and a more secure employment of capital will be open to the whole world in common with herself.

For

The action of Russia towards Persia has not been less clear than that of England. She has throughout the century missed no opportunity, either in time of peace or war, of increasing her own possessions at the expense of Persia, and the larger part of her Transcaucasian province has been so acquired. She is accustomed, ivy-like, to grow fat on decaying organisms: Persia, Turkey and China furnish but different illustrations of her persistent policy. Her cynical abandonment of the Armenians to destruction because she did not choose to allow other European powers to interfere with her chosen prey is the most shameless scandal of contemporary politics, and Persia will do well to take the lesson to heart. Persia to become strong and independent would cause Russia infinite annoyance, and her jealousy is directly aroused when she sees any hand approach the fruit which she has determined to gather. All concessions proposed to be granted by the Persian Government to other powers she opposes, and if she cannot cancel them she insists on a still larger concession being given to herself. The development of the industrial resources of Persia she does not desire, further than to divert all foreign commerce to routes where it may pay heavy toll to her own custom houses. Indignation at misgovernment and corruption in Persia she can hardly be expected to feel, for corruption in Russia is probably as high placed and universal; while, as for moral and intellectual progress, there is to-day in poor, ignorant Persia more real freedom of speech and action, more religious toleration, more practical acknowledgment of the dignity and equality of man than in all the wide dominions of the Czar. There is no doubt that the Persian, who belongs to the purest Aryan type, is far more highly developed than the Russian Slav, who has never shown himself to be possessed of any high intellectual capacity.

There is a very general and excusable ignorance as to the relative influence of England and Russia in Persia. It is assumed that the power of Russia has continually increased at Teheran, while that of England has diminished; that Russia could, at any moment, overrun and annex Persia without any effective interference from England, and there are writers of repute who argue that it is useless to contend with the inevitable, and that it would be the wisest policy to hasten the disintegration of Persia and come to an arrangement with Russia to divide the kingdom of the Shah. Such a policy would be as foolish as it would be immoral. So far from English influence having decreased at Teheran there was no time in the last fifty years in which England was more powerful in Persia than she is to-day. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, Sir Frank Lascelles and Sir Mortimer Durand, a succession of ministers of ripe experience, knowledge of the East, energy and enlightened patriotism, have entirely altered the

discreditable position to which England had sunk in Persia, when her policy was conducted by apathetic and timid diplomatists. It is obvious that if Russia were to move her armies into Persia she could occupy Teheran and the northern provinces without serious opposition. The Persian army, as we experienced in 1857, is neither numerous, well armed nor disciplined, and England would certainly not send troops so far from their base. But there are many considerations which make it unlikely that Russia will take such a step. In the first place it would probably entail war with England, who could command the Gulf, the more important trade routes and the southern provinces. So far as Russia is concerned, having full command of the Caspian and an excellent road from Resht to the capital, such an occupation would be of little benefit to her trade and would be more costly than it was worth; while her road to the open sea would be more effectually blocked than ever. In the second place, the industrial development of Persia which, in spite of many difficulties and opposition from corrupt officials and fanatical priests, has made great progress during the last few years, has raised a moral barrier against Russian ambition. Persia, with an elaborate telegraph system, a rudimentary free press and a veneer of Western civilisation in her capital, almost as substantial as that of Belgrade or Bucharest; with all the nations of Europe represented by their Legations, and enjoying the special regard and friendship of England, cannot be attacked and overrun without outraging the conscience of Europe. Russia has done good service in Central Asia in restoring order and subduing the wild, slave-hunting Turkoman tribes, but she has no superior civilisation to offer to an ancient monarchy like Persia, nor is the fate of the Persian peasant so miserable or degraded as that of the Russian. Nor should it be thought that Persia is a country where life and property are insecure. Crime is of rare occurrence, travelling is safe, and it is from pride and not from necessity that Persians carry arms. The streets of Teheran are certainly safer than those of Paris and London, and a stranger may roam at night in perfect security in the darkest quarters of the capital. Lastly, the Russian Empire, which from various considerations, such as its vast area, the homogeneity of its population and their stolid patriotism, is impregnable as a defensive power, is singularly weak for offence. The very qualities which make the Russian soldiery so formidable at home render them inefficient abroad; the inferior quality of the officers and generals, the indescribable corruption which makes the transport and commissariat departments invariably break down, the want of communications and the general absence in staff or men of any intelligent spirit these and other causes render the Russian armies, so overwhelming on paper, altogether unreliable for offensive warfare. Even Turkey, bankrupt and enfeebled, would have beaten Russia in the late war had not the despised Roumanians come to her assistance.

It is most unreasonable to argue, as some English writers are doing, that the present Shah, Muzaffar-ud-Din, is incompetent and has strong Russian proclivities, when they evidently know little or nothing about him. The very fact that he has succeeded to the throne without any opposition either from the people or rival claimants more favourably placed for a coup d'état at Teheran, shows that there is a general belief in his capacity. The statement that he is ignorant of affairs and has no aptitude for government is absurd when it is remembered that he is a man of mature age who has for years administered, through subordinate governors, but still in the independent manner of Persian viceroys, a large and important province where he has been distinctly popular. Rapacity and corruption, which have hitherto been the rule in Persia, have not been absent from his province of Azarbiján, but they have not been so rampant there as in other provinces, notably in those over which the Zill-i-Sultán, the eldest son of the late Shah, holds sway. It is true that the new monarch has, of late years, been careful not to make himself so prominent as to arouse the jealousy of his father, for he knew that this might result in his being deprived of the position of Wali-'Ahd, or heir apparent. He had seen his elder brother, the Zill-i-Sultán, who made too conspicuous a parade of his wealth and his troops, suddenly stripped of the greater part of his power and reduced to insignificance, and his readiness to learn the lesson rather proves his intelligence than his incompetence. There is no reason to credit the statement that he has any special Russian tendencies, though his residence at Tabreez, near the Russian border, has naturally inclined him to friendly intercourse with his powerful neighbours. At Teheran he will be able to take a more general view of the political situation. It would be foolish in the extreme for any Shah to set himself in opposition to Russia, or to excite her jealousy by too pronounced a partiality for any other power. A wholesome dread of Russia and a desire to conciliate her by any reasonable concessions was the consistent policy of Násiruddin, and his successor, if he be wise, will continue in the same course. But though a prince and an heir apparent may find it convenient to cultivate Russian friendships which may assist him in maintaining a difficult and critical position, it is not to be believed that an actual ruler of Persia will look on Russia with any more sentimental regard than a rabbit bestows on a boa constrictor. The manners of Russian diplomatists very much savour of their Tartar origin, and persuasion is quickly exchanged for menace with those who are too weak to he audacious. There is reason to believe that if the new Shah, who has safely arrived at his capital and was enthroned on the 8th of June, acts towards Russia with discretion and courtesy, and at the same time relies on the support and assistance of England for the industrial

development of his country, he may have a more prosperous reign than that of his father.

As for the suggestion that England should come to terms with Russia for the partition of Persia, it is sufficient to remark that the true policy of England is to work for the regeneration of Persia, which is by no means hopeless, and which both Lord Salisbury and Sir Henry Drummond Wolff believed possible when the charter for the Imperial Bank of Persia was granted by Her Majesty's Government. The proposed arrangement would rival the partition of Poland in infamy, and whatever glamour may attach to success, especially with gallant and adventurous Englishmen, it is not too much to hope that the conscience of England is not debauched by the sordid and stupid muddle connected with the names of Rhodes and Jameson. The morality of writers who cynically advocate the partition of Persia between England and Russia savours of that of the old Cornish parson in Peter Pindar, who was preaching when the cry of 'A wreck! a wreck!' was heard outside the church, and the congregation began, one by one, to steal away. Finding his eloquence unavailing to detain them,

'Stop! stop!' cried he, 'at least one prayer:
Let me get down and all start fair.'

But England, whose name, whatever her enemies may say, stands as a synonym for honour and good faith throughout the East, will refuse to accept the counsels of filibusters, and will honestly endeavour to promote the prosperity of Persia. The continuance of the Prime Minister, or Sadr Azam, in office is a signal proof of the good sense of the new monarch. It is exceedingly difficult, as may be imagined, for the Chief Minister of an Oriental state to keep on good terms with the heir apparent, and it is phenomenally rare for the latter to continue him in power when he succeeds to the throne. That it has been possible on this occasion reflects great credit on both the Shah and the Minister. The speech of the Shah on the occasion of his enthronement at Teheran, telegraphed to the Times on the 9th of June, contains the following notable passage, which will rejoice all the true friends of Persia:

The Sadr Ázam, who is one of the most enlightened and experienced servants of the late Shah, is confirmed in his eminent post; and, with full powers in civil and military administration, will from this moment execute our decrees, giving us content and satisfaction, and gaining for himself a further increase of royal favour.

The Shah further commences his reign auspiciously by an act of benevolence which will greatly increase his popularity, removing in perpetuity throughout Persia the taxes on meat and bread, which pressed hardly on the poorer classes. In connection with this remission it may be mentioned, as showing the good disposition of the late Shah and the desire of his son to extend his benevolent inten

tions, that on the day that the telegraphic announcement of this concession reached England, I received the draft of an edict, drawn up by the late Shah, and signed by him a few days before his assassination, showing that this was the very favour which he proposed to grant to the Teheran townsmen on the occasion of his jubilee. As this document has never been published in Europe or Persia, I subjoin a translation, as it is of permanent interest.1

The Prime Minister, Mirza Ali Asghar Khan, is well known to European statesmen, as he accompanied the Shah during his tour in 1889. He is now about forty years of age, and is a man of great resource, courage, and ability. He has maintained his position by the force of his high personal qualities, and is favourably regarded by all the foreign Legations at Teheran. He is sincerely anxious for the peaceful development of Persia, and has given constant support to all serious enterprises which he believed would further that object. Especially does he desire the construction of roads and railways, and he was personally interested in the concession granted to the Imperial Bank for a road between Teheran and the southern ports, making over to the Bank his original rights in the section between Teheran and Kum. He has been a warm and constant friend to the Imperial Bank of Persia, and it was largely due to his advice and assistance that it has attained its present position. He is thoroughly liberal in his ideas, and has always been an admirer of England and a friend of Englishmen. So long as he retains the confidence of the Shah there is every hope that a liberal and enlightened policy may prevail in Persia, and in this is the one and only hope of the escape of this ancient empire from the difficulties of the future. The dangers of darkness and barbarism will only be overcome by the weapons which civilisation can furnish. The risk of opposition to the new Shah was never great, and the statement generally made, that Násiruddin had made no declaration as to the

The aim and object of His Imperial Majesty the Shah-in-Shah being always to provide equally for the welfare and happiness of all classes of his Empire, in order that the rich and great equally with the poor and small may partake of his favour and benevolence, and in return offer their devoted prayers for this ancient and everlasting kingdom, it is decreed that on the occasion of the fifty years' jubilee of His Imperial Majesty's reign, which will be celebrated this month, Zilked 1313, all taxes and imposts which it has been accustomed from time immemorial to levy on meat, as well as all revenues and taxes on bread in Teheran, are, from the date of this announcement, perpetually abolished. No one need pay the smallest coin on these articles of food, and every part of a slaughtered sheep, lamb, or ox, as well as the skin, head, and feet, will belong to the owner. May the wrath of Almighty God visit whosoever should at any time hereafter attempt under any pretext whatever to impose taxes of any kind on bread and meat.

'On the 22nd of this month Zilked [May 5, 1896], which is the day of rejoicing and the jubilee of the august reign, in the walls of all the important mosques of Teheran shall be set slabs of marble, with engraved thereon the purport of this Imperial decree.