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.