persisted in by the Government of India, and by the Home Government, after it had been pointed out by Noor Mahomed.

Paragraph 17. -The object of this passage is to show that Shere Ali was full of fears about the doings of the Russians, and the slackness of the British Government to support him; and the case is very much exaggerated. The establishment on the Oxus, 'close to his own frontier,' is at Petro Alexandrovosk, 500 miles at least from that frontier. The communication from General Kaufmann in 1869, on which stress is laid, was the first of the kind, and naturally disturbed Shere Ali's mind, but it seemed to Lord Mayo and to the Government of the day to be rather a desirable thing than otherwise, and Shere Ali was completely satisfied on the point. The Russian opposition to the recognition of his authority over a most important portion of his territories' is the boundary dispute before mentioned (sup., p. 41), and was a fair difference on a doubtful question, as to which the Russians finally gave way. Undoubtedly the circumstance frightened Shere Ali not a little, but he was completely reassured on that point at the Simla conference, as Noor Mahomed states at the Peshawur conference.

The want of support which is made the ground of insinuation against Lord Lytton's predecessors, means only the refusal of unconditional assistance and guarantees; and it comes ill from a Viceroy whose proffers of support were accompanied by conditions infinitely more onerous than any other Viceroy had ever thought of, and were looked upon by Shere Ali, not as a defence, but as an attack.

Paragraph 18.-This is at direct variance with the opinion of the Government contemporary with the events spoken of. See the despatches of June 7, 1875, and January 28, 1876 (sup., pp. 62, 74), and (sup., p. 124) the comments on the corresponding passage in the letters of March 15, 1877.

See sup., p. 53, and inf., 252-268.

Paragraphs 19, 20, 21.-These passages give a very misleading turn to the discussion between the Government of India and Lord Salisbury. Anyone reading them would think that the difficulty felt by the Government of India was the reluctance of the Home Government to give sufficient assurances of support to Shere Ali, and that the difficulty was, removed at once when the Home Government expressed a willingness to give those assurances. Now, passing over the fact that the assurances authorised by Lord Salisbury's instructions of February 1876 must have been just as unsatisfactory to Shere Ali as the previous assurances given to him, the objection expressed by the Government of India in 1875 was based on the absolute unwillingness of Shere Ali to admit English Residents at all, a difficulty which was not and could not be removed, and which events have proved to be insuperable except by force. The draft treaty (sup., pp. 107-110) shows how far our Government was willing to enter into more definite alliance with Shere Ali. And what is the equilateral character of an alliance in which one of the parties undertakes to surrender the whole of its foreign affairs into the hands of the other? This is the test-point by which the position of a subordinate native State is determined.

Paragraph 22.-It is here represented that our ignorance of Shere Ali's affairs virtually rendered us unable to control his conduct towards his neighbours. No instance is adduced, and only one is suggested, of difficulty arising from such a cause. The Government of India, in June 1875 and January 1876, denied the existence of any substantial difficulty of the kind. The one instance alleged by Lord Salisbury to the contrary was found to be a case in which the Government of India had sufficient knowledge, but did not interfere, because the operations of Shere Ali were not against his neighbours, but were confined to his own dominions. (See the despatch of January 28, 1876, paragraph 23.) The cases of the Seistan award, of the north-east boun

dary, of relations with the Tekke Turkomans, of the Russian prisoner, show that the Government of India, while not pretending to deprive the Afghans of their liberty in foreign affairs, as Lord Lytton's treaty would have done, exercised a substantial and beneficial influence in keeping them at peace.

Paragraph 26.-The assertion that there was 'permanent diplomatic intercourse' between General Kaufmann and the Ameer is an exaggeration. The volume of C A papers shows what the intercourse amounted to.

Paragraph 29.-Our Vakeel, Atta Mahomed, who is here expressly accused of stupidity and disloyalty in October and November 1876, and in other parts of the despatch is implicitly accused of inefficiency in former years, is the same man who received praise and rewards. at Simla on October 13, 1876.

Paragraph 32.-See the observations (sup., p. 124) on the corresponding paragraph of the letter of March 15, 1877. It is remarkable that the attempted jehad should have been, ostensibly at least, directed as much against the Russians as against ourselves.

Paragraphs 33, 34.-We cannot find in the Bluebooks anything answering to the communications here narrated, except so far as they coincide with Sir L.. Pelly's letters of February 27 and March 15 (sup., p. 122). It would seem that some other letters must be referred to.

Paragraphs 36-40.-This is a very remarkable statement. It appears that when Lord Lytton instructed Sir L. Pelly to close the Peshawur conference he was aware that a fresh Envoy from the Ameer was on his way, and that it was reported he would consent to all the conditions of the British Government. Probably the report was quite true, because it accords with what our Vakeel reported in December 1876, and there is nothing in Noor Mahomed's speech to the contrary. The Ameer, it seems, wished all his arguments to be heard, all his difficulties to be stated, and, if that did not convince the Viceroy, he would then yield. All that Noor Ma

homed did was to insist on being heard and on having his arguments transmitted to Lord Lytton, before he would answer about the English Residents. And yet with the knowledge that the time of yielding had in all probability now come, Lord Lytton abruptly breaks off the conference. He explains his motive thus: "If the Ameer had shown any eagerness to deserve and reciprocate our friendship the negotiations might usefully have gone on, but, in face of the situation revealed by Sir L. Pelly's energetic investigations,' only embarrassment could result from them. Now, so far as shown by the Blue-books, there had been no investigations whatever, except the debates with Noor Mahomed; and nothing had been revealed, except the state of things which the Government of India took as the basis of its opinion in 1875. They then speak to this effect: If the Ameer is willing, well and good; but if he is not, and we are confident he is not, nothing but harm can come of the attempt to force English Residents upon him.' This is precisely the principle which, in May 1877, Lord Lytton says induced him to break off the conference on March 30. Again, in May 1877 the Government of India 'await the natural development [of Cabul politics] with increased confidence in the complete freedom and paramount strength of our own position.' This, when stripped of verbiage, was precisely what was advised by the Government of India in 1875. A more frank and ingenuous exposition of the utter failure of Lord Salisbury's policy, and of the wisdom of Lord Northbrook's advice, cannot be imagined.

But it still remains to be explained how the statesmen who, throughout 1875 and 1876, and down to March 15, 1877, acted in diametrical opposition to Lord Northbrook's advice, should on March 30, 1877, have perceived its wisdom, and have endeavoured, though in vain, to return to the strong policy of patience, justice, forbearance, moderation, and peace, which had been pursued for more than thirty years, and which their rash actions had irretrievably disturbed.

159

CHAPTER X.

MINISTERIAL MISINFORMATION.

It will be remembered that the despatch of May 10, 1877, which must have reached England at latest during the first week of June, was not published. Indeed all the correspondence between India and England on this topic was secret, so that the public knew nothing accurate as to the meaning of such a phenomenon as the Peshawur conference. It is important for those who wish to approach these matters from their Constitutional side, to see how they were represented by the Government to the English people.

On April 20, 1877, the following conversation took place in the House of Commons (vide Hansard,' vol. ccxxxiii. p. 1538):

QUESTIONS.

India.-Relations with Afghanistan.

Mr. Grant Duff asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any change has recently taken place in the relations to the Government of India with Afghanistan; whether he is able to give the House any information with respect to the negotiations at Peshawur; and whether he is now in a position to lay the Khelat Papers upon the table.

Lord George Hamilton: Sir, in reply to the first part of the question, I have to say that no change whatever has occurred in the relations between the British Government and the Ameer of Afghanistan. There were several questions upon which communications with the Ameer were desirable, and, as he was reluctant to receive a British officer in his own dominions, it was thought better to discuss them at Peshawur.