Publications, Newspaper Cuttings, Photographs and Correspondence about Persia and the Persian Gulf [‎321r] (644/879)

SEPTEMBER, 1911.]
EGYPT.
67
explanation and promise, it will be seen, were given by
England, not merely on her own behalf, but on behalf
of Russia as well. It would be superfluous to ask how
the promise has been kept.
* * *
The action of the British Foreign Office in the matter
of Major Stokes has had a significant effect, according |
to M. Jean Herbette, of the “ Siecle."’ In a letter to
that journal from Teheran, after discussing the policy |
of the Foreign Office, he says : “It has, however, had |
one effect, and that not very profitable. The Persians
have been greatly struck by the volte face executed by
Great Britain under the pressure of Russian diplomacy,
and have come to the conclusion that the constitutional
regime is not at all likely to find any serious support in |
London. At once a rapprochement with Russia has
been planned in Teheran. It is too early yet to appraise
the consequences, but the evolution thus executed forms I
perhaps the most important aspect of the present
situation. ’’
Mr. W. T. Stead has been visiting Turkey and has
had an “interview” with the Sultan. The result, as
published in the current issue of the “ Review of
Reviews,” provides a delightful example of Steadesque
humour. At this remarkable " interview”.Mr. Stead,
on his own showing, did most if not all the talking.
Of course, when he got into the Imperial presence he
felt he had a “message’’ to deliver; that one might have
guessed. Mr. Stead always has “messages,” wherever
they come from. Of course, also, he felt inspired by |
the “Lord.” One can quite believe the editor of the
“ Review of Reviews” when he tells us that “the oppor- |
tunity given me of speaking freely was one which I took
advantage of to the uttermost.” It is also interesting
to know that the Sultan “answered in a way that
showed he was listening attentively and was sometimes
reflecting shrewdly.” His reflections, however, he
evidently kept to himself. The only expression of
opinion on the Sultan’s part, bevond mere polite com-
“proper” or otherwise? If such a federation constitute
an empire, then “ Imperialism” is identical with its
opposite, and there has never been anything but
| “ Empires ’’ at any time in the world’s history. Re
publics and Commonwealths never existed. Language
ceases to have any exact value. Switzerland, for in-
i stance, at this rate is an Empire ; it is a federation of
self-governing States. So also are most of those com
munities which people stupidly call the South American
| Republics. They should really, it seems, call them the
South American “ proper ’’ Empires I The flat truth
; is that the superstition of “ Empire ” has so eaten into
all sections of English opinion that even those who
react against the idea of domination and subjection
■ which the term inevitably and historically involves go
on using it and proclaiming it, sometimes with a quali
fying adjective which destroys its original and true
| meaning. Perhaps they are not to be too strongly cen
sured. We live in an age when everybody puts on the
livery of his opponent. So we have Protectionists
declaring that their real object is “ freer ’’ trade, Tories
proclaiming the supremacy of the people, and Sir
Edward Grey protesting that his object is the pro-
: tection of Persian liberty. Mr. Stead’s “proper” Em
pire, which, of course, does not include India—that is
“ Empire’’ of the old, undiluted brand—is a compara
tively venial verbal offence. If Imperialism can really
be smothered with adjectives no lover of liberty need
greatly complain.
* * *
From a comment in the Allahabad “ Pioneer ’’ on the
| Kitchener appointment one would gather that the new
I British Agent shares with Lord Roberts that peculiar
“dislike” for advertisement which enables them con
stantly to keep themselves in the public eye. This is
the “ Pioneer’s ’’ description of the way the Kitchener
appointment was engineered :—
Lord Kitchener was buying an estate in East Africa, and
was going away to occupy himself with its development;
I ord Kitchener “was becoming a railwni. director: I ord
September, 1911.]
EGYPT.
explanation and promise, it will be seen, were given by
England, not merely on her own behalf, but on behalf
of Russia as well. It would be superfluous to ask how
the promise has been kept.
The action of the British Foreign Office in the matter
of Major Stokes has had a significant effect, according
to M. Jean Herbette, of the “ Si&cle. ” In a letter to
that journal from Teheran, after discussing the policy
of the Foreign Office, he says : “ It has, however, had
one effect, and that not very profitable. The Persians
have been greatly struck by the volte face executed by
Great Britain under the pressure of Russian diplomacy,
and have come to the conclusion that the constitutional
regime is not at all likely to find any serious support in
London. At once a rapprochement with Russia has
been planned in Teheran. It is too early yet to appraise
the consequences, but the evolution thus executed forms
perhaps the most important aspect of the present
situation. ”
Mr. W. T. Stead has been visiting Turkey and has
had an “interview” with the Sultan. The result, as
published in the current issue of the " Review of
Reviews,” provides a delightful example of Steadesque
humour. At this remarkable " interview” „Mr. Stead,
on his own showing, did most if not all the talking.
Of course, when he got into the Imperial presence he
felt he had a “message” to deliver; that one might have
guessed. Mr. Stead always has “messages,” wherever
they come from. Of course, also, he felt inspired by
the “Lord.” One can quite believe the editor of the
“Review of Reviews” when he tells us that “the oppor
tunity given me of speaking freely was one which I took
advantage of to the uttermost.” It is also interesting
to know that the Sultan “answered in a way that
showedhe was listening attentively and was sometimes
reflecting shrewdly.” His reflections, however, he
evidently kept to himself. The only expression of
opinion on the Sultan's part, beyond mere polite com-
monplace, chronicled by Mr Stead, was one of loyalty
to the present regime. “I have always desired,” Mr.
Stead makes the Sultan say, “the establishment of the
Constitution of Turkey, and now that it is established
I shall maintain the Constitution.” Considering the
circumstances, therefore, it is very modest of Mr. Stead
to tell us that “it would not be right to publish a faithful
transcript of a conversation so intimate . .
Why,
after all, should the details of Mr. Stead’s little lecture
be thus withheld from a hungering world?
At the same time, we are given some clue to the nature
of the lecture. “ It was to me an interesting, and to the
Sultan an unprecedented, experience to hear the most
advanced doctrines of proper Imperialism discussed in
the Dolma Bagtche Palace.” “Proper” Imperialism, it
would appear, was that exemplified in the Imperial
Conference, when each adult State there represented
virtually decided to go its own way. Obviously we
have nothing to say against a system of loosely federated
nations, each dependent on its own public opinion for
its policy, and each free to take the course which it
conceives to be best in its own interest, without mis
chievous constraint or meddling from outside. Only
thus, indeed, can freedom grow. At the present moment
the bond between Canada and Great Britain is much less
tightly drawn than that between France and Great
Britain. If England, under certain conditions, plunged
into a European war to-morrow, it is very probable
France would feel much more obligation to join her than
Canada would. Indeed, whatever “loyal” protests it
may be considered politic to raise now in Australia or
Africa, it is none the less certain that if England, in a
fit of panic, or to maintain some chimerical “balance
of power” in Europe, involved herself in a Continental
war, the Colonies, which have nothing to do with these
European feuds, would take measures to protect them
selves by declaring their neutrality.
But why, in the name of honesty, call an assembly of
independent nations like this an “Empire,” whether
“proper” or otherwise? If such a federation constitute
an empire, then “ Imperialism” is identical with its
opposite, and there has never been anything but
“ Empires ” at any time in the world’s history. Re
publics and Commonwealths never existed. Language
ceases to have any exact value. Switzerland, for in
stance, at this rate is an Empire ; it is a federation of
self-governing States. So also are most of those com
munities which people stupidly call the South American
Republics. They should really, it seems, call them the
South American “proper” Empires ! The flat truth
is that the superstition of " Empire ” has so eaten into
all sections of English opinion that even those who
react against the idea of domination and subjection
which the term inevitably and historically involves go
on using it and proclaiming it, sometimes with a quali
fying adjective which destroys its original and true
meaning. Perhaps they are not to be too strongly cen
sured. We live in an age when everybody puts on the
livery of his opponent. So we have Protectionists
declaring that their real object is “ freer ” trade, Tories
proclaiming the supremacy of the people, and Sir
Edward Grey protesting that his object is the pro
tection of Persian liberty. Mr. Stead’s “proper” Em
pire, which, of course, does not include India—that is
" Empire” of the old, undiluted brand—is a compara
tively venial verbal offence. If Imperialism can really
be smothered with adjectives no lover of liberty need
greatly complain.
From a comment in the Allahabad " Pioneer ” on the
Kitchener appointment one would gather that the new
British Agent shares with Lord Roberts that peculiar
“dislike” for advertisement which enables them con
stantly to keep themselves in the public eye. This is
the ” Pioneer’s” description of the way the Kitchener
appointment was engineered :—
Lord Kitchener was buying an estate in East Africa, and
was going away to occupy himself with its development;
Lord K i tche ner'was becoming a ■ railway, director, -ord
Kitchener would review the Boy Scouts next week, and the
something Territorials the week after. What more natural
than that indignant editors should ask whether our greatest
public servant was to be driven into exile, whether his
abilities were to be surrendered up to railway companies,
and his time wasted in promiscuous trivialities? No one
realises better than Lord Kitchener the effect that a Press
like this produces on the mind of a Ministry. Yet at the
last he probably owes his selection as much to those who
wish him away as to those who favour the choice on its
merits.
Far be it from us
nosis of the case,
they know Lord
India.
to question the “ Pioneer’s ” diag-
it is a truly Imperial organ, and
Kitchener’s retiring disposition in
Writing on the travesty of justice at the Lewis trial
in Buluwayo, on which we comment elsewhere, Mr.
Laurence Housman draws an interesting parallel in the
“Westminster Gazette.” “The report,” he writes, “in
your issue to-day of the trial of Mr. Sam Lewis, of
Buluwayo, suggests the question, What would the white
colony of Rhodesia have thought and done had a black
man picked out a white, taken him by the collar and
shot him, justifying his action with the remark, ‘ It’s
all right! I shot him. He asked my daughter to com
mit an immoral act ’ ? That man would probably have
been lynched.” As to the “Black Peril,” Sir Harry
Johnston has an important remark : “This talk of the
Black Peril—believe me, I write from considerable
experience—is largely an attempt in certain countries
where the coloured people are badly treated by the
whites to distract attention from land-grabbing, sweated
labour, disguised slavery, wholesale vending of bad
alcohol, and other licentious practices.”
The Nationalist organ, “Al Alam,” published a
report on the 18th ult. that the Government were about
to expel Sheikh Abdul Aziz Shawish because of the
speeches which he delivers in the provinces. It would
appear, says “Al Alam,” that this exile is one of the
first-fruits of Lord Kitchener’s policy.