The History of the Indian Revolt and of the Expeditions to Persia, China and Japan 1856-7-8

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:

The several divisions and brigades were thus commanded: The first division was placed under Major-general Stalker; and the four brigades of which it consisted were commanded by Brigadiers Wilson, Honner, Tapp, and Trevelyan. The second division was under Brigadier-general Havelock – who lived to become so famous in connection with the wars of the Indian mutiny; and the four brigades which it comprised were commanded by Brigadiers Hamilton, Hale, Steuart, and Hutt. Brigadier-general Jacob commanded in chief the cavalry of both divisions; while Major-general Sir James Outram held supreme command of the whole force.

The first division, as we have said, preceded the second by several weeks. General Stalker took his departure from Bombay on the 26th of November, with a fleet of nearly forty vessels under Admiral Sir Henry Leeke – a few of them war-steamers, but chiefly steam and sailing transports, carrying 10,000 soldiers, sailors, and men of all grades and employments. Stalker and Leeke, having brought all the troops and stores past Ormuz and up the Persian Gulf, captured the island of Karrack as a military depôt, and then effected a landing at Hallila Bay, about twelve miles south of Bushire. Although the opposition, from a few hundred Persian troops, was very insignificant, the landing was nevertheless a slow process, occupying three days and two nights – owing chiefly to the absence of any other boats than those belonging to the ships. There being no draught-cattle landed at that time, the troops were without tents or baggage of any kind; they therefore carried three days’ rations in their haversacks. After being thus engaged on the 7th of December and two following days, Stalker and Leeke advanced towards Bushire – the one with the troops along the shore, the other with the fleet at easy distance. Bushire is an important commercial town on the northeast side of the gulf; whoever commands it, commands much of the trade of Persia. Stalker found the defences to be far stronger than he had anticipated. On the 9th he dislodged a body of Persian troops from a strong position they occupied in the old Dutch fort of Reshire. On the 10th, after a short bombardment, Bushire itself surrendered – with a promptness which shewed how few soldierly qualities were possessed by the garrison; for the place contained sixty-five guns, with a large store of warlike supplies. The governor of the city, and the commander of the troops, came out and delivered up their swords. The troops of the garrison, about two thousand in number, having marched out and delivered up their arms, were escorted by cavalry to a distance, and then set free. By the evening of the 11th the tents and cooking-utensils were landed; and an intrenched camp was formed outside Bushire as a temporary resting-place for the force – sufficient detachments being told off to hold the city and fort safely. So entirely had the expedition been kept secret from the Persians, that when, on the 29th of November, the first vessels of the fleet hove in sight, the governor of Bushire sent to Mr Consul Jones to ask what it meant; and he only then learned that our army and navy had come to capture the city. This plan was adopted, to obtain a ‘material guarantee’ sufficiently serious to influence the double-dealing Persian government.

Here the troops remained for several weeks. The second division, and the real head of the force, had not arrived; and General Stalker was not expected or authorised to undertake anything further at present. His camp, about a mile from Bushire, assumed every day a more orderly appearance; and steady trading transactions were carried on with the towns-people. The transport ships went to and fro between Bushire and Bombay, bringing guns and supplies of various kinds.

The political relations between the two countries, meanwhile, remained as indefinite as before. Mr Murray came from Bagdad to Bushire, to confer with the military and naval leaders on all necessary matters, and to negotiate with the Shah’s government if favourable opportunity for so doing should offer. Herat remained in the hands of its conquerors, the Persians. Sir John Lawrence, in his capacity as chief authority in the Punjaub, held more than one interview with Dost Mohammed, Khan of Cabool, in order to keep that wily leader true to his alliance with England; and it was considered a fair probability that if Persia did not yield to England’s demands, a second expedition would be sent from the Punjaub and Sinde through Afghanistan to Herat.

It was not until the last week in January, 1857, that Sir James Outram and his staff reached the Persian Gulf; nearly all the infantry had preceded him, but much of the artillery and cavalry had yet to come. Sir James sighted Bushire on the 30th; and General Stalker, long encamped outside the town, made prompt preparations for his reception. Outram was desirous of instant action. Stalker had been stationary, not because there was nothing to do, but because his resources were inadequate to any extensive operations. Shiraz, the most important city in that part of Persia, lying nearly due east of Bushire, is connected with it by two roads, one through Ferozabad, and the other through Kisht and Kazeroon; the Persians were rumoured to have 20,000 men guarding the first of these two roads, and a smaller number guarding the second. These reports were afterwards proved to be greatly exaggerated; but Sir James determined that, at any rate, there should be no longer sojourn at Bushire than was absolutely needed.

Information having arrived that a large body of Persians was at the foot of the nearest hills, Outram resolved to dislodge them. The troops were under Soojah-ool-Moolk, governor of Shiraz, and formed the nucleus of a larger force intended for the recapture of Bushire. Leaving the town to be guarded by seamen from the ships, and the camp by about 1500 soldiers under Colonel Shephard, with the Euphrates so moored that her guns could command the approaches – Outram started on the 3d of February, with about 4600 men and 18 guns. He took no tents or extra clothing; but gave to each soldier a greatcoat, a blanket, and two days’ rations; while the commissariat provided three more days’ rations. He marched round the head of Bushire creek to Char-kota, and on the 5th came suddenly upon the enemy’s camp, which they had precipitately abandoned when they heard of his approach. This was near the town of Borasjoon, on the road to Shiraz. On the next two days he secured large stores of ammunition, carriages, camp-equipage, stores, grain, rice, horses, and cattle – everything but guns; these had been safely carried off by the enemy to the difficult pass of Mhak, in the mountains lying between Bushire and Shiraz; and as Sir James had not made any extensive commissariat arrangements, he did not deem it prudent to follow them at that time.

On the evening of the 7th, Outram began his march back to Bushire – after destroying nearly twenty tons of powder, and vast quantities of shot and shell; and after securing as booty such flour, grain, rice, and stores as belonged to the government rather than to the villagers. But now occurred a most unexpected event. The Persian cavalry, which retreated while Outram had been advancing, resolved to attack while he was retreating. They approached soon after midnight; and the British were soon enveloped in a skirmishing fire with an enemy whom they could not see. Outram fell from his horse, and Stalker had to take the command for a time. The enemy having brought four guns within accurate range, the position was for a time very serious. Stalker was enabled by degrees to get the regiments into array, so as to grapple with the enemy as soon as daylight should point out their position. When at length, on the morning of the 8th, the British saw the Persians, seven or eight thousand strong, drawn up in order near the walled village of Khoosh-aub, they dashed at them at once with cavalry and horse-artillery, so irresistibly that the plain was soon strewed with dead bodies; the enemy fled panic-stricken in all directions; and if Outram’s cavalry had been more numerous (he had barely 500 sabres), he could almost have annihilated the Persian infantry. By ten o’clock all was over, the Persians leaving two guns and all their ammunition in the hands of the British. In the evening Outram resumed his march, and re-entered Bushire during the night of the 9th. His troops had marched ninety miles over ground converted into a swamp by heavy rains, and had seized a camp and won a battle, in a little more than six days. In a ‘Field-force Order,’ issued on February 10th, and signed by Colonel (afterwards Sir Edward) Lugard as chief of the staff, Outram warmly complimented his troops on this achievement.

After this dashing affair at Khoosh-aub, the patience of Sir James was sorely tried by a long period of comparative inactivity – occasioned in part by the rainy state of the weather, and in part by the non-arrival of some of the artillery and cavalry, without which his further operations would necessarily be much impeded. Brigadier-general Havelock arrived about this time, and took command of the second division, which had hitherto been under a substitute. The feeding of the army had become a difficult matter; for the Persian traders came in less readily after the battle of Khoosh-aub. Rumours gradually spread in the camp that an expedition was shortly to be sent out to Mohamrah, a town near the confluence of the Euphrates and the Karoon, about three days’ sail up from Bushire; these rumours gave pleasurable excitement to the troops, who were becoming somewhat wearied of their Bushire encampment. Much had yet to be done, however, before the expedition could start; the northwest winds in the gulf delayed the arrival of the ships containing the cavalry and artillery. On the 4th of March, Sir James made public his plan. General Stalker was to remain at Bushire, with Brigadiers Wilson, Honner, and Tapp, in command of about 3000 men of all arms; while Outram and Havelock, with several of the brigadiers, at the head of 4000 troops, were to make an expedition to Mohamrah, where many fortifications were reported to have been recently thrown up, and where 10,000 or 12,000 Persian troops were assembled. During many days troop-ships were going up the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates – some conveying the troops already at Bushire; and others conveying cavalry and artillery as fast as they arrived from Bombay. The enemy eagerly watched these movements from the shore, but ventured on no molestation.

During the three weeks occupied by these movements, events of an almost unprecedented character occurred at Bushire – the suicide of two British officers who dreaded the responsibility of the duties devolving upon them. These officers were – Major-general Stalker, commanding the first division of the army; and Commodore Ethersey, who had been placed in command of the Indian navy in the Persian Gulf when Sir Henry Leeke returned to Bombay. Stalker shot himself on the 14th of March. On that morning, Sir James Outram and Commander Jones had breakfasted with him in his tent. He displayed no especial despondency; but it had been before remarked how distressed he appeared on the subject of the want of barrack-accommodation for his troops – fearing lest he should be held responsible if the soldiers, during the heat of the approaching summer, suffered through want of shelter. On one or two other subjects he appeared unable to bear the burden of command; he dreaded lest Outram, by exposing himself to danger in any approaching conflict, might lose his life, and thereby leave the whole weight of the duty and responsibility on him (Stalker). Shortly after breakfast, a shot was heard in the tent, and the unfortunate general was found weltering in his blood. Commodore Ethersey followed this sad example three days afterwards. For three months he had been labouring under anxiety and despondency, haunted by a perpetual apprehension that neither his mental nor physical powers would bear up under the weight of responsibility incurred by the charge of the Indian navy during the forthcoming operations. Memoranda in his diary afforded full proof of this. An entry on the day after Stalker’s suicide ran thus: ‘Heard of poor Stalker’s melancholy death. His case is similar to my own. He felt he was unequal to the responsibility imposed on him… I have had a wretched night.’ So deep had been his despondency for some time, and so frequently expressed to those around him, that the news of his suicide on the 17th excited less surprise than pain.

It had been Outram’s intention to proceed against Mohamrah directly after his return from Borasjoon and Khoosh-aub; but the unexpected and vexing delays above adverted to prevented him from setting forth until the 18th of March. He was aware that the Persians had for three months been strengthening the fortifications of that place; he knew that the opposite bank of the river was on Turkish ground (Mesopotamia), on which he would not be permitted to erect batteries; and he therefore anticipated a tough struggle before he could master Mohamrah. His plan was, to attack the enemy’s batteries with armed steamers and sloops-of-war; and then, when the fire had slackened, to tow up the troops in boats by small steamers, land them at a selected point, and at once proceed to attack the enemy’s camp. The Persian army, 13,000 strong, was commanded by the Shahzada, Prince Mirza. Outram’s force was rather under 5000, including only 400 cavalry: the rest having been left to guard Bushire and the encampment. Outram and Havelock arrived near Mohamrah on the 24th, and immediately began to place the war-ships in array, and to plant mortars on rafts in the river. On the 26th, the ships and mortars opened a furious fire; under cover of which the troops were towed up the river, and landed at a spot northward of the town and its batteries. The Persians, who had felt the utmost confidence that the landing of a British force, in the face of thirteen thousand men and a formidable array of batteries, would be an impossibility, were panic-stricken at this audacity. When, at about two o’clock, Outram advanced from the landing-place through date-groves and across a plain to the enemy’s camp, the Persians fled precipitately, after exploding their largest magazine – leaving behind them all their tents, several magazines of ammunition, seventeen guns, baggage, and a vast amount of public and private stores. As Outram had, at that hour, been able to land not even one hundred cavalry, he could effect little in the way of pursuit; the Persians made off, strewing the ground with arms and accoutrements which they abandoned in their hurry. Commodore Young commanded the naval portion of this expedition, having succeeded the unfortunate Ethersey.

This action of Mohamrah scarcely deserved the name of a battle; for as soon as the ships and mortars had, by their firing, enabled the troops to land, the enemy ran away. Outram had scarcely any cavalry, and his infantry had no fighting – rather to their disappointment. The Persians having retreated up the river Karoon towards Ahwaz, Outram resolved to send three small armed steamers after them, each carrying a hundred infantry. Captain Rennie started on the 29th, in command of this flotilla: his instructions being, ‘to steam up to Ahwaz, and act with discretion according to circumstances.’ He proceeded thirty miles that day, anchored at night, landed, and found the remains of a bivouac. On the 30th he reached Ismailiyeh, and on the 31st Oomarra. Arriving near Ahwaz on the 1st of April, Rennie came up with the Persian army which had retreated from Mohamrah. Nothing daunted, he landed his little force of 300 men, advanced to the town, entered it, and allayed the fears of the inhabitants; while the Persians, thirty or forty times his number, retreated further northward towards Shuster, with scarcely any attempt to disturb him – such was the panic into which the affair at Mohamrah had thrown them. Captain Rennie, having had the satisfaction of putting to flight a large Persian army with a handful of 300 British, and having given to the inhabitants of Ahwaz such stores of government grain and flour as he could seize, embarked a quantity of arms, sheep, and mules, which he had captured, and steamed back to Mohamrah – earning and receiving the thanks of the general for his management of the expedition.

Just at this period a most sudden and unexpected event put an end to the operations. Captain Rennie’s expedition returned to Mohamrah on the 4th of April; and on the 5th arrived news that peace had been signed between England and Persia. Outram’s army, European and native, was rapidly approaching 14,000 men; such a force, under such a leader, might have marched from one end of Persia to the other; and both officers and soldiers had begun to have bright anticipations of honour, and perhaps of prize-money. It was with something like disappointment, therefore, that the news of the treaty was listened to; there had not been fighting enough to whet the appetites of the heroic; while soldiers generally would fain make a treaty at the sword’s point, rather than see it done in the bureaux of diplomatists. Captain Hunt of the 78th Highlanders, who was concerned in the operations at Mohamrah and Ahwaz, and who wrote a volume descriptive of the whole campaign, told very frankly of the dissatisfaction in the camp: ‘The news of peace with Persia having been signed at Paris on the 4th of March damped the elation of all, and considerable disgust was felt at this abrupt termination to what had promised to prove a brilliant campaign.’

How and where the treaty of peace was concluded, we must now shew, in connection with the proceedings of ministers, legislators, and ambassadors.

When the Persian expedition was determined on, parliament was not sitting, and no legislative sanction for the war could be obtained; but when the session opened in February 1857, the policy of the government was severely canvassed. Ministers were charged with involving the country in a war, without the nation itself being acquainted with the causes, or even consulted at all in the matter. The Earl of Clarendon explained the course of events at considerable length. He went into the case of Mr Murray, and the quarrel with the Persian government on matters of diplomatic etiquette – justifying that envoy in all that he had done. But the earl was particular in his assertions that the Murray dispute was not the cause of the war. The siege and capture of Herat furnished the casus belli. He dwelt on the immense value of that city as a military station. ‘Herat is altogether a most important place for military operations; and an enemy once in possession of it is completely master of the position. Every government of this country has desired that Afghanistan should be protected; and it clearly cannot be protected if Herat remains in the power of Persia.’ He expressed a conviction that ‘the Russian government and the whole of the Russian people are under a belief that their destiny is to go forward, to conquer, and to hold new territory;’ and that this disposition would be greatly tempted if Persia, backed up by Russia, were permitted to seize Herat. He stated finally that the Persian ambassador at Paris had recently expressed a wish to renew negotiations for peace, and that the British government would willingly listen to any overtures for that purpose. Lord Palmerston gave similar explanations in the House of Commons. The Earls of Derby and Malmesbury, Earl Grey, Lord John Russell, Mr Gladstone, and Mr Disraeli, all spoke disparagingly of the Persian expedition – either because it was not necessary; or because, if necessary, parliamentary permission for it ought to have been obtained. The latter was the strong point of opposition; many members asserted, not only that the nation was involved in a new war without its own consent, but that no one could understand whether war had been declared by the Crown or by the East India Company. Earl Grey moved an amendment condemnatory of the ministerial policy; but this was negatived. The ministers declined to produce the diplomatic correspondence at that time, because there was a hope of renewed negotiations with Furukh Khan at Paris.

At the close of February it became known to the public that the East India Company had, not unnaturally, demurred to the incidence of the expenses of the Persian war on their revenues. It appeared that, so early as the 22d of October the Court of Directors had written to the president of the Board of Control – adverting to ‘the expedition for foreign service preparing at Bombay, under the orders (it is presumed) of her Majesty’s government, communicated through the Secret Committee;’ and suggesting for his consideration ‘how far it may be just and proper to subject India to the whole of the charges consequent on those orders.’ The directors, as a governing body, had no voice whatever in determining on the Persian war; and yet their soldiers and sailors were to take part in it, and the Indian revenues to bear all or part of the burden. It was ultimately decided that England should pay one-half of the expenses, the other half being borne by the Company out of the revenues of India.

Before the British public could learn one single fact connected with the landing of Sir James Outram or of the second division in Persia, they were surprised by the announcement that Lord Cowley and Furukh Khan had succeeded in coming to terms of pacification at Paris – the Persian ambassador having received from his sovereign large powers for this purpose. A provisional treaty was signed on the 4th of March, of which the following is a condensed summary: Peace to be restored between England and Persia – British troops to evacuate Persia as soon as certain conditions should be complied with – All prisoners of war to be released on both sides – The Shah to give an amnesty to any of his subjects who might have been compromised by and during the war – The Shah to withdraw all his troops from Herat and Afghanistan within three months after the ratification of the treaty – The Shah to renounce all claim upon Herat or any other Afghan state, whether for sovereignty or for tribute – In any future quarrel between Persia and the Afghan khans, England to be appealed to as a friendly mediator – England to display equal justice to Persia and Afghanistan, in the event of any such appeal – Persia to have the power of declaring and maintaining war against any Afghan state in the event of positive insult or injury; but not to make such war a pretext for annexation or permanent occupation – Persia to liberate all Afghan prisoners, on condition of Persian prisoners being released by Afghans – All trading arrangements between England and Persia, in relation to consuls, ports, customs, &c., to be on an equal and friendly footing – The British mission, on its return to Teheran, to be received with due honours and ceremonials – Two commissioners to be named by the two courts, to adjudicate on British pecuniary claims against Persia – The British government to renounce all claim to any ‘protection’ over the Shah’s subjects against the Shah’s consent, provided no such power be given to [Russia or] any other court – England and Persia to aid each other in suppressing the slave-trade in the Persian Gulf – A portion of the English troops to remain on Persian soil until Herat should be evacuated by the Persians, but without any expense, and with as little annoyance as possible, to the Persian government – Ratifications to be exchanged at Bagdad within three months.

This treaty – which, if faithfully carried out, would certainly debar Persia from any undue interference with Afghan affairs – was signed at Paris on the very day (March 4th) when Sir James Outram announced to his troops at Bushire the intended attack on Mohamrah. Such was one of the anomalies springing from diplomacy at one place and war at another many thousand miles distant. Furukh Khan proceeded, on the 19th from Paris to London, where he was received by Queen Victoria as plenipotentiary extraordinary from the Shah of Persia, and where the arrangements for the fulfilment of the treaty were further carried out. The treaty having been forwarded to Teheran, was ratified by the Shah of Persia on the 14th of April, and the ratification arrived at Bagdad on the 17th. The English nation was still, as it had been from the beginning, without the means of judging whether the Persian war had been necessary or not; the government still withheld the state papers, on the ground that, as the ratification of the treaty would speedily be effected, it would be better to wait until then. When, later in the year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the House of Commons for a vote of half a million sterling, ‘on account of the expenses of the Persian war,’ many members protested against the vote, on the ground that parliament had not been consulted in any way concerning the war. On the 16th of July Mr Roebuck moved a resolution – ‘That the war with Persia was declared, prosecuted, and concluded without information of such transactions being communicated to parliament; while expensive armaments were equipped without the sanction of a vote of this House; and that such conduct tends to weaken its just authority, and to dispense with its constitutional control over the finances of the country, and renders it requisite for this House to express its strong reprobation of such a course of proceeding.’ The government policy was censured on many grounds by Mr Roebuck, Lord John Russell, Mr Gladstone, and Mr Disraeli; the first of these speakers even went so far as to attribute the mutiny in India to the withdrawal of troops for the Persian war. The House of Commons agreed, however, pretty generally in the opinion, that although the ministers might reasonably have been more communicative before they commenced hostilities with Persia, there was ground sufficient for the hostilities themselves; and the resolution was negatived by 352 to 38. The question was reopened on the 17th, when the House granted the half-million asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards defraying the expenses of this war; renewed attacks were made on the Asiatic policy of the Palmerston government, but the vote was agreed to; and nothing further occurred, during the remainder of the session, to disturb the terms of the pacification.

It is unnecessary to trace the course of events in Persia after the ratification of the treaty. The British officers, and the troops under their charge, had no further glory or honour to acquire; they would be called upon simply, either to remain quietly in Persia until Herat was evacuated, or to go through the troublesome ordeal of re-shipment back to Bombay. The troops all assembled in and near Bushire, where they resumed their former camp-life. The officers, having little to do, took occasional trips to Bassorah, Bagdad, and other places on the banks of the Euphrates and Tigris; while the soldiers were employed in destroying the fortifications of the encampment, now no longer needed. On the 9th of May Sir James Outram issued a ‘Field-force Order’ – thanking the troops for their services during this brief and rather uneventful war, and announcing the break-up of the force. Some of the regiments and corps were to return to India, as rapidly as means of transport could be obtained for them; while the rest, under Brigadier-general Jacob, were to form a small compact army, to remain at Bushire until all the terms of the treaty were fulfilled. Outram, Havelock, and a large number of officers, embarked within a few days for India; and by the time they reached Bombay and Madras, according to the place to which they were bound, the startling news reached their ears that a military mutiny had broken out at Meerut and Delhi. What followed, the pages of this volume have shewn. As to Persia, much delay occurred in carrying out the terms of the treaty, much travelling to and fro of envoys, and many months’ detention of British troops at Bushire; but at length the Persians evacuated Herat, the British quitted the Gulf, and the singular ‘Persian war,’ marked by so few battles, came to an end.

§ 2. THE CHINESE AND JAPANESE EXPEDITIONS, 1856-7-8

The occurrences westward of India having thus been briefly narrated, attention may now be directed to those on the east.

Viewed in relation to the circumstances which immediately preceded hostilities, it might almost be said that England declared war against China because a few persons went on board a small vessel to search for certain offenders, and because a Chinese official would not civilly receive visits from a British official. These trifling incidents, however, were regarded as symptoms of something greater: symptoms which required close diplomatic watching. To understand this matter, a brief summary of earlier events is needed.

During the first thirty years of the present century, in like manner as in earlier centuries, Europeans had no recognised right of residing in China, or even of visiting its ports. Merchants were allowed to reside at Canton, by official connivance rather than sanction; and even this was possible only at certain times of the year – they being required in other months to retire to Macao. They were liable to be expelled from Canton at any time, with or without assigned cause; their trade was liable to be stopped with equal suddenness; and, under the designation of ‘barbarians,’ all negotiation was denied to them except through the medium of a mercantile community called the Hong merchants. During many years, Indian opium was the chief commodity sold by the English to the Chinese, in exchange for tea and other produce. This opium-trade was always declared illegal by the Chinese government, though always covertly favoured by the Chinese officials. Quarrels frequently arose concerning this trade, and the quarrels sometimes ended in violence. The import of opium became so large that the exports were insufficient to pay for it; and when silver was thus found necessary to make up the balance, the imperial anger waxed stronger and stronger. The ‘barbarians’ were commanded not to bring any more opium; but, finding the trade too profitable to be abandoned, they continued their dealings in spite of the mandates of the celestial potentate.

The year 1831 may be said to have commenced the political or international stage of this difficulty. The governor-general of India wrote a letter to the governor of Canton, complaining of the conduct of the Chinese authorities, and demanding explanations, &c. Why his lordship, rather than any functionary in England, did this, was because the East India Company in those days sold opium on its own account, and made use of its political power to render that trade as profitable as possible – one of the pernicious anomalies arising out of the Company’s double functions. In 1832, the governor of Canton vouchsafed a partial explanation, but only to the Hong merchants – refusing with superb scorn, to communicate either with the Company’s merchants, or with the governor-general. In 1833 an imperial edict forbade the introduction of opium; but this, like many that preceded it, remained inoperative. In 1834 the Company’s trading monopoly ceasing, private merchants thereupon engaged in the tea-trade with China. The English government sent three commissioners – Lord Napier, Mr (afterwards Sir) J. F. Davis, and Sir G. B. Robinson – as ‘superintendents of British commerce in China.’ The Chinese authorities refused to acknowledge these commissioners in any way, in spite of numerous invitations; while on the other hand the commissioners refused to retire from Canton to Macao. These disputes led to violence, and the violence brought a British ship-of-war up the Canton river. A compromise was the result – the commissioners retiring to Macao, and the Chinese authorities allowing the resumption of the opium-traffic. Lord Napier died towards the close of the year, and was succeeded as chief-superintendent by Mr Davis – Captain Elliot being appointed secretary, and afterwards third superintendent. During the next three years trade continued; but the Chinese officials were uniformly rude and insulting. The British government would not permit Captain Elliot to submit to these indignities; missives and counter-missives passed to and fro; and the year 1837 ended with threatening symptoms. In 1838 Admiral Maitland arrived in Canton river with a ship of war, to protect British interests – by cannon-balls, if not by friendly compact. The nearest approach to equality between the two nations was in an interview between Admiral Maitland and the Chinese Admiral Kwan; in which Maitland assured his brother-admiral that he would remain peaceful – until provoked. In 1839, as in previous years, the opium-trade was often violently interrupted by the Chinese authorities. The officers of the English government, political and naval, were placed in an embarrassing position in this matter; their duty was to protect Englishmen; but they could not compel the Chinese to trade in opium – for the Chinese government held the same power as all other despotic governments, of prohibiting or encouraging trade with other countries. In this year, when Maitland was absent, Elliot became powerless at Canton; he and all the English were made prisoners, and could not obtain release until they had destroyed all the opium in the English stores – more than twenty thousand chests. This was done: Elliot guaranteeing that the English government would repay the merchants. Commissioner Lin saw that the opium was wholly destroyed; and by the end of May almost every European had quitted Canton.

It was thus that commenced the first Chinese war – a war which had a bad moral basis on the English side; since it arose more out of the forced sale of an intoxicating drug, than out of any other circumstance. The British government, finding themselves bound by Captain Elliot’s promise to pay an enormous sum for the opium destroyed, and feeling the importance of maintaining British supremacy in the east, resolved to settle the quarrel by warlike means. Fighting and negotiating alternated during 1840 and the two following years. At one time, Sir Gordon Bremer, at another, Sir Hugh Gough, commanded troops on the Chinese coast, acting in conjunction with ships-of-war; and according to the amount of naval or military success, so did the Chinese authorities manifest or not a disposition to treat. Commissioner Lin, then Commissioner Keshen, and afterwards Commissioner Key-ing, conducted negotiations – a perilous duty; for their imperial master did not scruple to punish, or even to put to death, those diplomatists who made a treaty distasteful to him; and nothing but the noise of cannon induced him to respect treaties when made. The chief military and naval events of the three years, in connection with this struggle, were the following: The British ship Hellas attacked by junks, and many of the crew killed; an attempt to burn the British fleet by fire-rafts; Chusan taken by the English; naval action near Macao; attack and capture of Chuen-pe and Tae-cok-tow; Hong-kong taken by the English; the Bogue forts, with 460 guns, taken by Sir Gordon Bremer; Canton attacked by the British, under Sir Hugh Gough, and only spared on the prompt payment of five million dollars; Amoy, with 300 guns, taken by the British; the cities of Ting-hae, Ching-hae, Ning-po, and several others on the coast, captured; several military engagements in the vicinity of the captured cities; an advance of a powerful squadron up the Yang-tsze-kiang; and a threatening of the great city of Nankin, which brought the emperor effectually to terms – all the previous offers of negotiation on the part of the Chinese having been mere expedients to save time.

The war ended thuswise. Sir Henry Pottinger arrived in the Chinese waters in April 1842, with full power as representative of the British Crown; and it was he who procured the important ‘Treaty of Nankin,’ signed by the respective plenipotentiaries in 1842, and the ratifications exchanged by the respective sovereigns in 1843. This treaty having had an important bearing on the later or second war with China, we will epitomise a few of its chief conditions: Lasting peace and friendship established between England and China – China to pay 21,000,000 dollars for the opium destroyed, and for the expenses of the war; the payments to be spread over four years – The ports of Canton, Amoy, Fuh-choo-foo, Ning-po, and Shang-hae, to be thrown open to British merchants, with consular facilities, and just and regular tariffs – The island of Hong-kong to become a permanent British possession – All British subjects, at that time confined in China, to be at once and unconditionally released – The Chinese emperor to give an amnesty to all his own subjects, in respect of any proceedings on their part friendly to the British – Correspondence in future to be conducted on terms of perfect equality between the officers of the two governments – The islands of Chusan and Kulangsoo to be held by the British until the fulfilment of all the conditions of the treaty, and then given up.

Under the influence of this Treaty of Nankin, trade rapidly extended between England and China. Instead of being confined to Canton, and conducted in a stealthy and undignified manner, it was openly carried on at five ports. The British government did not undertake to protect the opium-trade more than that in any other commodity; on the contrary, the representatives of the English government would gladly have seen that trade diminish; but in truth, the East India Company realised several millions sterling a year profit by it, and English merchants reaped many additional millions: insomuch that a very powerful influence was brought to back up this trade.

A ‘Supplementary Treaty’ was signed in October 1843, for regulating the terms of commercial intercourse at the five ports, and providing for the courteous reception of British representatives by the Chinese officials, in matters relating to mutual trade. During the thirteen years following the signature of the Treaty of Nankin, the trade between England and China gradually increased, though not at so rapid a rate as had been hoped by British manufacturers and merchants. The English had trading establishments, with consuls and other officials, at the five ports, and a colony or military settlement at Hong-kong; while there were always a few ships-of-war in the Chinese waters. The relations, however, were not wholly peaceful. The inhabitants of Canton had a general ill-will towards the English; so had the imperial viceroy; and violence arising out of this ill-will led to a brief period of hostilities. In April 1847, the English seized the Bogue Forts, in the Canton river, in order to obtain redress for various insults; this seizure was followed by a new convention.

Thus matters continued until October 1856. On the 8th of that month, an incident occurred, trivial in itself, which gave rise to the ‘Second War with China.’ Sir John Bowring was at that time chief representative of British interests in China, with Hong-kong as his head-quarters; Admiral Sir Michael Seymour commanded the royal ships in those seas; Commodore Elliot was under Seymour in the Canton and Hong-kong district; and Mr Parkes was consul at Canton. These were the English officials more immediately concerned in the matter. On the day here named, a Chinese officer and a party of soldiers boarded a lorcha or small vessel called the Arrow, anchored off Canton; and then seized twelve out of fourteen of the crew, bound them, and carried them away. The Arrow had a colonial register from the governor of Hong-kong, which placed it under British protection; the master, an Englishman, protested against the seizure, but was not listened to. The British flag, too, was hauled down from the lorcha. This was the statement on the part of the British. Most of the accusations, however, were stoutly denied by the officials of Canton, who asserted that the lorcha was Chinese, that the owner was Chinese, that the crew were Chinese, and that the boarding was effected simply to take into custody men who had committed some offence against Chinese laws.

When the seizure of the men from the Arrow became known, Mr Parkes remonstrated with the Chinese officer, on the ground that the crew were under British protection. No notice being taken of this remonstrance, Mr Parkes communicated with the highest dignitary in that part of China, whose name was Yeh Mingchin, and whose office was variously designated imperial commissioner, governor, and viceroy. The letter sent by Parkes to this functionary demanded that the twelve men should be brought back to the lorcha by the same officer who had taken them away, that an apology should be made, and an assurance given that the British flag should in future be respected. The men were sent back, after much negotiation; but Mr Parkes complained that the return ‘was not made in the public manner which had marked the seizure, and that all appearance of an apology was pointedly avoided.’ The facts were communicated to Sir John Bowring, and by him to Admiral Seymour. No real injury had been done, for the men had been reinstated; but there was an insult, which the English representatives conceived themselves bound to resent. They had often been piqued at the absence of respect shewn by the officers of the Celestial Empire, and were willing to avail themselves of any reasonable opportunity for bringing about a more diplomatic state of affairs.

The first act of war occurred on the part of the British. Sir John Bowring recommended to the admiral the seizure of a Chinese junk or war-boat, as a probable mode of bringing an apology. Sir Michael accordingly directed Commodore Elliot, of the Sybille, to carry out Bowring’s instructions; and placed at his disposal the Burracouta steam-sloop and the Coromandel tender. A junk was seized; but this was a profitless adventure; for, being found to be private property, the junk was given up again. The admiral next sent the steam-frigates Encounter and Sampson up the Canton river; ‘in the hope that the presence of such an imposing force would shew the high-commissioner the prudence of complying with our demands.’ The Chinese viceroy remained, nevertheless, immovable; he made no apology. Mr Parkes thereupon went from Canton to Hong-kong, to consult with Bowring and Seymour as to the best course to be adopted. They all agreed that the seizure of the defences of the city of Canton would be the most judicious, both as a display of power without the sacrifice of life, and of the determination of the English to enforce redress – ‘experience of the Chinese character having proved that moderation is considered by the officials only as an evidence of weakness.’

Then commenced the second stage in the proceedings. On the 23d of October, Sir Michael Seymour went in person up to Canton, with the Coromandel, Sampson, and Barracouta, and accompanied by the marines and boat-crews of the Calcutta, Winchester, Bittern, and Sybille. He captured four forts a few miles below Canton, spiked the guns, destroyed the ammunition, and burned the buildings. Another, the Macao fort, in the middle of the river, mounting 86 guns, he retained and garrisoned for a time. Mr Parkes was then sent to announce to Yeh that the British admiral had come to enforce redress for insults received, and would remain in the river until redress was obtained. The high-commissioner sent a reply which was not deemed satisfactory. On the morning of the 24th, marines and sailors were sent to capture the ‘Bird’s Nest Fort,’ the Shamin Fort, and others near Canton; this they did, spiking the guns and destroying the ammunition. On the afternoon of the same day, strong reinforcements were sent to the British factory, or trading-station of the merchants, to protect it from any sudden attack, and to guard against the floating of fire-rafts by the Chinese on the river.

‘Apology’ was the demand made by the British representatives; but no apology came; and thereupon the siege of Canton was proceeded with. On the 25th, a fort called the Dutch Folly, immediately opposite the city, was captured. The 26th being Sunday, nothing was done on that day. On the 27th, the admiral heightened his demands. He caused Consul Parkes to write to the Chinese commissioner, to the effect that as the required apology and reparation had not been given, the terms should be made more stringent. Henceforward, the field of contest was widened; it was no longer the lorcha and the flag alone that constituted the grievance. Sir John Bowring probably thought that the same amount of threat and of fighting, if fighting there must be, might be made to settle other annoyances, as well as those more immediately under notice. No reply being sent to Parkes’s letter, the guns of the Encounter and Barracouta were brought to bear upon the Chinese commissioner’s residence, and upon some troops posted on the hills behind a fort named by the English Gough’s Fort. This enraged Yeh Mingchin, who issued a proclamation, offering a reward of thirty dollars for every Englishman’s head.

Sir Michael, resolved to punish this obstinate viceroy, made preparations for a much more serious attack. He sent Captain Hall on shore, to warn the inhabitants of Canton to remove their persons and property from the vicinity of a certain portion of the city; this they did during the night of the 27th. On the 28th, a bombardment was kept up from the Dutch Folly, with a view of opening a clear passage to the wall of the city; and when this passage was opened by noon on the 29th, a storming-party was sent in under Commodore Elliot. Marines and sailors, with two field-pieces, advanced to the wall, and speedily obtained possession of the defences between two of the city-gates. One of the gates was then blown to pieces by gunpowder, and another body of seamen advanced to that spot under Captain Hall. Soon afterwards, Seymour, Parkes, and Elliot entered the city through this shattered gate, went to the high-commissioner’s house, inspected it, remained there some time, and then returned to the ships. The motive for this visit was a singular one, unusual in European warlike politics, but having a significance in dealing with so peculiar a people as the Chinese; it was simply (in the words of the admiral’s dispatch) ‘to shew his excellency that I had the power to enter the city.’

The month of November opened ominously. The British were determined to humble the pride of the Chinese officials; whereas, these officials shewed no signs of yielding. Admiral Seymour now addressed a letter in his own name to the high-commissioner, adverting to the case of the Arrow; pointing threateningly to the fact that Canton was at the mercy of cannon-balls, and inviting him to terminate the unsatisfactory state of affairs by a personal interview. He claimed credit, rather than the reverse, for his conduct towards the city. ‘It has been wholly with a view to the preservation of life, that my operations have hitherto been so deliberately conducted. Even when entering the city, no blood was shed, save where my men were assailed; and the property of the people was in every way respected.’ Commissioner Yeh’s reply to this letter was not deficient in courtesy or dignity; whether or not he believed his own assertions, he at least put them forth in temperate language. He maintained, as he had before asserted to Consul Parkes, that the seizure of the twelve men on board the Arrow was perfectly legal; that some of them had been released on their innocence of an imputed crime being proved; that the other three were given up when Parkes demanded them; that the Arrow was a Chinese vessel; that the authorities had no means of knowing that she had passed into the hands of an Englishman; that no flag was flying when the vessel was boarded, and, therefore, no flag could have been insultingly hauled down. The non-admission of English representatives into Canton was defended on the plea that, the less the two nations came in contact, the less were they likely to quarrel. Again was a letter written, and in more threatening terms than before. Sir Michael refused to discuss in writing the case of the Arrow, and insisted that nothing short of a personal interview between himself and Yeh, either on shipboard, or in Canton city, could settle the quarrel. Nothing daunted, Commissioner Yeh replied on the 3d, reiterating his assertions of the justice of his cause, and acceding to no propositions for a personal interview.

On the 6th a naval engagement took place on the river. The Chinese collected twenty-three war-junks in one spot, under the protection of the French Folly fort, mounted with twenty-six heavy guns. This fort was a little lower down the river than the Dutch Folly. Seymour resolved to disperse this junk-fleet at once. Commodore Elliot headed an attack by the guns, the crews, and the boats of the Barracouta and Coromandel. A fierce exchange of firing took place: the Chinese having no less than a hundred and fifty guns in the junks and the fort. The fort was taken, the guns spiked, and the ammunition destroyed; the Chinese were driven out of the junks, and twenty-two of those vessels were burned. No fighting took place on the 7th. On the 8th the Chinese made a bold attempt to burn the British ships by fire-rafts; but the intended mischief was frustrated. The commissioner still being immovable, Bowring now suggested to Seymour that the next step ought to be the capture and destruction of the Bogue Forts – four powerfully armed defences on which the Chinese much relied. This was done after more fruitless negotiation.

Admiral Seymour had thus, by the middle of November, obtained full command of the Canton river; and he then stayed his operations for a while. The original cause of dispute, comparatively trifling, had now given place to a very grave state of affairs; and it remained to be seen whether the Palmerston ministry would lay all the blame on the obstinacy of Commissioner Yeh, or whether Bowring and Seymour would be considered to have exceeded their powers and their duties. So far as concerns the attitude of the Cantonese themselves, three deputations from the principal merchants and gentry waited on Mr Parkes between the 8th and 12th of November, to express their wishes that an amicable termination of the quarrel could be brought about; but at the same time to assert their conviction that, such was the inflexibility of the high-commissioner’s character, he would never alter his expressed determination to refuse the English representatives admission into the city.

It may be well to remark in this place that the opium difficulty, which was unquestionably paramount above all others in the first war with China, had now lost much of its importance. The imperial government had in later years issued very few edicts against the traffic in this drug. Perhaps the quietness in this matter was mainly due to the fact that the export of silver to pay for the Indian opium was no longer needed – the increased sale of tea and silk being sufficient to make up an equivalent.

On the 26th of the month, other armed forts in the Canton river were taken by the English. The Chinese, in revenge for these proceedings, burned and destroyed almost all the European factories, mercantile buildings, and banks at Canton – leaving so little but ruins that Admiral Seymour could hardly find a roof to cover the seamen and marines when they afterwards landed. The commercial losses might be repaired; but an irreparable consequence of the incendiarism was the destruction of Dr Williams’s printing establishment; including the large founts of Chinese type with which Morrison’s Dictionary was printed; and comprising also more than 10,000 unsold volumes of books.

In this sort of piecemeal war, each successive attack irritated in its turn the opposite party; but the burning of the factories determined Bowring and Seymour to the adoption of a sterner policy than had hitherto been displayed. They resolved to bombard Canton itself, and to send an application to the governor-general of India for military aid – trusting that the home-government would hold them justified in adopting this course under difficulties and responsibilities of no light kind.

The year 1856 came to a close. The new year was ushered in with an attack by the Chinese on Dutch Folly on the 1st of January. Six guns mounted on the Canton shore, and four on the opposite shore, fired into the Folly; but the small English force there stationed soon quelled this attack. On the 4th, a fleet of war-junks opened fire on the Comus and Hornet at the barrier in Macao Passage. No sooner did news of this attack reach Admiral Seymour, than he hastened forward in the Coromandel, towing all the available boats of the other ships. On nearing the junks, some of them undauntedly attacked the Coromandel, the boats, and a fort called the Teetotum Fort, which the English had before captured. The junks were heavily armed, and some of them had long snake-boats lashed to each side to row them along. A third fleet came down Sulphur Creek, and attacked the Niger and the Encounter. This was altogether a new aspect of the quarrel; the Chinese, not in the least humbled by the demands of Bowring and Seymour, became the assailants in the Canton river, and fought with a resolution hardly expected by their opponents. The attacks were not attended with very definite results. Not one junk was taken; they retired and collected into a somewhat formidable fleet of nearly four hundred.

The state of affairs was in every sense unsatisfactory to the English authorities. Commissioner Yeh was as firm as ever, and severely reproved the Canton gentry and merchants who had sent deputations to Sir Michael. He issued proclamations, denouncing the ‘barbarians’ in fiercer terms than before. Cruel massacres took place, whenever an isolated Englishman chanced to fall into the hands of the Chinese. Proclamations in the native language found their way to Hong-kong, inviting the seventy thousand Chinese residing in that island to rise against their English employers. Some of these Chinese were detected in attempts to introduce poison into the bread made for and sold to the English residents by the Chinese bakers. Against all this Bowring and Seymour could do little; and yet something, it was felt, must be attempted; for British trade at Canton was for a time ruined; and if matters were allowed to remain in their present state, the triumph of the Chinese would be most humiliating and pernicious to the English.

During the month of January (1857), while no progress was made in settling the differences at Canton, the spirit of the Chinese at Hong-kong became more and more hostile to the British; nor were those at Singapore unaffected by the taint. The warlike movements of the month – so far as that can be called war where no war had yet been declared – exasperated the Chinese, without making any impression on the obstinacy of Yeh. They consisted in the destruction of a portion of the city of Canton. Early on the morning of the 12th, bodies of marines and sailors set forth, armed with fireballs, torches, steeped oakum, &c.; they were conveyed in ships’ boats, and landed on different parts of the suburbs of the city. The boats then retired a little way from the shore, while the Barracouta, Encounter, and Niger, kept watch in the middle of the river. The men advanced into the outer streets of the city, and commenced the work of destruction. The houses being mostly built of wood, they were easily ignited, and the breeze within an hour united all the fires into one vast sheet of flame. To increase the destruction, shot and shell were poured into the city from the ships and the fort. Throughout the whole of the day, did this miserable work continue – miserable in so far as it inflicted much suffering on the inhabitants, without hastening the capture of the city. On the 13th the attack ceased; Sir Michael Seymour made what arrangements he could to retain command of the passage of the Canton river; while the Cantonese provided for their houseless towns-people in hastily built structures. The British naval force under Sir Michael Seymour, comprising all the ships in the India and China seas, was by this time very formidable. It comprised the Calcutta (84), Raleigh (50), Nanking (50), Sybille (40), Pique (40), eight other sailing-vessels varying from 12 to 26 guns, twelve war-steamers, and seven steam gun-boats. These could have wrought great achievements in action at sea, with their 5000 seamen and marines; but there were scarcely any regular troops to conduct operations on land.

During February, the English consuls and traders could not but observe the increasing hostility of the Chinese. Dastardly assassinations occasionally took place; piracy was more rampant than ever; war-junks made their appearance wherever an English boat appeared to be insufficiently guarded; and proclamations were issued in the name of the emperor, applauding the firmness of Yeh. The merchants wished either that the affair of the Arrow had never been taken notice of by the British authorities, or else that the warlike operations had been carried on with more resolute effect. All the commercial relations had become disturbed, without any perceptible prospect of a return to peaceful trade. One of the worst features in the state of affairs was this – that as the English throughout the whole of the China seas were at all times few in number, they were obliged to employ Chinese servants and helpers; and these Chinamen were found now to be very little trustworthy. On the 23d of the month, the passenger-steamer Queen was on its way from Hong-kong to Macao; when suddenly the Chinese passengers joined with the Chinese crew in a murderous attack on the English passengers and officers, by which several lives were lost.

March arrived, but with it no solution of the Chinese difficulty. Even supposing Sir John Bowring, by this time, to have received instructions from home, warlike or otherwise, there had been no time to send him reinforcements of troops; and until such arrived, any extensive operations on land would be impracticable. Sir John and his colleagues waited until their hands were strengthened.