FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[94]Now Earl of Derby.[95]Report of Inspector-General of Recruiting, 1887.[96]Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, pp. 11 and 18.[97]An important reform carried out by Lord Cardwell was that of the abolition of purchase; but I do not propose to enter into the question, as it had been virtually decided before I entered the War Office.[98]One of his works is entitledA New System of Field Artillery, by Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 1854.

[94]Now Earl of Derby.

[95]Report of Inspector-General of Recruiting, 1887.

[96]Report of Lord Wantage's Committee, pp. 11 and 18.

[97]An important reform carried out by Lord Cardwell was that of the abolition of purchase; but I do not propose to enter into the question, as it had been virtually decided before I entered the War Office.

[98]One of his works is entitledA New System of Field Artillery, by Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, 1854.

VISIT TO THE CRIMEA WITH CHARLES GORDON. REPORT ON THE CEMETERIES

In the autumn of 1872 I was sent by the Government to the Crimea, to report on the condition of the British cemeteries and monuments, and also as to their restoration and care for the future. Colonel Charles Gordon (of Khartoum), an old friend of mine, was associated with me in the work. He was at that time a member of the International Commission for improving the navigation at the mouth of the Danube. Travelling rapidly through Europe, I met him at Galatz at the end of August; and we embarked on board H.M.S. 'Antelope,' which had been sent from Constantinople to convey us across the Black Sea. Gordon's views about the work of the Danube Commission were, as usual, rather peculiar. He explained to me that, as the river had been adequately dredged and buoyed, and as the lighthouse at its mouth was completed, there was really nothing more to do; and that the Commission was practically useless. As I understood, he had written to the Foreign Office tothat effect, adding also that his salary was too large. In the ordinary concerns of life he was actuated by one principle which is rare—namely, a contempt for the accumulation of money. In fact, he gave it away almost as fast as he received it. His experience in Eastern countries, also, had given him a distrust of pashas and men in high places; and all his sympathies were for the poor and friendless. Soon after our visit to the Crimea he was appointed Governor-General of the Soudan, and it is said that at an interview with Ismail Pasha before starting for Khartoum he objected to the large amount of his salary, as being more than necessary; and when he left, the Khedive remarked: 'What an extraordinary Englishman! He doesn't want money!'

On leaving Galatz, we went first of all to Odessa, to call on General Kotzebue, the Governor-General of Southern Russia, who, however, was unfortunately absent; but we had an opportunity of meeting, and of receiving assistance from him later on. Indeed, during the whole of our visit to the Crimea, every attention was paid to us by the authorities; and two Russian officers were specially detailed to accompany and assist us in our investigations. We arrived at Sebastopol on August 29, and found the city in ruins, and almost exactly in the same condition as when the allied armies had left it seventeen years before. The churches, barracks, theatres, and store-houses were all roofless; and the Malakoff, Redan, and other defences mere crumbling earthworks. All was so quiet and still, and such a contrast to the stirring times of the years gone by, in the hardships and vicissitudes of which Gordon and myself had shared. We seemed to know every inch of the ground, and for many days wandered about, taking notes of the various cemeteries, great and small, scattered over the country.

Although comparatively few officers and men remain of all those who took part in the great Crimean war of forty years ago, its reminiscences will still, no doubt, be of interest to many in the present day; and I will therefore quote some extracts from the report made by Gordon and myself on our return home:[99]'From the day of our arrival until September 9, we were engaged many hours each day in making a careful inspection of every cemetery and memorial of the British Army in the vicinity of Sebastopol.' 'It will be remembered that after the battle of the Alma the Allies marched on Sebastopol, and in consequence of their long detention before that city the great body of the British Army did not move again during the war, but remained encamped on the plateau on the south side; consequently, with the exception of a few monuments at the Alma and at Kertch, the whole of the cemeteries,one hundred and thirty in number, are to be found on the ground which extends from Sebastopol to Balaclava, and from Kamiesch to the Tchernaya.' 'The cemeteries vary much both in their position and size. Some are in the rocky ravines leading down to the trenches, whilst others are on the hills and downs which surround Balaclava. Some lie in the sheltered valleys about Kadikoi and Karani; but by far the greater number extend along the bare plateau in front of the city, upon which the army so long remained encamped; and pre-eminent among them is that on Cathcart's Hill, distinguished alike by its commanding central position and by the numerous monuments it contains, many of them to officers of high rank and distinction.'[100]

'The cemeteries also differ considerably in the number of graves and monuments which they relatively contain. Some are large, with hundreds of graves, and many inscribed tablets and crosses; others in isolated spots with only a few. A considerable number contain no monuments whatever. The majority are those to officers; but there are also many to soldiers, and a few to women, nurses, or the wives of soldiers.' 'A small proportion of the monuments have been erected since the termination of the war.Some are of marble, but as a rule they are of the soft stone found upon the spot. They were for the most part hurriedly erected toward the end of the campaign, often by unskilful hands, without sufficient foundations, and with slightly cut inscriptions. Originally there were also a considerable number of wooden crosses. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that, exposed to the vicissitudes of climate, especially to the rigour of Crimean winters, a large number of them have perished, and almost all of those remaining show signs of weather and decay.' 'The walls which enclose the cemeteries were in the first instance roughly built, without mortar or foundations, and of the loose uncut stones in the neighbourhood. Time and weather have led to their rapid decay, and the shepherds have occasionally hastened the destruction by making entrances for their flocks.' 'We endeavoured to visit every cemetery and memorial of which we could find a record; the total number in the neighbourhood of Sebastopol and Balaclava amounting to 130.[101]The farm-house which was so long the head-quarters of the British Army is well cared for, and in good preservation; and in the room in which Lord Raglan died a marble slab has been inserted in the wall, withthe following inscription: "In this room died Field-Marshal Lord Raglan, G.C.B., Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in the Crimea, June 28, 1855."'

'The circumstances of the French Army were very similar to our own, and they had numerous cemeteries widely dispersed from Kamiesch to Baidar. Feeling the inconvenience and difficulty as regards their care and preservation which have so long perplexed ourselves, they determined to disinter the remains of their officers and men, and to remove them to one central spot near the former French head-quarters. This arrangement was carried out in 1863, each cemetery being denuded of its dead, and then abandoned. About 28,000 bodies are said to have been removed; those of the officers having been as far as possible identified.' ...

'Although a course similar to that followed by the French has been from time to time advocated, with regard to the remains of our officers and men, it does not appear to Colonel Gordon and myself that any general disinterment or removal is necessary or even desirable. Independently of the difficulty, it might almost be called impossibility, after the lapse of so many years, of collecting the remains or of in any way identifying them, we believe that it would be repugnant to the feelings of the Army and of the British public generally that any such plan should be attempted. Our officers and men were buried bytheir comrades on the ground where they fell; the whole scene is sacred and historical; and the remains of the dead should not be disturbed. As regards the cemeteries generally, our view is that those which contain no monuments should be covered with mounds of earth and turf, and that the ruined walls should be removed.' ... 'We are of opinion that the larger cemeteries, which contain numerous mementoes and tombstones, should be preserved, a substantial wall being built round them, and that all monuments, tablets, and crosses should be repaired and the inscriptions renewed. The three memorial obelisks at Inkerman, Balaclava, and the Redan, should be protected by a good wall, with a substantial railing....'

These extracts will probably suffice as a general view of the condition of the British cemeteries in the Crimea at the time of our visit, and of the proposals for their restoration, which were subsequently adopted and carried out by the Government. The cost was estimated at 5,000l.

Leaving Sebastopol in the 'Antelope,' we called at Yalta, and had an interview with General Kotzebue, who was much interested in our work, and anxious that the British memorials should be respected, at the same time pointing out the difficulty of adequately guarding so large a number. The late Empress of Russia was at the time residing at the Palaceof Livadia at Yalta, and sent us a kind message, regretting her inability owing to illness to receive us, and wishing usbon voyage. Having paid a short visit to Kertch and Yenikale, at the entrance of the Sea of Azoff, we then returned to Constantinople, and were immediately, for some inscrutable reason, placed in quarantine for a week, although we were all perfectly well.

As soon as we were free, the British Ambassador, Sir Henry Elliot, kindly received us for a few days at his palace at Therapia, on the Bosphorus; and at his request, I paid a visit, accompanied by an interpreter, to the Grand Vizier, Midhat Pasha, who was anxious to discuss the Turkish armaments and defences. I had previously inspected the arsenal and manufacturing departments; and frankly told him that they were in considerable confusion, and that a great deal of money had apparently been wasted in the purchase of second-rate half-obsolete material, partly on the Continent and partly in America; and that, in view of the rapid advances in the science of artillery, and in small arms, I advised prudence and economy. He listened attentively, and his reply was 'Pekki,' which I found meant approbation (literally, 'Very good'); and went on to say, that the lavish expenditure had been incurred by his predecessors, but that he would be careful. He then alluded to the defence of Constantinople against naval attack; and I pointed out that, considering the comparative narrowness of the Bosphorus, it offered great facilities for the employment of ground torpedoes. Midhat Pasha was apparently ignorant on the subject, so I explained as lucidly as possible that a torpedo was a case of gunpowder, which, placed at the bottom of the channel, could be exploded by electricity as the enemy's vessel passed over it; and that such defence was simple, efficient, and cheap. This gave him much satisfaction, and he replied, 'Pekki, Pekki,' with great fervour. I heard afterwards that he had been pleased with the interview, and especially with my economical views. He had, however, no opportunity of acting on them, having been dismissed from office almost immediately afterwards.

Having taken leave of Gordon, who returned to his improvements on the Danube, I then proceeded to Smyrna, where a few British tombs and memorials of the war existed; and on my arrival called on the British Consul, who lived in a charming house overlooking the bay. On expressing my admiration of his residence, the Consul's wife explained that there was a difficulty in keeping it in order, on account of incessant earthquakes; although lately they had been more free from them. Hardly had I returned to the hotel than I heard a rumbling noise. Then the whole house commenced rockingviolently to and fro, and it became evident that the overdue earthquake had arrived. Fortunately not much damage was done.

During my stay at Smyrna I paid a visit to Ephesus, meeting Mr. Wood, who had been sent out by the authorities of the British Museum, and was excavating the recently discovered ruins of the temple of Diana. My duties, however, required me to return home; and travelling through France, I took an opportunity, when at Paris, of sketching ruins of a very different character—those of the Tuileries, on which were inscribed in large letters, 'Liberté—Egalité—Fraternité.'

On arriving in England I was invited by Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to call in Downing Street to discuss the purport of my report. The conversation began by his inquiring, somewhat abruptly, whether I considered it one of the duties of the British Government to keep in repair the cemeteries and monuments of the Army in all parts of the world. My reply was that I had never considered so wide and interesting a question, but had limited myself simply to those in the Crimea. He at once said, that the report was sensible enough, involved no great expenditure, and should be carried out; and so we amicably left the main problem unsolved.

ruins

Illustration: RUINS OF THE TUILERIES, NOVEMBER 1872Liberté—Egalité—Fraternité

Subsequently I sent a few copies of the reportand some photographs to those who had assisted us at Sebastopol; and one of the Russian officers sent me a reply, which, although not altogether perfect in its English, is very friendly in its tone: 'My General,—I have the honour to accept your lovely letter, with the photographie of mitrailleuse, and I your transport my deep thanksgiving. I observe of your letter, that you forget not Sebastopol and cemetery, who to ask by repair. Your report of British Cemetery I have forward of General Kotzebue, and if you possess one copy, take my,' &c.

FOOTNOTES:[99]Report on the Crimean Cemeteries, December 1872.[100]We found no less than 122 graves of English officers on Cathcart's Hill, including those of Generals Sir George Cathcart, Fox-Strangways, Goldie, and Sir John Campbell.[101]To those persons who had relations or friends buried during the Crimean war, it may be interesting to know that, in the report of 1872 details are given of all the names found on the various tombstones.

[99]Report on the Crimean Cemeteries, December 1872.

[100]We found no less than 122 graves of English officers on Cathcart's Hill, including those of Generals Sir George Cathcart, Fox-Strangways, Goldie, and Sir John Campbell.

[101]To those persons who had relations or friends buried during the Crimean war, it may be interesting to know that, in the report of 1872 details are given of all the names found on the various tombstones.

RIFLED ORDNANCE AND NAVAL AND MILITARY RESERVES—APPOINTED GOVERNOR, ROYAL MILITARY ACADEMY—THE BRITISH ARMY IN 1875

One of the most important and interesting subjects connected with the Navy and Army of late years, and with the changes in which I was at one time much associated, is that of the gradual advance of modern armaments, not only in size, but in range, power, and accuracy. Until forty years ago the science of artillery had practically remained stagnant ever since the time of the Tudors. Indeed, it may be said that the guns used during the Crimean War, although less cumbersome, were in all essential particulars much of the same type as those of the days of Queen Elizabeth. The introduction, however, of rifled small-arms, and of armour-plating for vessels of war, indicated the necessity of improved ordnance; and what may almost be termed a revolution commenced, which has had many vicissitudes, and even now has hardly reached its final solution.

It was in 1854 that Lord Armstrong first took up the subject, of which he has ever since been acknowledged as one of the chief authorities. He has also rendered good service in the establishment of a manufacturing arsenal at Elswick, which, in the event of a great war, would become of national advantage. The first rifled breech-loading guns of his pattern were adopted in 1859, and gave results in range and accuracy far beyond anything that had hitherto been achieved. They were followed by the introduction of others of a larger calibre; and so enthusiastic were the navy and artillery, that many of our vessels of war and fortresses were speedily supplied with them. Between 1859 and 1862, two millions and a half sterling were expended on new armaments.

Notwithstanding their great success and superiority, however, they developed considerable defects in regard to breech mechanism; and numerous accidents occurred both by sea and land, due in a measure to want of skill in their handling. It became evident from experience in the war in China in 1860, and in Japan in 1862-3, that they were somewhat delicate weapons.[102]

In 1863 the Armstrong and Whitworth competition took place, in which both firms were represented on the committee; and after lengthened trialsthey reported[103]in 1865 that the breech-loading system was inferior for purposes of war to that of muzzle-loading, and was more expensive. Other experiments followed, leading to a similar conclusion, and as a consequence the latter was adopted, and continued in force for many years; the guns rising rapidly in size and in weight from five up to one hundred tons. In 1867 a committee of thirteen artillery officers, under the late Field-Marshal Sir Richard Dacres, inquired into the subject as regards field guns, and reported unanimously in favour of muzzle-loaders. In 1868 the Admiralty were asked whether they wished the subject re-opened as regards naval guns, but they declined.

Having served in India from 1857 to 1866, I had, of course, no practical knowledge of the earlier stages of this difficult and much-debated subject; but on becoming Director of Artillery in 1870, I found that the two services were in practical unanimity as to the advantages of the rifled muzzle-loading system—that it was simpler, better adapted for war, and cheaper than the other. In 1871 the Admiralty were again consulted on the question, but with the same result as before. In that year, a German 9-pounder breech-loading field gun was obtained for comparison with our own; and after a long series of trials the committee reported that the English gun was superior, not only in simplicity, but in range and power, and in rapidity of fire.[104]It was also known that during the great war of 1870 upwards of two hundred German guns had become unserviceable. All experience, therefore, appeared at the time to point in one direction; but a change gradually arose, the causes of which were partly scientific, partly mechanical.

Whilst the attention of experts was engaged in the effort to produce the best gun, it ultimately proved that the real solution rested not so much with the weapon as with the motive power which gives life and force to the projectile. The question of gunpowder had until about 1870 remained much in the same stagnant, neglected condition as that of ordnance. Long and careful researches were, however, carried out at that time, chiefly by Sir Andrew Noble and Sir Frederick Abel, which led to the introduction of a comparatively mild and slow-burning explosive, and finally determined the system of gun-construction. In the first place, owing to its gradual combustion, the excessive strain on the breech mechanism was much diminished; and further, as an improved system of closing had been adopted, the difficulties, and the accidents at critical moments, which had been so perplexing, were in a great measure at an end. That was one important result;but there was a second. As the explosion was no longer instantaneous, but comparatively gradual, it followed that larger charges could be employed, and in order to utilise them greater length of bore became necessary, as, within limits, the longer the gun the greater the initial velocity and consequent range and power.

These altered conditions were manifestly both in favour of breech-loading, not so much as a matter of principle, but of convenience. Sir Andrew Noble, in writing to me on the subject in 1875, said: 'As regards the effects to be produced from a gun, precisely the same results can be attained, whether it be made in the form of a muzzle or a breech-loader. There is no magic, as many seem to imagine, in one form or the other.... As regards convenience in using, there may be, and undoubtedly are, differences.' Between 1875 and 1880 experiments were somewhat slowly carried out, with a view to re-introducing breech-loading. Having been appointed Surveyor-General of the Ordnance in the latter year, I advised that the experiments should be pushed on vigorously, and on a larger scale. The adoption of steel, to the exclusion of wrought iron, in the construction of guns, was another important change about to take place; and, with a view to a full consideration of these great questions, Mr. Childers in 1881 re-established a permanent Ordnance Committee, which for some reason had been abolished in 1867. The main principles thus established, the naval and military armaments have since proceeded uninterruptedly. Many improvements, especially as regards quick firing, have recently been introduced; and we have every reason to believe that they are fully equal in all respects to those of any other nation.

That this subject has been a difficult and an anxious one is evident. Lord Armstrong, in his address to the Civil Engineers in 1882, said: 'All breech-loading mechanism is of a nature to require very accurate fittings, and require care both in use and for preservation.' Again, in a work published as late as 1893 by Commander Lloyd, R.N., and Mr. A. Hadcock, late R.A., of the Elswick establishment, they say 'that it has taken all the ingenuity, backed by all the mechanical resources of the present day, to obtain a satisfactory breech-loading arrangement.'[105]The whole question is extremely technical; but I have endeavoured to give an outline of its broad characteristics; and it is evident that the consideration of so vital a question requires a permanent committee of naval and artillery officers, and of scientific civil engineers; we may then feel confidence that the requirements of the two services will be adequately dealt with.

Even the placid and scientific temperament of an Ordnance Committeemay, however, occasionally be subject to a severe strain. Many years ago, a proposal was submitted by some inventor that a small gun, strapped broadside across a horse's back, and fired from that position, would be useful, especially in mountain campaigns. The experiment was made in the Arsenal at Woolwich, the horse's head being tied to a post, with the muzzle of the gun pointed to an old earthen butt; the Committee standing on the other side of the horse to watch the result. The gun was loaded, and, in order to give time, a slow-burning fuse was used to fire it. The Committee, however, in tying the animal's head, had omitted to take the precaution of also making fast its tail. The first result was that, when the horse heard the fizzing of the fuse on its back, it became uneasy and walked round the post, so that the gun, instead of pointing at the butt, was thus directed straight at the heads of the Committee. Not a moment was to be lost; down went the chairman and members, lying flat and low on their stomachs. The gun went off; the shot passed over the town of Woolwich, and fell in the Dockyard; the horse being found lying on its back several yards away. The Committee were fortunately unhurt, and gradually recovered their equilibrium, but reported unanimously against any further trial.

Armaments and Reserves.—Amongst the many subjects which constantlyoccupy the attention of the War Department is the provision of adequate reserves of armaments, small arms, gunpowder, accoutrements, camp equipage, harness, clothing, and the numerous Engineer, medical, and commissariat stores which have to be maintained in readiness for war, not only in the United Kingdom, but at our stations in various parts of the world. The great majority of these reserves are required for both the fighting services; and until recently have been provided and cared for by the War Office, acting in co-operation with the Admiralty. The subject is not only complex, but very little is known by the public as to its administration and cost. Formerly, the provision of these costly armaments and stores rested with the Ordnance Department; and, as the successive Master Generals were men of the highest distinction and experience in war, the country had a guarantee that the national requirements would be duly considered and maintained. As the Duke of Wellington wrote in 1843, 'the Ordnance Department and the office of Master General is constituted for the service of the Navy as well as that of the Army.'

It is not necessary, nor indeed would it be proper, to give details of the amount of these various reserves, which, of course, have been modified andincreased from time to time according to circumstances. It may be sufficient to say that in 1858[106]their value was reckoned as being upwards of eleven millions sterling; and since that date has undoubtedly risen, partly from the increased cost of modern armaments and appliances, and partly from the additional requirements of our enlarged empire.

It is sometimes asserted that, owing to financial pressure, or to false ideas of economy, the maintenance of these essential requisites for defence is apt to be starved and neglected. My experience does not confirm this view. Having served at the War Office for years, under three Ministers of War, statesmen of divergent political views, I have found them all of one mind as to the necessary provision year by year of sufficient funds for the purpose. Naturally and properly they looked into the details. The estimates are presented to Parliament annually, and no reluctance is shown to vote the requisite supplies. Indeed, there are many influences in the House of Commons which rather tend the other way—that is, to extravagance.

An unfortunate change, however, was made a few years ago—namely, in the separation of the naval and military reserves at home and abroad; and duplicate establishments, store-houses, and staff, now exist, which are leading to increased cost, some lossof efficiency, and eventually to diversity of patterns. As a great naval, military, and colonial Power, with fleets, fortresses, and depôts all over the world, it seems apparent that, both in regard to efficiency and economy, unity of system is essential. Not only the great Duke of Wellington, but successive Master Generals of Ordnance, concurred in this view, and agreed that the Ordnance was an efficient department of the State,[107]and should hold the reserves of both services. According to my judgment, we should revert at once to the former arrangements, and indeed, should war unfortunately arise, we should in all probability be compelled to do so.

Having been appointed Governor of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich in July 1875, I left the War Office, and did so with much regret. Although, as I have tried to explain, its system of administration is not altogether adapted to meet the requirements of parliamentary government, and although in some respects the Navy and Army are not in such close association as seems desirable, still these defects are capable of remedy, and, at all events, are in no way attributable to the chiefs of the various departments, military and civil, of the War Office, who are men of the highest character and experience,and who carry out very difficult duties with loyalty and success, even under a somewhat imperfect system.

During my five years of office as Director of Artillery, the following sovereigns and foreign princes visited the manufacturing departments of the Arsenal: the late Emperor Alexander II. of Russia—the late Emperor Napoleon III.—the late Emperor of Brazil—the late Grand Duke Constantine of Russia—the late Comte de Paris—and the Shah of Persia.

Some years after the inspection of the Arsenal by the Shah he paid a second visit to England, in 1889, and I had then an interesting interview with him at Lord Armstrong's in Northumberland. Having heard that I had served in India, the Shah came up during the evening and alluded to our position on the North-West Frontier. It must be understood that the conversation was entirely through a Persian interpreter, the Shah knowing only a few English words. He discussed the subject in a very sensible manner, and said we should avoid entering into war with the Afghans, and should endeavour to keep on terms of friendship with the Ameer at Cabul; to which I cordially assented.

Looking about the room, and seeing a general officer at some distance, he inquired: 'Who is that great man in a red coat?' I replied that it was Sir Edward Blackett, High Sheriff of the county. Perhaps thatdid not convey much to his mind, so I said to the interpreter: 'Tell the Shah that five and thirty years ago, Sir Edward was in the Crimean war, and one day a shot came and took off his leg.' The Shah threw up his hands and was much impressed, but presently the interpreter said that his Majesty couldn't understand it, as he had two legs now. 'That is quite correct,' I observed; 'but tell the Shah that one of them is made of wood.' His Majesty said at once: 'I must go and talk to that great man.' He went up to Sir Edward, and remarked: 'You lost your leg in the Crimea?' to which Blackett assented. 'Ah,' says the Shah, 'I remember. It was in the same battle that Lord Raglan lost his arm!'

The late Emperor of Brazil also paid a second visit to England, after he was dethroned, and on one occasion was shown a wheel by Lord Armstrong, which by some scientific arrangement made rapid revolutions, and he remarked: 'How very interesting. Its revolutions appear to me to be quicker even than those in South America.'

The record of the Royal Military Academy during my period of command was like that of a nation without a history. As the Governor has been invested of late years with adequate power, and is assisted by a competent staff, civil and military, he has only himself to blame if its administration is not successful. The two hundred gentlemen cadets, youths just risingto manhood, no doubt require tact and discretion in those having authority over them; but if they are treated with confidence and kindness, we may feel assured that no real difficulties will arise. Indeed, during my period of office, speaking generally, the conduct of the cadets was admirable throughout; and it is a gratification to me to know that many of those who were then at the institution are now becoming distinguished as officers of Artillery and Engineers. As regards education, the cadets, in my opinion, have too many subjects imposed upon them during their two years' residence at Woolwich. In addition to following up their previous studies in mathematics, French, and German, they have to learn artillery, fortification, military surveying, landscape drawing, chemistry, military history, riding, gymnastics, and drills of all kinds. There is, however, another point, not due to any defect in the regulations, which injuriously affects candidates for the military colleges—namely, the apathy of many of the great public schools, in not teaching the boys who may desire to follow a military career the subjects which are held to be essential to the profession. The result is that a large proportion of those who go up for the competitive examinations are compelled to leave the colleges at a critical period, and to be hastily educated by special teachers. Unjust criticisms are often made on what are commonly called the 'crammers,' whilst the real fault lies elsewhere; and if those in authority at the public schools would take more pains to have the boys educated for the profession in which they are ultimately to serve, the army and other branches of the public service would reap the benefit.

During the year 1875, the late Mr. John Holms, then member of Parliament for Hackney, constituted himself a vigorous critic of the army reforms which had been instituted by Lord Cardwell, and also put forward a distinct plan of his own of military organisation. His view was that we should maintain three separate armies—one for home, a second for the Colonies, and a third for India—all recruited and organised on different systems. It is not necessary now to discuss these proposals; but as his criticisms at the time attracted some attention, I was asked by Lord Cardwell in 1876 to publish a short reply; and as soon as it was ready he gave me a letter of introduction to the late Mr. John Murray, the well-known publisher of Albemarle Street, with a view to his bringing it out. When Mr. Murray had read Lord Cardwell's note, he turned to me and said: 'So you wish to publish a pamphlet—why, an archangel wouldn't read a pamphlet!' My reply was that we were not thinking so much at the present moment of archangels, as of members of Parliament and others, who were of quite a different class. The argumentwas so conclusive that he published the article in the course of a few days, and it may, perhaps, to some extent have accomplished the intended object.[108]At all events, I received many letters of approval of its contents, and amongst others, the following from my old friend the late Lord Airey, who had been Governor of Gibraltar:—

'Lowndes Square, March 1876.'My dear Adye,—You were so kind as to send me and ask me to read your reply to Mr. Holms. When I was at Gibraltar, Drummond Hay, our Minister at the Court of Morocco, sent me over the Grand Vizier and the Commander-in-Chief of the Moorish Army.'They were solemn, silent, but not unobservant parties. Amongst other things, I showed them some long-range seaward artillery practice. When they saw the little flag shot down two or three times, they turned to me, and simply said, "The Spaniards may go to bed!" I think Mr. Holms may go to bed.'Yours truly, my dear Adye,'Richard Airey.'

'Lowndes Square, March 1876.

'My dear Adye,—You were so kind as to send me and ask me to read your reply to Mr. Holms. When I was at Gibraltar, Drummond Hay, our Minister at the Court of Morocco, sent me over the Grand Vizier and the Commander-in-Chief of the Moorish Army.

'They were solemn, silent, but not unobservant parties. Amongst other things, I showed them some long-range seaward artillery practice. When they saw the little flag shot down two or three times, they turned to me, and simply said, "The Spaniards may go to bed!" I think Mr. Holms may go to bed.

'Yours truly, my dear Adye,'Richard Airey.'

I also received the following letter from Mr. Gladstone:—

'September 1876.'Dear Sir John Adye,—Amidst a great pressure and many interruptions, I have been able to gathervery interesting information from your valuable pamphlet. For the last three years my attention to current public questions has been much relaxed, while the work of dilapidation incident to an unrefreshed memory has gone on. I do not now recollect as I ought, the precise terms of the present contract of the soldier with regard to the three years, which I have been accustomed to regard as the proper term of short service. To reaching that term for the British Army, I attach (ignorantly) a great value, with this idea among others, that it will very greatly popularise the service, besides its favourable bearing on the question of marriage.'It will be a great pleasure as well as advantage to me, if I should have an opportunity of resuming the conversation which we began under Lord Sydney's hospitable roof.'Believe me, faithfully yours,'W.E. Gladstone.'

'September 1876.

'Dear Sir John Adye,—Amidst a great pressure and many interruptions, I have been able to gathervery interesting information from your valuable pamphlet. For the last three years my attention to current public questions has been much relaxed, while the work of dilapidation incident to an unrefreshed memory has gone on. I do not now recollect as I ought, the precise terms of the present contract of the soldier with regard to the three years, which I have been accustomed to regard as the proper term of short service. To reaching that term for the British Army, I attach (ignorantly) a great value, with this idea among others, that it will very greatly popularise the service, besides its favourable bearing on the question of marriage.

'It will be a great pleasure as well as advantage to me, if I should have an opportunity of resuming the conversation which we began under Lord Sydney's hospitable roof.

'Believe me, faithfully yours,'W.E. Gladstone.'

FOOTNOTES:[102]Treatise on Construction of Ordnance, 1877.[103]Textbook on Rifled Ordnance, 1872.[104]Treatise on Construction of Ordnance, 1877.[105]Artillery, its Progress and Present Position, 1893. By Commander Lloyd, R.N., and A.C. Hadcock, late R.A.[106]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, ii. 214.[107]See Appendix to Fifth Report of Committee of House of Commons on Army and Navy Estimates, 1887, in which correspondence is quoted between the Treasury, War Office, and Admiralty, confirming the above views.[108]The British Army in 1875: a Reply to Mr. John Holms, M.P.

[102]Treatise on Construction of Ordnance, 1877.

[103]Textbook on Rifled Ordnance, 1872.

[104]Treatise on Construction of Ordnance, 1877.

[105]Artillery, its Progress and Present Position, 1893. By Commander Lloyd, R.N., and A.C. Hadcock, late R.A.

[106]Clode'sMilitary Forces of the Crown, ii. 214.

[107]See Appendix to Fifth Report of Committee of House of Commons on Army and Navy Estimates, 1887, in which correspondence is quoted between the Treasury, War Office, and Admiralty, confirming the above views.

[108]The British Army in 1875: a Reply to Mr. John Holms, M.P.

CENTRAL ASIA AND THE AFGHAN WAR OF 1878-79

The gradual advance of Russia, and its conquest of the ancient principalities of Central Asia during the present century, have from time to time formed subjects of great interest to the people of this country, chiefly on account of the possible effect of the Russian approach to the borders of our Indian empire; and, having studied the question for many years, I propose to give a short summary of its rise, progress, and present position, more especially from a military point of view. At the beginning of the century, the southern boundary of Russia extended from the north of the Caspian by Orenburg and Orsk, and then across to the old Mongolian city of Semipalatinsk, and was guarded by a cordon of forts and Cossack outposts. This line was no less than 2,000 miles in length, and abutted on the great Kirghis steppe, and to a certain extent controlled the tribes pasturing in its vicinity, but by no means established the hold of Russia on that pathless, and for the most part lifeless waste. Nevertheless, even in those early days, weexperienced occasional alarms from imaginary invasions of our Eastern possessions. In 1801 we were threatened with a joint attack of the French, Persian, and Afghan armies; but finally we made a treaty with the Shah, in which it was stipulated that 'should an army of the French nation, actuated by design and deceit,' attempt to establish themselves in Persia, a conjoint force of English and Persians should be appointed to put an end to them.

In 1808, another great expedition against the East India Company's possessions was planned—on paper—between Napoleon and the Emperor Alexander of Russia; but this danger was also averted by a second treaty at Teheran in 1809, in which the Shah covenanted 'not to permit any European force whatever to pass through Persia.' Again, for a third time, in 1837, we were supposed to be threatened by a combined attack of Persians, Russians, and Afghans, of which Kaye gives the following account: 'It was believed,' he says, 'that the danger was great and imminent. There was a Persian army, under the command of the King of kings himself, investing Herat, and threatening to march upon Candahar and Cabul. There were Russian diplomatists and Russian engineers in his camp, directing the councils of the Shah and the operations of the siege. The Barukzye sirdars of Afghanistan were intriguing with the Persian Court;and far out in the distance, beyond the mountains of the Hindoo Koosh, there was the shadow of a great northern army, tremendous in its indistinctness, sweeping across the wilds and deserts of Central Asia towards the frontier of Hindostan.'[109]All these shadows, however, passed harmlessly away; and the so-called great northern army, as we now know, but as we did not know then, was the Russian column of Perofski, consisting of a few thousand men, which had left Orenburg with a view to chastise the Khan of Khiva, and which perished from famine and pestilence in the snowy wastes of the Barsuk desert, north of the Aral.

It was not until 1847, contemporaneously with our final conquest of the Punjab, that the Russian advances in Central Asia assumed an important aspect. She had held nominal sway since 1730 over the Kirghis tribes in the western division of the great steppe; but, except in the vicinity of Orenburg, had little real control. In 1847-8, however, Russia erected three fortresses in the heart of the steppe—thus forming a connecting link with the Sir Daria—and established Fort Aralsk, near the embouchure of the river. The Russians having thus crossed the great desert, came permanently into contact with the three khanates of Central Asia, and their progress and conquests since that date have been comparativelyeasy and rapid. The principalities had no military strength which could long withstand the advance of a great Power, and the Russians are now predominant in that part of the world, and are masters on the Aral and Caspian Seas. Drawing a line from east to west, their outposts are dotted along the crests of the Tian-Shan mountains, looking down on Kashgar; in the centre their frontier touches the outlying provinces of Afghanistan which lie to the north of the Hindoo Koosh; whilst on the west their possessions run along the border of Persia.

What we have to consider, therefore, is the fact that a great Power, within the last forty or fifty years, has virtually advanced its old frontier for many hundred miles southwards, rapidly overrunning the country like a tidal wave over sands; absorbing decaying principalities, establishing forts at strategic points, taking possession of inland seas, routes, and river communications, until its frontier posts not only approach our own, but are on the confines of countries with which we are closely associated, and some of which are more or less under our direct influence and control. Her long line of frontier is devious, and not always perfectly defined; it wanders along the crests of mountains, is marked sometimes by the course of rivers, and occasionally almost lost in pathless deserts. So far as the principalities themselves are concerned, it is admitted that their conquest byRussia is an unmixed blessing to the inhabitants. In their bare outline these changes are certainly matters of interest to us; but they do not necessarily constitute a great danger. There is undoubtedly a difference between the present and the past. The military forces of a great Power are now in comparative proximity to our Indian empire, and hold ground formerly in possession of governments which, although usually unfriendly, had no real means of injuring us. We need not now discuss the causes of Russian activity; whether they have been the result of the apocryphal will of Peter the Great, or of the military restlessness and ambition of her generals on the spot, or the inevitable consequence of collision with half-civilised decaying States. What we have to consider is the effect on our position in India.

Perhaps the most striking feature is the vast extent of country absorbed by Russia. From Orenburg in the north to Samarcand in the south is more than 1,000 miles in a straight line, and from the Caspian to Kuldja, west to east, about 1,500 miles. Increased military power is not, however, a necessary result of extended dominion. The annexation of a country well peopled, fertile, rich, and civilised, and whose inhabitants are in accord with their new rulers, may give a great accession of strength, but when none of these conditions are fulfilled, conquest may lead tomilitary weakness. The population of Central Asia is not only extremely sparse, but, owing to extensive deserts and to the vicissitudes of climate, many of the tribes are nomadic in their habits. The whole population is estimated not to exceed four millions and a half. When we consider that our empire of India, which approximately is of about the same geographical area as Russian Central Asia, contains a population of over 250 millions, we have at once a striking example presented to us of the difference of the two regions.

The power of conducting military operations on a great scale depends not only on the resources of the country to be traversed as regards supplies of food, pasture, fuel, and water, but also on facilities of communication and transport. In discussing, therefore, the possible future danger to our Eastern possessions from a further advance of Russia, the sterility and general characteristics of the country in which she has established herself, and also the great distance of her troops from the main resources of the empire, become important elements for consideration. War is a science which depends for its success not only on the courage of well armed, disciplined hosts, and of skilled generals as leaders, but also on the means of rapid concentration and of bringing up reserves of munitions andmatériel. Modern armies are specially tied by such considerations. Now Central Asia isexceptionally deficient in all these essential requirements, and these conditions are abiding. It therefore forms a very weak base of operations against a great empire like India, whose general characteristics are of an exactly contrary character; and although the construction in recent years of a railway from the Caspian to Samarcand will to a certain extent give facility for transport, still it will not in itself alter the general features of the pathless deserts of which the greater part of the country consists.

Between the recently conquered provinces of Russia and our empire of India lies the mountainous country of Afghanistan, inhabited by warlike tribes of brave, fanatical Mohammedans who certainly have no love for Russia. In a geographical and indeed in every sense, it is laid out, as it were, as the natural frontier of an empire. All along its northern provinces stands the snow-capped range of the Hindoo Koosh, stretching away from east to west: a line of mountains between 15,000 and 20,000 feet high, with few practicable passes, and even these are closed in winter. It thus presents for the greater part of its length a natural barrier against aggression, which a few military works at the passes would render impregnable. Even as far west as Herat, the ranges to the north of it are several thousand feet high. But this is not all. The great ridges which run away in a south-westerly directionfrom the Hindoo Koosh, and which, enclosing long narrow valleys of limited fertility, form the greater part of Afghanistan—all these present a series of additional natural defences. Afghanistan resembles Switzerland, but its mountains are higher, its defiles more difficult, its resources very scanty, and it has no roads properly so called; so that an enemy advancing from the north can only come in any force by one route—that is, by skirting the successive ridges where they sink into the southern deserts. It is indeed remarkable that India is surrounded for hundreds of miles to the north-west by a vast zone of barren country, including Afghanistan, Persia, and the principalities; territories unequalled perhaps in the world for their misery and desolation; but which, regarded from a purely military point of view, offer a great impediment to projects of invasion. The Afghans are poor, but brave, hardy, fanatical, and no doubt somewhat turbulent. They hate all intruders. In former days the hordes of Asia, composed chiefly of cavalry, could disregard bases of support and supply, and, being unencumbered with siege trains or other modern appliances, could sally out from these desert wastes, and, braving all risks, overflow the comparatively rich fertile plains of India. But all such incursions are now happily impossible. Circumstances have entirely altered. Modern science has so expanded the means of defencethat armies of invasion must necessarily bring with them a corresponding power; and this entails vast encumbrances, numerous depôts, good roads, and safe communications.

It now becomes time to consider the military position of our empire in India, and here we are met at once by conditions the very opposite of those I have described as prevailing in Central Asia. Whilst Russia has been engaged for many years past in the almost futile effort of establishing her power amongst the remains of decaying principalities, and of introducing civilisation in regions where almost every element of prosperity is deficient, we have also consolidated our empire in the East. Order now reigns in India in place of anarchy, the government of the law has replaced that of the sword, and provinces formerly almost depopulated by depredations and misrule have become fertile and prosperous. Life is safe, and religion and property respected. The value of land has increased; great commercial cities have arisen and trade flourishes.[110]Good civil government, in causing contentment to the people and in developing the resources of the country, gives vast additional strength to our military power. In addition to the British troops, we maintain highly efficient armies recruited from the many martial races under our rule, and are able to increase themalmost at will. At the same time, the improved means of communication by railways, roads, and rivers enable us to concentrate our forces, supplies, and munitions with comparative ease. It may seem almost unnecessary to dwell upon facts so well known; but judging from much of what we often hear and read, the enormous latent strength we possess in India appears not to be fully appreciated.

We hold a central position of great concentration and power, whilst that of Russia is necessarily much the opposite; so even were the two empires in contact, the danger would not be on our side. We are the great and predominant naval and military power in the East, and Russia is comparatively the weak one; and there is nothing in the present aspect and condition of affairs likely to cause any important alteration in these respects. Russia may not have the wish to attack us in India, but she has not the power, which is a far more important consideration. But the two empires are not in contact, or near it. The most advanced Cossack outpost on the Murghab is several hundred miles from the Indus; so that, far as the Russians have already advanced, and far removed as their outposts are from the bases of supply, they have still a whole continent of very difficult country to traverse before they would even be in sight of our frontier river and of the plains of India.

The views on this important question which I had formed and publishedyears ago, were fully confirmed in 1887 by Sir West Ridgeway, who was our representative at the Joint Commission, which, between 1885 and 1887, finally marked out the northern frontier of Afghanistan; and who, from his position and the accurate knowledge he obtained of the country, was able to give an authoritative opinion. He wrote: 'If any Russian general were so reckless as to attempt the invasion of India, and, relying on the single line of lightly constructed rails which connect the Caspian with the Oxus—and which are liable in summer to be blocked by the moving sands of the desert, and in winter by the falling snows of heaven—if, relying on this frail and precarious base, he were to move an army through the barren plains bordering the Oxus, and, leaving in his rear the various hostile and excited races of Central Asia, he were to cross the difficult passes of the Hindoo Koosh and entangle his army in the barren mountain homes of the fanatical and treacherous Afghan, then indeed our fortunate generals may well congratulate themselves that the Lord has delivered the enemy into their hand. The same objection applies to an invasion of India by the Herat road. Imagine the plight of the Russian army when it arrived before our entrenched camp at Candahar, connected, as it would be, by railwaywith our immense resources in India. The Russian army would find itself in a country stripped of supplies and carriage, with a powerful enemy in its front, and fanatical tribes waging a guerilla war on its flanks and rear.'[111]Sir West Ridgeway also bore testimony to the beneficial rule of Russia in Central Asia, and that her officers on the frontier were conciliatory, moderate gentlemen.

If the foregoing statements and the opinions which I have offered upon them are sound, then it is evident that our general line of policy towards the people of Afghanistan is simple and clear. They hold important outworks, as it were, just outside our frontier; and, whilst not interfering with their independence, we should do all in our power not only to maintain the authority of their ruler, the Ameer of Cabul, but also to keep on friendly terms with the tribes, many of whom, especially those along our frontier, are more or less independent. Our policy should be one of conciliation and of subsidies; and although in dealing with half-civilised, turbulent chiefs and tribes the beneficial results are achieved slowly, still, year by year, a patient and forbearing policy will bear good fruit, and indeed is now doing so in a marked degree. It is important to note that in our dealings with the Ameer, and in grantinghim subsidies and arms, we only claimed in return that his foreign policy should be under our guidance. Our principle for years past had been that Afghanistan should be strong, friendly, and independent.

The gradual approach of the Russian frontier towards India led to a diplomatic correspondence in 1872-3[112]between Lord Granville, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Prince Gortchakoff, with a view to a clearer definition of the Afghan frontier north of the Hindoo Koosh. It was not that the forces of either Power were then on the ground, nor had the country been accurately surveyed; but the object was to avoid complications in the future, and it is to be observed that the Russian Government ultimately acquiesced in all Lord Granville's proposals as to the provinces and districts which were to be considered as Afghan territory. Though Russia claimed independence of action so far as the principalities[113]were concerned, it also fully accepted the principle that Afghanistan was within the sphere of our influence.

During the period from 1864 to 1876, when Lords Lawrence, Mayo, and Northbrook were successively Viceroys of India, the general policy which I have indicated was carefully pursued, but in thelatter year a serious change occurred which eventually led to a great war in Afghanistan in 1878-9. There were apparently two main causes for the alteration in the views of the British Government. One was a restless feeling that we were somewhat in the dark as to the conduct of affairs in Cabul, and that the then Ameer Shere Ali was becoming unfriendly; the other that the long range of the Suliman mountains trans-Indus formed a somewhat insecure border line, and that we should take possession of some of the passes with a view of establishing what was called a scientific frontier. In pursuance of the first a violent effort was made to force English representatives on the Ameer at Cabul, Candahar, and Herat, a policy known to be specially feared by the Afghans, and which we had hitherto engaged more than once not to adopt.[114]In January 1877 an Afghan envoy, Noor Mahomed Khan, held prolonged meetings with the late Sir Lewis Pelly on the subject at Peshawur, and begged that the proposal might be dropped. He said: 'Why all this pressing to send British officers, when you declare that you have no wish to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan? It has roused the suspicion of the Ameer.... He is now convinced that to allow British officers to reside in his country will be torelinquish his own authority.' ... Again he said: 'Your Government is a powerful and a great one; ours is a small and weak one. We have long been on terms of friendship, and the Ameer clings to the skirt of the British Government, and till his hand be cut off he will not relax his hold of it.' Sir Lewis Pelly, however, stated that the presence of English officers in Afghanistan was asine quâ non; and as Lord Lytton, the Viceroy, had already, in speaking of the position of Shere Ali between Russia and England, described it as that 'of an earthen pipkin between two iron pots,' it was evident that no friendly arrangement was likely to ensue. During 1877 our native agent at Cabul was withdrawn, our subsidy ceased, and Shere Ali remained in a position of isolation, and was left to form friendship elsewhere. In fact, we washed our hands of him and were evidently drifting into war.

As regards the other cause of dispute—the rectification of the trans-Indus frontier—the opinion of our Government at the time was that we should march into Afghanistan, and establish what was termed a strategical triangle between Cabul, Ghuznee and Jellalabad, and thus guard, as it were, the avenues to India.[115]Being greatly interested in the proposed military operations at the period in question, I wrote a letter to the Times,[116]pointing out the seriousresults which were likely to ensue on our advance into Afghanistan, and of which the following are extracts. 'In my opinion such an idea is a dangerous delusion. Afghanistan is a country of mountains, and the Suliman range, which forms our boundary, is merely the first of a series of great ridges running down south-westerly from the Hindoo Koosh. If we enter the country and merely hold the nearest passes, we shall at once find ourselves in a maze of mountains, with dozens of other passes and strong positions in our front. Not only that, but we shall become involved with other tribes; and as soon as our flag is seen flying within the Afghan mountains, our influence will begin to extend, political and military complications will arise, and we shall inevitably be carried forward.' Alluding to the policy which had for some years past been followed, I went on to point out that 'the frontier throughout its length is far quieter now than in the years gone by. Occasional acts of outrage and robbery are treated as matters of police. Many of the men of the Afghan tribes beyond the border now enter our service, and do their duty well.... Therefore, I maintain that a conciliatory policy has been in a great measure successful, and was leading straight to the object we had in view, although time, patience, and forbearance are required before the results become palpable and confirmed.' Lord Lawrence, the greatest authority then living onthe subject, wrote several letters to the 'Times' in 1878 strongly deprecating our change of policy, and I had the satisfaction of receiving from him a note expressing his entire agreement with the military views which I had put forward.

Whilst the two causes I have described gradually led to the estrangement of the Ameer of Cabul, an additional fear arose in his mind owing to our dealings with the ruler of the neighbouring country of Beluchistan.[117]Here also we had for many years past, and amidst some difficulties, pursued a course of conciliation and subsidies with the ruler, the Khan of Khelat; one of our objects being to insure the safe passage of caravans with goods through the Bolam. In 1877, however, a new treaty having been made, a small British force entered the country, and, marching through the Pass, occupied and fortified Quetta, on the borders of Afghanistan, ostensibly as a protection to our representative. It was, perhaps, only natural under the circumstances, that Shere Ali should look with some distrust at the presence of our troops on his immediate southern border, and on the direct road to Candahar. Matters drifted on during 1878, but Shere Ali having finally rejected our ultimatum, war was declared in November, and British troops entered Afghanistan in three columns—one by the Khyber as far as Jellalabad, the second occupiedthe Koorum valley, whilst the third, marching through the Bolam, reached Candahar in January 1879. These operations were accomplished with comparative ease, and for the moment our success seemed complete. Shere Ali fled from Cabul, and died soon afterwards, and his son and successor, Yakoob Khan, having sued for peace, a treaty was signed in May, the chief items of which were that we should permanently retain the Koorum and Pisheen valleys, and also send an English officer with a suitable escort as our representative at Cabul, Major Cavagnari being selected for the purpose.[118]So far all seemed well; but in reality the war, instead of being at an end, was only at its commencement. In September, Cavagnari and his escort were surrounded and murdered, and the whole country was disorganised and seething with excitement. The treaty of peace was torn up,[119]and the Khyber and Koorum columns marched at once upon Cabul, and after severe fighting established our authority at the capital.

So completely had these serious and untoward events changed the aspect of affairs that Lord Lytton, the Viceroy, in January 1880 stated that we must recognise disintegration as the basis of our policy. The province of Cabul was to be given over to oneAfghan chief, Candahar to another, and as to Herat, the most flourishing and important district of all, it was proposed to hand it over to Persia. It is not necessary to describe the military measures which followed, which were brilliantly carried out, but towards the close of the campaign we had about 60,000 men either actually in Afghanistan or on the frontier, and even then we only commanded the ground on which we stood; whilst the cost of the war amounted to nearly twenty millions sterling. In the end, and after much discussion, however, the British Government reverted to the original policy of a strong, friendly, and independent Afghanistan; and Abdul Rahman Khan, who had been a refugee for years in Russian territory, was acknowledged by us as the ruler of the country. Our forces were withdrawn early in 1881, and the strategical triangle was, by common consent, consigned to the waste paper basket.[120]

In my opinion the war of 1878-9 was bad in policy and unjust in principle from beginning to end. It is a matter of history now, but we not only were fighting against those we ought to have conciliated, but nearly ended in disintegrating the country and taking a large portion of it ourselves. Subsequent to the withdrawal of our army the country became more settled, although the position of Abdul Rahman was for some time precarious. By our support,financial and other, however, he slowly established his authority, and has continued on terms of friendship with our Government.

Reverting to Central Asia, the capture of Merv by the Russians and their gradual approximation to the northern provinces of Afghanistan, combined with the somewhat overbearing conduct of their military subordinates on the spot, led in 1885 to a conflict at Penjdeh between the Russian and Afghan outposts, which at one time threatened to lead to a great war. I have already explained that although by the Granville-Gortchakoff agreement of 1873 the northern Afghan provinces were settled, their actual boundaries, in the absence of full information, remained somewhat indefinite. Indeed, in countries chiefly inhabited by nomadic tribes, wandering about in search of pasture, such questions are often more or less uncertain. As a proof of the doubtful nature of the facts at that time, I may point out that in the official English maps published a few years before the Penjdeh incident, that hitherto almost unknown village was marked as outside the Afghan frontier. It would answer no good purpose to re-open a subject which involved no great principle, and the issues of which were exaggerated at the time by violent and imprudent language, both in England and Russia. It was eminently one for diplomatic arrangement and not for war, and found its solutionin the joint Boundary Commission which was originated by Lord Granville,[121]and brought to a friendly conclusion in 1887. The Marquis of Salisbury, who was Prime Minister at the time, alluding to the arrangement, said: 'I believe a more well-balanced and equable settlement could hardly have been arrived at. There has been no great sacrifice on either side; but I value the settlement for this reason, not because I attach much importance to the square miles of desert with which we have been dealing—and which probably after ten generations of mankind will not yield the slightest value to any human being—but because it indicates on both sides that spirit which in the two Governments is consistent with continued peace.' That, in my judgment is the spirit in which two great Powers should always be prepared to act in international disagreements.

One more subject remains, as regards Central Asia, which deserves a few remarks—that of the Pamirs, on the north eastern confines of Afghanistan. The country, until recently very little known, is an elevated desolate plateau ringed round with snowy ridges, and is the point of junction of the three great mountain ranges—the Himalayas, the Hindoo Koosh, and the Tian-Shan. The fact that some of the lakes on this elevated region are over 12,000 feet above the sea is a proof of its exceptional character. Theclimate is very severe, and its inhabitants appear to be chiefly nomadic tribes from Afghanistan, Russia, and China respectively, who bring their flocks there for pasture during the three or four summer months. The actual delimitation of the frontiers, it is understood, is now being amicably arranged between the Powers concerned. As a base for military operations for an advance on India, the very nature of the country offers insurmountable obstacles and hardly needs discussion. I have dealt in some detail with the subject of Central Asia, as one of great and general interest, and have endeavoured to explain the military aspect of the case, because it is the one perhaps not so generally understood. There are people who say that war, sooner or later, is inevitable. As the late Lord Derby once very sensibly remarked: 'Of the two I prefer it later.' It appears to me that there is no cause for war, or indeed probability of it, between Russia and England in that part of the world; but should such unfortunately arise, the danger would not lie on our side.

Back to Index Next