We have not annexed Port Arthur. Why should we? Even Germany has not annexed Kiao-Chow; she has only “leased” it for fifty (or is it ninety-nine?) years.

Many things may happen even in a shorter period. Possibly Germany may not work out her lease. Kiao-Chow is a long way from the Fatherland, and the German flag in those waters cannot fly entirely according to its own good pleasure. The Russian, the French, and the English Fleets dominate the Chinese Seas. Long before even the end of half a century it may be desirable for us to quit Port Arthur, the possession of which would involve a great deal of work and expense. It is not such a perfect Paradise as some people pretend. Russians are perfectly aware of its draw-backs.

“Annexation” is a misleading term. Is it not about time that this word should vanish from the dictionaries of diplomacy? Besides, it is such an inconvenient word—so compromising in many respects, and at the same time so binding. It is like a Roman Catholic marriage, admitting of no divorce.

Let us proclaim that “annexation” is dead and buried, and will never see a resurrection. Its day has passed “Convey, the wise call it” is the graphic phrase of your Shakespeare, that greatest teacher of us all.

Austria has not “annexed” Bosnia; she only occupies and administers. England has not “annexed” Egypt; she is only engaged in the temporary duty of restoring order. Germany has not “annexed” Kiao-Chow—of course not; she has only “leased” it from the Chinese Government And yet, in face of all these achievements, the English Press accuse Russia of “annexing” Port Arthur! This is a little hard upon our diplomacy. We have not annexed, or leased, or even “restored order” in Port Arthur! We have simply utilised it as winter quarters for our fleet; and really I think the word “utilise” is most appropriate.

To “utilise”! What can be more practical, more unobjectionable, and more proper? Who can object to the utilisation of waste, whether it be waste time, waste substance, or waste ports?

To utilise is, in fact, a positive virtue. Moreover, it involves no limit as to time. Utilisation may be temporary or it may be permanent. Does not everything in life depend on circumstances? In the case of Port Arthur, I should wish our occupation to last at least as long as the German lease of Kiao-Chow. That is, however, only my personal view, so that this is a matter on which it is useless to dogmatise. At all events, for the present we are simply utilising Port Arthur as a convenient haven for our fleet. This, of course, could be done only with the free consent of its rightful and independent owners—a stipulation which is full of importance; and if China agrees to allow us to utilise a port which she could not defend even against Japan, who has reason to object? Surely not England, who always professes to respect free contracts and the rights of other nations in settling their own affairs. Besides, our right to have an ice-free port in the Far East was publicly recognised in a charmingly bright speech at Bristol by Mr. Arthur Balfour on February 3, 1896. And, therefore, in our utilisation of Port Arthur we may indeed claim to have acted upon the very plain and friendly hint given by the English Government. Who, therefore, can blame us for doing so?

Germany may, perhaps, regard the presence of our fleet at Port Arthur with less composure. But she will not object; she is bound over to silence by her lease of Kiao-Chow.

The only “Power” that could oppose us in the Far East is France. But this she will not do, for the simple and sufficient reason that we do nothing now without discussing it with our cordial ally. That utilisation of Port Arthur suggested by Mr. Balfour was doubtless approved by France before it was acted upon. Still, I fancy it would not have been already an accomplished fact but for the significant action of Germany at Kiao-Chow.

However, I have said enough to show that Russia’s policy in the East is based upon solid foundations. There is a good deal of idle talk about the partition of China, to which it is solemnly asserted that Russia is a party. Here is where our Western critics make their mistake. It is, no doubt, indispensable that the Siberian Railway should be able to reach a sea never blocked with ice, even in the bitterest winter. But when that is secured there is nothing Russia desires so much as to keep the Chinese Empire intact. Our Western critics forget that Russia is above all things a Conservative force—she is not enamoured of a policy of adventure; her influence is not revolutionary; she is the antithesis of revolutions. She prefers to make the beat of what is, rather than risk the perils of the unknown.

Besides, from our position we can exercise much more influence over China through her own rulers than if ws were parties to her dismemberment.

Any Power with a strong navy can annex Chinese ports. It is only Russia, who, with her contiguous frontier, can dominate Pekin. Russia’s policy, therefore, is to influence, rather than to conquer—to convince, rather than to rule.

It is very gratifying to my patriotic pride to see the influence of Russia growing, all round the world.

Napoleon predicted that Europe will be either Cossack or Republican. There is many a true word spoken in jest.

What would Napoleon say to his own country being now a Republic under a “Cossack” alliance, to such benefit that, since this came about, the duration of its Ministry has doubled!

This may be a coincidence; but no one can dispute the fact that the prestige of France has been immensely increased by a series of important circumstances, strengthening the “Cossack” ties.

If, therefore, we can, without annexation, virtually draw into our orbit so great, so powerful, and so civilised a country as France, surely China may easily realise the advantages she would gain by a closer alliance with Russia.

Hence, I conclude as I began. There will be no annexation of Port Arthur, only its utilisation. There need be no partition of China, but only a strengthening of her confidence in the growing ascendancy of Russia!

4, Portman Mansions, W.