سجل قصاصات مقتبسة من صحف عن أفغانستان [ظ‎‎١‎٢‎٠] (٣١٢/٢٤٨)

LORD GREY'S ARGUMENT,
W e refrained from noticing the letter addressed by Lord L aw-
kekce to tie Times the other day, because we felt a "difficulty
in treating it with the respect which its writer had well earned.
Moreover, it was admitted, even by some who described that
letter as a wise one, that it entirely left out the main point
of the question ; and the most authoritative of controversialists
who is guilty of this omission may safely be left unanswered.
To-day, however, the Times prints a communication from Earl
G rey , who describes Lord L awrence's letter as "excellent,"
but who does not himself leave out the main point of the question,
though he deals with it in a truly remarkable way. It will be
convenient, therefore, to take Lord G rey's letter as supplementing
the deficiencies of Lord L awrence's , and to consider what sort
of case they make out between them for the policy of inaction
which they recommend.
The argument, it seems, is twofold : that a war with Afghanistan
would be unjust, and also that, even if just, it would be impolitic.
Into the latter question we do not at present propose to enter;
though we may at once admit that we are fully sensible of the
force of Lord G rey's arguments upon this head. We agree
with him that hardly any conceivable result of even the most
successful expedition against Afghanistan offers promise of posi
tive advantage ; and that the most favourable- issue of the enterprise
will only be to confront us with a choice of future difficulties and
embarrassments. We have to thank a long persistence in the
policy of " masterly inactivity " that it is so ; but this does not
touch the question immediately before us. To prove that action
promises little or no advantage is not to prove that inaction is a
possible or tolerable alternative; though it may be the strongest-
condemnation of the policy which has shut us up to sc
deplorable a choice. A nation may find itself forced to seek an
unfruitful victory from the necessity of avoiding a disastrous
defeat; and that we are under this sort of compulsion now is
a proposition too generally admitted to need argumentative
support.
But Lord G rey contends that, morally speaking, we have no
choice in the matter ; that it is not open to us even to consider
whether we shall make war against Shere Ali or forbear, and
this because the Ameer has given us no just cause for hostilities
against him. Lord G rey does not, like Lord L awrence , omit
all reference to Russia in his treatment of the cause of quarrel
between ourselves and the Ameer; but he is of opinion that
Shere A li's reception of a Russian Embassy and his refusal to
admit Sir Neville C hamberlain are matters of which we have
no right to take hostile notice in any way. Shere Ali is an
independent prince, and independent princes have a right to
receive or reject the envoys of any Power as they may think fit.
The Russian mission, moreover, is alleged to have been " sent in
no spirit of hostility" to us; and, though Lord G rey does not
believe this allegation any more than other people, he holds that
unless we are in a position to " disprove " it we are not entitled
actively to resent the step. Nay, even " if the hostile object were
not a mere matter of suspicion, and it had been avowedly sent as
a measure of precaution against the extension of British power in
Asia, it would have been quite within the clear fright of both
Russia and Afghanistan to enter into communication for this pur
pose." Russia and Afghanistan must be meditating not defensive
but offensive measures against England, and this design must be
" proved," or we have " no right whatever to make war upon either
on account of what has lately occurred." It is astonishing to find
a mind of such force as Earl G rey's submitting itself to the
dominion of such phrases as these. It is not necessary to
inquire how far it is correct to predicate " independence" of a
prince who was for years in receipt of an English subsidy ; it is
sufficient to ask whether the independence of a ruler carries with it
a right to intrigue unmolested against a neighbouring Power, which
on its own part is morally bound to remain quiescent until prepa-
fation for hostilities becomes overt attack. Further, we would
ask Lord G rey whether a prince may, in virtue of his
independence, combine with another Power to violate an agree
ment solemnly, entered into by that Power with a third; an
agreement the observance of which has been long and unre-
M uBUer IOUJ 3 UUt nci ^cjuj«-ujg:j iu<xy ucy yiouiiuuic. .our 11
lam iSxto die, this may only make the flame of war break out with the
eater viblence in tnb^Christian w(est."
it is evident tuai mmv. —
sting has not been extracted, and that even with the modifications introduced -
in the definition of the offences to be dealt with, in the constitution of the
ultimate Court of Appeal, and in limiting for a short period the operation
of the law, the Moderate party feel that more is demanded of them than
they can safely grant. In expressing the broad view that the bill is
not calculated to arrest the evil against which it is directed Von Franken
stein only stated an opinion which is universally entertained by all
impartial observers. And this objection seems to apply no less to the
measure in its original than in its amended form. The notion that
Socialism will be stamped out by a repressive law, the existing political
system remaining unreformed, can only recommend itself to those who
believe in the omnipotence of an arbitrary Government.
colonel stanley at blackpool.
The Daily News observes that Colonel Stanley, in his speech at the
opening of the Blackpool Conservative Club yesterday, was both hopeful and
light-hearted in his references to Asia Minor and Cyprus, but thinks that if
he expected to carry with him, not merely the convictions of his partisan
hearers, but also the convictions of the thousands who will go to his
speech in expectation of some new light on the policy of the Govern
ment, he ought to have gone into greater detail as to the means which
the Ministers propose to take to ensure the discharge of the liabilities
with which they have burdened themselves. The News, however,
would have been content to accept without complaint Colonel Stanley's
generalities about Cyprus and the Anglo-Turkish Convention if what
he said about our relations with Afghanistan had been more definite
and satisfactory. Colonel Stanley ignores facts which were semi
officially communicated to the public before the repulse of Sir Neville
Chamberlain's mission, when he speaks as if the policy in pursuance
of which that mission was despatched had been adopted in con
sequence of an attempt on the part of Russia to obtain posses
sion of the key of the Ameer of Afghanistan's house. It is mis
leading to speak as if the proposals carried by Sir Neville Chamberlain had
been conceived after it became known that Shere Ali had given a friendly
reception to a Russian envoy. The same proposals were made two years
ago," and the author or authors of them must have but a very indifferent
confidence in their value if they try to back them up, not by cool reason,
but by claptrap attempts to enlist prejudice and passion in their favour.
Colonel Stanley expressed no opinion as to the exchequer from which the
costs of the Afghan expedition ought to be paid. His audience might
not have cheered so loudly at the moment if they had been told that,
as this expedition had grown out of the Imperialist policy of the Govern
ment, it was England and not India that ought to defray the charges of it.
CORRESPONDENCE.
A WARNING.
To the E ditor of the P all M all G azette.
S ir ,—I received from an officer in India a letter by the last mail,
in which he says;—" I was on a court-martial on three sepoys of the
native regiment here the other day. They were tried for sending an
anonymous letter to the Commander-in-Chief, complaining of their colonel,
adjutant, and subedar-major. There have been a great number of these
anonymous complaints lately; some threatening to shoot the officers
complained of, if the chief did not remove them." Did I not feel very
sure that such facts as these are known and noted by " the great and
friendly Power" with the " sisterly voice " I should hesitate about giving
them publicity; but as our Government at home may not be aware ol"
this comparatively recent form of indiscipline in the native army, and
as a war with .Shere Ali is treated by the Times as Mr. Toots would
have treated it—a matter of " no consequence," and as weeks have now
passed since the arrival of news that our mission was turned back with
contumely, and yet no regiments have left England to strengthen our
Indian garrison, I venture to think it may be as well to publish such
warnings as this. I don't know that thirty years' service, and intimate
acquaintance with native troops, and moreover a high estimate of their
soldierly qualities, should give any title to express an opinion upon
the present crisis. I am aware that I cannot be expected to know so
much of our sepoys or of Afghan politics as if I were a coal master
and an M.P., dwelling in England all my life; but if I may be per
mitted to express my opinion I should say that, unless a very great
change comes over the spirit of our dream in England—our dream of
security, our dream that we have now got "peace with honour," our
dream that we can deal with this "row" at our convenience; that we can
deal with it at any time without considerable increase to our European
force in India ; our dream that Shere Ali is only himself, and not Kaufmann
and Abramoff and Stolieteff into the bargain,—I say, if we do not soon
waken up from such idle dreams, we shall find that, though we have lately
gained an Empress, we shall have forfeited an empire.—I am, Sir, your I
obedient servant, ' I
October 8. E meritus.