Skip to item: of 82
Information about this record Back to top
Open in Universal viewer
Open in Mirador IIIF viewer

Press cuttings from The Times [‎41v] (8/8)

This item is part of

The record is made up of 4 folios. It was created in 24 May 1879-29 May 1879. It was written in English. The original is part of the British Library: India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. Records and Private Papers.

Transcription

This transcription is created automatically. It may contain errors.

Apply page layout

THE TIMES, THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1879.
pea
the
fcy are
fn life,
taminis-
s efleeted
changed,
jy stood,
lich have
is reign,
jy cannot
Im or the
lors were
r ' seek to
thoritiea,
ss against
veople are
le Musco-
ji, are the
rognized
bases of
Parties, in
unknown,
Empire
li-ts is to
and too
ag off any
is bound
subsist,
it is not
Esed. It
laracter,
jj resern-
fegau to
I oblite-
ermany,
Tug end.
countrj'
aemorial
ied« oon-
of the
;nipered
Russia
but ill-
things,
|)tter f by
md au-
M litera-
:iapa by
led, and
Id have
nautho-
k ! ; and
affected
that the
Much is
he edu-
(ocstitu-
uiH a de-
efinitely
ranslates
ie course
nee, and
>et or a
fciot help
)f which
e of the
ansform-
eystcm.
r 'orld, ho
ny great
>f—what
) tbo ab-
3 of personal freedom, the presence at
very stop in life of potty vexatious restric-
ions, and perpetual prying into all rela
tions. The travelled Russian easily raoonciles hiui-
stlf to the political order of tilings under which ho
is regarded as being in statu pupillari. He may
even warmly defend it ; but if ho has ever tasted
of the freedom and privacy of Western life, he
never fails to smart under the unsparing surveil
lance which awaits him when he returns homo. It
is not the military character of the Government
which is most distasteful ; it is the fact that the
mouchard is everywhere. The educated Russian
is proud of the strength of the Government, but it
annoys him to find that it employs petty espioniiaye
to gain its ends.
It is of little use to pass any severe sentence on
the Russian Government for the high-handed man
ner in which it is repressing the seditious move
ment. We can scarcely expect that despotic foreign
Governments which have to contend against secret
onspiracies will be nice and scrupulous as to the
eans of repression. They all act in such emer-
encies in a rude, rough fashion ; and wo
ed not be surprised that the Russian Govern-
aent, which is in its essence military, sets no
jsample of leniency and declines to follow the
lisurely, orderly, and constitutional procedure
ftbich suits English ideas. It is more profitable to
3ndeavour to understand the now movement, anH to
jee what is its origin, and whither it tends. The
:ircumstances of Russia furnish the explanation,
it is a country in which the extremes of barbarism
ind civilization meet. The upper classes are at least
he equals in intelligence of the corrasponding classes
n Western Europe. Many of the savants of Russia
iro of world-wide reputation. Under the patron-
b,go of the Court and the great nobles, every art
is cultivated at St. Petersburg. The spread of edu
cation in recent years has been considerabIe,and in
directly it is responsible for some of the present dis
content. The educated Russian who has added to
book lore the experiences of travel and knowledge of
the world resigns himself to the political situation
of tho country as inevitable ; but the new-fangled
lore inspires raw enthusiasts with restless longings
and vague political desires which are for tho most
part impracticable. Tho visionary student returns
^from the High School or tho University with ideas
hioh make him dislike tho ways of his country,
fter having drunk of Western learning ho is sure
have littlo in common with tho ignorant,
perstitious moujik. There can be no political
aternity between them. Ho can scarcely admit
liat ho is of the same flesh and blood as a
asant who idolizes all that advanced thinkers
spise. He cannot appeal to popular feelings
ith which he is out of sympathy ; he has
rallying cry which would gather the mul-
tude. His discontont does not find vent,
lereforo, in any large political movement of
)e kind which Governmonta cannot resist. Ho
Decomes of necessity a plotter, and dreams ot
realizing impossible anarchical chimeras ; and
his dissatisfaction breaks out in the sputter-
ings of conflagration or occasional assassinations.
The Nihilist is a conspirator, but scarcely a
revolutionist. He is, indeed, a formidable con
spirator, for Russian enthusiasm has no bounds ;
but he is not the man who overturns thrones and
changes Governments.
The vehement speech which the Duke of Argyll
lately delivered in the House of Loids on the
foreign policy of the Government has very natu
rally produced irritation among his opponents.
There waa one passage in particular in which he
seemed to reflect with undue severity on the per
sonal conduct and character of a respected Indian
official. He was speaking of the Peshawur Confer
ence of 1877, which was conducted by Sir Lewis
Felly on behalf of the Vioeroy , and by Noou
Mahomeu on the part of tho late Ameer Shere
Ali . "I never go back," said the Duke, "to
" those conferences at Peehawur between Sir
" Lewis Pelly and the late Noor Mahomed with-
" out a feeling of utter shame and humiliation.
'* We have the fairness, tho dignity, and the truth
" on the side of the Muhomedan and the Afghan,
" and we have everything that is tho opposite to
" these on the side of the Englishman and theChris-
" tian." Taken apart from the context, the wordscer-
tainly road like a very strong censure on Sir Lewis
Pellv , and bo they were understood by Lord Elcho,
who, shortly after they wero spoken, gave notice
that he would call attention to them in the House
of Commons. As tiie i^uke of Aruvll was on the
point of sailing for America, he did not wait for
the discussion of Lord Elcho's notice, but at once
wrote to us to explain that his censure properly
applied to the acts and language of the Government
oi which Sir Lewis Pellv was the mouthpiece, and
that ho never held that that officer was personally
responsible for the offences wiiich he condemned.
Hero we might have thought that tlie mat
ter should have ended, at least as far as Lord
jilcuo and Sir Lewis Pelly wore concerned. It is
true that the Duke of Arovll in exonerating Sir
Lewis Felly of conduct and language unworthy
of an Englishman and a Christian had only more
emphatically brought the accusation to bear on
Lord Lvttow himself, as,iudeed, it is clear from the
context that he intended to do in his original
speech. In the sentence immediately preceding
tiio one we have quoted, the Duke said, "I
"am sorry to eay that one consequence of these
transactions is that in personal conlerences with
" t ho 1 rinces of India thoy can no longer trust that
a V iceroy will treat theui with common fairness or
u will quote their arguments with a decent regard
' 4 to accuracy." With the taste or justice of this
sweeping censure wo aro not concerned at present ;
but it is evident that the words, as well as others
in the same context, are directed against the Vice
roy himself, and not against Sir Lewis Pelly , who
was only his agent. Lord Eloho , however, was
not content to accept the Duko's explanation in
silence, and wrote to us a few days ago exulting in
the fact that the Duke had made a mistake, and
had followed it up by a retractation or denial.
Lord Colin Ca-mflell now sends us a letter which
he has written to Lord Elcho , explaining that his
father has neither apologized nor retracted, and
that nothing was further from his intention than to
do either. So stands this unprofitable contro
versy, and we can only hope that it will now
end where it stands. The Duke of Aruvll
is thought to have spoken unjustly of a parti
cular p«rson ; he explains that he did nothing
of the kind, and that his language, to which he
still adheres, applies, and was meant to apply, to
some ono elso. Uhus there is an end of tho matter
as far as Sir Lkwis Pelly is concerned, and the
only question remaining which is really worth a
moment's consideration is whether such language
as the Duke thought fit to uso is becoming his posi
tion as an experienced and responsible statesman.
Tho Duke of Argyll is by no means the only
person of high station and responsible position who
has imported an unwonted acrimony into recent
political controversy, and especially into the dis
cussions concerning tho policy of the Government
in regard to Afghanistan. Tho Afghan question
has brought to light even in this country all the
deepest antagonisms of Indian official life. The
Anglo-Indian community, if we may bo call it, lias
been torn in two by a feud which strained the closest
tics and threatened tho oldest friendships. As the
question at issue happened to give rise to a great
political controversy at home, we have had the
spectacle of sedate and experienced officials, re
spected fortheirprudonco,6agacity,and reticonce,and
remarkable alike for their disregard of domestic poli
tics and their indifference to English opinion on In
dian affairs, vehemently taking sides and making the
whole country ring with the clamour of their ap
peals. Those who opposed the policy of tho
Government seemed for the moment to have turned
their backs on all the traditions of their official
life, and never in recent times has a grave
political question been debated with less reserve
or with greater bitterness. If we are forced to
blame chiefly those who declaimed against the war,
it is because thoy wero loudest in their outcry and
because, as experience has shown, thoy were very
greatly in tho wrong. Not only were the intentions
of the Government mistrusted and misrepresented
and its good faith impugned, but wo were as
sured that its policy was certain to end in
swift and irreparable disaster. Afghanistan was
unappeasably hostile and invincibly warlike, the
passes were impenetrable, and Shere Ali would
hurl tho hill tribes in a tempest of firo at our
heads. Those who spoke thus doubtless spoke in
all good faith, but they must now admit that the
result has shown them to have been in the wrong.
That thoy shouId make such an admission pub
licly is hardly, perhaps, to bo expected, but the
sharp lesson they have learned should teach them a
littlo more caution and reticence and, perhaps, a
littlo more charity for the future. After all, men who
have spent their lives in the conduct of groat affairs
should know and acknowledge that theiroppononts,
however misguided thoy may think them, aro at least
as upright as tliemselves. Even those who have
most vehemently opposed tho Government and most
openly impugned its motives may again be called
to serve it in their several capacities, and some
of them are certain sooner or later to take its
place and to have to carry out the issues of its
policy. Such a prospective responsibility cannot be
divested of its correlative duties, and demands a
reasonable reticence and moderation, and at least a
charitable forbearance in the imputation of
motive. Tbeso decent and necessary proprieties of
political controversy have certainly been somewhat
neglected of late by tho Duke of Argyll and his
Anglo-Indian followers. But the time has come
when a new departure can with advantage be
made. We will not ask the opponents of the Govern
ment on the Afghan question to admit that they
havo been in the wrong, though it is certain that
time has failed to justify them, but we may fairly
ask them to let bygones be bygones, and to look
on the future with hope and on the past with
charity.
\on the finances of Ind'« vwM'
bufip
forti
sum i
part}
Fawi
sion
the d
quart
be no
was li
of K p
" do
and 1
an ag
twoei
gang\
ceedt
cett
wor'
nigl
pare
nell
impi
Sup]
was ■
of t
speei
plain
the
the n
mine
abou
the I
whicl
rest,
new 1
brou^
realil
propc
of li
subje
recog
think
and t
In a
aator
he s
hoar*
his a
repb
whei
that
aga
the
Bri
A
aut
of
it ci
BtUi
Coi
Lov
gest
mea
this
then
comi
Mr. ]
cal ox
" in
thinl
chanj
curre
this t
vert 1
and i
legal
limit
limit
card'
Low
of th
some
is to
in w
peai
cone
was
nece
be tl
Govt
expe
gold
ciate<
one v
less t
notes
Lowe
conve
to pre
notes
notioi
value
Tho i
excee
roallj
rency
Indh
not a
natur
the r
dimii
Land
in sil
when
60 ru
oblig
notef
inch
of
crea*
the
fror
the
con
sist-
too
vag
ten
V
Ind
Wh
devi
bo c
may
dow
tosti
first
in E
asset
12
the
the
so
ciaU
said
com
or st
arist
chea
this
Two
gold
whih
of In
ciate
chanj
modi
itself
dence
more
ag oil any
is bound
j subsist.
4 it ia not
^osed. It
character,
^'g resem-
o>egau to
3 J obiite-
f
« W or mauy,
' mTugend.
^ ' country
^aemorial
>ed» oon-
^ of the
ffipered
)A1 < Huissia
gbut ill-
jb things,
^ tter ' h y
a cF 11 d au-
N^I lite;-a-
fiaps by
2«d, and
Id have
nautho-
'<1; and
affected
tliat the
Much ia
he edu-
ocstitu-
hs a de-
iefinitely
ransJates
ie course
nee, and
*)t or a
not help
3f which
® of the
ansform-
eystem.
corld, he
tny great
>f—what
3 the ab-
" transactions ii tliat7n perTonJl T ffi?rSciYitn
•< w iy nnQi-n i i ■ lLm U11 OOIUDl on fairness or
sweeping censure we are not conoemL If
but it 1S evident that the words, as well afotT 5
in the same context, are directed against the Vr
bov hirnseif and not against Sir L^Tl>l L y T
was only bis agent. Lord i Y, wh o
'not content to accept the DnW ' ho * evei '***
the fact that the Duke Karl r > lla g 'n
Lord Coun L w ulTl e °L dC r!-
he has written to Lord Errirr , a letttr whici
IS thought to have spoken unjustlv of
onle rrnrand^th!^ ^ did D0 ^
ll 11 f
rrr 15 - " u<i ^
o..^ue S tio n
moment's consideration is whether =, i, h a
political controversy, and especially into the^di*
cussions concerning the policy of the
^n regard to Afghanistan The
has brought to light even in this coun^v th"
AnTlndi g0ni ' m3 0f official We ^
Anglo-Indian community, if wo may so call it h
been torn in two by a feud which strJnS 2 ,'
tics and threatened the oldest friendshins 6 A
question at issue happened to give rise to a I t
political controversy at horrm k
epectaclo S edate a„" e'lriCd „« ll0 . d "*
I^AY 29, 1879.
Uor :
Lovdifference t?o English opinion on In-
gestmently taking sides and making the
niearing with the clamour of their ap-
thiawho opposed the policy of tne
thenmed for the moment to have turned
conu all the traditions of their official
Mr. J in recent times has a grave
cal om been debated with less reserve
" in bitterness. If wo are forced to
thintose who declaimed against the war,
chan/y were loudest in their outcry and
curr©erieuce has shown, they were very
this srrong. Not only were the intentions
vert tnent mistrusted and misrepresented
and faith impugned, but we were as-
legal; policy was certain to end in
limitiparable disaster. Afghanistan was
I limit hostile and invincibly warlike, the
cardtmpenetrable, and Shekk Ali would
Lowl tribes in a tempest of fire at our
of th) who spoke thus doubtless spoke in
someh, but they must now admit that the
is tcf)wn them to have been in the wrong,
in would make such an admission pub-
peary, perhaps, to be expected, but the
concthey have learned should teach them a
was saution and reticence and, perhaps, a
necejarity for the future. After all, men who
be tHioir lives in the conduct of groat affairs
Govt and acknowledge that theiropponents,
expeguided they may think them, are at least
gold is themselves. Even those who have
ciateently opposed the Government and most
one \^ned its motives may again be called
less t in their several capacities, and some
notese certain sooner or later to take its
L owbo have to carry out the issues of its
convei a prospective responsibility cannot be
to pre its correlative duties, and demands a
notesreticence and moderation, and at least a
notioi forbearance in the imputation of
valuehese decent and necessary proprieties of
i. hft inf rounrflv 1)0011 SOIIlOWll&t
The mtroversy have certainly been somewhat
excee »f late by the Duke of Argyll and his
n fr.11r.«7Pr« Tint, tho time lus come
roaljyan followers. But the time has come
rencjiew departure can with advantage be
3 will not ask the opponents oftheUovern-
the Afghan question to admit that they
m in the wrong, though it is certain that
s failed to justify them, but we may fairly
m to let bygones be bygones, and to look
future with hope and on the past with
______
■tt'Oi u»„. 7 „ s 7 " I ■ ,c ' q ra -a "OH srn

About this item

Content

Press cuttings from The Times relating to the Duke of Argyll's attack in the House of Lords on Sir Lewis Pelly:

  • 24 May 1879 printed letter from the Duke of Argyll regarding Lord Elcho's intention to speak on the matter in the House of Commons and amending his accusations against Pelly to be accusations against his superiors.
  • 27 May 1879 printed response from Lord Elcho citing numerous references to the exemplary nature of Pelly's work there given in the House December 1878
  • Undated [28 May 1879?] printed letter from Lord Colin Campell regarding the Duke of Argyll and Lord Elcho's correspondence
  • 29 May 1879 summary of the disagreement as printed in The Times 24-29 May.
Extent and format
4 folios
Written in
English in Latin script
View the complete information for this record

Use and share this item

Share this item
Cite this item in your research

Press cuttings from The Times [‎41v] (8/8), British Library: India Office Records and Private Papers, Mss Eur F126/10, ff 38-41, in Qatar Digital Library <https://www.qdl.qa/archive/81055/vdc_100023288526.0x000053> [accessed 14 December 2018]

Link to this item
Embed this item

Copy and paste the code below into your web page where you would like to embed the image.

<meta charset="utf-8"><a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100023288526.0x000053">Press cuttings from <em>The Times</em> [&lrm;41v] (8/8)</a>
<a href="https://www.qdl.qa/en/archive/81055/vdc_100023288526.0x000053">
	<img src="https://images.qdl.qa/iiif/images/81055/vdc_100000001524.0x000395/Mss Eur F126_10_0083.jp2/full/!280,240/0/default.jpg" alt="" />
</a>
IIIF details

This record has a IIIF manifest available as follows. If you have a compatible viewer you can drag the icon to load it.https://www.qdl.qa/en/iiif/81055/vdc_100000001524.0x000395/manifestOpen in Universal viewerOpen in Mirador viewerMore options for embedding images

Use and reuse
Download this image