[91] Sir Gore Ouseley to the Court of Directors: March 21, 1812.—[MS. Records.]
[92] MS. Records. Sir Gore Ouseley’s treaty is not given in the collection of treaties in the published “Papers relating to Persia and Afghanistan.” In another article of this, which does not appear in the subsequent treaty, the amount of the allowances to be granted by the Shah to the British officers serving in Persia is laid down.
[93] Of this article it has been said by an experienced writer: “The obligation which we contracted in the 9th article, to abstain from interference in the event of a possible contest between the Afghans and Persians, is hardly intelligible. Such a proposal could not have proceeded from Great Britain; and if proceeding from Persia, it indicated that desire of territorial extension which was more fully developed in the sequel, and which, when developed, compelled us on general grounds to repudiate the treaty altogether.”—[Calcutta Review, vol. xii.]
[94] The explanation of this failure, given by the same experienced writer, is worth quoting:-“If it be remembered that when the system is affected with chronic paralysis, the attempt is vain to restore any particular member to a healthy action, it will be understood that, to a nation devoid of organisation in every other department of government, a regular army was impossible. It thus happened that, notwithstanding the admirable material for soldiery which were offered by the hardy peasantry of Azerbijan, and the still hardier mountaineers of Kermanshah—notwithstanding the aptitude of the officers to receive instruction—notwithstanding that a due portion of physical courage appertained generally to the men—the disciplined forces of Persia, considered as an army, and for the purpose of national defence, were, from the epoch of their first creation, contemptible. Beyond drill and exercise, they never had anything in common with the regular armies of Europe and India. System was entirely wanting, whether in regard to pay, clothing, food, carriage, equipage, commissariat, promotion, or command; and under a lath-and-plaster government like that of Persia, such must have been inevitably the case. At the same time, however, a false confidence arose of a most exaggerated and dangerous character; the resources of the country were lavished on the army to an extent which grievously impoverished it at the time, and which has brought about at the present day a state of affairs that, in any other quarter of the world, would be termed a national bankruptcy; above all, the tribes—the chivalry of the empire, the forces with which Nadir overran the East from Bagdad to Delhi, and which, ever yielding but ever present, surrounded, under Aga Mahomed Khan, the Russian armies with a desert—were destroyed. Truly then it may be said that in presenting Persia with the boon of a so-called regular army, in order to reclaim her from her unlawful loves with France, we clothed her in the robe of Nessus.”—[Calcutta Review, vol. xii.] See also Correspondence of Sir John Malcolm.
[95] The characteristic words of the Russian manifesto, announcing these events, are worth quoting:-“Obliged to pursue the enemy through a country without roads, laid waste by the troops which were to have defended it; often opposed by nature itself; exposed to the burning sun of summer, and the rigour of winter; our brave army, after unparalleled efforts, succeeded in conquering Erivan, which was reputed impregnable. It passed the Araxes, planted its standards on the top of Ararat, and penetrating further and further into the interior of Persia, it occupied Tabreez itself, with the country depending on it. The Khanate of Erivan, on both sides of the Araxes, and the Khanate of Nakhichevan, a part of the ancient Armenia, fell into the hands of the conquerors.”
[96] This fortress, together with the surrounding country, to the extent of three wersts and a half, was ceded to Russia.
[97] Sir Harford Jones.
[98] The Duke of Wellington wrote to Mr. Canning, in Nov., 1826, “It will not answer to allow the Persian monarchy to be destroyed, particularly upon a case of which the injustice and aggression are undoubtedly on the side of the Russians.” Sir John Malcolm, to whom the Duke sent a copy of this letter, wrote, “You certainly are right. There is a positive claim in faith for mediation.” Mr. Canning, however, affected to doubt whether there had been any aggression against Persia. “Does not the article,” he asked, “which defines the casus fœderis to be aggression against Persia, limit the effect of the whole treaty, and the aim of the sixth article, which promises our mediation? Are we bound even to mediate in a case in which Persia was the aggressor.”—[Life and Correspondence of Sir John Malcolm, vol. ii. pp. 452-455.]
[99] A writer in the Foreign Quarterly Review, who, if not Sir John M’Neill himself, has unblushingly appropriated, without acknowledgment, a large portion of the pamphlet on the “Progress and present position of Russia in the East,” published some three or four years before, says: “Assuredly Prince Abbas Meerza relied strongly upon this (the 4th article of the treaty), and without it would never have engaged in the contest he provoked; we are bound in justice to say, and we say it on good authority, wantonly and in defiance of the feelings of the Persian Government and King. But though Persia had fairly executed all her share of the treaty in question, the English minister, when called upon to fulfil this condition, hesitated, hung back, negotiated, and delayed under every possible pretext, while he could not deny the faith or the claim of Persia. It was clear, however, to all the parties that Mr. Canning only sought a means of escaping the fulfilment of the stipulations. He was hard pressed by the reluctance to engaging in a war with Russia, represented as too probable by the minister of that power at the British Court, and by the dexterity of a first-rate female diplomatist, to whom, indeed, the management of the matter was fairly confided by the Russian Court, and whose influence was fatally effective in this and the Turkish questions. In affecting to adhere simply to the policy of his predecessors, Mr. Canning forgot the immense difference and disgrace of refusing the fulfilment only at the time when, and because, the need was urgent. He could not foresee that Persia must become, if further humbled, the tool of Russia against the East; if he had, no earthly power would have balanced against his duty. He did not even perceive that the crisis to Persia had arrived; and contented himself with a double sacrifice to vanity, in assuming to arbitrate against a sovereign prince, and hearing his praises resounded by the lips of successful beauty.”
[100] “A letter has been received in town from Persia, which has excited a good deal of talk in the bazaar, and the substance of which we give merely as a rumour of the day. It states that Prince Abbas Meerza has ordered 30,000 men to march upon Herat, and that this movement is only preparatory to an advance upon India in conjunction with Russia. This is probably a mere rumour or the echo of a lie—but ‘coming events cast their shadows before,’ and many of these rumours, combined with the tone which now and then breaks out in the Russian journals, show but too well the turn of men’s thoughts and wishes, and should warn us to be prepared.”—[Bombay Gazette, August 25, 1832.] About the same time, Dr. Wolff, who was then travelling in Central Asia, wrote: “It is remarkable that there is a current belief, not only throughout Khorassan, but, as I found it afterwards, throughout Toorkistan even to Caubul, that Abbas Meerza had married a Russian Princess, and adopted the Russian religion; and that 50,000 Russians would come to Khorassan by way of Khiva, and assist Abbas Meerza in conquering Khorassan. So much is true that Russia has written to Futteh Ali Shah, offering him 5000 men for taking Khorassan, and putting down the chupow—i.e., plundering system of the Toorkomans; and I hope to prove it to a certainty that Russia will be very soon the mistress of Khiva, under the pretext that the King of Khiva has 8000 Russian slaves, whilst I know by the most authentic reports that there are not above 200 Russian slaves and 60 Russian deserters at Khiva.”—[Calcutta Christian Observer, September, 1832.] It was stated at one time that Russia had consented to yield her claim to the balance of the indemnity money remaining then due by Persia, on condition of the latter joining in an expedition against Khiva.