There are other considerations, however, than that which concerns the presence or absence of British troops, tending to give these two expeditions a claim to some brief notice in the present work. The Persian war, if the short series of hostilities deserve that name, arose, mainly and in the first instance, out of apprehensions for the future safety of British India on the northwest. The Chinese war arose, mainly and in the first instance, out of that opium-traffic which had put so many millions sterling into the coffers of the East India Company. Other events, it is true, had tended to give a different colour and an intricate complication to the respective quarrels; but it can hardly be doubted that the India frontier-question in the one case, and the India opium-question in the other, were the most powerful predisposing causes in bringing about the two wars. Two sections of the present chapter are appropriated to such an outline of these two warlike expeditions as will shew how far they were induced by India, and how far they affected India, before and during the Revolt. Any detailed treatment of the operations would be beyond the scope of the present volume. The expedition to Japan will claim a little notice as a peaceful episode in the Chinese narrative.
§ 1. THE PERSIAN EXPEDITION, 1856-7.
Examining a map of Asia, we shall see that the country, called in its widest extent Afghanistan, is bounded on the east by India, on the west by Persia, and on the north by the territories of various Turcoman tribes. Whatever may be the fruitfulness or value of Afghanistan in other respects, it includes and possesses the only practicable route from Central Asia to the rich plains of India. So far as Persia, Bokhara, and Khiva are concerned, England would never for a moment think of doubting the safety of India; but when, in bygone years, it was known that Russia was increasing her power in Central Asia, acquiring a great influence over the Shah of Persia, and sending secret agents to Afghanistan, a suspicion arose that the eye of the Czar was directed towards the Indus as well as towards the Bosphorus, to India as well as to Turkey. Alarmists may have coloured this probability too highly, but the symptoms were not on that account to be wholly neglected. About midway between the Punjaub and the Caspian Sea is the city of Herat, near the meeting-point of Persia, Afghanistan, and Turkistan or Independent Tatary. It was this city, rather than any other, which caused the war with Persia. To what state does Herat belong, Persia or Afghanistan? The answer to this question is of great political importance; for as Russia has more influence in the first-named state than in the second, any aggressive schemes of the court of St Petersburg against India would be favoured by a declaration or admission that Herat belonged to Persia. In the course of twenty centuries Afghanistan has been in succession under Persian, Bactrian, Scythian, Hindoo, Persian, Saracenic, Turcoman, Khorasan, Mongol, Mogul, Persian, and Afghan rule; until at length, in 1824, three Afghan princes divided the country between them—one taking the Cabool province, another that of Candahar, and another that of Herat. There are therefore abundant excuses for Persians and Turcomans, Afghans and Hindoos, laying claim to this region, if they think themselves strong enough to enforce their claims. It is just such a complication as Russia would like to encourage, supposing her to have any designs against India—just such a complication, we must in justice add, as would lead England to seize Afghanistan, if she thought it necessary for the safety of her Indian empire. When Lord Auckland was governor-general of India, in 1837, he interfered in Afghan politics, in order to insure the throne of Cabool to a prince friendly to England and hostile to Russia and Persia; this interference led to the first Afghan war in 1838, the disastrous termination of which brought on the second Afghan war of 1842. Since the year last named, the Cabool and Candahar territories have remained in the hands of princes who were bound, by treaties of alliance, to friendly relations with England. Herat, however, further west and more inaccessible, became a prey to contentions which brought on the Persian war in 1856.
About the year 1833, disputes arose between Herat and Persia which have never since been wholly healed. The Shah claimed, if not the ownership of Herat, at least a tribute that would imply a sort of protective superiority. This tribute was suddenly withdrawn by Kamran Mirza, Khan of Herat, in or about the year just named; and certain clauses of a treaty were at the same time disregarded by him. Thence arose a warlike tendency in the court of Teheran—encouraged by Count Simonich, Russian ambassador; and discouraged by Mr Ellis, British ambassador. Negotiations failing, a Persian army began to march, and the Shah formally declared Herat to be a province of the Persian empire. The fortress of Ghorian fell, and after that the city of Herat was invested and besieged. Russia proposed a treaty in 1838, whereby Herat was to be given to the Khan of Candahar, on the condition that both of these Afghan states should acknowledge the suzerainty of Persia: the fulfilment of the conditions being guaranteed by Russia. This alarmed Sir John M’Neill, at that time British representative at Teheran; he suggested to Lord Palmerston that the British should send an army to support Herat, as a means of preventing the falling of the whole of Afghanistan into the clutches of Russia. Herat was defending itself bravely, and there might yet be time to save it. The Shah refusing to listen to M’Neill’s representations, and various petty matters having given England an excuse to ‘demand satisfaction,’ an expedition was sent from India to the Persian Gulf in the summer of 1838. Nominally a dispute about Herat, it was really a struggle whether England or Russia should acquire most ascendency over the Shah of Persia. Three years of negotiation, on various minor grievances and differences, led to a treaty between England and Persia in 1841. There then followed many years of peace—not, however, unalloyed by troubles. Persia, urged on secretly by Russia, continually endeavoured to obtain power in the Herat territory; while the oriental vanity of the officials led them into many breaches of courtesy towards English envoys, consuls, and merchants. In 1851, it came to the knowledge of Colonel Sheil, at that time British minister at the court of Teheran, that Persia was quietly preparing for another attack on Herat. In spite of Sheil’s remonstrances, the Shah sent an army against that city in 1852, captured the place, set up a dependent as subsidiary chief or khan, coined money with his own effigy, imprisoned and tortured many Afghan chiefs, and formally annexed the Herat territory as part of the great Persian empire. Colonel Sheil, failing in all his endeavours to counteract the policy of the Persian court, sent home to recommend that the British should despatch an expedition to the Persian Gulf. Under the influence of English pressure, the Shah signed another treaty in 1853—engaging to give up Herat; not to attack it again unless an attack came previously from the side of Cabool or Candahar; and to be content with the merely nominal suzerainty which existed in the time of the late Khan. The Persians, nevertheless, threw numberless obstacles in the way of carrying out this treaty; insomuch that Colonel Sheil was engaged in a perpetual angry correspondence with them. Faith in treaties is very little understood in Asia; and the court of Persia is thoroughly Asiatic in this matter. While this wrangle was going on, another embarrassment arose, out of the employment by the Hon. A. C. Murray, British representative, of a Persian named Mirza Hashem Khan, against the Shah’s orders. A seizure of Hashem’s wife by the authorities was converted by Mr Murray into a national insult, on the ground that Hashem was now in the service, and under the protection, of the British crown. Murray struck his flag from the embassy house, until the matter should be settled. A most undignified quarrel took place during the winter of 1855, and far into 1856—Mr Murray insisting on the supreme rights of the British protectorate; and the Persian authorities disseminating scandalous stories as to the motives which induced him to protect the lady in question.
The scene was next transferred to Constantinople; where, early in 1856, the Persian minister discussed the matter with Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, deploring the rupture, and laying all the blame on Mr Murray and the other British officials. In a memorandum drawn up at Teheran, for circulation in the different European courts, M’Neill, Sheil, Murray—all were stigmatised as mischief-makers, bent on humiliating Persia, and on disturbing the friendly relations between the Shah and Queen Victoria. In an autograph document from the Shah himself, Mr Murray was designated ‘stupid, ignorant, and insane; one who has the audacity and impudence to insult even kings.’
Before this Murray quarrel was ended, hostilities broke out again at Herat. There were rival parties in that city; there was an attack threatened by Dost Mohammed of Cabool; an appeal was made to Persia for aid, by the Khan who at this time ruled Herat; and Persia marched an army of 9000 men in that direction. The British government, regarding this march as an infringement of the treaty of Herat, demanded the withdrawal of the troops, and threatened warlike proceedings if the demand were not attended to. The Persians, whether emboldened by secret encouragement from Russia, or actuated by any other motive, made a pretence of negotiating, but nevertheless proceeded with their expedition, captured Ghorian, and laid siege to Herat. Hereupon instructions were sent out to the governor-general of India, to prepare a warlike force for service in the Persian Gulf. Before those instructions could reach Bombay, Ferukh Khan arrived at Constantinople with full powers from the Shah to settle all points of difference between Persia and England. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was empowered to treat with this plenipotentiary; they made great advances towards the settlement of the terms of a treaty; but while they were discussing (in November), news arrived that the Persians had captured the city of Herat after a long siege. This strange confusion between diplomacy at Constantinople and war at Herat, stringent orders from London and warlike alacrity at Bombay, totally disarranged the negotiations of Ferukh Khan and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; those ministers could do nothing further. The governor-general declared war against Persia on the 1st of November, and the Persian plenipotentiary left Constantinople for Teheran in December.
Thus arose the Persian expedition—out of circumstances so complicated, that it is difficult to bear in mind the relations of one to another. The existence of intrigues among contending parties in the state of Herat; the frequent strife between the Afghans of Cabool and Candahar and those of Herat; the well-remembered and never-abandoned claims of Persia upon the last-named state; the open desire of Russia to obtain a hold over the Persian court; the concealed desire of the same astute power to approach nearer and nearer to the gates of India; the anxiety of England to see Afghanistan remain as a barrier between India and the centre of Asia; the tendency of Persia to disregard those courtesies to western nations which oriental potentates have never willingly conceded—all were concurrent causes in bringing about the British expedition to the Persian Gulf in 1856. The most powerful incentive, probably, although never acknowledged in diplomatic correspondence, was the wish to keep Russia as far as possible away from India.
But, it may be asked, what had the East India Company to do with this war? Why was India put to the expense of providing an armament for invading Persia? This, in truth, was one of the anomalies connected with the ‘double government’ of India. It was a war declared by Lord Palmerston’s cabinet; but as it was founded on considerations relating to the safety of India, it was treated as an India war, to be conducted by the authorities in British India.
The providing of the army for the Persian Gulf devolved chiefly upon Lord Elphinstone, as governor of Bombay. The army was in two divisions, one of which left Bombay several weeks before the other. Numerous transport-vessels were chartered, besides many of the large mail-steamers, to carry troops, guns, and stores to the Persian Gulf. The commissariat and quarter-masters’ departments had to make great preparations—a thousand baggage-cattle; fodder for these, for draught-bullocks, and for cavalry and artillery horses; framework for fifteen hospitals; hutting for many thousand soldiers, &c. Means of transport had to be provided for most of these, as it would not be safe to rely on supplies obtained in an enemy’s country.
Gradually, as the troops, guns, and stores reached the shores of Persia, the organisation of the force proceeded. It was thus constituted: