Chapter XXXI: Appendix: G (1)

LETTERS TO MR. BLUNT ALLUDED TO IN, AND EXEMPLIFYING, THE TEXT

I. FROM SIR WILLIAM AND LADY GREGORY (EXTRACTS)

(_From Lady Gregory._)

Coole, _Sep._ 20, 1883 (received in Egypt). I am very glad you will stay in Egypt, even long enough to let in a little ray of light on what is going on. Moberly Bell is really excelling himself just now. I don’t know if you have missed his accounts of the triumphal progress of the “amiable and virtuous” (Tewfik). I am delighted at it, because, as I wrote to Chenery, no one can say it is necessary to keep troops in the country to keep up so popular a ruler! The account of the prisons also would have been entertaining if they were not revolting—so many poor wretches kept there for months and years, and then the door is opened and they are shut up again, after having been allowed to kiss Moberly’s boots! I am afraid Clifford Lloyd, the new “Adviser,” won’t be an acquisition. I don’t know him, but by all accounts he is ambitious, pretentious, and autocratic. He kept the country quiet here by driving the whole population of a town into prison, on suspicion, and his photograph reminds me of Colvin. There is not much to say of Ireland, for there is a strange lull in the agitation of the last few years. The people for the moment are busy with the harvest, and I fancy Parnell is trying to keep things as quiet as possible until the next session, when Gladstone has, I believe, promised him a very large measure of Home Rule, much more than his colleagues approve of . . . I hope Arabi’s election will take place, so that we may put M.P. after his name in future. I hope they will think also of electing you, and that you will become the Randolph of debate in the Cairo House of Commons. What a farce the whole thing is! It will be as before. The wretched Notables will be left alone until they speak of the Budget, and then will be gagged.

_Oct._ 4. Sir William writes to me from London that you are credited with having gone to India with the intention of overturning English supremacy and establishing Mohammedan rule and rapine throughout the Peninsula. So I think you have still a chance of Tower Hill! Kinglake especially has been lamenting over you.

_Oct._ 17. Thank you for your letter from Suez. It gave me great pleasure to hear of the success of your visit (to Cairo), for I call it a success having seen so many of your friends, and learned that the Khedive’s state is so hopeless. I was pretty sure Baring would not do much for you; he has only just begun, and has not yet realized the difficulty of his position, and I am sure the Government here are trusting to him now as their last hope of helping them out of their mess, and won’t take any new line till he fails. I am glad the poem (“The Wind and the Whirlwind”) is to be published. It will make a more lasting impression than any prose could do, and ever since it was written I have felt it was pure waste of steam power keeping it shut up. Sir William is very much struck with it, and I feel it must convert the world. If this should reach you in Ceylon do homage to Arabi for me.

_Nov._ 13. I see Moberly Bell takes Gladstone’s announcement of the withdrawal of the troops calmly, as they will be quite as effective at Alexandria, and easy to bring back at a moment’s notice. None the less, I shall be glad when they are out of Cairo. I hate the idea of ever seeing them there, and perhaps the Khedive may think they are really going to let him be his own master, and commit some atrocity which Gladstone will have to notice, and which will give England an excuse to let him topple over.

_December_ 18. Your letter in the “Times” (from Colombo) appeared the same day I heard from you. Sir William tells me to say how extremely good he thinks it. The time has nearly come when you will be appealed to, the mess is so great, and the bankruptcy of the country seems within measurable distance, and, indeed, is the first thing to hope for, and every one is so much at sea about the Soudan, and all the philanthrophists will be down on the Government for allowing Zebehr, the king of the slave-dealers banished by Gordon, to be sent back at the head of an army. It will be just the thing for those benevolent beings—Randolph and Labouchere—to take up.

_Jan._ 10, 1884. I saw in the “Times” that you had arrived and been warmly received at Calcutta. I wonder how Colvin received you. I think the time has come when you are wanted in Egypt. Dicey goes there to-day, a fellow passenger of Sir William’s (on his way to Ceylon), evidently to help to form the Nubar-Dicey Ministry, which I have always looked forward to as the last possible combination before Arabi’s return. I am glad old Sherif has gone. We shan’t hear much more of his enlightened policy! If you could find any Nationalists in Egypt who would dare to lift up their voice and call for Arabi’s return, I believe the English Radicals would take up the cry. Both Labouchere and Randolph are speaking out like men, but they must have some support from Egypt. Sir William sails to-day for Colombo. He writes from London that Hayward is very ill, shut up in his room and hardly expected to recover. Kinglake says of him: “He is too weak to hold his cards at whist, but not too weak to d—— his partner.” I am sorry Chinese Gordon goes to the Congo instead of the Nile.

_August_ 1. Many thanks for the printed correspondence, which is full of interest. I have been looking over your letters to me of last year, and have copied the only passage relating to Mr. Hamilton or Knowles, which I enclose. I would lay as little stress as possible on the encouragement you had from Downing Street, as the G.O.M. is capable of denying everything, and as much as possible on the incontrovertible fact of your threatened arrest. I hope the debate will come on soon. I was sure Mohammed Abdu would create a good impression, between his graceful dress and his graceful manner, which recalled Arabi’s. Mind you cultivate Parnell, now you have broken the ice. He will be a great power in the next Parliament, and his support will be worth a good deal.

(Extract enclosed.) “_Sep._ 3, 1883. Both Knowles and Button encourage me to try the elections, and say that Baring is sure to be delighted to see me, and will perhaps help. It appears he has _carte blanche_ to make another new policy for the Government, and as he is one of Lord Ripon’s strongest supporters in India, it is supposed that he will favour Arabi’s return, or, at any rate, the restoration of a National Party in some form or other.”

(Second extract enclosed) _Sep._ 21. “Everything up to the moment has gone most prosperously. The morning we left I got a note from Mr. Hamilton asking to see me before I went, and I accordingly went, after nearly a year’s absence to Downing Street, and found him very amiable. I told him exactly what I was going to do, and he approved and said he was sure Baring would be very pleased to see me, and that he would write to Lord Ripon’s private secretary to do all he could for me in India. About Egypt I told him I should try and get Baring to restore the National Party, but unless he would help me it was quite useless my trying, and I should not stay in Egypt. So I shall know as soon as I get to Cairo whether it is possible or not. I am certain Gladstone wants to restore, but wants to have his hand forced by a manifestation of popular desire in Egypt.”

(_From Sir William Gregory._)

Coole, _Aug._ 24, 1884. I have read with great interest Mohammed Abdu’s replies to his interviewer. They are very valuable, and would be ten times more so if anything could pierce the crust of our English stupidity and self-complacency. But we have made up our minds that the Egyptians whom we have been bombarding and slaughtering ought to love us, and that if they don’t it is their perversity, which only time and subjection can remove. I shall be at Dalmeny on the 27th, and I daresay Gladstone will speak to me about Egypt, but he has made up his mind about it, that all the troubles of Egypt are due to military mutineers of whom Arabi was the instigator; that Tewfik is a virtuous and enlightened young prince to whom the honour of England is pledged, and that to secure him as Khedive the exile of Arabi and his friends must be maintained. You know how intolerant he is of a difference of opinion. So I daresay he will not allow me even to make an observation from a different point of view. I do not see how Arabi is to return, but I am of opinion, were he permitted to do so, it would be possible to establish a fairly decent Government in Egypt, a far better one than ours has been, and which would, at all events, suit the governed.

(_From Sir William Gregory._)

Coole, _Oct._ 5. Your second Indian article (on Race Hatred) is admirable, and I fear too true. I had no idea things were as bad as you describe, and I much fear there is little hope of improvement. The only chance is the personal character of the Viceroy and publicity. I wish our newspapers would take up the subject. The English second and third- class women are, as you say, the worst offenders. They are generally below their husbands, who are elevated by education and responsibility, and make themselves odious by their vulgarities and pretentions. The treatment of natives in Ceylon is very different. There the civil servants are generally very courteous and friendly with them, and there is no doubt that a most kindly feeling subsists between the races. It is not so, however, universally; in Colombo and Kandy the planters and merchants’ clerks give themselves most offensive airs to natives, but in the purely native districts the relations are excellent. I hear from Indians that the contrast is remarkable, like going into another hemisphere. Still things are not as they ought to be. A young man of high native family constantly goes to Oxford and Cambridge, and is there received as a friend and an equal, is asked to all parties, and shares in all amusements. When he returns to Ceylon he is not tabooed, it is true, but he knows he is looked down upon as an inferior by merchants’ clerks and planters, probably sons of pastrycooks and ladies’ maids. This I always endeavoured to combat, and Sir Arthur Gordon is doing the same. Mere civility and want of rudeness is not enough. A native gentleman should be made to feel that you regard him as your equal, in short, as an Englishman. He thoroughly understands and resents condescending civility. I am going to write to Dufferin, and to recommend your article to him.

The chances for Arabi and his friends are not encouraging. I should like to see National bankruptcy proclaimed as an answer to French threats.

(_From Lady Gregory._)

Coole, _March_ 29, 1885.—I wish a better fight could have been made on the Egyptian Convention. My only hope for Egypt now is in the Mahdi. Osman Digna seems to be profiting by all the good advice the “Times” has been giving him as to the best mode of fighting.

_April_ 14. We came here a little too soon and the landscape looked as hard and dry as a Hobbema, but it is now as soft and mysterious as a Corot. We spent last week in Dublin to manifest our loyalty. The Royal visit has been so far a “great success”—that is to say, the “foreign invaders” and also Lord Spencer were cheered through the streets all through Dublin. Whether that means much I can’t say; it is an excitable population and I saw a man who walked through the cleared space carrying two large band boxes cheered as much as anyone. “St. Patrick’s Day,” when played at the laying of a foundation stone, was cheered more than all; but the Prince was equal to the occasion and waved his hat as if it was meant for him. The Princess looked very pretty and not more than five-and-twenty at the ball in her white dress and diamonds. The ball the prettiest sight I ever saw. . . . I feel as if I had seen a crystallization of the pomps and vanities of the wicked world. Enough of that for a long time.

As an antidote I spent to-day in visiting some of our own poor people. It is the best part of living in Ireland that they are always bright and amusing and intelligent and witty. One old woman asked me to come and see an old man. “He was a real gentleman,” she said, “if I asked him for five or seven shillings he never said, ‘I haven’t it,’ and if he went out to cut his corn he never raised his back till the sun went down.” She also told me, “If I had a little pig, I’d be in Heaven.” Another, I hope meaning a compliment, said she had at first sight taken me for the priest’s sister and was going to say, “How’s Father Considine?” Then, when she recognized me, “Aren’t we happy to have such a plain lady?” You will be tired of Ireland if I write any more.

_May_ 5.—What a terrible indictment your letter is against the Government, and how well deserved! Sir William desires me to say he goes with you in every word of it, which he does not always do. How ignominiously the whole affair is ending! It’s a comfort to think Wolseley won’t have a triumphal procession down Piccadilly this time. I am very anxious to know what Randolph advises you and what you make up your mind to about Parliament. I believe you would get in as a Tory Democrat easily enough. You could hit hard enough at the Government to please an English mob which enjoys hard-hitting as a substitute for prize fights. The only good thing that has reached me about the Prince’s visit is that one spectator at his entry was heard to say to his neighbours, “I see a good many Radical hats in the crowd.” “I suppose,” said the other, “a Radical hat is a hat without a crown.”

_May_ 15. Very many thanks for the sonnets and your long letter. I knew you would be jubilant at the retreat and guessed you had been working for it. What pleases me most is thinking of Lord Wolseley having to eat his speech about the “hundred years,” and also to think what a “cheer- up” this ignominious campaign must be to Arabi in Ceylon. It was delightful your sending the sonnets to Gladstone.

_June_ (?). I suppose any change must be good (alluding to the change of Government), and yet I don’t think the G. O. M. has been sufficiently punished for his evil deeds. I hope Randolph will hold to his present principles, as far as the East is concerned, but the politician in and out of power is generally as different as the patient Turkish peasant and the tyrannical Turkish Pasha. As for you, you will never be able to support any Government, but will always be in opposition.

_June_ 19. Randolph for India! I can think of nothing else; it amuses me so much the idea of Colvin’s face when he hears it, and Lord Dufferin taking his orders from him, and Lord Reay, who went out in the strength of Gladstone’s name. Will he be able to do any good, I wonder? One must never expect too much of people in office. Was it not delightful Arabi being cheered at St. James’s Hall? It is rather hard being so far away from all the excitement.

_July_ 21. I thought I recognized B.’s hand in the account of Wolseley’s reception. What a parade would have been made if he had brought Gordon back! Lord Wolseley and Baring have told a friend of mine that they look on Drummond-Wolff’s appointment as disastrous for Egypt, which makes me hopeful, as do the letters (in the “Times”) of the “Twenty years Resident in Egypt,” in which one finds the flavour of Moberly Bell—“only the old sea-serpent done up again.”

_August_ 14. I think you ought to write a sonnet on the Mahdi’s death. The central idea about him to me is that he is the only man of the nineteenth century who is known by his deeds and not at all by his words. I wrote some lines myself, with which I herewith present you, but not expecting compliments:

SONNET ON THE MAHDI’S DEATH

The Guide of Islam, silent, strong, world-known,

Looked for peace won through battle’s bloody fame,

His brave, rash adversary now o’erthrown

Who blindly in the tyrant’s livery came.

His ally, his foe’s enemy, the Sun

Had struck as if in scorn the parting host,

The task that made a nation almost done,

A people freed but at most cruel cost.

But hardly had he viewed the promised land

When blasting sickness came and struck him low,

And a scarred face was his and failing hand

Who was so mighty but an hour ago,

And a hushed army round the dim tent stood

Wherein their Chief gave up his sword to God.

Write the sonnet yourself and use my last two lines, which I confess to thinking good, and publish it in your name. I have a feeling that something ought to be done to dignify the Mahdi’s memory, such efforts have been made to vulgarize it.

II. FROM SIR ALFRED LYALL

Nainee Tal, _May 21st_, 1883.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

I must send a reply to your letter from Knebworth, though people in England do not usually set much store by letters from India, which is beyond the civilized world. What I want to say is that I am very glad you are coming out to India to study the country—this time; and that I much hope you will pay me a visit. I have some rather extensive knowledge of Upper India, and of the leading natives, so that I may be able to put you in the way of seeing things as they are. In regard to the very curious point mentioned in your letter, why Rajputs are (to use the technical words) exogamous and Arabs endogamous, I can’t offer an explanation; save only by saying that Islam overrides and sweeps away all the obsolete prejudices of blood or caste that are at the bottom of exogamy. Read McLennan, Morgan, and Maine—but none of them will tell you exactly whence comes the idea lying at the root of the term “incest,” _i.e._, the offence of marrying within certain prohibited degrees.

When you come out we will talk of Local Self-Government and the native magistrates’ jurisdiction over Europeans. I am myself a consistent liberal in these matters: I think, with you, that our best chance of consolidating an Anglo-Indian empire out here lies in abolishing privileges and bringing forward the leading natives to political equality with ourselves. But we have been going so long on the other tack that the operation of changing our course has to be managed with a steady hand, and not too suddenly. Now there has been a lack of political seamanship in high quarters; and the vessel has got broadside to the wind, and has shipped a sea or two; I think we shall get right soon, and I hope we shall not alter our policy. But it must be always remembered that the whole business of governing India is an experiment on a very large scale. I always maintain that it has not been attempted, on this scale, since the days of the Romans; and no one can yet decide whether the policy of taking the natives into our confidence, or of keeping them out of all real power, is the better for the _English_. For myself, having to choose between two risks, I would select the risk of letting in the native; though if we do this in a hurry we may spoil everything, and provoke confusion, with a sanguinary reaction—just as things went too fast and led to a premature crisis in Egypt.

Sincerely yours,
A. C. LYALL,

Camp, _January 16th_, 1884.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

The foolish and violent article about you in the “Pioneer” of this morning moves one’s indignation for more reasons than one. These attacks all emanate, to my knowledge, from Calcutta.

I have hitherto written nothing whatever to officials in these provinces regarding your movements, as I believed you would prefer this. But I shall now send word to Allygarh, and to the Commissioner of Rohilcund, who is in political charge of Ranpore, that it would be a total mistake to suppose that in these provinces the Government takes any sinister view of your proceedings. I am taking every opportunity of declaring that I know you to have no intention whatever of propagating or encouraging disloyalty.

I hope you will keep me informed of your fortunes.

Very sincerely yours,
A. C. LYALL.

Lieut.-Governor’s Camp, N.W. Provinces,

_November 8th_, 1884.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

I am certainly doing what is possible on my part, to aid Amir Hassan’s University project; but I fear he is beginning to discover sundry difficulties, especially in the way of lukewarmness and jealousies among his co-religionists. For myself, I am glad to assist any measure that may tend to uplift the heads of the Mohammedans of these parts. I am not at all afraid politically of Islam in India; if they were at any time disposed to make themselves troublesome, they would have to take the Hindus into very serious account. I mention this because people are inclined to have fits of vague panic about the Mussulmans. If the Russians ever find it worth while to make a strong demonstration against India, they would make a mistake in letting loose the Affghans upon us, for that would throw into our hands all the fighting power and enthusiasm of the Hindus. But I doubt the Affghans being so shortsighted as to help the Russians across the Indus, as the subjugation of Affghanistan would be the inevitable result of Russian success. The “St. James’s Gazette” makes a great cry over Macgregor’s “confidential” memorandum, which seems to have been very freely circulated. I totally dissent from the notion that we are on the brink of some great catastrophe; though it is certain that our army is far too weak, and that we could not enter upon a campaign against a European invader. These military chiefs know little or nothing of the real state and temper of the Indian people, or of the elements of internal trouble with which we have to deal. And the articles in the “Times” upon the armies of Native States are written upon second-rate information, and are likely to be very mischievous if they have influence in high quarters.

So much of Indian politics. I took no personal offence whatever at your articles in the “Fortnightly.” They are not intended to be pleasant to the Anglo-Indian official; and I may perhaps venture to say that here and there they are unnecessarily unpleasant. But I do not conceal my opinion, in discussing them out here, that there is truth in much of what you say, though to my mind the paper on race hatred is rather overstrained, and wants the strength of moderation. I wish you had given your readers some momentary glimpse of the other side of the shield. Nevertheless you have, as I tell the folk here, given us much that is salutary criticism, and there is no doubt that we Anglo-Indians are often a rough unpicturesque development of the contact between East and West; some of us finding ourselves rather too suddenly placed in unfamiliar situations, and having emerged unexpectedly into the fierce light that beats upon office. On the other side, the Indians themselves do see both sides of the shield, and do not object to abate much in the matter of high politefulness, in consideration of a strong and intelligent sort of administration, impartial among jarring races and creeds. They are themselves not yet ready to supply this kind of government, and they know its value. Also they know, much better than most English, what a bad government, by exceedingly courteous Asiatics, means. Moulvi Sami-ullah is just back from Egypt. I can see that he is considerably impressed by the badness of administrative institutions in Egypt; is rather inclined to ridicule them. As for such very discreditable incidents as that of Patna, they _must_ occur now and then until the natives themselves pluck up courage to hit back or otherwise violently resent any personal insult. Laws and magistrates can do much, but can never protect a whole people that does not stand up for itself. Our magistrates are very fairly impartial between the two races in Court; and the people are rather too fond of airing their grievances in a helpless manner.

However, Lord Ripon has done a good deal towards stirring up the natives to a sense of independence and a desire to look after themselves—they now begin to see that if they will only come forward the English nation will meet them half way. Lord Dufferin has but to let the leaven work, and not to give countenance to a reaction.

In Egypt I can anticipate nothing but complications. I cannot see how we can possibly stand balancing as we do at present, keeping everything in suspense, without some final stumble; and yet it is becoming too late to withdraw. Probably our abandonment of the Soudan (which I think is necessary) will heighten the comparison and accelerate some crisis—the Soudan is just the country that entangles the forces of a civilized State, and where expeditions are as water poured into the sand.

Yours sincerely,
A. C. LYALL.

Lieut.-Governor’s Camp, North-West Provinces, India.

_February 23rd_, 1885.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

I am very sorry that my prediction as to the Soudan, quoted in your letter to me of Jan. 23rd, seems likely to be verified, as well as many predictions made by you. Never was such a demented policy followed so blindly to inevitable failure and disrepute, in open disregard of all the warnings of our Oriental experience, as that we see still being pursued in Egypt. However, I find, to my great relief, that the _contre coup_ of our Egyptian blunders is not much felt in India, where they are mostly indifferent to the Mahdi and to our proceedings generally, though of course there is much talk of our unlucky adventures in that country. The Mahomedan generally is mainly interested in the Sultan; and Upper India keeps its eyes fixed on Affghanistan and on Russia’s doings in Central Asia.

I have just read your “Fortnightly” article on Hyderabad affairs, which article will, you fear, entirely finish Lord Lytton’s regard for you. I think, on the contrary, that he ought to be very much obliged to you; for instead of laying upon the Viceroy the whole burden of your displeasure at Salar Jung’s treatment in 1876-77-78, you have discharged all your wrath upon that anonymous bureau that you call the Calcutta Foreign Office. Not Lord Lytton, it appears, but poor little Tommy Thornton, who acted as Foreign Secretary at that time, and whom Lord Lytton treated with scant ceremony, was the author of the policy of curbing Salar Jung. I observe that throughout your paper you denounce and convict of the highest crimes the Calcutta Foreign Office, and that the Viceroys and Governor-Generals are represented as sinning mainly by inadvertence. This peculiar tactic was introduced by the “Statesman” newspaper, and is intelligible in a journal that selects an antagonist who cannot hit back when attacked; for of course the Foreign Office, being impersonal and bound to secrecy, is dumb. I tried to induce Lord Ripon to let me roll over the “Statesman” when it once libelled me directly, but he wouldn’t let me use confidential papers. I should hardly have expected, however, that so fearless and honourable an adversary as yourself would have adopted the same method.

I suppose I ought not to see anything comic in being accused of being “even more absolutely without moral scruple than” an English Foreign Secretary, or in reading that the history of the doings of the Calcutta Foreign Office, with which I was long connected about the time of which you are treating, is one of the most scandalous in diplomatic annals; that the Calcutta Foreign Office deliberately encouraged the Nizam in vice and dissipation in order to retain power in his state; and, finally, that it is indirectly responsible for Salar Jung being poisoned; but the situation is so novel that its ridiculous side most moves me. It seems clear to me that you are _not_ behind the scenes, or you would see the thing in the same comic light; for it is quite in my power to prove that all these wild accusations against gentlemen who are just like yourself in honour and integrity, are unfounded and erroneous. You must not reply that you are attacking a system, or a department, not individuals; the policy of the Indian Foreign Office is distinctly directed by the individuals, the Viceroy and his Foreign Secretary, from time to time in office. And when you write that the policy of the Calcutta Foreign Office is one of organized aggression with a view to annexation—a policy carried on, you imply, in despite of well-meaning Governors-General—you are not only wrong, but the reverse is far nearer the truth. Take the instance of Berar, it is demonstrable by published papers that the attempt to annex and the whole policy of seizure was entirely Lord Dalhousie’s own. With Lord Dalhousie’s departure the whole process of annexation (except for rebellion) ceased some thirty years ago; his annexations were rather opposed than supported by the local officials: and I challenge you to bring an instance in which the Calcutta Foreign Office has since advocated Indian annexations. In regard to the assertion for which, to my amazement, you vouch on your personal testimony, that the Calcutta Foreign Office is responsible for attempts made to corrupt the Nizam’s youth, I am quite sure you could not prove it, for I know I could prove the contrary.

I hope you will ponder these words, and consider whether such very serious charges ought to be made, except when you are face to face with men who can answer, or except when you actually produce, as you do nowhere in your article, the evidence on which you rely.

Lord R. Churchill stayed with me two days. I liked him much: he seemed reasonable and moderate, and open-minded upon all Indian questions. India is moving forward very fast—whither, the gods alone know; or perhaps the gods are moving forward themselves too fast to have much time for speculation on anything but their own future. The Russian scare acts as a drag upon Indian radicalism; the advanced party does not want to let in Russia, and is beginning to perceive that only the English can keep her out long.

I am yours sincerely,
A. C. LYALL.

Lieut.-Governor’s Camp, N.W. Provinces, India.

_May 4th_, 1885.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

I was very glad to see from your letter of March 25th, that you are quite ready to exchange explanations upon the disputable points in your article to which our correspondence refers. I will not go farther into the entangled questions of Hyderabad politics, except to say that I am prepared, if necessary, absolutely to prove all that I have averred. For example, I will prove that I, as Foreign Secretary, wrote letters insisting that greater care should be taken of the young Nizam’s training and education, and that I pressed the point orally and by writing much more closely than Sir Salar Jung quite liked. Also I can prove, undeniably, that at my instance the Government of India proposed to bring to an issue the “Statesman” attacks upon Sir R. Meade by authorizing, indeed ordering, Sir R. Meade to prosecute the “Statesman” in London. It was the _India Office_ which refused to allow the prosecution; the Calcutta Foreign Office and Meade were quite ready and resolute. But I cannot quote documents, much less publish them, without the consent of the Foreign Office and the India Office, so I cannot answer public attacks.

As you write in such friendly strain you will perhaps excuse me for expressing regret that the force and benefit of your articles on Indian affairs should be so much diminished (as they really are) by incautious use of unverified information. I have nothing whatever to say against the position you take up as an advanced Liberal and a Reformer in Indian politics, though I may not agree with all your views, or as to ways, means, and opportunities of reform: but it seems to me that your ends would be more likely to be met if you assumed a more impartial attitude. You will never persuade the English nation that Anglo-Indian officials are all fools or knaves. You were quite right to quote my letter in writing to the India Office. I intended it as a manifesto on your side, but I should guess you could afford to pass by Lepel Griffin. He is down on his luck just now, having lost the Foreign Secretaryship, and having been excluded from Raoulpindi Durbar, and he is consequently very sore indeed after such a tumble. I am inclined to be sorry for him as he is an able fellow in his way; but never did man more completely write himself down. He has a vaunting and exaggerated style that irritates people generally, and alarms the cautious officials in high places. His letter in the “Times” (early in April) for instance, about his having been intimately acquainted with one hundred ruling princes of India, is absurd grandiloquence; he only knows half a dozen worth mention politically.

It is hardly worth while that I should write to you about the present state of Indian feeling; for I fear you agree with Lord R. Churchill’s dictum that the English official knows less than nothing about what the natives think. Nevertheless, I may say that to me the Indian people at large appears to have come out wonderfully well during the critical suspense we have been going through as to war or peace with Russia. If war came, I believe we should have the country well behind us, and supporting us against the Russians, and I have little fear of internal tumults or disorders so long as we hold our own beyond or on the North- West frontier. The Russians are, I think, entirely mistaken in their notion that they could stir up any trouble against us in India, where, on the contrary, they have a very bad reputation; and I fancy the natives do not worry themselves so much as you imagine about our bureaucratic manners and blunders, so long as they feel they have a strong and honest government to keep the peace and keep out invaders. This is not, of course, the view of the advanced Liberal native, who naturally wants to rise, but the great Conservative propertied classes have this feeling just now.

I thought war was coming. Russia gave us a fair challenge by seizing Panjdeh; but now I suspect that Gladstone is only easing us down, and had never any intention of incurring more bloodguiltiness. His foreign policy has been most unlucky. He evidently has no head for this part of government, and his dealings with the Soudan have been lamentable. Apparently he will fulfil your prediction that “it will end by their absconding without making any arrangements at all.”

I wish you would stand for a good Radical constituency and join John Morley. I believe you are at heart much nearer the extreme left than the extreme right; and you could arrange to say nothing about the game laws until you had saved your common country, abolished the Foreign Office and the Indian Council, and given India a dozen provincial parliaments. Sincerely yours,

A. C. LYALL.

III. LIEUT.-GENERAL GLOAG TO MR. BLUNT

2, Tanfield Court, Inner Temple, E.C.
_August 19th_, 1886.

DEAR SIR,

I read your letter in the “Times” of yesterday with great satisfaction, on the subject of Burmah. As I have been all over that country, I know a great deal about it, and will not fail from time to time, as heretofore, to do my best to expose those who have befooled Lord Dufferin.

1. Inquiry must be held into the real causes of the Annexation.

2. I long ago pointed out that Young Thibô, reputed son of the late King Mengdom Meng, was neither a drunkard nor a debauchee, nor yet cruel. Sir Grant Duff can tell now what he is, as he has had him in charge.

3. An inquiry must be held into the method of making the Contracts entered into by Mengdom Meng with the Bombay Burmah Trading Company _in re_ the Teak Forests; and maps and plans of the forests furnished, as also the number of trees cut down, and the number of young trees planted.

4. A general inquiry into the conditions of trade in force between us and the late Mengdom Meng, for the present King Thibô is a mere youth, crassly ignorant of most things.

I fully anticipate that independent members will take the question up in the House, and you should do your utmost to help them as I also will do. I wrote long ago (1878) that annexation was wrong commercially and morally, as well as quite unnecessary. A strong Resident, well supported, with a well-appointed establishment should have been located at Mandalay in 1879 when Mengdom Meng died, the slave question for ever settled, and order made to prevail, and the laws remodelled and respected—quietly; if not, under gentle but strong means. I shall be glad to see you continuing along the paths of reason, truth, honesty and justice in this matter.

Yours sincerely,
A. K. GLOAG, Lieut.-General, late Comr. R.A. in British Burmah.

National Liberal Club, _August 25th_, 1886.

* * * * * *

The whole affair has been a monstrous wicked thing _ab initio_. I did write to the “Times,” but probably my letters were more truthful than they would have been agreeable to the mercantile bodies at Calcutta and Rangoon who I believe have been in the main the sole cause of our policy in Burmah. Yours truly,

A. K. GLOAG.

INDEX

_For the convenience of readers the public position of each principal person here named is given with a biography in brief._

AARIF, MOHAMMED BEY, 326, 330, 332, 333, 334, 339.

Abbas, Khedive, the present, proposal of appointing him still a minor
with a Regency, 6, 8, 15, Appendix B.

Abbasi, Sheykh Mohammed el, Sheykh-el-Islam at Cairo, 70.

Abd-el-Aal Pasha, fellah Colonel, exiled with Arabi, 21, 68, 69, 276,
323, Appendix F.

Abd-el-Kader Pasha, Governor of the Soudan in 1882, reason of his
refusing to return there in 1884, Appendix A. _Also_ 15, 16, 77, 81,
170, 171, 189, 208.

Abd-el-Mutalleb, Sherif of Mecca, 333.

Abd-el-Rahman, Amir of Afghanistan, 264, 396, 397, 409, 444, 466.

Abd-el-Rasul, of Cashmere, 494, 500.

Abd-el-Razak Bey, F.R.G.S., ex-director of Naval College, imprisoned
at Cairo in 1883, 70, 71, Appendix F.

Abdallah-el-Taishi, the Khalifa, successor to the Mahdi, 505.

Abdallah Ibn Saoud, Nejdi, living at Constantinople, 327.

Abdu, Sheykh Mohammed, religious reformer, afterwards Egyptian Grand
Mufti, living in exile at Paris in 1884, 208, 284, 286; in England in
1884, 270; interviewed for “Pall Mall Gazette,” 277, Appendix E;
author’s correspondence with, 219, 277, 279, 284, 286, Appendix B; at
the House of Commons, 272; his talk with Labouchere and Lawson, 273;
with Churchill, 274. _Also_ 66, 71, 98, 207, 208, 215, 219, 224, 270,
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 278.

Abdul Aziz, Ottoman Sultan, 329, 339.

Abdul Hamid, Ottoman Sultan, his character, 238, 302, 308, 309, 317,
318, 326, 327, 328, 337, 338; he favours Halim, 302, 321; his spies,
309; “un misérable et un fou,” 309; his horses, 303, 305, 341, 389;
his Selamlik, 318; his attitude towards the Grand Duke Nicholas, 308;
he only trusts the Germans, 322, 333; his relations with Dufferin,
302, 303, 305, 322, 348; with other ambassadors, 305, 316, 317, 322;
his manœuvres, 327; his women, 329, 337; his dislike of the ex-Khedive
Ismaïl, 378, 447; author’s letter to, 360, 389, Appendix B; proposed
revolt against in 1885, 490, 491, 493. _Also_ 15, 44, 50, 53, 80, 155,
177, 208, 238, 242, 248, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,
310, 311, 312, 314, 321, 322, 329, 332, 333, 338, 339, 340, 341, 358,
361, 363, 365, 366, 367, 368, 375, 378, 387, 398, 399, 403, 405, 417,
418, 434, 436, 441, 449, 451, 454, 455, 474, 475, 476, 477, 480, 485,
486, 487, 488, 492, 501.

Abu Diab, Yusuf Bey, aide-de-camp to Abd-el-Aal, unjustly hanged at
Tantah, 21, 24, 69, 325, 335, Appendices B and F.

“Abu Naddara,” an Arabic journal published at Paris. _See_ Sanua.

Adhem, Ibrahim Bey, adherent of Tewfik and Mudir of Tantah, his
responsibility for the massacres at Tantah, 21, 324, 325, 335. _Also_
Appendices B and F.

Ahmed Assad, Sheykh, secret agent of the Sultan sent to Egypt in 1882,
327.

Ahmed, Mohammed. _See_ the Mahdi.

Ala-ed-Din Pasha, adherent of Tewfik, appointed Governor-General of
Soudan in 1883, 81.

Aleysh, Sheykh Mohammed el, Sheykh of the Malekite rite at Cairo,
imprisoned by Tewfik in 1882, and died in prison, 81.

Alexandria, bombardment of, 2, 24, 63; riots at, 19, 20, 21, 52, 73,
83. _Also_ Appendix B.

Amir Ali, Mr. Justice, now member of Privy Council, 242, 348.

Ali Fehmi Pasha, fellah Colonel of the Guards, A.D.C. to Khedive,
exiled with Arabi, 65, 276, 324.

Ali Yusuf Bey, traitor at Tel-el-Kebir, 275, 323.

Allnatt, Mrs., 387; correspondence with, Appendix A.

Amir Hassan, Rajah of Mahmudabad, 297, 413.

Amnesty promised by Dufferin in 1882, but broken in 1883, 19, Appendix
C.

Anderson, Mary, Miss, 419, 420.

Appleton, Mr., 353.

Arab race at Newmarket, 262, 263, 264, 265, 272; at Cairo, 315.

Arab studs in Poland, 221, 295, 296.

Arabi, Ahmed Pasha, leader of the Egyptian revolution of 1882, his
recall to Egypt contemplated, 7, 8, 11, 12, 41, 42; Gordon’s opinion
of, 9; his memorandum sent to Dufferin, 13, 33, 76, 77, Appendix B;
his views on the Soudan, 16, 35, 77, 78, Appendix E; author’s
correspondence with, Appendix B; account of his behaviour at Tel-el-
Kebir, 69, 323. _Also_ 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 29,
31, 40, 41, 42, 49, 51, 52, 53, 61, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 83,
98, 140, 170, 211, 212, 213, 224, 228, 230, 234, 235, 237, 238, 242,
245, 246, 249, 251, 253, 254, 257, 260, 268, 270, 276, 281, 305, 310,
313, 323, 325, 379, 381, 387, 440, 454, 461, 477, 503.

Argyll, Duke of, 437, 450, 456.

Armenia, 337, 338, 342.

Atlee, Mr. Falconer, Consul at Paris, 284, 289.

Austin, Alfred, Poet Laureate, friend of the author, 392.

Awwam, Effendi, Arabi’s secretary, said to have betrayed Gordon, 421,
Appendix C.

Azarian, Monseigneur, Patriarch of the Catholic Armenians at
Constantinople, 337; his opinion of Sultan Abdul Hamid, 338.

Baker, Sir Samuel, well-known traveller, preceded Gordon as Governor
of Equatorial Province of the Nile, 95, 97; his high salary, 100; his
letter to the “Times” of 1st January, 1884, 161; Gordon’s visit to, in
1884, 172. _Also_ 100, 102, 104, 153, 161, 171, 172, 176.

Baker, Valentine Pasha, brother of Sir Samuel, head of Egyptian
gendarmerie, formerly Colonel of the 10th Hussars, 201; his defeat at
Teb, 5th February, 203. _Also_ 54, 161, 177, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203,
386; author’s personal recollection of, 201.

Bakir, Mirza, exiled Persian Sufi living in London, 273, 274; engaged
as Oriental secretary to author, 276, 499.

Balfour, Arthur, Rt. Hon., M.P., afterwards Prime Minister, 410, 424,
435, 450.

Bannerman, Henry Campbell-, Rt. Hon. Sir, M.P., Undersecretary at the
Admiralty, afterwards Prime Minister, his strange denial in the Palmer
case, 23.

Barnes, Rev. Dr., vicar of Heavitree, Gordon’s religious adviser, 138,
139, 171, 172.

Baring, Sir Evelyn. _See_ Cromer.

Barttelot, Sir Walter, M.P., 489.

Belkis, Queen, 314.

Bell, Moberly, Mr., “Times” correspondent at Alexandria, 348; same as
“Twenty Years’ Resident,” 456. _Also_ Appendix G.

Beresford, Charles, Admiral Lord, M.P., 63, 365.

Berzati, Gordon’s secretary in the Soudan, afterwards killed with
Hicks, 191.

Bible, Gordon’s, correspondence about the recovery of, 387, 389,
Appendix A.

Bilgrami, Seyd Huseyn, afterwards member of the Indian Council, 371.

“Bitters,” Francis Gore Currie, author’s cousin living in Paris, 284,
287, 410.

Bismarck, Prince, author’s recollection of, 286; his connection with
the Rothschilds, 260, 350, 395. _Also_ 1, 220, 222, 255, 260, 262,
345, 350, 357, 371, 391, 394, 395, 400.

Bismarck, Count Herbert, 395.

Black Art, the, 259.

Blignières, M. de, French Financial Controller in Egypt, 51.

Blind, Karl, German revolutionist living in exile in London, 354, 356.

Blount, Sir Edward, formerly British Consul at Paris, 389.

Bourke, Rt. Hon. Robert, M.P., Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, afterwards Lord Connemara, Governor of Madras, 28, 220, 226,
278, 349, 388, 450.

Bowen, Lord Justice, 451.

Bowles, Thomas Gibson, M.P., editor of “Vanity Fair,” 343, 361, 369.

Brand, Hon. Henry, M.P., Surveyor-General of the Ordnance, 1883-1885,
afterwards 2nd Viscount Hampden and Governor of New South Wales,
friend of the author, 228, 239, 241, 247, 248, 249, 255, 259, 374,
443, 446, 452.

Brett, Hon. Reginald, M.P., private secretary to Lord Hartington,
afterwards Lord Esher, his friendship with Gordon, 8, 12, 150; his
connection with the press, 162, 164. _Also_ 173, 174, 227, 351, 369,
375.

Broadley, Mr. A. M., Arabi’s Counsel in 1882, 67, 257, 270; his
connection with the ex-Khedive Ismaïl, 353.

Brocklehurst, General, intimate friend of Gordon, 173, 174; author’s
talk with, 225.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John, M.P., afterwards Lord Midleton and Chief
Secretary for India, 494.

Buckle, Mr. G. E., editor of the “Times” in succession to Mr. Chenery,
210, 219, 220, 250, 271, 348, 367.

Buller, General Sir Redvers, 379, 384.

“Bungo,” the Hon. Sir Michael Herbert, of the Paris Embassy,
afterwards Ambassador at Washington, friend of the author, 387.

Burmese War, 497, 498, 499, 501, 502, 503. _Also_ Appendix G; author
protests against, 502.

Burnaby, Colonel Fred, author of “The Ride to Khiva,” 213, 232; killed
at Abu Klea, 362, 406.

Burne, Sir Owen, head of the Secret Department at India Office, 250.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas, M.P., working man member, 248, 428.

Burton, Sir Richard, the well-known explorer, 101; Gordon’s letter to,
137.

Burton, Lady, Gordon’s letter to, 130.

Butler, General Sir William, in command of the garrison at Alexandria,
his testimony about the bombardment of Alexandria, 475; as to Gordon’s
being refused permission to land in Egypt, 146.

Butros Pasha Ghali, Coptic Notable, afterwards Prime Minister in
Egypt, assassinated in 1910, 69.

“Button,” Hon. Algernon Bourke, on the staff of the “Times,” cousin
and friend of the author, 25, 209, 210, 212, 214, 216, 219, 220, 222,
223, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 231, 235, 236, 238, 241, 242, 243, 245,
248, 249, 250, 254, 255, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 269, 283, 352,
359, 360, 361, 363, 364, 365, 367, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 375, 376,
384, 385, 389, 391, 393, 394, 395, 397, 402, 406, 409, 412, 418, 425,
445, 450, 452, 478.

Buxton, Mr. Francis, M.P., 405, 438.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney, M.P., 405.

Camberwell Election, Chapter XII, 471, 472; author is defeated at,
504, Appendix D.

Cambridge, H.R.H. George, Duke of, 180, 205, 206, 239.

Campbell, Sir George, M.P., Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, 235.

Campbell, Lady Archibald, 446.

Campbell, Lady Colin, 478.

Carmichael, Sir James, M.P., private secretary to Gladstone, 268.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Joseph, M.P., President of the Board of Trade in
Gladstone’s Cabinet, 2, 251, 254, 274, 369, 370, 384, 440, 441, 489.

Chandler, Rev. Dr. Arthur, Bishop of Blomfontein, cousin of the
author, 479.

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry, M.P., 386.

Chapman, Rev. Hugh, Vicar of St. Luke’s, Camberwell, afterwards
Chaplain of the Savoy, 504.

Charmes, Gabriel, French journalist, his legends about the author, 67;
reason of his quarrel with Nationalist Government in 1882, 67. _Also_
243.

Charter, Lord Dufferin’s, 29, 32, 33, 62, 76; letter to author,
Appendix C.

Chenery, Mr., editor of the “Times,” 30, 31, 32, 210, 349; account of
his death, 210.

Cherif Pacha. _See_ Sherif.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Lord Randolph, M.P., Chief Secretary for India
under Salisbury, afterwards Chancellor of the Exchequer, personally
described, 26, 213; his indictment of Tewfik, 28, 29, 211, Appendix B;
Morley’s opinion of, 252; his popularity with Orientals, 274, 276,
465, 468, 496; his ideas about India, 211, 350, 370, 412, 413, 439,
444; would recall Arabi, 238, 260, 414, 454; his ideas about Egypt,
414, 444, 454, 455, 461, 486; on Tory Democracy, 429; he promises to
support a Parliamentary inquiry into the Indian Government, 439, 496,
497; at the India Office, 452, 453, 456, 457, 460, 461, 464, 485, 491,
494; his views on Irish Home Rule, 445, 465, 469, 483; his connection
with the Drummond Wolff mission, 454, 461, 475, 478, 480, 481, 485,
486, 487, 491, 503; his discussion with Jemal-ed-Din, 466; on a
proposed revolution at Constantinople, 491, 493; his share in the
annexation of Burmah, 497, 498, 501, 503. _Also_ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
32, 38, 210, 211, 213, 218, 219, 235, 238, 245, 259, 262, 266, 278,
349, 350, 370, 371, 390, 408, 412, 413, 418, 419, 424, 429, 432, 435,
438, 440, 441, 443, 446, 447, 448, 450, 452, 453, 464, 466, 467, 468,
469, 479, 480, 481, 482, 492, 494, 495, 496, 500; author’s
correspondence with, Appendix D.

Clark, Dr., M.P., 356, 435.

Coetlogon, Colonel, in command of Khartoum garrison, 1883, 85, 155,
186.

Colvin, Sir Auckland, Anglo-Indian official, English Financial
Controller in Egypt, afterwards Lieutenant-Governor of the North-West
Provinces of India, 12, 38, 41, 44, 51, 52, 282, 421, 452.

Connaught, H.R.H. the Duke of, 372.

Cookson, Sir Charles, British Consul at Alexandria, 63.

Coptic Patriarch, 69.

Cordery, Mr., Anglo-Indian official, resident at Hyderabad, 239, 250,
348, 486, Appendix G.

Corti, Count, Italian Ambassador at Constantinople, 300; author’s
conversations with, 301, 305, 315, 320, 321, 327; his account of the
Berlin Congress, 320. _Also_ 319, 341, 364.

Cotton, Sir Henry, M.P., 478.

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard, M.P., now Lord Courtney of Penwith, 359,
377, 397, 399, 402, 420, 428, 432.

Cowper, Hon. Henry, friend of the author, 483, 484.

Cromer, Earl of, formerly Sir Evelyn Baring, his appointment to Cairo
in 1883, 38; his “Nineteenth Century” article, 42; his views in 1883,
42, 59, 60; his reputation in Egypt, 51, 55, 57; his character, 54,
59, 60, 61; his early career, 58; author’s talks with in 1883, 58, 60,
61; his connection with Lord Northbrook, 58; his untrustworthiness as
an historian, 61, 151, 152, 157; his responsibility for Hicks, 84; his
quarrel with Gordon in 1879, 124, 125, 247; his “Modern Egypt,” v,
viii, 144, 152, 155; his antagonism to Gordon, 151, 152, 167; his
misquotation of a dispatch, 157, 171; his complaint as to the “Pall
Mall Gazette,” 152, 153, 154, 161, 162, 166, 167, 176; his
responsibility for Gordon’s failure, 157, 192, 193, 197, 198, 199,
202, 214; his unpublished letter to Gordon (date, 22nd January 1884),
194; is considered a failure, 223, 231, 344, 410; Lord Hardinge’s
opinion of, 374; to be recalled, 449, 450, 451. _Also_ 38, 39, 40, 42,
43, 44, 45, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 70, 74, 75,
76, 83, 84, 85, 102, 122, 124, 125, 144, 148, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155,
156, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 166, 167, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177,
178, 182, 186, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 214, 215, 219,
222, 223, 224, 225, 228, 231, 247, 254, 257, 321, 344, 345, 374, 393,
410, 429, Appendices A and C.

“Curly,” Colonel George Knox, 231.

Currie, Mr. Bertram, banker, member of the Indian Council, cousin of
the author, and friend of Gladstone, 214, 352, 419, 420, 421.

Currie, Sir Donald, M.P., ship-owner, friend of Gladstone, 44, 235.

Currie, Mr. George, cousin of the author, 365, 370.

Currie, Sir Philip, afterwards Lord, private secretary to Lord
Salisbury, head of Foreign Office and Ambassador, cousin of the
author, 130, 227, 373, 378, 386, 438, Appendix C.

Curzon, Rt. Hon. George, M.P., afterwards Lord Curzon of Kedleston,
friend of the author, 451.

Dalhousie, Earl of, 431.

De la Warr, Earl of, political ally of author, 223, 225, 257.

Deli Nuzret, 327.

Dervish Pasha, the Sultan’s envoy to Egypt in 1882, he accepted
bribes, 327, 328.

Dickenson, Dr., of the Constantinople Embassy, 338.