cabinet of which he had been a member.3 It was Palmerston's persistent determination to tear up the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi which drove Russia to retaliate on Persia, and it was the consciousness of the increasing influence of Russia at Teheran which induced Auckland to interfere at Cabul. East of Persia, and between it and Hindostan, lies the 1 Auckland's appointment as Governor-General was, "rightly or wrongly," ascribed to Palmerston. Ashley's Palmerston, vol. i. p. 400. The nearest precedent for Heytesbury's supersession was in the appointment of Minto in 1806, and the revocation of the appointment of Sir G. Barlow which had been previously made. See on this point Thornton, vol. iv. p. 87 et seq. 2 There are notices of some interest of Auckland in Life of Spencer, p. 263, and in Greville, Part. i. vol. iii. p. 88. There are very high opinions of his ability in the second part of these Memoirs, vol. i. p. 241, and vol. ii. p. 63. 3 The Times, 2nd of April 1885, contained an excellent summary of the policy of Russia and England in Central Asia. But the Times, I think, pro. duces an inaccurate impression by excluding all reference to the strained relations between the English and Russian Foreign Offices from Palmerston's determination to tear up the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. Afghanistan. country known as Afghanistan. Torn by civil war, it was still associated with the traditions of its former greatness. Had not Ahmed Khan, the founder of the Afghan kingdom, temporarily shattered the power of the Mahrattas at the great battle of Paniput? Had not Zemaun Shah, by crossing the Indus, frightened Wellesley into despatching a mission to Persia? Had not even Minto sent Elphinstone to Afghanistan, and courted Shah Sooja's help in an alliance against France? In 1835, indeed, these conditions were changed. Zemaun Shah and Shah Sooja were refugees in the Company's territory; the empire of the Afghans was shrivelled to a fourth of the dominions over which the former of these potentates had ruled; and the remnant was divided among rival princes. Kamram, "the worst of a bad race," a son of Mahmood, Shah Sooja's brother, conqueror, and successor, reigned at Herat; the rest of the country was ruled by the brothers of Futteh Khan, a statesman whom Mahmood had murdered.1 Of these, since 1826, Dost Mahommed had reigned supreme in Cabul.2 Of the internal condition of Afghanistan, however, British and Indian statesmen had alike little knowledge, and the Government accordingly decided to send a mission to Cabul, under the pretext of establishing commercial relations with the people. There was one man in India who had exceptional claims for employment on such an embassy. Six years before, Alexander Burnes had been despatched to Alexander Lahore with some cart-horses of exceptional size Burnes. and power, which Ellenborough had presented to Runjeet Singh; and, after fulfilling his ostensible orders, had extended his travels to Cabul and Bokhara. With eyes in his head, and a capacity for using them, he had gained knowledge and experience; and, by the publication of his adventures, had enlarged the information of his fellow-countrymen and acquired the reputation which attaches to bold enterprise and successful 1 For the murder, to which Kamram was a party, see Kaye's Afghan War, vol. i. p. 107. 2 There is a good account of the state of Afghanistan in Thornton, vol. vi. p. 123. |