Lord Palmerston's character must have been quite a puzzle to the French Emperor, who found that he could neither intimidate nor cajole him, nor yet shake him off. No wonder that he sometimes showed a little temper. 'I am rather surprised,' says Lord Palmerston,''that the Emperor should have spoken with so much bitterness about me, for nothing could be more personally friendly than his manner at Osborne. But the fact, no doubt, is that he is much annoyed at finding that we did not give in to his notions about driving the Mahomedans away from the southern shores of the Mediterranean, and about giving an extension to French occupation in Africa. The fact is that, in our alliance with France, we are riding a runaway horse, and must always be on our guard; but a runaway horse is best kept in by a light hand and an easy snaffle. It is fortunate for us that we are thus mounted, instead of being on foot, to be kicked at by this same steed; and as our ally finds the alliance useful to himself, it will probably go on for a good time to come. The danger is, and always has been, that France and Russia should unite to carry into effect some great scheme of mutual ambition. England and Germany would then have to stand out against them; and Germany is too much broken up and disjointed to be an efficient ally. We had this year a little war with Persia, owing to her occupation of Herat, contrary to the solemn engagements made with England in 1853. Although the dispute did not attract much public attention, Lord Palmerston was fully alive to the importance of the issues involved. He foresaw that Khiva and Bokhara would shortly be occupied by Russia, and that Cabul and Candahar might, before very long, be deemed the advanced outposts of British India. Whether it would be better that Herat should remain a weak, independent Government, or that it should be in the hands of a ruler able to defend it, like the ruler of Cabul, and who, by geographical position, must attach himself to an English alliance, might be a moot point; but at any rate it was clear that it must not be allowed to fall to Persia. About the general question he says to Lord Clarendon:1 To Lord Clarendon, September 29, 1857. It is quite true, as you say, that people in general are disposed to think lightly of our Persian war; that is to say, not enough to see the importance of the question at issue. Ellenborough is right: we are beginning to repel the first opening of trenches against India by Russia; and whatever difficulties Ferokh 2 may make about Afghanistan, we may be sure that Russia is his prompter and secret backer. But that makes it the more essential that we should carry our point on that subject. What, however, are our important points? The renunciation by Persia of all claim over Herat and of all future design or attempt to invade Herat. This is a sine quâ non, and, of course, includes an acknowledgment of the independence of Herat, and includes it so completely that a distinct acknowledgment of that independence seems hardly necessary. Any engagement on our part towards Persia about our own relations with Affghanistan should be peremptorily refused. As to our mediation, as there is in most men's minds a confusion of ideas between mediation and arbitration, we might, if driven to it, substitute for mediation, a condition that if any difference should arise between Persia and any of the Affghan states, including Herat, Persia would, in the first place, ask our good offices to arrange the matter in dispute; and we might promise to use our good offices to obtain a settlement just and honourable to both parties. ་ The treaty of peace between the Queen of England and His Majesty whose standard is the sun' was signed at Paris on March 4. Persia renounced all claim or dominion over Herat and Affghanistan, and engaged (in such terms as were suggested in the above letter) to refer any future differences she might have with the Affghan states to the friendly offices of the British Government. The opportunity of this war was also taken to obtain the abolition of slave trade in the Persian Gulf--an act consistent with the many former efforts of Lord Palmerston to put an end to traffic in human beings. 1 Lord Ellenborough had just made a speech in the House of Lords in this sense. 2 Ferokh Khan, ambassador from Persia. I append a letter which, on the conclusion of peace, he wrote to the Sadr Azim in reply to a flowery communication from that minister. It is a specimen both of the skill with which he could read as well as write between the lines and of candid irony in expressing his sentiments. Behind the diplomatic effusion of the Persian minister he discerned the true character and motives of his correspondent, who had secretly been a bitter enemy of England. His courteous reply conveys very clearly that he knew it all, but that the least said, soonest mended; only don't let it occur again': London: September 8, 1857. Excellency, I have received with much pleasure the letter dated June 5 last, which you were so good as to address to me; and I have been much gratified by the friendly sentiments which it contains. I rejoice, as your Excellency does, at the treaty of peace, which has happily put an end to the war between England and Persia; and I hope that the peace which has thus been established may long continue for the mutual advantage of both countries. I can truly assure your Excellency that it is the wish of the English Government and of the English nation that Persia should be a happy, a prosperous, a strong, and an independent state, and that the most perfect friendship and the fullest confidence should prevail between the Governments of England and of Persia. I am rejoiced to find, from your Excellency's letter, that it is your desire and intention to cultivate in future the friendship of England. But I should not be deserving of your good opinion if I were to disguise from you the truth of my thoughts, and there are parts of your Excellency's letter which compel me to speak frankly in reply. Your Excellency says that, until now, out of various considerations, you have looked upon yourself as alone and without assistance in your endeavours to preserve the friendship of the two Governments from injury. And you further say that you request me, and you entertain the firm hope that I shall henceforward give my full attention to the observance of the rules of friendship and unity between the two Governments. Now upon this I feel myself obliged to say that the war which took place between our two countries was not owing to The Prime Minister' of Persia. LETTER TO THE PERSIAN PREMIER. 343 any neglect on the part of the English Government of the rules of friendship and equity, but was occasioned solely and entirely by your Excellency's own unfriendly conduct, and by the violent hostility which your Excellency displayed towards England, both in word and deed; and, therefore, so far from your Excellency having been alone in endeavours to preserve friendship between the two Governments, your Excellency was the main and principal cause of the cessation of that friendship. I have no doubt that your Excellency, in seeking a quarrel with England, believed that you were promoting the interests of Persia, and I am bound to suppose that your Excellency considered yourself as performing on that occasion the part of a true patriot; and this belief on my part strengthens my confidence in the future maintenance of friendship between the two Governments and countries, because the events of the war, and the decisive victories obtained by the British troops over superior numbers of Persian troops, must have shown and have proved to the sagacious mind and powerful understanding of your Excellency that the true interests of Persia are best promoted by peace and friendship with England, and that the sure results to Persia of war with England must be defeat and disaster. With this conviction strongly impressed upon your mind, your Excellency will, I am sure, like a good patriot, clearly see in what direction the welfare of your country lies, and you will direct your policy as minister of your Sovereign so as to secure that welfare. Therefore it is that, knowing the high statesmanlike qualities which so eminently distinguish your Excellency, I feel satisfied that the alliance between our two countries will rest henceforward upon the basis of national interest, which is a firmer foundation than the sentiments of individual ministers, however friendly and sincere those sentiments may be. With every wish for the health and happiness of your Excellency, and with a fervent hope that the reign of your illustrious master and Sovereign the Shah of Persia may be long and prosperous, I have the honour to remain, PALMERSTON. His Excellency The SADR AZIM, &c. 'HER MAJESTY commands us to inform you that acts of violence, insults to the British flag, and infraction of treaty rights committed by the local Chinese authorities at Canton, and a pertinacious refusal of redress, have rendered it necessary for Her Majesty's officers in China to have recourse to measures of force to obtain satisfaction.' So ran the Speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament in February 1857. This was the affair of the lorcha Arrow,' destined to attain some celebrity. It happened thus. Under treaties with China, British vessels were to be subject to consular jurisdiction only. The Arrow,' having a British register, was boarded by Chinese from a war junk and the crew carried off, on a charge of piracy. Sir John Bowring, Governor of Hong-Kong, demanded satisfaction from the Chinese Commissioner, Yeh, and, failing to obtain it, proceeded to use force with the fleet under Admiral Sir Michael Seymour. He also added to his former demands one for the admission of foreigners to the port and city of Canton under treaty engagements which had never been carried out. Yeh retaliated by proclamations offering rewards for the heads of the barbarians. Such was the position of affairs when Mr. Cobden brought forward in the House of Commons a resolution to the effect that the papers laid on the table failed to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures |