necessary to decide whether his answer should be taken as final. It was Lord Lytton's conviction that the reasons given by Sher Ali for refusing to receive the proposed mission could neither be accepted by the British Government with dignity nor be passed over in silence. He thought that an opportunity should be afforded to the Amir of reconsidering his decision, and that this course was not only desirable in our own interests, but was the fairest towards the Amir himself. But he felt that a second communication, renewing an offer already rejected, would place our Government in a false position if it failed to show to the Amir the serious responsibility that he would incur by adopting a line of conduct which would have the appearance of deliberate discourtesy, or which omitted to show to him generally but distinctly the views which we held regarding his position and our own. The subject was discussed in the Council, to which Lord Salisbury's instructions of February 28 were now communicated. The majority agreed with the opinion of the Viceroy, and the Commissioner of Peshawur was directed to write to the Amir in the following terms:

After acknowledging the receipt of the Amir's letter, and once more explaining that in the suggested mission the Viceroy was actuated only by friendship towards the Amir, the letter went on: The reluctance July 8, 1876 evinced by your Highness to the reception of this Second letter friendly mission is much to be regretted.

'But by a letter which I have received from the British agent at your Highness' Court, I am induced to believe that your Highness' advisers, in counselling you not to receive the Viceroy's Envoy, may have been influenced by a misconception of the objects of His Excellency, or may not have fully considered the

to the Amir

light in which such a refusal might be regarded by the British Government. I have therefore, in accordance with the Viceroy's instructions, explained at length to the British agent the views of His Excellency on the relations between the two Governments, and on the causes to which he attributes the reluctance of your Highness to receive the mission. These views he has been instructed to communicate to your Highness.

'Your Highness has indeed suggested that it would answer all purposes were you to depute a confidential agent to learn from the Viceroy the views of the British Government. My friend, the Viceroy cannot receive an agent from your Highness when you have declined to receive His Excellency's trusted friend and Envoy. The British agent at the Court of your Highness will explain to you the reasons which make it impossible for the Viceroy to accept such a proposal.

It is the Viceroy's sincere desire not merely to maintain, but also materially to strengthen, the bonds of friendship and confidence between the British Government and the Government of Afghanistan, so that the interest of your Highness, as the sovereign of a friendly and independent frontier State, may be effectually guaranteed against all cause for future anxiety. But the support of the British Government cannot be effectual unless it is based on reciprocal confidence and a clear recognition of the means requisite for the protection of mutual interests.

'I am to repeat that in proposing to send a friendly mission to your Highness, the Viceroy has been actuated by a cordial desire, which it rests with your Highness to reciprocate, for the continuance on closer terms than heretofore of amicable relations between

the two Governments, in view of common interests more particularly affecting Afghanistan and the personal welfare of your Highness and your dynasty. It will for this reason cause the Viceroy sincere regret if your Highness, by hastily rejecting the hand of friendship now frankly held out to you, should render nugatory the friendly intentions of His Excellency, and oblige him to regard Afghanistan as a State which has voluntarily isolated itself from the alliance and support of the British Government.'

The letter to the Amir was despatched on July 8, and the British agent at Kabul was at the same time instructed to give personally to the Amir additional explanations and assurances. He was to point out, with reference to the fears that had been expressed regarding the safety of the proposed mission, that it had never been thought essential that the Envoy should go to Kabul itself, and that it had been distinctly stated that the Viceroy was prepared to send his Envoy to any place which the Amir himself might prefer; that the apprehension that demands injurious to the Amir might be made upon him was quite groundless, and that so long as the Amir showed himself to be a loyal friend and ally, the Viceroy would always regard the interests of Afghanistan as identical with those of the British Government. With regard to the objections made in the Kabul Durbar, that if British missions were received by the Amir he would be obliged to receive Russian missions also, the agent was to remind him that the Government of the Czar had given to the British Government assurances that it would not interfere, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of Afghanistan, that consequently the reception of a British Envoy could lead to no such consequences as those that had been feared, for in declining to

receive a Russian Envoy the Amir would only be acting in conformity with the policy which had already been solemnly agreed upon. If,' the Amir was told, His Highness should on further reflection recognise the expediency of learning the true nature of His Excellency's views and dispositions in regard to matters which materially concern the interests of His Highness, Sir Lewis Pelly will still be authorised to wait upon the Amir, at such place as he may appoint, and should the interviews consequent on this meeting lead to a more cordial and reliable understanding between the two Governments, the Viceroy will be happy to meet the Amir in person at Peshawur in November next, if His Highness should so desire.'

Three members of the Council, Sir William Muir, Sir Henry Norman, and Sir Arthur Hobhouse, dissented from the views of Lord Lytton and the majority of their colleagues. They were of opinion that Sher Ali was acting within his right in refusing to receive an English mission, that the reasons assigned by him were substantial, and that the proposed letter was almost equivalent to a threat of war. They held that although stress had been laid on the temporary and complimentary character of the mission, its real object was, as the Amir well knew, to enforce the reception of permanent English agents, that we were not dealing fairly with the Amir if we omitted to state distinctly the object at which we were aiming, that if the temporary mission were accepted and the permanent mission refused our position would be embarrassing, and that we ought to resolve beforehand whether in such a case we should accept the refusal or resort to force. It was better, they thought, to wait until the Amir was in

want of our assistance to help him out of difficulties, when we could make terms with him.

Lord Lytton's reasons for thinking it essential that this further communication should be made to the Amir were recorded by him in an official note from which the following extract may be made :

'I am anxious to take this opportunity, the Viceroy's earliest in my power, of noticing the arguments urged 1876 Minute, June against the course which, after anxious reflection, I still deem it my duty to pursue, in the conduct of our relations with the Amir of Kabul. I understand the policy of those of my colleagues who are unable to adopt my own point of view to have been correctly described, by those whose description of it is most authoritative, as "a waiting policy." But a policy of waiting is, by the essential nature of it, a policy destined and intended to merge, at some period in the course of events, into a policy of action, or at least of attainment; and, for this reason, at every point in the prosecution of such a policy, as time goes on without bringing us any nearer to the attainment of its avowed object, it behoves us to consider whether the inadequate result of our waiting be due to our not having yet waited long enough, or to our having already waited too long.

'It is obvious that a policy of waiting for ever on the course of events, without the slightest attempt to control it, would be no policy at all; and I am persuaded that such a simulacrum of a policy has no advocate in this Council. The only practical question, therefore, for present consideration is, whether we have waited long enough, or too long.

The policy of passive expectation has been tried with great patience for many years past; and I cannot find that it has been productive of a single

F