Viceroy's Lewis Pelly, March 3 a letter dated March 3, refers to these grievances as follows: 'I sincerely regret to learn that the Amir has Letter to Sir been for years secretly harbouring in his mind a sentiment of resentment towards the British Government, in consequence of three or four incidents in the conduct of its relations with His Highness; which caused him, at the time of their unnoticed occurrence, feelings of annoyance, only now for the first time made known to the Viceroy. I am confident that the causes of annoyance enumerated by the agent were not occasioned by any deliberate or intentional, or even conscious, disregard of the Amir's feelings on the part of the British Government. I have no doubt whatever that most of them might, and would, have been prevented by the presence of a discreet and intelligent British officer at Kabul, had such an officer been admitted to that unrestricted intercourse with the Government of His Highness which an experience tested by centuries, and gratefully acknowledged by every civilised State in the world, has proved to be the only practical means of maintaining amicable and mutually advantageous relations between neighbouring States. Such States must always have many interests in common, on which misunderstandings can hardly fail to arise if their Governments have no adequately confidential and authoritative medium of communication with each other.' With regard to the question of admitting British officers to Afghanistan, the Envoy, in an informal conversation with Dr. Bellew, had stated that this subject, so constantly pressed upon the consideration of the Amir, had aroused his suspicions, and he was now' convinced that to allow British officers to reside 6 6 Letter to Sir in his country' would be to relinquish his own Viceroy's authority'; and the lasting disgrace thus brought Lewis Pelly, on the Afghan people' would be attached to his March 3 name, and he would sooner perish than submit to this. The British nation is great and powerful, and the Afghan people cannot resist its power, but the people are self-willed and independent, and prize their honour above life.' In the subsequent interviews with Sir Lewis Pelly this view was repeated in different words again and again. Lord Lytton comments upon this: In the communications made by the Viceroy to His Highness from Simla in the month of October last the Amir was distinctly informed that unless he was prepared to recognise, in principle, the expediency of appointing British officers to reside in certain parts of the Afghan frontier, it would be useless to appoint Envoys for the negotiation of a Treaty entirely conditional upon that arrangement. His Highness was, at the same time, earnestly requested to consider very carefully the expediency of the proposal then made to him before committing himself to a decision. He did take many weeks to consider it; and when, after having thus deliberately considered it, he appointed his Minister to negotiate with you the best means of carrying it out, we were entitled to assume, as we naturally did assume, that the principle clearly explained by us to be the only possible basis of negotiation on our part had been duly and fully accepted by His Highness, and that the expediency of carrying it out was no longer open to discussion. The Envoy's present attempt to ignore the recognition of that principle, and to discuss the expediency of it as an open question, is a breach (which should be pointed out to him) of the under Viceroy's standing on which we agreed to receive him as the Letter to Sir Amir's representative in this negotiation. Lewis Pelly, 'If, however, as would seem to be the case, the Amir, influenced by circumstances or considerations still unknown to us, has completely changed his mind since he entered upon the negotiation (which, in its present form, was originated by His Highness), the very last thing desired, or attempted, by the British Government would be to pin His Highness pedantically to the fulfilment of an understanding from which he now wishes to withdraw, or to the adoption of an arrangement which he does not regard with satisfaction. . . . But in that case there is nothing left to negotiate about, and consequently no reason why the Afghan Minister should not immediately return to Kabul. You have rightly pointed this out to the Envoy; and I entirely approve the terms in which you have done so.' Finally, the Envoy had contended that by Lord Mayo's written assurance at Umballa, and Lord Northbrook's verbal one at Simla, the British Government were already bound to protect the Amir, not only against foreign aggression, but also against internal revolt; that if this was admitted the Amir had nothing to gain by the re-statement of our obligation in any new form; that if this was denied then the British Government were chargeable with breach of faith. Lord Lytton emphatically repudiated this false position. The [Envoy's] argument would be perfectly sound if its premisses were true. But, unfortunately for the Amir, they are fundamentally erroneous. The only obligations ever contracted on behalf of each other by the British and Afghan Governments are embodied in two treaties, of which the first was Viceroy's signed in 1855 and the second in 1857. Letter to Sir The Treaty of 1855 contains only three articles. March 3 The first stipulates that there shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the East India Company (to whose treaty rights and obligations the British Government has succeeded) and the Amir of Kabul, his heirs and successors. The second binds the British Government to respect the territories possessed by the Amir at the time when the Treaty was signed, that is to say in 1855, and not to interfere with them. The third article binds the Amir, his heirs and successors, not only to respect the territories of the British Government, but also to be the friend of its friends, and the enemy of its enemies. It is to be observed that this Treaty contains no corresponding obligation on the part of the British Government. The British Government is not without cause to complain that the Amir's conduct of late years has been inconsistent with the obligations contracted by the Government of His Highness under the terms of Article I. of this Treaty of 1855. Friendship between neighbouring States does not necessarily involve liabilities on the part of either State to furnish the other with material assistance; but it does necessarily involve the uninterrupted maintenance of friendly intercourse, and the fairly reciprocal recognition and discharge of all the customary duties of good neighbourhood. 'Now, not only are all the territories of the British Government freely open at all times to all the subjects of the Amir, but His Highness has received from the British Government repeated gifts of arms and of money, as well as a consistent moral Viceroy's Lewis Pelly, support both at home and abroad. In return for Letter to Sir these advantages to His Highness, what has the British Government received from the Amir? The territories of His Highness have been, and continue to be, churlishly closed to all the subjects of the British Government; with whom the Amir forbids his own subjects to hold any kind of friendly intercourse. Trade, traffic, travel,-all the customary bonds of union between neighbouring and friendly States, have been systematically discouraged and practically prohibited to British subjects in Afghanistan, by His Highness. 6 The Amir has refused permission to the Envoy of the British Government, bound on a peaceful mission to another neighbouring State, to pass through his territory; and the determination of His Highness to withhold from the British Government all such natural good offices has been conveyed to it in terms scarcely consistent with courtesy, and certainly not consistent with friendship. Colonel Macdonald, a British subject, was barbarously murdered on the borders of the Amir's territory, by a person subject to the authority of the Amir, and for whose punishment His Highness was, therefore, responsible. But instead of cordially and efficiently co-operating to avenge this crime, the Amir has allowed the murderer to remain at large; and not only unmolested, but actually, I believe, in receipt of a pension from His Highness. I forbear to dwell upon the Amir's discourtesy in leaving wholly unanswered the proposal made to His Highness by the late Viceroy for the demarcation of his boundaries, in refusing to receive a complimentary mission from the present Viceroy, and in taking no notice whatever of the friendly invitation to Delhi which was subse |