Peter was, it is said, brought about by the French Ambassador at Constantinople, the Marquis Bannac; but its sweeping character may be best appreciated when it is said that Ghilan and Mazanderan, Azerbijan and Astrabad, were to pass away from Persia to the Russian State. Fortunately for England the genius of Nadir Shah averted that catastrophe. But the speculative observer may for a moment ponder over the changes that that treaty, if its terms had been carried out, would have wrought in the later history of Europe and Asia.

One hundred and fifty years ago Russia was almost in possession of those fertile provinces on the shores of the Caspian which are the practical base of an army advancing on Herat and the Indus. Astrabad and its invaluable bay were on the point of falling into her hands. These, too, at a moment when India was defenceless, lying exposed to the audacious demands of every military adventurer. The vigour of the Afghans had also been sapped by the greatness of the effort they had made in Persia. Once the garrisoning army of the Afghan ruler was overthrown, there remained nothing capable of checking a Russian army of fifty thousand men between Astrabad and Delhi. The question of the possession of India was nearly being solved in a manner wholly favourable to Russia a generation before Robert Clive contested with Dupleix for supremacy in Southern India.

The genius of Nadir Shah fortunately prevented these audacious schemes having any practical result. He, after expelling the Afghans, defeated the Turks,

and pushed Russian pretensions back from the Persian frontier. During his reign and for about forty years after his death Russian ambition remained quiescent upon the shores of the Caspian; but in the year 1783 the Empress Catherine conceived that affairs in Persia had so far taken a favourable turn for the prosecution of fresh enterprises, that she resolved to resume those intrigues which the death of Peter and the appearance of Nadir had upset. At this time the Prince of Georgia was Heraclius, an aged man, who saw in the intestine troubles of Persia a danger to the tranquillity of his own State and to the permanence of his personal power. He looked about him, consequently, for an ally to support him against the pretensions of the new Persian ruler, Aga Mahomed Khan, and there was none at once able and willing to protect him save the Czarina of Russia. He accordingly transferred his allegiance to St. Petersburg, and a treaty (given in the Appendix) was signed at the fortress of Georges in July, 1783. The transfer of allegiance was so far unfortunate for Heraclius that the Persian ruler twelve years after the signature of the treaty invaded Georgia and portions of Armenia with a large army. routed the small Georgian army near Tiflis, and occupied that city, which he handed over to his soldiery to plunder. The Persian wished to make an example of this city as Heraclius's capital, and he certainly did so, for, as the Persian historian puts it, "on this glorious occasion the valiant warriors of Persia gave to the unbelievers of Georgia a specimen of what they were to expect on the Day of Judgment." In this

He

campaign the power of Georgia as an independent State was shattered, and Aga Mahomed Khan continued to follow up the brilliant success which he had already obtained by the capture of Tiflis. His attention was for some time diverted from the west to the east, that is, from Georgia to Khorasan; but the advance of a Russian army recalled him to the Araxes.

In 1796 the Russian armies laid siege to Derbend, Baku, and other fortresses, all of which offered but slight resistance. Before the close of that winter the Russians had pushed forward two armies to the frontier of Azerbijan, and were threatening not only Enzeli and Resht, but even Teheran itself. Aga Mahomed made during the winter months the most energetic preparations for the approaching campaign. He summoned from all parts of the kingdom the great chiefs and the frontier garrisons; and he appealed to the support of the whole nation "in order to punish the insolent unbelievers of Europe who had dared to invade the territories of the faithful." There was, however, no collision between the two armies, for, as they were preparing for the decisive war, Catherine died, and her, successor, the Emperor Paul, at once recalled his army. In some respects it is much to be regretted that this campaign was never fought out. Aga Mahomed had made such careful preparations, and had drawn up so clear and sensible a plan of campaign, that it would have been an interesting problem to have watched the result of his skilful tactics when brought into opposition with the superior discipline and arms of a Russian army. The future

course of Persian history might have been very different had this very capable ruler achieved a striking success over the Russian army. As it was, he slowly followed up the retreating Russians, and had the satisfaction of obtaining possession of the strong Georgian fortress of Sheshah, which had for long resisted his greatest efforts. But his triumph was brief, for a few days afterwards he was murdered by some servants whom he had condemned to death. With the death of Aga Mahomed Khan the vigorous period of Persia's rule came to a close. Since then there has been a steady and never varying decadence, and Persia owes much that she still retains to the active interference of England.

With the death of Aga Mahomed Russian encroachments recommenced more actively than ever before, and before the Treaty of Gulistan in 1813 (see Appendix) Persia had lost all the provinces north of the Kur. His successor, Futteh Ali, was unable to stem the tide of invasion, although at peace within his State, and he owed the preservation of some of his more immediate provinces exclusively to the intervention of the British Government. But the Treaty of Gulistan left many points unsettled and vague; and neither the Russian nor the Persian Government seemed disposed to acquiesce in the various suggestions that were made by friendly advisers. In 1826 the question was again referred for settlement to the sword, in consequence of Russia having forcibly occupied the district of Gokcha, which she refused to surrender. Thereupon Abbas Mirza, the prince royal

of Persia, advanced into the Russian territory. At the same time Persia appealed to us for aid on the strength of a treaty we had concluded with her in 1814. That aid was refused. Persia had been the assailant, and her just cause of grievance in the forcible occupation of Gokcha was overlooked, or treated as of little consequence. Of the war which then broke out, it need only be said that it was an unvaried Russian triumph-thanks to the ability of Paskevitch-and that when a peace was patched up again under the auspices of this country Persia came out of the struggle minus the provinces of Erivan and Nakhitchevan.

This treaty, the text of which will be found in the Appendix to the next volume, was called that of Turkomanchai, and it indubitably marks a turning point in the modern history of Persia. Up to that point the Shah had not failed to assert his claims to equality with the Czar of Russia, and certainly the fortune of war had not been so crushingly against his side as to render it probable that he would willingly cede his position as a great independent prince. The missions of Sir John Malcolm and other English officers to his Court had inspired Futteh Ali with a belief that England would be willing to support him against any undue pretensions on the part of Russia. His expectations were not, however, realised, and after the signature of the Treaty of Turkomanchai we find that Russia and Persia became more intimate, while the friendly feeling between England and Persia waned more and more. A most significant piece of evidence