much as the progress made during that time by Russia, in extent of territory and in influence over the affairs of other states. In the middle of the fifteenth century, as will be seen by a glance at the accompanying map, what is now Russia consisted only of the grand-duchy of Moscow-a limited territory in the centre of Northern Europe, scarcely known even by name in the countries of the West. From that nucleus, in pursuance of an ambitious policy, and by a series of skilfully executed manoeuvres, it has been enlarged in all directions, till it now embraces the vast region lying between the Arctic Ocean on the north and the Black Sea on the south, with the Pacific as its eastern and the Baltic as its western boundary. Previous to the reign of Peter I., surnamed the Great, who ascended the throne in 1689, the history of Russia presents only a succession of savage struggles with surrounding nationalities. The ruling authority had attacked and been attacked by Mongols, Tatars, Cossacks, Turks, Lithuanians, Poles, and Swedes; and, advancing in power, had acquired the title of Czar or Emperor. Slavonic in race and language, and professing the Greek form of Christianity, the Russian people have never intermingled with the Western nations, but may be said, as a race, to partake of that character which we associate with the semi-civilised inhabitants of Asia. Amidst the rude Slavonians, Peter arose as a reformer of manners; and notwithstanding some grave faults, deserves to be spoken of as one of the greatest men in an age prolific in distinguished persons. His personal history is well known, and need not be repeated. What concerns us at present, is his eager desire to extend as well as to consolidate the Russian power. Peter was animated with great aspirations. Besides desiring to civilise his people, his aim was to elevate them to the position of a leading nation; and he lived to accomplish his purpose. Assuming the title of 'Emperor of all the Russias,' he vastly enlarged his dominions, built cities, created a navy and a well-disciplined army; and, aiming at trade with India, pushed his conquests to the borders of the Sea of Azof. In these projects may be perceived the first encroachment on the Ottoman dominions, which, during a period of nearly two centuries, would appear to have been the coveted prey of Russia. In 1709, Peter established a series of posts from the Volga to the Don; and at the mouth of this latter river built Taganrog, as a centre of intercourse on the south, whence further advances could be effected. He was, however, in 1711, obliged to relinquish Taganrog and the Sea of Azof to the Turks. Being thus shut out from Persia and India by a route westward of the Caucasus, he turned to the east. In 1717, he sent Prince Alexander Bekevitch on an apparently friendly mission to Khiva, eastward of the Caspian, but with secret orders to seize certain gold-mines, in whose existence he thought he had reason to believe; but

the Khivans were as cunning and cruel as he was treacherous; they defeated his plan, and destroyed all the members of his embassy. He next sent an embassy to Persia, to open commercial relations with India; and here Peter met with that which the czars have ever seemed to take delight in-a discontented tributary to a neighbouring monarch, The governor of Kandahar was at issue with his sovereign, the Shah of Persia. Persia was weak, and was attacked by Turks, Afghans, and Lesghis all at once. Peter, in 1722, interfered in the wonted Russian fashion: he 'protected' his 'old good friend the shah,' his 'great friend and neighbour,' his 'dear friend,' as he called him in a remarkable manifesto; he sent an army of 50,000 men into Persia; and ended by conquering and appropriating three Persian provinces on the shores of the Caspian. After this, the Afghans deposed one shah and set up another: this was a favourable opportunity for Russia; Peter offered his aid to the deposed monarch, on condition of certain concessions; and the result was, that in a few years Russia obtained a hold on Daghestan, Ghilan, Mazanderan, and Asterabad-valuable provinces on the south-western shore of the Caspian.

All the ambitious proceedings of Peter in the East were, however, suddenly checked. The terrible Nadir, the freebooter of Khorassan, who made himself Shah of Persia, was an antagonist such as Russia had not before encountered in Asia. Nadir first attacked the Afghans, driving them from all their conquests in Persia; then turned westward, and similarly expelled the Turks from certain provinces which they had appropriated; and then directed his attention to Russia, who was forced to relinquish every Asiatic acquisition she had gained. Thus ended Russian aggression in the East for a time. Peter himself had departed from the scene; he died in 1725; and the treaty of 1735, whereby the Russians evacuated the Persian provinces, was made with one of his

successors.

After Peter's death, the throne was held by his widow Catherine. This remarkable woman had been a peasant; her most powerful minister, Prince Menchikoff-ancestor of the prince who was concerned in the events of 1853-had been a pastry-cook's boy in the royal kitchen; and neither of the two could read or write. Nevertheless, Russia prospered during this short reign of two years, although Catherine's foreign acquisitions were limited to the exaction of homage from the Kubinskan Tatars, and of allegiance from a Georgian prince. After her death, in 1727, there was a succession of feeble reigns, during which Russia was too much occupied with domestic affairs to attend much to foreign conquests; yet she was not idle. In the triangular portion of country between the Don, the Volga, and the Caucasus, were various tribes-Kalmuks, Nogays, and Circassians-nomad in habits, and more or less tributary to surrounding nations. Russia turned a wistful eye upon these. She sent some

missionaries to convert to Christianity the Ossetians, a pagan tribe in the Caucasian mountains; whether or not they succeeded in this, they at least made the Ossetians consent to become tributary to Russia. The Ossetian country opened a pathway to Georgia, a fertile region for which Persia and Turkey had long struggled; and Russia turned her attention to this path.

Catherine II., during her reign from 1762 to 1796, was the great representative of Russian aggression. Of her personal character, we have not here to speak; but her conduct as an empress towards her neighbours, as of vast political importance, cannot pass unnoticed. Her tyranny over the tribes near the Caucasus, in the early years of her reign, was such, that the Circassians took refuge in the almost inaccessible fastnesses of their mountains; the Nogays sought refuge with the Khan of the Crimea-then an independent Tatar state; the Kabardans of Circassia abandoned Christianity for Islam, as a means of exchanging Russian for Turkish rule; and the Kalmuks took the wonderful resolution, in 1771, of departing in a body to their own original territory in Chinese Tatary, on the borders of the Tibetan dominions. History has, perhaps, recorded nothing more striking than this voluntary journey of half a million human beings, to a distance of probably two thousand miles, as a means of escaping from Russian despotism. When, at a later date, troubles broke out in Georgia-a fertile country southward of the Caucasus, and between the Black and Caspian Seas and Persia and Turkey struggled for its possession, Russia stepped in on her wonted footing, offered to assist the one against the other, and ultimately took Georgia itself as her reward.

While these affairs were in progress in Asia, Catherine was not idle in Europe. Poland had fallen into difficulties concerning the succession to the crown, and Catherine succeeded in placing one of her dependents on the throne, and overrunning Poland with her agents. Turkey now became uneasy at the progress of the czarina, for the possession of Poland would bring Russia too near the Ottoman dominions; and the sultan, having a stock of injuries to complain of, declared war against Russia in 1769. England assisted Russia in this war with a fleet; and the results were so disastrous to Turkey, that she was driven to many humiliating concessions in the Treaty of Kainardji in 1774. By this treaty, Russia secured the free navigation of the Black Sea, the passage of the Dardanelles, the privilege of having one ship of war in those regions, and the acquisition of Azof,

As the treaties and conventions between Russia and Turkey will frequently be mentioned, the following list may be useful, relating to the period between 1774 and 1849:

Taganrog, Kertch, and Kinburn; she secured an extension of her frontier to the river Bug or Boug, assumed the sovereignty of Kabarda, near the Caucasus; and obtained the renunciation by Turkey of suzerain power over the Khan of the Crimea-a renunciation which Russia did not fail afterwards to turn to her own advantage. These successes were not all that Catherine wished, but they paved the way for more. In 1776, she established a line of posts, including nearly thirty fortresses, from the Black Sea to the Caspian. A few years afterwards, the Christian princes of Georgia, Imeretia, and Mingrelia-all on the southern base of the Caucasus-flattered by Russian gifts, or intimidated by Russian threats, transferred their allegiance from Turkey to Russia; as did also the chiefs of many petty principalities in the Persian dominions.

The Treaty of Kainardji had rendered the Crimea independent of Turkey; and Catherine immediately began to 'protect' the khan in that extraordinary way so peculiar to Russia. The Russian determination to obtain Constantinople, also began about this time to be openly acknowledged; and hostilities again commenced between the Russians and the Turks. Potemkin and Suvaroff poured their troops into the Caucasian region; while other armies, under pretext of assisting the khan against the Turks, forcibly seized the Crimea, expelled and deposed the khan, and slaughtered all the Tatar nobles who tried to maintain the independence of their sea-girt peninsula. About the same time, too, she offered her 'protection' to the voyvodes or princes of Wallachia and Moldavia, and contrived that they should look up to her, rather than to the sultan, as a suzerain; the Christians in Bulgaria and Servia were also encouraged to revolt, and to claim her protection whenever they pleased against the sultan-all in defiance of any pre-existing treaties. The conquest and massacre in the Crimea occurred in 1783; but there had previously been a treaty, signed at Constantinople in 1779, containing a few clauses which effected but little in settling the relations between the two countries. They made a commercial treaty together in 1783; but Catherine did not announce her determination to seize the Crimea until after this signing. The city of Kherson was built at the mouth of the Dnieper, in suspicious proximity to the Turkish frontier; and in 1787, Catherine made a brilliant entry into her new city, passing under a triumphal arch, on which was inscribed in the Greek tongue-' THE WAY TO BYZANTIUM.' Again did Russia and Turkey go to war; and again was the war ended by a treatysigned at Jassy in 1792-disastrous to the latter power: she was forced to yield the territory between the rivers Bug and Dniester; to relinquish all control over Georgia and the neighbouring provinces; and to give Russia a certain claim to influence in other quarters without actual sovereignty.

While making these aggressions towards the south, Catherine was not less successful in extending

her empire towards the west. Poland suffered its first great disaster in 1772-its first partition.' There is much reason to believe that Prussia suggested this nefarious project-that Frederick planned it with Catherine; and that a slice was given to Austria, as a means of winning consent to the spoliation. By the Treaty of St Petersburg, signed August 5, 1772, Russia grasped Polotsk, Vitepsk, Micislaf, and Polish Livonia; Prussia helped herself to Malborg, Pomerania, Varmia, and portions of Culm and Great Poland; Austria appropriated Galicia, with parts of Podolia and Sandomir; while distracted Poland had to do as she best might with what was left to her. Russia acquired 3440 square leagues of territory, and 1,500,000 inhabitants. If Prussia suggested the first partition, assuredly Russia dictated those which followed. Exhausted alike by internal dissensions, external attacks, and foreign bribery of her subjects, Poland became yearly more and more powerless; until at length, in 1793, the 'second partition' took place, by which the Russian boundary was advanced to the centre of Lithuania and Volhynia; while Prussia obtained the remainder of Great Poland and a portion of Little Poland-Austria taking no part in this spoliation. Poland was by this time reduced to 4000 square miles. The attempt of the brave Kosciusko to restore the liberties of his country was disastrous; it brought about the 'third partition,' in 1795, which blotted Poland from the list of nations. Austria took Cracow and the country between the Pilitza, the Vistula, and the Bug; Prussia absorbed the country as far as the river Niemen; while Russia appropriated all the rest. The large area of these acquisitions by Russia is clearly shewn in our map.

During the reigns of Paul and Alexander (1796 to 1825), Russia obtained a larger area of country from Persia than from Turkey. Paul seems to have inherited from Catherine two great desires -for a road to India through Persia, and a road to Constantinople through the Danubian provinces. Independently of these, however, the provinces between the Black and Caspian Seas were useful to Russia on other grounds. During the first quarter of the present century, there was an almost unceasing struggle between Russia and Persia, marked every now and then by the cession of provinces to the former. Thus, Georgia was permanently annexed in 1800; Mingrelia and Imeretia, in 1802; Sheki, in 1805; and various other patches of country, in 1812 and 1814. Turkey had a few years of release from open war with Russia after the death of Catherine; but the intrigues in Moldavia, Wallachia, and Servia, became so intolerable, that the sultan declared war upon the czar in 1806. Turkey narrowly escaped a snare. In 1804, during the complexity of European politics, a friendly alliance was just on the point of being formed between Turkey and Russia; but Sultan Selim luckily looked closely at one of the clauses, and found that the Czar Alexander claimed, as part of the price paid for Russian friendliness, that all the

subjects of the Porte professing the Greek religion should be placed under the immediate protection of Russia. The sultan refused to concede this, and war ensued some time afterwards, Turkey was in a wretched position: Paswan Oglu, in Widdin; Ali Pacha, in Albania; Djezzar Pacha, in Syria; Mehemet Ali, in Egypt; Czerny George, in Servia; Ypsilanti, in Moldavia-all were more or less in a state of rebellion against the sultan, obeying him or not as their inclinations varied. The Peace of Tilsit gave a short respite to Turkey; but hostilities soon recommenced, and continued several years. When a settlement of accounts took place, by the Treaty of Bucharest in 1812, the czar obtained Bessarabia (by which his frontier was advanced westward from the Dniester to the Pruth)-secured the navigation of the Danube to merchant-ships-obtained for his ships of war a right to ascend the Pruth up to its junction with the Danube-procured an amnesty for the rebellious Servians who had aided him and stipulated for the demolition of the fortresses recently erected by the Turks in Servia. Thus, again, was Turkey despoiled by its formidable northern neighbour.

The Treaty of Tilsit sanctioned a few juggling arrangements, by which portions of Poland were bandied about from one spoliator to another; but all these changes ended in the permanent annexation of the greater part of that kingdom. Sweden was destined next to suffer. Taking as a pretext the refusal of this state to close her ports against England, during a disagreement between Russia and England, Alexander suddenly despatched an army to Finland, without any declaration of war; and when Sweden thereupon declared war, two years' hostilities ensued, which ended with the Treaty of Friedrichsham in 1809. By this treaty, Sweden surrendered Finland, the whole of East Bothnia, and a part of West Bothnia lying east of the river Tornea. With her most fertile provinces, she lost more than one-fourth of her inhabitants. These transactions were without sufficient warrant on any principle of justice. Alexander invaded a neighbour's country without declaring war; and when the injured monarch resisted the inroad, he was punished for his resistance by a vast loss of territory.

A striking parallel has been pointed out between the proclamation of General Buxhowden in Finland in 1808, and that which Prince Gortchakoff issued in Moldavia forty-five years afterwards-noticed in a later page. In both places, a Russian general invaded the territories of a neighbouring power; and in both instances the general issued a proclamation to the inhabitants. Buxhowden states, in high-sounding terms, the motives which induced the czar to place your country under his protection, and to take possession of it, in order to procure by these means a sufficient guarantee in case his Swedish majesty should persevere in the resolution not to accept the equitable conditions of peace that have been proposed to him.

It is his imperial majesty's pleasure, that all the affairs of the country should have their ordinary course in conformity with your laws, statutes, and customs, which will remain in force so long as his imperial majesty's troops shall be obliged to occupy the country. The civil and military functionaries are confirmed in their respective employments, always excepting those who may use their authority to mislead the people, and induce them to take measures contrary to their interests. All that is necessary for the maintenance of the troops, shall be paid in ready money on the spot. All provisions shall be paid for according to an amicable agreement between our commissaries and those of the country. In both cases, the reasons alleged were fallacious, and the promises were broken,

The congress of Vienna, which settled' the affairs of Europe in 1815, left Russia in possession of the whole of her ill-acquired conquests in Poland, Finland, Turkey, and Persia. In later years, when Nicholas had succeeded to Alexander in 1825, Russia fomented disturbances in Greece; then offered her military aid to Turkey to quell the disturbances; and then professed to be offended at the refusal of her kind offices. Nicholas also incited Persia to attack Turkey. In July 1827, England and France, influenced doubtless by a kind wish concerning Christian interests in Turkey, signed, with Russia, the Treaty of London, binding all three to insure a settlement of the Greek affairs of Turkey. Only a few months afterwards, Russia signed the convention of Akermann with Turkey, in which Russia bound herself to a certain course, which could not possibly be reconciled with the Treaty of London. That 'untoward event,' the battle of Navarino; the destruction of the Turkish navy; the forced acknowledgment of the independence of Greece-all strengthened the czar; and when, after two campaigns in 1828-9, the Treaty of Adrianople was signed, the sultan was forced to yield Anapa and Poti, with a considerable extent of coast on the Black Sea-a portion of the pachalik of Akhilska-the two fortresses of Akhilska and Akhilkillak-and the virtual possession of the islands formed by the mouths of the Danube. But this was not all. The treaty arranged for the abandonment of certain Turkish fortresses; it stipulated that Moldavia and Wallachia should be governed according to arrangements which Russia had introduced when she 'protected' them; it claimed increased immunities for Russian subjects in Turkey; it stipulated for the payment of an immense sum, to defray the expenses of Russia in the war; and it allowed the czar to retain the Principalities and Silistria until the money was paid. About the same time, too, by the Treaty of Turcomanchai, Russia obtained immense advantages in Persia-immense, not so much in respect to the area of territory annexed, as in the command given to Russia over the Caspian Sea and the Caucasian provinces.

Russia was not yet worn out with her efforts in 'protecting'. Turkey. Mehemet Ali, the Pacha of

Egypt, raised a formidable revolt against the sultan; and the latter was so ill advised as to accept the aid of Russia to quell it. The effects of this appeared in the Treaty of Unkiar-Skelessi, in 1833, when Turkey agreed to assist Russia in case of need-which Russia cared little about; and Russia agreed to assist Turkey in case of needwhich Russia greatly wished. A secret article was inserted in this treaty, to the effect that Russia would forego the debt from the last war, if Turkey would close the Dardanelles against all vessels of war whatever, except those of Russia!

Russia had now attained to a dangerous position -she became the 'protector' of Turkey in general. The other states of Europe took the alarm. They did not seem to regard as important a treaty which prevented any Mohammedan from living in Wallachia or Moldavia, or any Turkish army from remaining in those countries; nor were they moved by the Treaty of St Petersburg in 1834, which gave increased power to Russia in Asia Minor; but the closing of the Dardanelles alarmed them. Hence, after many contentions, an agreement was signed in London, in 1841, by Turkey, Russia, Austria, England, and France, that the Dardanelles should be closed against all ships of war so long as Turkey should be at peace; and that Turkey should be allowed to call in the naval aid of any one of the five, in case of attack from any of the others. This convention, as we shall see afterwards, had an important influence on the conduct of England and France in 1853.

The last in this series of treaties was the convention of Balta-Liman in 1849, whereby the affairs of Wallachia and Moldavia were settled; but in such a way as to leave the sultan little control over these provinces of his empire, and allowing the czar to interfere in that 'protective' mode which is so peculiarly Russian.

It may be useful to sum up the gains of Russia from Turkey and Persia between 1774 and 1812, omitting all mention of those from Poland and Sweden.

mouths of the Danube, and an irritating kind of influence in nearly all the provinces still left to the sultan, leaving it doubtful how far the latter is master in any part of his dominions.

We should form an inadequate idea of Russian capacity, if we imagined that these acquisitions were gained exclusively by the valour of soldiers and the skill of generals. Since the reign of Peter I., Russia has effected some of the greatest designs by adroitness in diplomacy. Scheming and farsighted, and sparing no means to attain any desired end, this remarkable power has established agents in every corner of Europe and Asia, and, it may be added, America-male and female, open and avowed, secret and furtive, commercial and military, princely and plebeian, literary and scientific, connected with the press as well as with the recesses of private life. Some of this extraordinary army of agents are accredited to foreign courts, for ostensible purposes; some are merely spies, appointed to detect and report on the 'nakedness of the land,' moral or material; while others appear to have a mission combining the powers of the envoy and the spy. Brilliant, fluent, accomplished, polished the Russian agents are difficult to resist, and as difficult to match; while, if occasion seem to need it, these fascinating qualities can quickly be exchanged for a kind of overbearing audacity, which scares the timid into submission. Sparing no expenditure of means to accomplish an object, and unrestrained by constitutional forms, the ruling power in Russia pursues a steady onward progress of deceit and aggression, as if governed by but one principle that of aiming at universal empire. The policy of other European nations may at various times have been aggressive, but that of Russia stands apart; it has peculiarities of its own, and those peculiarities impart to it a character which other nations will do well to study. The policy is traditionary, or rather hereditary; it is handed down from father to son, from one generation to another. Alexander has promised to his subjects, that he will carry out the plans of his father Nicholas; Nicholas remembered Catherine; Catherine bore in mind the conquests of Peter. The Greek priests have instilled into the minds of the people a belief that the favoured Russian nation must and will one day possess Constantinople; and the half-savage serfs who are driven into battle, entertain an obscure notion that they are fighting, in part for this object, in part for their demi-god the czar. As for this demi-god, it is scarcely conceivable to what an extent the blasphemous teachings of the priests have extended. The following two questions, with their answers, are extracted from the new catechism prepared for the use of schools and churches in the Polish provinces of Russia-literally translated :—

'Question. How is the authority of the emperor to be considered in reference to the spirit of Christianity?

Answer. As proceeding immediately from God.

Q. What are the supernaturally revealed motives for this worship (of the emperor)?

A. The supernaturally revealed motives arethat the emperor is the vicegerent and minister of God to execute the divine commands, and consequently disobedience to the emperor is identified with disobedience to God himself; that God will reward us in the world to come for the worship and obedience we render to the emperor, and punish us severely to all eternity should we disobey or neglect to worship him. Moreover, God commands us to love and obey from the inmost recesses of the heart every authority, and particularly the emperor-not from worldly considerations, but from apprehensions of the final judgment.'

It was especially towards the late Czar Nicholas that this excess of reverential submission was demanded and shewn.

Sir John M'Neill places in a striking light the mode in which the great Russian Colossus has stridden over surrounding nations: The acquisitions she has made from Sweden are greater than what remains of that ancient kingdom; her acquisitions from Poland are as large as the whole Austrian Empire; the territory she has wrested from Turkey in Europe is equal to the dominions of Prussia, exclusive of her Rhenish provinces ; her acquisitions from Turkey in Asia are equal in extent to all the smaller states of Germany, the Rhenish provinces of Prussia, Belgium, and Holland, taken together; the country she has conquered from Persia is about the size of England; and her acquisitions in Tatary have an equal area to Turkey in Europe, Greece, Italy, and Spain.'*

Again referring to our coloured map, these vast acquisitions, which enlarged the population of Russia from fourteen millions in 1722, to sixtyfive millions in 1850, are rendered appreciable to the eye. Since the comparatively recent year 1772, Russia has acquired territory greater in extent and importance than the whole empire she had in Europe in that year! Since then, she has advanced her frontier 850 miles towards Vienna, Berlin, Dresden, Munich, and Paris ; she has approached 450 miles nearer to Constantinople; she has possessed herself of the capital of Poland; and has advanced to within a few miles of the capital of Sweden, from which, when Peter the Great mounted the throne, her frontier was distant 300 miles. Since that time, she has stretched herself forward about 1000 miles towards India, and the same distance towards the capital of Persia. The regiment that is now stationed at her furthest frontier post on the western shore of the Caspian, has as great a distance to march back to Moscow as onward to Attock on the Indus; and is actually further from St Petersburg than from Lahore, the capital of the Punjab. The battalions of the Russian Imperial Guard that invaded Persia found, at the termination of the war, that they were as near to Herat as to *Progress and Present Position of Russia in the East.