Government to the questions respecting the important and precious
records of Khartoum kept by its devoted Defender. They decline to say
what course they will take regarding them. I have just written to Sir
Henry Gordon most earnestly beseeching him, out of regard to his
brother’s memory, to apply for the possession of the journal, 6 volumes,
on their arrival. One dreads such important and deeply interesting
records getting into the hands of men so unscrupulous as those
comprising the present Government. The papers would probably be cruelly
mutilated before leaving their hands, if there were aught in them that
would condemn those who sacrificed their devoted Envoy to paltry party
devices.
I am my dear Sir, Yrs. sincerely,
ELIZABETH SURTEES-ALLNATT.
EXTRACT FROM EDITH, LADY LYTTON’S DIARY
_June_ 7, Simla, 1880.—In the evening, while we were at dinner under the
Shemiana on the lawn, Lord William [Beresford] arrived, having left Lord
Ripon at Umballa and come on very quickly to reach us for our last
evening. He says the heat has been tremendous and worse than he has ever
felt it, and he and Major White had to put ice on their heads one night,
expecting every minute to succumb. But Lord Ripon and party have not
complained or been ill. Lord William told us about Colonel Gordon being
so odd; he says the world is not big enough for him, and that there is
no king or country big enough. He hit Lord William on the shoulder,
saying, “Yes, that is flesh, that is what I hate, and what makes me wish
to die.” He resigned the Private Secretaryship, to the Viceroy’s great
inconvenience, because he was asked to answer an address at Bombay
saying that Lord Ripon had read it with interest and would write again
at some time, and he said: “You know perfectly that Lord Ripon has never
read it, and will not write, and I can’t say those sort of things, so I
shall resign, and you take in my resignation.” Colonel Gordon received a
telegram from China asking him to go and fight the Russians there, so he
has gone off to do so, and his last word to Lord William was, “Everyone
will say I am mad, but you say I am not.”
COLONEL LOUIS A. GORDON TO MR. BLUNT
Carpenters, Horsham, Sussex, _Sept._ 4, 1911.
DEAR MR. BLUNT,
I am glad to see that you, in your new book “Gordon at Khartoum,” are
undertaking the vindication of my uncle’s memory against an attack on
it, which Lord Cromer thought fit to make in his “Modern Egypt” so many
years after the death of General Gordon and my father Sir Henry Gordon.
I know that nothing that Lord Cromer could write would in the least
affect General Gordon’s memory; but the remarks he makes leave a nasty
taste in the mouth and it is very desirable that they should be
responded to in detail.
In “Modern Egypt,” page 43, Vol. I, I observe a note which affects my
father, Sir Henry Gordon; Lord Cromer says: “At the instance however, of
General Gordon’s friends and family, a good deal of violent and very
foolish abuse of Lord Granville—and if I remember rightly, of others—was
omitted. It is in my opinion to be regretted that this was done. The
publication of the Journal, as it was originally written, would have
enabled the public to judge more accurately of the value of General
Gordon’s criticisms, than was possible when only an expurgated edition
was issued.” This contains an accusation of tampering with the Journals
which the facts do not warrant.
As far as Sir Henry Gordon is concerned, expurgation of the kind
referred to by Lord Cromer was certainly not authorised. In his
“Description of the Journals,” page lxv, my father says: “I have
arranged . . . for their issue in a very nearly entire state, only some
6 or 7 pages being omitted which contain, in my opinion, no matter of
public interest; while with regard to names those who are well
acquainted with the affairs of Egypt can fill in the blanks without
difficulty.” That no fraud has been exercised on the public in the
matter, and that the public has not been deprived of the opportunity of
reading the Journals in full, is sufficiently plain by the fact that the
Journals were deposited by my family in the British Museum plain for all
folk to see; so that anyone, caring to do so, can satisfy himself on the
subject.
Yrs. sincerely,
L. A. GORDON.
APPENDIX B
MR. BLUNT’S ORIENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
I. AS TO HIS PROPOSED MEDIATION WITH THE MAHDI
MR. BLUNT TO SHEYKH MOHAMMED ABDU AT PARIS
London, _April_ 7, 1884.
To my noble and dear friend, the learned Sheykh Mohammed Abdu, the
martyr of liberty, may God continue to enlighten him.
Your letter, which Her Ladyship has now translated to me in full, has
given me much pleasure except in what you say of your not being able yet
to come to England; but I send you by this post the money needful for
your journey and trust that you will acknowledge to me its safe arrival.
I wrote four days ago to M. Sanua telling him something of the state of
opinion here, and since that time I have written a letter which will be
published in the ‘Times’ of to-morrow or Wednesday in which I have
proposed a solution of the present difficulties and misfortunes in
Egypt. I trust that it may meet with your approval, for in it I propose
that the Egyptian question shall be referred to an European Congress,
that the English army shall retire from the country and that Egypt shall
be placed under the joint protection of the Powers, and so govern
herself according to her own will.
I propose also that peace shall be made with the Mahdi, and General
Gordon be recalled from Khartoum—nor have I forgotten to recommend that
the decrees of exile against the patriots of Egypt shall be reversed.
With regard to Egypt and Syria and the Arabian Caliphate you know well
my views, for they are published in the book which I wrote three years
ago founded on your learned instructions and your views conveyed to me
through our dear friend (peace be with him) Mohammed Khalil. But with
regard to the Mohammedans of India these are my views, and I beg that
you will communicate them to the noble prince the Seyyid Jemal-ed-Din
(to whom also I send my best compliments) that he may know them himself
and communicate them to the Nawab Rasul Yar Khan and the Ulema of
Hyderabad, though I have already told them of my thoughts, having spoken
freely to all the Mohammedans of India whom I met. My thoughts therefore
about India are these. According to the principles which I hold in
political affairs I desire to see liberty and self government
established everywhere, and in India no less than in other countries of
the world now held in subjection, and I am not prejudiced by the fact
that I was born an Englishman into wishing for other advantage there
than to the Indians, nor should I hesitate to approve of any wise plan
which should hasten their freedom. At the same time my journey in India
has convinced me that the people of that country are not yet
sufficiently united to form an independent nation, unprotected by some
external Power. If all Indians were of one creed and one language and
one race, as was the case in Egypt, I would say to them as I said to
you, “Bismillah,” in the name of God go forward and fear nothing. But it
is not so. I see that though they might free themselves from the English
domination, which is hateful to them, they are not yet prepared to set
anything of profit to them in its place. I see that they must be
educated and prepared for self government. Otherwise their effort would
not prosper. For this reason I have said to them, and I say it again,
take patience for a few years and work out your political education
under a government which allows you this privilege of education, and
later the moment will come when you shall be able to unite and form a
Nation. To the Mohammedans I say this especially, for they are but as
one to five of the population of India, and at the present moment they
are also inferior to the Hindus and Parsis in education, so that it is
possible their condition would be worse under native than under English
rule. By advising them to found an University I desired first to give
them a centre of unity which should add to their strength, for strength
is in union,—and secondly to prepare them to take their full part in the
regeneration of their country. At present, by standing aloof from public
affairs and by remaining in ignorance of English, which is the official
language, they are putting themselves at a disadvantage with the other
races and religions of India. I trust therefore that the learned Seyyid,
when he writes to Hyderabad will encourage them to proceed in this good
work, and not to spare their efforts in the direction I have pointed
out.
With regard to your newspaper I shall be happy to do what I can to help
you. But I advise you strongly to be moderate in your language about the
English Government—not that anything you can say about its action in
Egypt can surpass my own anger and impatience,—but because I see in the
friendship of England still the best hope for Islam. Believe me, though
England has acted through all this matter as an enemy of religion, there
are still more Englishmen who sympathise with our hopes for the nations
of the East than you will find amongst all the rest of the Europeans.
You cannot trust the French or the Russians or the Austrians or the
Italians to act with you sincerely as friends—and the English being
stronger at sea than all others, must always be counted with, and if
possible secured as friendly. This may yet come about, and I should be
sorry to see an irreconcilable breach made between the party of reform
in Islam and the English people. Think this matter fairly over. For
centuries England was the friend of Islam, and I find very many
Englishmen now who regret and condemn the change of policy.
You see I have spoken openly all that is in my heart.
Your friend in good and bad fortune,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
SHEYKH MOHAMMED ABDU TO MR. BLUNT
(_Translation from the Arabic._)
Paris, _April_ 11, 1884.
To H. E. my dear friend, friend of the Moslems, helper of the Arabs and
defender of the Egyptian nation, etc.
After salutation to you and to the well-instructed Lady Anne
Blunt—yesterday your letter reached us, and reading it we found it full
of wisdom and useful counsels to the Moslems, and it confirmed our trust
in you that you are their friend.
The Seyyid Jemal-ed-Din presents you his salutation and will certainly
write to the people of India in Hyderabad and elsewhere, and will advise
them to be quiet, and will tranquillize their minds as you suggested;
and he will expound to them the idea you have so clearly set forth in
your letter, and will put the details before them in the best and most
lucid manner.
Next, we rejoiced at the admonition you were kind enough to give us, and
at your promise to help our newspaper (the Indissoluble Link), and this
was our hope in you. And indeed God the Most High created you to do
good, and to assist the cause of right, and to defend the oppressed. And
the true character of our newspaper is only this, and to serve those
views for which you are labouring, namely, the preservation of the
independence of the Eastern peoples, and the admonishing of the English
Government that it may abandon its action troubling the minds of Moslems
and make fast their friendship, and that so it shall have them with it
on its side. And indeed we do not love those other Powers referred to in
your letter, nor go with the policy of any one of them.
And so may peace be with you and the mercy of God. Your sincere friend,
MOHAMMED ABDU.
SEYYID JEMAL-ED-DIN TO MR. BLUNT
_Privée._
Paris le 21 _Avril_, 84.
MON CHER MONSIEUR,
J’ai eu l’honneur de recevoir votre aimable lettre dont je vous remercie
et à laquelle je m’empresse de répondre.
Quoique je n’ai nullement appris pendant les dix années que j’ai passées
en Egypte que M. Gordon fût, à l’époque où il était Gouverneur du
Soudan, ami de la liberté et défenseur de l’Islam, je n’hesite pas
cependant, étant donnée la pleine confiance que j’ai en votre parole, à
plaindre son malheureux sort et à regretter qu’il soit tombé dans une
situation qui devient de plus en plus critique.
Je ne vous cache pas, cher Monsieur, qu’il m’aurait été facile, vu la
confiance que le Mahdi parait vouloir avoir en moi ainsi que celle de
ses principaux partisans dont un grand nombre sont de mes élèves
Soudanais, de prévenir ce désastre qui ménace Gordon Pacha si les
dernières batailles entre Graham et Osman Digna ne s’étaient pas
engagées; mais après ces batailles sanglantes qui ont coûté tant de sang
Arabe, je crois que le Mahdi et ses partisans sont réduits à voir que le
seul moyen de ratrapper le terrain perdu et de consolider leur prestige
serait de s’emparer de Khartoum et d’arrêter M. Gordon sinon de lui
arracher la vie.
Cependant, si vous voulez, cher Monsieur, m’écrire avec plus de détails
et _en français_ sur les bases de la paix que vous voudriez conclure et
avec qui désireriez vous qu’elle soit faite pour qu’elle soit acceptable
et en règle, je ne manquerais pas alors de vous fixer sur tout ce que je
pourrais faire dans cette circonstance et sur les moyens efficaces dont
on pourrait se servir pour sauver la vie à ce malheureux Gordon.
En attendant le plaisir de vous lire, je me mets à votre entière
disposition et vous prie d’agréer mes salutations distinguées.
JEMAL-ED-DIN HUSEYNI AFGHANI.
MR. BLUNT TO SEYYID JEMAL-ED-DIN AFGHANI
10, James Street, le 24 _Avril_, 1884.
NOBLE ET CHER AMI,
La bonne réponse que vous avez bien voulu me faire à mes questions sur
le sort de Gordon me touche profondément. Je sais combien il a dû vous
coûter de prendre ainsi part à un projet qui aurait pour bût de prêter
aide à un homme qui malgré ses principes avoués a fait tant de tort à la
cause que nous aimons; mais je vois dans cette affaire une occasion
puissante pour obtenir du Gouvernement Anglais l’abandon de sa politique
actuelle en Egypte. Je viens d’adresser formellement à M. Gladstone une
lettre où je lui fais savoir qu’il serait encore possible pour lui non
seulement de sauver la vie à Gordon mais d’amener la pacification de
toute la vallée du Nil. Hier encore on était résolu d’envoyer une
nouvelle expédition Anglo-Egyptienne au Soudan, mais il parait que déjà
ma lettre aurait produit quelque effet et qu’on soit maintenant de
nouveau à la paix. Je compte donc sous peu de jours recevoir quelque
communication du Gouvernement qui ménerait à un tentatif de négociations
et je voudrais vous prévenir que je pourrais à tout instant vous prier
de vouloir bien venir à Londres où bien d’envoyer le Sheykh Mohammed
Abdu me parler.
Je vous prie de regarder d’un bon œil mes idées pacifiques. Comme je
vous ai déjà dit, je vois dans l’Angleterre la seule puissance qui
pourrait redevenir un ami sincère de l’Islam; et je vois dans la
nécessité où est dans ce moment notre Gouvernement un puissant lévier
pour amener l’abandon de sa position actuelle d’hostilité. Quant aux
conditions de paix je ne suis pas encore en position de vous les
formuler. Mais selon moi elles devraient s’étendre jusqu’à la cession du
Soudan entier au Mahdi. Je vous envoie copie d’une lettre qui j’ai eu de
Gordon il y a près de deux ans qui vous sera preuve de son bon
caractère.
Bien votre dévoué,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. BLUNT TO SEYYID JEMAL-ED-DIN
10, James Street, le 25 _Avril_, 1884.
NOBLE ET CHER AMI,
Depuis ma lettre d’hier je l’ai d’une source certaine que notre
Gouvernement s’est décidé absolument contre l’expédition, pour le
moment, de toute force militaire Anglaise ou Egyptienne à Berber. Or il
est presque sûr qu’on se prépare à une négociation, et déjà on me fait
entendre que je recevrai sous peu une réponse définitive à ma lettre.
Que pensez vous, pourrai je aller en personne à Obeyd en qualité
d’Envoyé Britannique traiter avec le Mahdi en lui reconnaisant la
souverainté du Soudan? Et croyez vous qu’à ces conditions les tribus qui
assiègent Khartoum permettraient à Gordon et aux Chrétiens de la ville
de retourner sous sauf-conduite en Egypte? Ou bien, si je ne pourrai pas
aller en personne, croyez-vous qu’il se trouverait quelque autre envoyé
capable de mener la négociation à bonne fin? Je vous prie de vouloir
bien me répondre à ces questions.
En même temps je compte persuader le Gouvernement de restaurer le parti
National en Egypte. Mais dîtes moi franchement votre idée. Qui devrons
nous proposer en place de Tewfik? Serait ce Arabi ou un autre? Les
Circassiens, si je ne me trompe, voudraient Ismaïl. Les autres
voudraient encore peut-être Halim. Mais l’opinion change si vite que je
n’ose dire absolument à qui on donnerait les votes si la chose était
remise à l’election. Surtout qui pourrait agir en Egypte de concert avec
le Mahdi?
Inshallah! nous mènerons l’affaire cette fois ci à bonne fin.
Votre bien dévoué,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. BLUNT TO ARABI PASHA
(_Sent in Arabic._)
10, James Street, _April 26th_, 1884.
To my noble and dear friend Arabi Pasha, may God strengthen his
patience.
After saying that it has given us extreme pleasure to have news of you
and the rest of the noble Egyptian exiles—this is to inform you that the
hopes of your return to Egypt are, as I think, greater now than at any
previous time since you first went away in Exile. The reason of this is
(after the will of Providence that truth should prevail) that the
English Government has fallen into great trouble in Egypt, first on
account of the finance and secondly with regard to the Mahdi. They are
therefore entirely anxious to leave Egypt, and they see that it is
necessary in order to do this that a stable Government should be set up
at Cairo, and a prince established who should be able to live in
friendship with the Mahdi.
Therefore it is probable that they will abandon Tewfik inasmuch as he is
incapable of governing and will entrust the government to other hands
before they withdraw their troops. And in these last days the danger to
General Gordon at Khartoum obliges them to come to terms quickly, and I
have proposed (with the permission of God) to go as Envoy to the Mahdi
in order to make peace and to save the life of General Gordon; and, if
they should accept my offer, I do not fear but that they will also
accept my plan for the restoration of good government in Egypt. Now
therefore tell me clearly, on what terms could you and your companions
return to Egypt? I know that you could serve with Halim Pasha. But tell
me, is it impossible that you could serve with Ismaïl? I have several
times received messages from Ismaïl, and his friends tell me that he
promises to act with you if he is restored. But do you think it would be
possible to trust him? I should propose that in any case the command of
the army should be in your hands. Or is there any other prince among the
Princes of Islam whom you would serve and who could live at peace with
the Mahdi; I ask you these things because the aspect of politics
continually changes, and what is true to-day is not true to-morrow, and
what was rejected yesterday may once again be accepted.
Also a conference is assembling at which it will be necessary that your
opinion should be heard. Therefore write to me your full mind and the
mind of your companions, and, if you should resolve that you could
return to Egypt as Minister to Ismaïl, telegraph to me then one word
“content,” and I shall understand. If you consider that it will be
impossible for you to serve under Ismaïl, telegraph the word “refused.”
For the rest all things are going well. There are many Englishmen now
who recognize your services to Egypt and I am hopeful of your return
there.
Your friend,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
You must not suppose from my writing in this sense that I want you to
make friends with Ismaïl. What I want is that you should tell me your
real opinion as to whether it will be possible for you to work with him.
SEYYID JEMAL-ED-DIN TO MR. BLUNT
_Privée._
Paris, _April_ 28, 1884.
MON CHER MONSIEUR,
J’ai eu l’honneur de recevoir votre lettre que j’ai lue avec beaucoup
d’attention et à laquelle je m’empresse de répondre.
Vous ne devez pas ignorer l’importance que les Mohamétans attachent à la
mission divine avec laquelle le Mahdi a paru et qu’ils comprennent par
ce mot, Mahdi: le sauveur de l’Islam des mains de ceux qui ne sont pas
de leur religion. Or je ne vois pas qu’on puisse conclure un traité de
paix avec le Mahdi et par consequent arrêter sa marche tant que celui-ci
voit les Anglais en Egypte. Mais si les bases de la paix stipulent que
l’Egypte sera aux Egyptiens et que Gordon Pacha sera sauvé avec tous les
Chrétiens qui sont avec lui et que, enfin, les troupes Anglaises seront
retirées de l’Egypte, je vois qu’il serait possible sinon facile de
mener cette affaire à bonne fin et d’arrêter l’invasion du Mahdi jusqu’à
un certain point et jusqu’à un certain temps. Dans ce cas il faudrait
envoyer une commission de paix composée en grande partie de Mussulmans
et de quelques Anglais. Quand aux Mussulmans ils auraient pour
instruction de dire qu’ils viennent de la part de la Nation Egyptienne
Mussulmane car si ils seraient envoyés de la part du Gouvernement
Egyptien, je ne crois pas qu’ils réussissent dans leur mission étant
donné l’aversion dont le Mahdi est animé à son égard, et de la part du
Gouvernement Anglais, ils ne seront pas écoutés. Nous en avons acquis
une preuve par le Cheick El Morghani. Quant aux quelques Anglais qui
feront partie de la mission, il est bien entendu qu’ils iront de la part
de leur Gouvernement; quoique, par le fait, tous, Mussulmans et
Chrétiens seront des missionaires Anglais.
Dans le cas qu’on décide à envoyer cette commission, et dans les
conditions que je me suis permis de vous exposer, je crois que vous,
cher Monsieur, vous devez être le premier nommé parmi les missionaires,
car les Mussulmans ne peuvent pas trouver beaucoup de défenseurs comme
vous. Pour les Mussulmans qu’il faudrait envoyer, je les désignerai et
vous en ferai connaître les noms quand le moment serait venu et qu’on se
serait décidé d’une façon definitive.
Vous me demandez en qui faut-il remplacer Tewfik? Je réponds que quand
le moment serait venu il ne serait difficile ni à vous ni à moi ni à qui
que ce soit de le savoir. Il faudrait se prononcer pour celui que la
_nation Egyptienne_ veut et pas pour un autre.
Votre bien dévoué,
JEMAL-ED-DIN HUSEYNI AFGHANI.
MR. BLUNT TO SEYYID JEMAL-ED-DIN
10, James Street, le 2 _Mai_, 1884.
NOBLE ET CHER AMI,
Je vous remercie bien de vos instructions sur la manière de négocier qui
sont absolument d’accord avec mes idées personnelles. Pour le moment le
Gouvernement se retire du tentatif proposé, mais je suis toujours en
rélation indirecte avec eux, et je pense bien qu’ils se trouveront
encore dans la nécessité de recourir à nos bons offices. Seulement
l’hésitation pourra bien coûter la vie à Gordon. Pour le moment le
Gouvernement est toujours dans l’intention d’abandonner Khartoum, Berber
et Dongola, mais je prévois que dans le cas que Gordon soit encore
debout à Khartoum à l’époque du cru du Nil le public anglais pourra
exiger une opération militaire.
Quant au général il se pourra que son intention serait de se retirer
vers le Congo, quand il trouvera qu’il ne pourra plus se tenir à
Khartoum, et je crois que le Mahdi serait bien avisé de lui laisser le
passage libre. L’idée de Gordon au Congo parait avoir toujours été d’y
fonder un Etat indigène qui pourrait faire face à l’envahissement de
l’Europe, et en tant il mériterait votre sympathie. Faites un pont d’or
pour l’ennemi qui s’en fuit. Je suis cependant pleinement de votre avis
qu’il soit nécessaire au Mahdi de s’emparer sans delai de Khartoum. Je
vous prie de me croire bien votre ami.
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
SEYYID JEMAL-ED-DIN TO MR. BLUNT
Paris, le 7 _Mai_, 1884.
MON CHER MONSIEUR,
Je viens d’arriver de l’Italie. J’ai été à l’exposition de Turin et ce
n’est que ce matin que l’on m’a remis vos deux lettres que j’ai lues
avec beaucoup d’attention.
Votre dernière lettre m’a d’autant plus appris que vous ne vous
intéresserez plus au sort de Gordon qu’il m’a édifié encore une fois sur
la loyauté et la grandeur d’âme qui vous caractérisent. Tout en vous
remerciant d’avoir bien voulu m’envoyer le livre bleu contenant
certaines correspondances relatives au Général Gordon, des quelles vous
avez pu constater qu’il n’était nullement ami de la liberté ni défenseur
de l’Islam, j’ai la ferme conviction que votre nom sera gravé dans le
cœur de chaque musulman en particulier et de chaque Arabe et Oriental en
général à cause de l’intérêt immense que vous prenez pour eux et dont il
ne sauraient vous être trop reconnaissant. J’espère, cher Monsieur, que
vous continuerez à suivre cette voie digne d’un caractère aussi loyal
que le vôtre et que le bon Dieu vous aidera à récolter les fruits du
travail dur que vous faites.
Veuillez, je vous prie, me faire rappeler au bon souvenir de Madame
Blunt tout en lui présentant mes respectueux hommages et soyez persuadé
que je me mets à votre entière disposition pour tout ce que je pourrais
faire pour vous.
Votre bien dévoué,
JEMAL-ED-DIN HUSAYNI AFGHANI.
ARABI PASHA TO MR. BLUNT
(_Sent in English._)
Colombo, _2nd June_ 1884.
To my lord Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, may God preserve him.
It is with the greatest pleasure that I acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of the 26th April 1884. I must strongly insist on the fact that
Ismaïl Pasha is a treacherous person who is notorious for his
untrustworthiness, being the causer of the destruction of Egypt. The
national Debt of our country is the work of his hands. There is no one
of the prince’s family who possesses the requisite qualifications for
the throne but Halim Pasha. He is, besides, the direct descendant of the
first Khedive, being the son of Mohammed Ali. Tewfik (the present
Khedive) and the others are members of a third branch, so that Halim
Pasha, who is directly the ancestral representative, is the real owner
of the throne. To add to his right he has the voice of all the Egyptians
in Egypt to hail him, and he has for a long time undergone trials of a
very grave nature, having been subjected to tyranny. Also he would be
able to make a treaty between the Mahdi and the Government of Egypt,
inasmuch as those whom the Mahdi trusts are able to effect this for him.
If you are resolved to go to the Mahdi, I must most earnestly entreat
you to secure beforehand some letters stamped with my seal, in order
that they may serve as the proof that you are a faithful friend of the
Moslem world, and that you have been instrumental in saving our lives.
May God preserve you. Your most faithful friend,
AHMED ARABI.
ARABI PASHA TO LADY ANNE BLUNT
(_Translated from the Arabic._)
Colombo, _March_ 2, 1885.
To the noble and exalted lady, Lady Anne Blunt; may God protect her.
Amen.
After presenting my best salutations to your distinguished self and your
illustrious husband, and in response to your two letters with inclosures
relating what Mr. Blunt had written in the “Times” on Egypt and England
and the Sultan, with the remarks made thereon, permit me to assure you
that all that Mr. Blunt has stated in the “Times,” and declared publicly
in many utterances, and all that he described in his poem (kasid) “The
Wind and Whirlwind,” of the disasters and calamities that must ensue,
all these are true, and we see them happening now, as it was necessary
they should happen, and truly the Most High God inspired him with truth
to speak these things, and with a just understanding. For the time has
come now when God shall choose his servants, and shall deliver the weak
and oppressed and abase the mighty and oppress the oppressor, and shall
manifest His power and His strength to the unjust. And thus in times
past He confounded men’s reasoning by His wonderful judgements on the
nations that are gone. Thus He destroyed Babylon the adulterous, the
violent city, and thus the empires of Persia and of Rome; and I grieve
with a great grief over the decline of the star of England caused by her
misdeeds in Egypt and in the Soudan. But God has heard the cry of the
oppressed and the voice of the blood which has been shed, and the
terrible cry of the widow and of the young children, and surely He has
taken His vengeance on the covetous. Yet, believe me, the people of
Egypt used to believe good of the English nation. It was they of all
others that they trusted, as the foremost among nations, and as the
chief hope of those who sought to obtain their freedom; and they grieve
now seeing their belief a deception, and their trust a delusion.
And what has England gained by her invasion of Egypt, and what in the
Soudan? Rather let us say, what has she lost? For God knows she has
gained nothing. She has lost her good name, the friendship of all
Moslems, and of our Lord the Sultan. She has lost, too, Gordon Pasha,
through acting on false counsels, and Hicks and Earle, and how many
other officers; and she has lost the respect of all hearts by this war
against free men in the Soudan. When will she cease to rush forward on
her course, to send armies of revenge on men who are themselves avenging
their Egyptian brothers; on men defending their country, and who delight
to drink the cup of death rather than that they should see an enemy left
within its borders. I tell you, _fifteen_ millions of such as these
occupy at this moment the Soudan country and Darfur, and all of them are
partisans of the Mahdi, having made a convention with him unto death,
and in accordance with the precepts of our noble Koran. Thus the Mahdi
increases in strength with the English aggression, and this is God’s law
with his creatures, with all who have been given intelligence to see and
reflect and understand.
“A decree has come forth from God. There is no escape from the judgement
of God. God shall exalt whom He will, and abase whom He will. The
oppressor shall repent when repentance shall not avail him. And God is
not unmindful of the deeds of the unjust.” (Quotations.)
My son Mohammed Bey and the family send you a thousand thousand
greetings. From your friend and servant,
AHMED ARABI.
SEYYID JEMAL-ED-DIN TO MR. BLUNT
(_Translated from the Arabic._)
Paris, _May_ 12, 1885.
After salutations, etc. I say; I am not alone in gratitude for your
distinguished efforts which have forced the Government to evacuate the
Soudan. No, be certain that all Moslems, especially the Arabs, will be
grateful for this your action to the end of time and they will write
your name on tablets inlaid with precious stones and titles of glory and
honour for your zeal and courage.
But there is left one thing still to be done and that is that you should
say to the Government, “How can you leave this land thus without a
treaty with the Mahdi and whose will be the duty of repelling the
Mahdi’s attacks? how also can the Government leave the roads of commerce
blocked? or does it desire the destruction of trade? Is it not incumbent
on the Government when it has determined to evacuate the Soudan to send
a man of trust, a Moslem, to the Mahdi that he may discuss with him as
to a peace and secure Egypt from his attacks and to close the gates of
conflict and reopen those of Commerce.” I think that if this question
were presented to parliament all opinions would agree with it.
I see too that this would be easy, even apart from your own action and
that when the cost has been decided on you will be only needed to
complete it. But without a treaty of peace with the Mahdi the situation
cannot be brought to a final conclusion. This is what I have thought it
necessary to say to you.
With salutations to you and your consort,
Your friend,
JEMAL-ED-DIN HUSEYNI AFGHANI.
ARABI PASHA TO LADY ANNE BLUNT
(_Translated from the Arabic._)
Colombo, _August_ 14, 1885.
To my lady, dear Lady Anne Blunt. May God preserve her.
After best salutations to yourself and Mr. Blunt I was happy to receive
your letter dated July 17th, and thanked God that you are in good
health, of which I hope for the continuance. I sent you a telegram the
same day as to my willingness to serve the country even with Tewfik and
Sherif, and I now write this in confirmation.
I can assure you that I am prepared to serve my country, to work hard at
reforms in it, and to labour for its advancement to the highest pitch of
honour and prosperity.
Therefore I should not mind whether I served with Tewfik or another, my
one only object being the establishing of just law for all men alike,
giving to all security for their persons and for their civil and
religious rights, and putting an end to wrong and injustice between
class and class of (Egyptian) subjects, always bearing in mind the
claims on me of the English people (_nation_) to whom I shall be
grateful as long as I live.
I have, too, a firm trust that the English Government would aid me in
carrying out reforms, and that, after establishing a strong, just, and
equitable Government, it will leave Egypt to the Egyptians, thus
fulfilling its promise and completing what it has commenced.
As to Sherif, he is well disposed and anxious for the good of the
country, but Nubar is not really interested in the welfare of Egypt, and
the Egyptians are weary at his holding high office in the country.
Now, therefore, since you and your friends, and my friends, are of
opinion that it would be fitting for me to take office even with Tewfik,
I would agree also to that. I should hope for success in making those
reforms of which we have already sown the seeds—notwithstanding Tewfik’s
remaining—if supported by the English Government, and in surmounting
those difficulties, both home and foreign, which have beset Egypt in
these latter times.
And God is our Helper, and in Him our trust.
Your sincere friend,
AHMED ARABI THE EGYPTIAN.
II. EVIDENCE AS TO THE MASSACRES AT ALEXANDRIA, TANTAH, AND ELSEWHERE,
IN 1882
SHEYKH MOHAMMED ABDU TO LADY ANNE BLUNT
(_Translated from the Arabic, received 5th August_, 1883, _from
Beyrout._)
To the Lady Anne Blunt. May God show us her countenance, etc.
Next, among those persons who have information about the riot in
Alexandria in particular, there is Mustafa Abd el Rahim, who was present
at the riot and stopped its rage with the regular soldiers with Suleyman
Sami (may God have mercy on him). And he is prepared to bear witness on
being requested to do so, as he has informed me this night.
And of those who have complete information of the conduct of the Khedive
Tewfik and of his endeavours and the endeavours of his assistants to
disturb the peace and tranquillity of Egypt, and to excite the Muslems
against the Christians, and vice versa, there is here Ahmed Bey
Minshawi, one of the Notables of Egypt, a man of wealth and of
determination and of extreme straightforwardness. It was he who
protected Christians in the riots of Tantah, and in other massacres in
the province of Gharbiyeh, which Ibrahim Pasha Adhem, the Khedive’s
protégé, got up after the bombardment of Alexandria; and he is prepared
to bear witness against the Khedive and against his agents before any
Court or in any Tribunal—even in the Egyptian Tribunals—and he has no
fear of anything, and is not alarmed by any danger. He has been
intending to write a letter to Mr. Blunt, of his own accord, to express
his readiness and his earnest wish to put before Englishmen, and before
everyone inclined to justice and equity, the things known to him; and he
is now with us in Beyrut, and if you wish to summon him he is ready.
Convey my salutations to Mr. Blunt and present to him on my behalf and
on behalf of every Egyptian—indeed of every Englishman—exceeding thanks
for his energy and noble deeds. And salute for me Mr. Sabunji. May God
protect you in his keeping.
MOHAMMED ABDU.
_13th Ramadan_, 1300.
AHMED BEY EL MINSHAWI TO MR. BLUNT
(_Translated from the Arabic, received August_ 5, 1883.)
To the high-minded Mr. Blunt. May God preserve him!
After presenting salutations and praise and thanks:
Also, I beg you will be my representative in presenting thanks from me
and from all Egyptians—indeed from all Eastern people, to Lord
(Randolph) Churchill and his companions—though they are all dependent on
you for what they accomplished in Parliament.
Also I am prepared, with all preparation, to bear witness against the
Khedive and the men of his government as to their plan, which they
carried out, of shedding the blood of Christians and others. In so doing
I fear not the blame of any blamer, nor do I dread the authority of any
ignorant ruler in whatsoever country I may be, or before whatsoever
tribunal I may appear; and whenever the indictment against Tewfik is
officially brought forward and witnesses are wanted I am ready in
Beyrut, and if I went elsewhere I would let you know. And I pledge
myself in the name of God that I will also bring witnesses of the
Egyptians who will bear witness to the crimes of the Khedive and his
wicked accomplices.
And my friend the Sheykh Mohammed Abdu knows that perfectly well, and
sends you salutations. Remain in God’s protection.
AHMED MINSHAWI.
_Beyrout, 15th Ramadan_, 1300.
TRANSLATION OF REMARKS BY SHEYKH MOHAMMED ABDU ON MAJOR MACDONALD’S
STATEMENT (RECEIVED _Aug._ 13, 1884)
We have read a statement by Major MacDonald, published in the Blue Book
(Egypt, 1884), in refutation of Mr. Blunt’s letter to the “Times”
newspaper, and have noticed in it certain things calling for remark.
I do not know whether a ten weeks’ residence with Mr. Cameron at Tantah
could have enabled him to understand the true state of matters he has
written about, or not.
I shall not here discuss the history of Ibrahim Adhem’s dismissal from
his office as Governor; but I assert that Ibrahim Adhem was in fact, on
the upper storey of the prefecture on the day of the massacre at Tantah,
and that he was looking on from the window of that upper storey at the
murderers and the murdered; and that these persons were murdered in the
court of the Mudirieh while he looked on at them; and that he himself
ordered the water carriers to wash the blood from the ground at the
Government House (of which evidence was given by the water carriers
before the Court of Inquiry).
As to what Macdonald says about many of the Europeans finding safety in
the prefecture of police, it is true; only the person who protected them
was the chief of the city police, Ali effendi Lebîb, who saved many
lives, but was arrested after the war and kept in prison until the end
of the Inquiry, when the Court sentenced him to hard labour for a year,
after much intercession. Now what plea was there for the arrest of this
Zabit, a person worthy of confidence; whose protection of Christians is
testified to by Major Macdonald (who understood the whole truth in ten
weeks).
Ibrahim Adhem is a Kurd—not a Circassian—and a man who, each time that
they gave him a post, stipulated with the Government that he should be
authorized to make use of the kurbaj on the fellahin and the omdehs of
the district. Ay, when he was Mudir of Mansourah at the time of Riaz
Pasha’s first Ministry, Riaz learned that he was ill-treating people
with the kurbaj, and wrote to him as follows: “You are bound to act
according to law, governing mercifully; if you use the kurbaj you will
incur the censure of the law.” On receiving this communication he chose
to resign his post rather than rule mercifully and according to law.
His resignation under the Mahmud Samy Ministry took place for that
reason also; and when the Khedive reappointed him as Mudir of the
Gharbieh, after the war, he carried on his government with his habitual
severity; afterwards, when the number of his enemies increased and the
patience of the people of his province was so exhausted that they could
no longer bear with him, the Government disgraced him, and, dismissing
him, appointed Husseyn Pasha Sarai in his place.
Ibrahim Adhem was one of the supporters of the first movement of Arabi,
but when the massacre occurred at Tantah, Arabi learned that he had
participated in it either by instigation or by deed, and ordered him to
be arrested. He was not arrested for not joining in the rebellion, in
fact he was arrested on the third day from the massacre, before it was
known whether he would give or refuse his support. Indeed, Ibrahim
Adhem’s sworn official despatches to the Ministry of the Interior
indicate sufficiently that he did not deserve the praises lavished on
him by Major Macdonald. Possibly some of the officers of the English
army may have praised him, but I do not consider this enough to
exculpate him from his deeds of violence. Let anyone who would like to
learn what measure of savagery Ibrahim Adhem attained, inquire of his
son—Ibrahim Hafzy Bey.
As to the unhappy Yusuf Abu Diab—he arrived at the railway station on
the day of the massacre about three hours after the disturbance had
begun. He did not instigate riot (anything or any one), but saved a
Christian girl and took her to the Mudirieh; and reprimanded the Mudir,
taking him to task for sitting in the Mudirieh while he allowed people
to be massacred. And for this reason the unfortunate man was hanged.
Those Europeans of whom Macdonald testifies were in such consternation
that they did not even distinguish their own children, and were running
into every hole—how then could they know Yusuf Abu Diab, and distinguish
his face or his words?
The chief of the station and telegraph at the first bore witness to the
innocence of Yusuf Abu Diab, but the Mudir Ibrahim Adhem threatened all
the people with arrest and death unless they bore witness according to
his desire; thus they altered their testimony under coercion. The
statements made by people subsequently have all been under fear. But
those Courts of Inquiry and their acts are part and parcel of the acts
of the Anglo-Egyptian Government after the war, into which it is
permissible to examine and investigate. We know indeed what has been its
course and its acts. No man in his senses will believe in it, for it has
been of that species in which the enemy sits in judgement on his enemy;
and if we would speak of it we would have to recount the whole of the
conduct of the Government after Tel-el-Kebir, and this would lead us
into too great length—without profit.
Yusuf Abu Diab’s innocence was confessed by the blood relations of the
people massacred, and they begged his pardon from Lord Dufferin, who
asked it from the Khedive—and the pardon was granted, but the order was
issued secretly to hang him before the time fixed for the execution. The
news of the pardon did not arrive till after the execution.
Possibly Macdonald can testify to the Europeans—French, English, and
others—but we know the value of such testimony, and if we had a free and
fair Government it would learn the truth through a different set of
people.
Seyyid Osman has published a long article in the “Intransigeant” (French
newspaper), stating all the facts. It is also well known to a number of
people that the first President of the Court of Inquiry at Tantah wanted
to carry out the investigation equitably, and to interrogate the Mudir
Ibrahim Adhem on his culpability as to the riot, but the Government
perceiving him to be upright, dismissed him and appointed in his stead
Mahmud Pasha Fellaky, who was nominally at Tantah while his
administration was at Cairo.
Thus the Mudir was saved from trial, while Yusuf Abu Diab was hanged in
his stead.
I could show the object of silence as to past deeds, to speak of which
would open the door wide to censure on the Government of England, which
desires to establish justice in Egypt.
MR. BLUNT’S NOTE OF A CONVERSATION WITH ISMAÏL BEY JOWDAT AT
CONSTANTINOPLE, _Oct._ 24, 1884
Ismaïl Jowdat spent 3 hours with me telling the events of the Egyptian
Revolution, much of it new, and very interesting. With regard to the
Khedive’s responsibility for the massacres he was very explicit. His
official position at the time of the war, as Chef du Bureau Européen de
la police du Caire, gave him every opportunity of knowing the facts, and
he knew them. The following is the account he gave me which I shall
transcribe from notes taken while he was speaking:
The first intrigue that he knows of in which the Khedive was concerned
was in Boheyra where the Khedive employed Ibrahim Bey Towfik—he lived in
the house of Hassaneyn Abu Hamza at Damanhour, Governor of the
province—in the spring of 1882 to purchase the alliance of certain
Sheykhs of the Oulad Ali Bedouins against the National Ministry, to make
a civil war between the Bedouins and the army. They were engaged to make
disturbance, and a regular agreement was drawn up in which the Arabs
promised to support the Khedive against the army in the case of civil
war. For this they were to receive, and actually did receive £E13,000,
the signatories to the document being Ibrahim Bey Towfik, the Mudir, and
Mahmud abu Ismaïl el Aluani, Mahareb abu Keshik, Abd ed Dayim Hoteiteh,
Abu Shayib, Hassaneyn abu Hamza and five others (Sheykhs of the Oulad
Ali).
Ismaïl Jowdat was sent down to Boheyra semi officially by Arabi to
inquire into this matter, and saw the Sheykhs and the document, and
persuaded them to rescind their promise to the Khedive, and obtained
from them an oath of allegiance to the National Government in Arabi’s
room at Cairo. This same Ibraham Tewfik was sent by the Khedive during
the war to Mansourah to stir up trouble, but did not succeed there.
There was a report made against him signed by all the Notables of
Dakhalieh under Mohammed Bey el Hantour sub Mudir of the province, after
which he was imprisoned by order of the National Assembly.
With regard to the riots of the 11th June at Alexandria the details did
not come under Ismaïl Jowdat’s official notice. But he heard the main
facts at the time. He heard of the riots at 5 o’clock on the 11th, and
went at once to the Palace, and heard how it had been ordered, and about
the telegram sent by the Khedive, as we know them, viz.: that the
disturbance was arranged by Omar Pasha Lutfi with Seyd Kandil, who,
however, took to his bed to avoid being connected with its execution. He
also heard at the time of a telegram having been sent by the Khedive in
cypher to Omar Lutfi giving him his orders. But he did not see a copy of
the telegram.
Of what happened during the war he had more certain knowledge, as he was
responsible for the safety of all the Europeans in the country, and had
spent some £E3,272 of his own money in finding and keeping them—sums
which have never been repaid him, though he has the highest testimonials
from M. de Martino the Italian Consul at Cairo of the care taken by him.
The Khedive’s chief agent during the war was a certain Osman Raafat,
intendant des Ecuries, who is still employed by him on various secret
missions. Immediately after the evacuation at Alexandria he sent him in
disguise to the house of his brother-in-law, Mohammed Bey Hellál, to
concert measures with Ibrahim Pasha Adhem the Mudir; and they concerted
together the riots against the Christians in order to force on an
English intervention. Ismaïl Jowdat confirms my account given in my
letter to the “Times” with regard to Ibrahim Adhem’s conduct, except
that the Christians killed were killed at the Mudirieh, not at the
Prefecture; and Ibrahim shut himself inside the house and let the
killing continue. His words were: “Il était dans une chambre en bas de
la Mudirieh pendant le massacre. Les Chrétiens se sont réfugiés dans la
Moudirieh. Il s’est enfermé dans sa chambre et a laissé faire. Les
vagabonds et galériens d’Alexandrie ont fait le massacre.” Abu Diab did
his best to stop the trouble, and protested with the Mudir, and saved
many lives. He was condemned on false testimony produced by Ibrahim
Adhem, who afterwards, moved with remorse, asked his pardon before he
suffered, but Abu Diab refused to forgive him. The only other mistake
made by me is that I called Ibrahim a Circassian. He is a Kurd, son of
the head employée of Mohammed Ali’s stables.
Osman Raafat also came to Giseh during the war to raise troubles again
with the Mufettish Feridun Bey. The details of this affair are known to
M. de Martins. Sir Charles Wilson took notes of the Tantah affair from
Ismaïl Jowdat. Osman Raafat then went to the Fayoum to stir up the
Herabi Bedouins under their chief Abd el Kawi el Jibali and Saadawi el
Jibali.
Ismaïl Jowdat knew these affairs at the time of their happening; but he
gained positive proof of the Khedive’s connection with them in the
following manner: Not long ago Osman Raafat came to see him at
Constantinople, and he asked him to breakfast with Husseyn Pasha Ghaleb,
one of the Sultan’s A.D.C’s., the same who called on me yesterday; and
then having plied him with wine he told them the whole story. He went on
from Constantinople to Vienna, where he had a commission from the
Khedive to invest certain sums of money and dispose of certain jewels.
Osman Raafat was arrested at Wasta by a soldier, but was let go by a
Circassian official, and thence fled to Helouan and Suez. After the war
Osman Raafat was sent by the Khedive to get back the money taken from
Palmer by the Bedouins, and he kept £2,000 out of the £3,000.
NOTES OF CONVERSATION WITH DR. MUSTAFA BEY NEGDI. EXTRACT FROM JOURNAL,
_Oct._ 27, 1884
He (Mustafa) then gave us the whole history of the Tantah massacre in
detail, which he knew first from the official inquiry made before Arabi
when it happened, and at which he assisted, and secondly from Ahmed
Minshawi, with whom he had lived afterwards at Beyrout, and who came
here with him, and who had repeatedly told him the story. The true facts
were these:
The Mudir of Tantah, Ibrahim Adhem, with Osman Raafat, excited the
populace against the Christians, as Ismaïl Jowdat related, telling them
that Arabi had ordered it—and the Mudir shut himself up also as related.
Minshawi lived at a village called Koreyshiyeh, and happening to come in
that day by train with Abdallah Pasha’s son, Emin Bey, and Husseyn
Wasif, a magistrate, they found Christians being killed; and Minshawi
interfered. They called out to him that Arabi had ordered it, but
Minshawi had said to the effect of “damn Arabi,” and insisted on their
stopping. He had then gone with Abu Diab, who had also been trying to
stop the massacre, to the Mudirieh, and had kicked in the door of his
room, and expostulated with him for letting the thing go on, Abu Diab
using strong language, for he was very angry. Then they telegraphed to
Arabi at Kafr Dowar to send soldiers to stop the massacre, but the
telegram had to go round by Ramleh and was delayed. But at last the
massacre was stopped. The whole thing was inquired into at Kafr Dowar
immediately, and the Mudir was sent to Cairo and there imprisoned till
the end of the war, Dawish Pasha replacing him. After the war he was
reinstated, and when the Commission was sent to Tantah, Ismaïl Yusri,
the President, who was a comparatively honest man, ascertained the truth
and informed the Khedive that he should be obliged to find him guilty,
and so begged to be superseded on the Commission. This was done, and an
officer less scrupulous was appointed who accepted the false evidence
Ibrahim Adhem was allowed to trump up against Abu Diab. Ibrahim Adhem,
however, was deposed—and Huseyn Wasif (a Circassian, not the same as the
magistrate) was appointed. He it was who was made a scapegoat of for
Ibrahim Adhem’s sake, and was deprived by Clifford Lloyd and sent to the
Soudan. Mehariz Bey, formerly sub-Mudir, is now Mudir of Boheyra.
Minshawi is the son-in-law of Abdallah Pasha the English renegade, and
his son Emin still goes by the name of the Englishman.
Mustafa Bey confirms all Ismaïl’s statements of the Khedive’s connection
with the Alexandrian massacres. He was at Alexandria at the time and was
the Doctor employed to examine the bodies. There were 51 Christian
bodies, 23 Mohammedan, of which 8 Mustafezzin, all the latter by pistol
shots. The English doctor wanted to make out that the Christian bodies
had wounds made by “des armes blanches,” but this was not the case. It
was certainly Omar Lutfi and Seyd Kandil (a blackguard he calls him),
who got up the riot, and Mustafa states his conviction that Cookson also
was concerned in it. About Malet he does not know—nor about Dervish. But
he feels sure of Cookson. His evidence will be most valuable, and he
will come to England to give it. He also says that Omar Lutfi certainly
gave orders to the Mustafezzin to come unarmed. I like this worthy
doctor much. In face and figure he is not unlike Lord Lyons.
DR. MUSTAFA BEY NEJDI’S FURTHER STATEMENT OF _Nov._ 5, 1884
“Peu de jours après le bombardment nous avons appris à Kafr Dowar qu’il
y a eu des Chrétiens tués à Tantah; et Toulba Pacha, d’après l’ordre
d’Arabi, a envoyé chercher Ahmed Minshawi pour témoigner sur ce qui y
était arrivé. Celui-ci est venu avec un autre notable nommé El Arabi au
camp, et Arabi Pacha lui a demandé ce qui en était. J’étais présent avec
Toulba Pacha et quelques Colonels. Ahmed Minshawi a répondu qu’il était
venu à Tantah et qu’il y avait sauvé la vie à un Chrétien à la gare du
chemin de fer, et qu’après il a fait venir ses gens de son village et
qu’il a pu étouffer les massacres. Il nous a racconté que le Mudir
Ibrahim Adhem et Meheriz son adjoint s’étaient enfermés dans la
Moudirieh pendant qu’on tuait le monde, même chez le Mudir. Il nous a
aussi dit qu’il avait télégraphié au Khedive et à Arabi Pacha, et Arabi
a fait venir le télégraphiste de Kafr Dowar qui n’en savait rien mais il
a expliqué la chose en disant que les télégrammes de Tantah à Kafr Dowar
devaient d’abord passer à Alexandrie avant d’être remis à destination.
C’était la règle du service. Sur ce Arabi a fait une station nouvelle au
camp, pour que les dépêches pourraient lui venir directement de
l’intérieur. Arabi a remercié Minshawi de ce qu’il avait fait et il est
retourné chez lui.”
MINSHAWI’S EVIDENCE AS GIVEN BY HIM _Nov._ 3, 1884
On the day of the massacre of Tantah I came in to Tantah by train from
my own village, Koreyshiyeh, two hours distant (half-hour by train)
partly to see my brother-in-law Emin Bey on his road to Cairo, partly to
learn the news; and while at the station we heard a great noise and were
told that it was the Christians being killed by the mob in Tantah; and
I, wishing to end this, telegraphed to the Khedive at Ramleh and to the
Ministry (that is to say Arabi at Kafr Dowar) asking an order to
interfere. I also telegraphed to my village for men to come and help me,
and I waited four hours (during that time Abu Diab arrived from
Damietta) for an answer and no answer came. And while we were there
waiting the tumult came near us, and a man, a Syrian Christian, the
cashier of Zananiri the interpreter of the Greek Consulate, ran towards
me pursued by a soldier of the Mudirieh and called to me for protection;
and taking a stick from one of the bystanders I drove the soldier away,
and with the help of others put a stop to what was happening at the
station. Then I went with these to the door of the Mudirieh to inquire
what the Mudir was doing, and to call upon him to interfere and put an
end to the bloodshed. And on my way I met Abu Diab at the door of the
Mudirieh who had come from Damietta and was also restoring order, and
who had under his protection a young Christian girl whom he was leading
by the hand, and we went together to the Mudirieh, and when we arrived
there we found in the courtyard three corpses of Christians who had just
been killed there; and we asked for the Mudir and were told that he was
in his room, one of the rooms adjoining the courtyard. And we called to
him, but there was no answer. Then Abu Diab kicked the door in, and we
found Ibrahim Adhem, the Mudir, with his wakil, Meheriz, sitting there.
And Abu Diab in a loud voice asked them what they were doing there
allowing these murders to be done in his house by his own men. And when
they made no answer he called to Ibrahim Adhem, calling him a dog and a
coward. I heard this with my ears. Next I went to the Khan where I heard
the Christians had shut themselves up, and I found a mob trying to force
the door, and my men having come an hour afterwards from Koreyshiyeh we
drove them away and found inside a large number of Christians, Syrians,
Jews, and others, huddled together like frightened sheep. And I put
guards, and the next day brought them out and took them to my village,
and after some days those that wished to leave the country I took by
train to Port Said, two trains full; and those (about 120) that chose to
remain I took to my own house and fed them there during the whole time
of the war.
Some days later I went to Kafr Dowar and gave evidence as I now give it
before Arabi Pasha when he made an inquiry into the affair, and Ibrahim
Adhem was sent a prisoner to Cairo and another man (Dawish Pasha)
appointed by the Government in his place. I also gave my evidence after
the war when the first Commission came to Tantah (there was no
Englishman on this Commission), and afterwards they gave me a paper to
sign, purporting to be my evidence, but it was not what I had said but
the contrary, and I refused to sign it. Much pressure was put upon me to
make me do this; and one day in the Khedive’s palace at Cairo, on his
fête day, Bairam el Kebir, Takla Bey Bishara warned me that if I did not
sign I should suffer for it. I also refused Ahmed el Sherif, sent by
Sultan Pasha, when he came round the villages to take money for the
sword given to Wolseley.
When a new Commission under Ismaïl Yusri and the English came to Tantah
they did not ask me for my evidence (Ismaïl Yusri warned me in private
not to mention that I had sent a telegram to the Khedive, of which the
copy has been found in the telegraph office, to ask for an order to
interfere) of what had happened at Tantah but only as to those killed at
Santah. They therefore did not take my evidence.
I declare that Abu Diab was entirely innocent, and that of those hanged
at Tantah for this matter only 2 were guilty, Abu Salaam of Santah, and
a soldier of the Mudirieh. Ibrahim Adhem and Mehariz were the cause of
the bloodshed. The killing was done by the vagabonds from Alexandria and
the soldiers of the Mudirieh. The same thing happened at three other
places—at Tantah 49 killed; at Santah 3 were killed; at Mehallet el
Kebir 6 or 7; at Mehallet abu Ali jem el Suk 2 or 3. Also the same thing
would have happened at Dumanhour but for the Wakil Abd el Razak whom the
Khedive has sent in chains for 15 years to the Soudan. I heard of Osman
Raafat being at Tantah on the day of the massacre in the house of one of
his brothers-in-law. He has two brothers-in-law at Tantah, Mohammed
Hellal and Ibrahim Hellal.
Ibrahim Adhem was restored as Mudir after the war, and he got up the
evidence against Abu Diab in revenge for the words spoken by him on the
day of the massacre. Abu Diab died an innocent man. He was not
discouraged to the last, but told his father not to weep and told the
executioner to make haste. At the last moment Ibrahim Adhem asked his
pardon. But Abu Diab said, “God will judge between us to-night, to-day
for me, to-morrow for you.” I assure you, Sir, by God, that Abu Diab
died unjustly.
Before the Commission had left Tantah Ibrahim Adhem came one day to my
village with 4 English officers, and summoned all the notables of the
neighbourhood and declared to them that I was in disgrace with the
Khedive and the English, and warned them to have no dealings with me,
and that if any had a quarrel against me the Khedive would support him
against me, and four months passed and no one came. Until the day of the
massacre I was respected by all men. I had no quarrel with Ibrahim Adhem
nor any one; but my action that day has been the cause of my ruin. When
Ibrahim Adhem was removed from Tantah, Husseyn Pasha Wasif was appointed
in his place. He received me into favour, but the Khedive wrote to him
by his own secretary not to see me. Husseyn Pasha shewed me this
letter—I saw it with my eyes—and begged me to excuse him if he asked me
to come no more to his house. This drove me from my country. It is clear
that by saving the lives of the Christians that day I have gained only
anger from the Khedive and trouble.
PRINCE HALIM TO MR. BLUNT
Balta-Liman, 15 _Décembre_, 1884.
MON CHER MONSIEUR BLUNT,
Je vous remercie d’avoir pensé à m’écrire; j’aurais voulu en vous
répondant vous donner des nouvelles de chez vous; malheureusement
heureusement dans notre paresseux Orient les choses ne changent pas
aussi souvent que dans votre actif Occident. Ici les jours se suivent et
se ressemblent, il n’y a donc rien qui vaille la peine de vous être
rapporté. Depuis quelques jours j’aperçois des signes non équivoques
d’une tendance de rapprochement avec l’Angleterre; des communications
ont eu lieu entre Monsieur Wyndham et la Porte en vu de trouver un
terrain propice qui permettrait aux deux partis de traiter les affaires
égyptiennes. Je crains que cette fois encore la Turquie et l’Angleterre
n’aient, par leur lenteur, manqué le moment favourable de pouvoir en
finir entre elles. Les puissances signataires du traité de 1841-42
paraissent vouloir se mêler de la question; elles trouveraient peut-être
mauvais que la Porte traitât directement avec l’Angleterre; dans ce cas
le nouvel ambassadeur d’Angleterre, quel qu’il fût, il est très douteux
qu’il puisse réussir dans le sens du désir de son Gouvernement. Tout
dépend de la pression plus ou moins grande qu’exercera l’Europe.
Je porterai à la connaissance du Sultan ce que je croirai lui être
utile, sans cependant m’illusioner sur le résultat, car il est inutile
de chercher de la vigueur, de la précision, dans les actes du
Gouvernement Impérial. La peur, plus que l’intérêt même, présidera à
toutes ses actions, quoiqu’on fasse. La bienveillance de Musurus Pacha
pour Tewfik est sans doute le resultât du mariage de son fils avec la
fille d’un certain Antoniadis, partisan d’Ismaïl, comme tous les
voleurs.
A propos d’Ismaïl, je vous dirai qu’il dépense beaucoup d’argent ici, et
j’en sens les effets. Le brave homme donne son or contre de la parole
qu’emporte aussitôt le vent. Avant que cette lettre vous parvienne
Monsieur Whittaker sera à Londres, il vous communiquera une proposition
qui je crois aura votre pleine approbation.
Recevez etc.,
HALIM.
PRINCE HALIM TO MR. BLUNT
Balta-Liman, 6 _Janvier_, 1885.
CHER MONSIEUR BLUNT,
C’est le 4 janvier seulement que j’ai reçu votre lettre du 19 Décembre.
Je suis avec intérêt dans les journaux les péripéties de vos démarches,
tant près de l’association international d’arbitrage et de paix, que
près du Premier Ministre. Je suis tout à fait de votre opinion et je
dirai qu’une terminaison à l’amiable et sans violence de la question
égyptienne ne peut se faire sans le concours du Sultan parce qu’il est
la légalité, le droit; mais, si on veut passer outre, alors c’est
l’inconnu et on ne peut savoir comment et où on aboutira. Je trouve que
l’Angleterre a perdu comme la Turquie un temps précieux; ces deux
puissances pouvaient l’arranger à l’amiable entre elles sans laisser de
place à l’ingérance des autres puissances peut-être même de la France;
l’Angleterre aurait beaucoup gagné et la Turquie aurait eu aussi sa part
de bénéfice. Maintenant que les Puissances font mine de vouloir prendre
en main la question égyptienne sous prétexte qu’elle est internationale,
je crois que l’Angleterre et la Turquie ont perdu, toujours dans la
prévision que les Puissances s’occuperont sérieusement de la question.
Recevez, etc.,
HALIM.
PRINCE HALIM TO MR. BLUNT
Balta-Liman, 19 _Janvier_, 1885.
CHER MONSIEUR BLUNT,
Votre lettre du 8 janvier m’est parvenue, je veux remercier pour les
nouvelles que vous voulez bien me donner.
Il est probable que Hassan Fehmi Pacha sera à Londres avant que vous
receviez cette lettre. Je considère la mission de l’envoyé Ottoman comme
une preuve patente de la bonne volonté de sa Majesté le Sultan de relier
les bonnes vieilles rélations des deux gouvernements que les évènements
d’Egypte ont un peu terni. En tout cas, c’est un pas fait vers un
arrangement, mais je doute que Hassan Pacha puisse arriver à une
solution définitive.
Les dernières nouvelles reçues du Soudan se montrent par l’état critique
de l’expédition anglaise, si les troupes qui traversent le désert entre
Korti et Mutamma arrivent sans encombre à cette dernière ville la ⅘ de
la besogne serait faite sans doute. Alors seulement le Gouvernement
Anglais pensera peut-être sérieusement à donner une solution à la
question égyptienne. Je ne serais pas étonné si Souakin et Masaoua ou
tout au moins un de ces deux ports resta définitivement entre les mains
de l’Angleterre.
Recevez, etc.,
HALIM.
PRINCE HALIM TO MR. BLUNT
Balta-Liman, 13 _Février_, 1885.
CHER MONSIEUR BLUNT,
Selon votre désir j’ai remis la lettre en arabe adressée par vous à Sa
Majesté Impériale le Sultan; je l’ai fait accompagner par votre lettre
adressée à moi; aussitôt que j’aurai une réponse je ne manquerai pas de
vous le faire connaître immédiatement. Je n’ai pas jugé nécessaire de
présenter au Sultan votre rapport à Hassan Pacha Fehmi—Sa Majesté aimant
les primeurs en tout. Je n’ai pas reçu la pièce que vous m’annonciez
m’être envoyé par votre secretaire.
Rien de nouveau ici si ce n’est l’entrée en scène de l’Italie d’une
manière extravagante, il en sera de même tant que la Turquie se bornera
à protester chaque fois qu’on lui marchera sur le pied.
A vous, etc.
HALIM.
P.S. Personne ne peut répondre de la fermeté du Gouvernement Ottoman.
LETTER TO H.M. THE SULTAN OF TURKEY (ABDUL HAMID)
(_Sent also in Arabic._)
Crabbet Park, Three Bridges, Sussex, _January_ 3, 1885.
SIR,
The grave perils which on every side menace the Mohammedan nation and
which cannot but distress Your Majesty in the discharge of your high
duties towards your people must be my excuse if I venture to address you
on certain points which appear to me of vital moment in the present
conjuncture of affairs for Islam.
It will not be unknown to Your Majesty that for some years past I have
travelled widely in Mohammedan lands and that circumstances have placed
me in a position to learn the thoughts, the fears, and the aspirations
of those who under various governments acknowledge Your Majesty as their
chief, the supreme Head and Prince of their religion; and Your Majesty
also doubtless knows the active part I took three years ago in
endeavouring to prevent the great misfortune of the invasion of Egypt by
my countrymen, and afterwards to set in a true light the injustice of
their action and the supreme miseries which they have caused. I trust
therefore that Your Majesty will accept as the ideas of one devoted in
all his heart to Mohammedan interests and Your Majesty’s, the view of
policy which I now presume to lay before you.
1. With regard to those Mohammedans who live under other rule than Your
Majesty’s,—I can assert without fear of mistake that at no other period
of modern history has the Caliphal authority exercised so powerful an
influence on their imagination as now. In all parts of the world
Mohammedans are conscious of the danger to them as a nation; and the
sacred office held by Your Majesty is regarded by them as the only
safeguard remaining of their political existence. Especially within the
last four years have they learned the necessity of closer union under
Your Majesty’s command, if they would not become altogether lost and
scattered; and they are willing as they never were before to put aside
the differences of opinion which have so long divided them and to accept
Your Majesty as the fountain for them of authority. On this subject I
have conversed with many learned men in many countries, and I find that
what they practically desire is this. The evils of which they complain
are a decay of sound education, a decay of morals and a decay of wealth;
and they attribute these misfortunes not indeed to a defect of the
sacred law, which they all hold to be sufficient, but to a defect of the
power to interpret it in accordance with modern necessities, and of the
authority which should enforce that interpretation and make it binding
on men’s practice. They desire therefore that Your Majesty should be
pleased to consider in what way it would be possible to encourage the
meeting of some general assembly of Ulemas of various lands under Your
Majesty’s supreme appointment to discuss all these matters, and devise
remedies for their very urgent needs. They think that by a common
agreement alone of the faithful of all lands under Your Majesty a true
result could be obtained.
This they desire and also that Your Majesty should take a more open part
in the exercise of your high office by issuing from time to time and
publishing authoritative statements of your views regarding the many
public events which arise, gravely interesting to Mohammedans at large,
in order that these may be kept in closer sympathy with Your Majesty on
matters concerning all. Thus it seems to me that it would be of supreme
advantage at the present moment that Your Majesty should take the whole
Mohammedan world into your confidence with regard to the English
occupation of Egypt. The strength of Your Majesty’s position lies in the
moral influence you possess over the vast populations outside Your
Majesty’s own Empire, and this can only be exercised to its full extent
by making your wishes public. Advantage has too long been taken by
European Governments of Your Majesty’s silence to spread false reports
regarding Your Majesty’s ideas; and in these modern days no Power can
afford to dispense with publicity as a spiritual weapon.
2. With regard to Your Majesty’s own dominions I am encouraged by the
high character Your Majesty bears as a sincere Reformer, to urge upon
you to take cognizance of the many abuses and breaches of the law which
afflict the remoter provinces of your Empire. These to my sorrow I have
noted on my many journeys; and I know that they are a scandal to the
world and a cause of National weakness. I could, if Your Majesty would
permit, explain in what way I think they could be remedied; and Your
Majesty may trust me not to recommend those European remedies which Your
Majesty rightly judges to be unsuited to the genius of Eastern lands and
subversive of the principles of their religion. I should ask Your
Majesty neither to grant concessions to Europeans, nor to employ
Europeans in your Government, nor to adopt European forms of
Administration. The reforms I would advocate are different from these,
and are on the contrary designed to establish Mohammedan Government on
its true national basis and in stricter accordance with its religious
law. In this way I am confident that, God aiding Your Majesty, a sound
political and financial basis could be secured for Your Empire.
Lastly—I would urge upon Your Majesty a certain course of policy towards
the Great European Powers, who one and all covet your dominions. It is
essential for any plan of reform and recuperation that an interval of
peace should be secured you. The two Governments which most threaten the
Mohammedan nation at this moment are the Russian and I grieve to say my
own, and they must be dealt with vigorously each in its own manner. The
present is an opportunity of the most favourable for making terms with
England, but these can only be secured advantageously for Islam by
courage and determination. Your Majesty must declare yourself in clear
language according to certain terms as to which I could advise Your
Majesty; and I think that I can assure you of success. But I venture to
warn Your Majesty against any concession of principle which might
separate you from the full approval of Mohammedans in various lands. The
part which is yours to play in your dealings with our Government is that
of the fearless exponent of the Mohammedan will. As Sultan of Turkey
Your Majesty has undoubted rights in Egypt, but in this age of lawless
aggression it is necessary that sovereign rights should be backed by the
popular will and in Your Majesty’s instance by that full exercise of
your Caliphal authority which is yours as Prince of the Faithful.
If Your Majesty on the perusal of this letter will deign to hear me
further I will make it my duty to lay my plan in detail before Your
Majesty.
I am, with profound respect, Your Majesty, Your most faithful servant.
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
PRINCE HALIM TO MR. BLUNT
Constantinople, 17 _Juillet_ 1885.
CHER MONSIEUR BLUNT,
J’ai reçu votre lettre du 3 courant qui m’annonce l’achat des chevaux.
Je vous remercie pour la peine que vous vous êtes donnée pour cela.
Mr. Whitaker n’est pas encore de retour. En attendant, ce que je vois
dans le journaux ne me parait pas être très différent du passé. Lord
Salisbury dans l’exposé de la politique du nouveau cabinet, fait à la
chambre des Lords le 6 courant, déclare que l’Angleterre est liée
d’honneur au Khedive. Un premier Ministre ne s’engage au fond comme
cela, s’il avait l’intention de suivre une autre voie que ses
prédécesseurs. Le lien d’honneur n’est pas facile à briser, comme par
exemple le lien d’intérêt, où on a la faculté de se montrer désintéressé
même magnanime en le brisant. Lord Salisbury donne pour raison du lien
d’honneur, l’honêteté du Khédive, vis-à-vis du gouvernement Anglais et
il n’y a que quelques jours que Tewfik Pacha protestait de son dévoument
et de son inaltérable attachement à Sa Majesté Impériale le Sultan, en
jettant sur la pression irrésistible des Anglais tout le passé. Ces
protestations du Khédive sont prises ici pour ce qu’elles valent et pour
la forme on se montre content. Le grand cordon du Schafcate à été envoyé
à sa femme comme preuve de la satisfaction Impériale,
Je vous renouvelle, cher Monsieur Blunt, l’expression, etc.
HALIM.
APPENDIX C
AUTHOR’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH DOWNING STREET
THE EARL OF DUFFERIN TO MR. BLUNT
_Private._
Cairo, 16 _December_ ’82.
MY DEAR BLUNT,
Many thanks for your letter of December 8th, and especially for having
sent me the pamphlet, of which I had heard, and which I have studied
with the attention it seems to deserve.
I am quite alive to the importance of the question you refer to of the
indebtedness of the peasantry. It is one of those evils which meet us
both in India and in Ireland, and you may depend upon my doing my best
to discover a remedy if any such there be.
We have induced the Government to let out of prison at once, something
like 450 of those who have been shut up in jail.
Yours sincerely,
DUFFERIN.
MR. BLUNT TO THE EARL OF DUFFERIN
_January 23rd_, 1883.
MY DEAR LORD DUFFERIN,
I have delayed thanking you for your letter of the 16th December
informing me of the release of 450 of the political prisoners, until I
had seen Napier and learned from him a little more clearly than I could
by letter what were the terms of agreement come to with regard to them
when the trial was compromised. I had understood from Broadley that the
terms would include an amnesty, and I had hoped it would have been a
general one, and that the whole of the unfortunate people detained in
the prisons on charges rising out of the “rebellion” would have been set
free. Now, however, it seems that, though an amnesty has been decreed,
many exceptions to it have been made, that while some have been
released, others are being arrested, and that the Courts are still
trying and executing men on criminal charges connected with the events
of June and July. I trust that the interest I take in opposing this
particular form of injustice will excuse me with you if I say a few
words on the matter. The world, it is true, is full of injustice which
we cannot remedy, but here the remedy would seem within our hands, and
the injustice is one for which every Englishman who knows the facts is
responsible.
First, as regards the exceptions made to the amnesty, it would seem most
unfair that the leaders of the “rebellion” having foregone their right
of being publicly defended, any of their followers or associates should
be punished for rebellion. Arabi’s defence included the defence of every
man in Egypt, and with the commutation of his sentence every other
sentence should have been commuted. The two strongest cases I have heard
of, of persons excepted from the amnesty, are Akkad’s and Awwam’s, men
charged with no crime, but who have nevertheless been exiled, the one to
Massowah and the other to the White Nile, punishments which Malet has, I
think, explained in his despatches to be equivalent to death. These two
cases I also recommend to your special attention from the fact that the
sufferers are men whose quarrel was originally with English, not
Egyptian, officials, and whose exception from the amnesty has
consequently a rather compromising appearance for them. Akkad’s original
offence lay in his having protested in 1879 against Rivers Wilson’s
confiscation of the Moukabalah claims, a thing he was perfectly
justified in doing, which, moreover, he had been invited to do by a
notice published by Wilson in the papers. For this he was sent by Riaz
on a false charge to the White Nile; the details, Napier tells me, he
has laid already before you.
Awwam’s case is still stronger, and it affects Colvin. Awwam was an
employé under Colvin on the Cadastral survey, and was dismissed for
having drawn up a report showing the incapacity of the officers
conducting the survey and their waste of public money—all which is now
admitted. The wrong done him made a martyr of him with the Nationalists,
and when Arabi came into office in February he was appointed his
secretary. For this, and presumably at Colvin’s suggestion, he was
arrested by the English authorities on their landing at Alexandria in
July, and put in irons. He then wrote a letter to the Khedive demanding
to know the reason of his arrest, and was transferred, still in irons,
to the Borgho prison, where Ninet saw him seventy-four days afterwards.
Then, when the disclosures relating to that prison began to be made,
Awwam would seem to have been sent without trial to Khartoum, and is
probably there at the present moment. These are strong cases, but I have
little doubt there are many others quite as strong.
Secondly. It is surely a mockery to decree an amnesty affecting only
persons who happen to be actually in prison, and omitting from its
operation both men already dealt with and men to be dealt with in the
future on charges connected with the past. From all I hear the reign of
terror has not been diminished in the provinces by the decree—whatever
may be the case at Cairo—the prisons are still full and men are being
arrested daily.
Lastly. I cannot understand how it can be the wish of our Government to
make scapegoats of the rank and file of those charged with the criminal
acts of June and July while the chief offenders enjoy immunity. If one
thing has been proved to the satisfaction of the Government more than
another, it is that Omar Lutfi was responsible for the murderous
character of the riots of the 11th of June. Yet we read still of
executions at Alexandria for crimes committed on that day by others, the
chief culprit himself being the while at large, in honour, and holding
high office under the Khedive. I say nothing of the Khedive himself,
though you doubtless know how little his conduct on that day would have
borne investigation.
Having thus discharged my conscience of what I consider a duty, let me
now allude to the other part of your letter, that relating to the debts
of the fellahin. It was the scheme of Arabi and the Nationalists last
February to solve the difficulty by making it illegal to lend money on
mortgage of land except with the consent of an officer to be appointed
for the purpose in the chief town of each district, and then only to an
amount small in proportion to land value. Thus the only borrowers would
have been persons able and intending to repay. I quite understand that
such a regulation might have checked the flow of capital into the
country and in consequence have reduced the public revenue, but the
object of the Nationalists was to prevent at all costs the passing of
the land into the hands of strangers; and I repeat that this _must_ be
prevented if there is to be a cessation of the popular discontent in
Egypt. This seems to me a far more vital matter than the form of
government of the country, or even the reform of the administration. But
probably it can only be effected by a reduction of the revenue, and
consequently of the rate of interest on the debt. The Nationalists also
intended to form a National Bank to make the required advances. But I
feel that very likely it is useless my saying anything on this head, for
I fear the Government at home has no serious desire to effect anything
but a makeshift arrangement agreeable to the European public, and strong
enough to last their time. I wish you could have seen Mohammed Abdu or
some others of the Nationalist leaders before they left Egypt. They
would have told you in an hour more than you could learn from all the
English officials at Cairo in a fortnight. Nevertheless I beg you to
believe that I still look confidently for a solution compatible with
Egyptian aspirations at your hands, and I remain yours truly,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
THE EARL OF DUFFERIN TO MR. BLUNT
_Private and Confidential._
Cairo, _12th Feb._ ’83.
MY DEAR BLUNT,
I hasten to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd of
January. It must have been delayed en route.
You are really under a wrong impression as to what is going on here, as
you will see by the enclosed memorandum from Sir Charles Wilson, to whom
I referred your letter.
As for el Accad, he is quite unworthy of the interest you take in him.
His complicity with Arabi is beyond doubt, and he misappropriated some
funds which Halim Pasha entrusted to him for the purpose of bribing
Arabi to support his, Halim’s, candidature.
I have sent home a report on the reorganization of Egypt, from which you
will see that I am doing what I can to promote the establishment of just
principles of Government in this country.
Believe me, my dear Blunt, yours sincerely,
DUFFERIN.
P.S.—I need not remind you that there is no man who has done more to
prevent this Government from exercising undue severity in the case of
the rebels than Sir Charles Wilson.
MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON
10, James Street, _January_ 16, 1883.
MY DEAR EDDY,
I think you will admit that the despatches published to-day, taken in
connection with Colvin’s reappointment as Controller in Egypt, absolve
me from any duty of reticence I may have had toward Mr. Gladstone on the
events of the past year. In spite of all that has been said and promised
and avowed, annexation stares us in the face as unmistakably as if the
word had been written. I am sorry, more than for Egypt, that it should
have come to this.
Yours affec.,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT
_Private._
10, Downing Street, _12th March_ ’83.
MY DEAR WILFRID,
As Campbell Bannerman has to answer a question this afternoon founded on
your letter which will (I understand) amount to what he could tell you,
were he to see you, perhaps an interview would be of little good. He
tells me that every piece of fresh information they get at the Admiralty
(_e.g._ from Lord Alcester) fully confirms his account in the House of
Commons; and therefore it seems to resolve itself into a question of the
known intentions of the authorities in Egypt as well as of the
Government at home against what Gill and Palmer _fancied_ their mission
to have been.
I apologize for having perhaps expressed myself too strongly yesterday.
But the Government have nothing in the world to conceal; and the
organisers of the Expedition surely ought to know better the objects of
it than the unfortunate men charged with the mission.
Yours as always affec.,
E. W. HAMILTON.
MR. BLUNT TO MR. EDWARD HAMILTON
Paris, _Sep._ 14, 1883.
DEAR EDDY,
When I saw you on Wednesday I told you that I had thought of taking
Sabunji with me, but had given up the idea. Since then, however, I have
heard that the man I counted on to help me in Egypt is no longer there,
and I have consequently determined to take Sabunji. The fact is I should
be very helpless without him, and if it should so happen that I could be
of any good it would be as well to have him at hand.
I shall leave him at Port Said or Suez till I have seen Baring, and as I
told you, I have no intention of doing anything without Baring’s
countenance. If Baring will not listen to anything I have to propose I
shall not waste any time in Egypt, but shall go on to Ceylon and India.
I shall caution Sabunji to get into no mischief, and he has always acted
as far as I am aware squarely in his service with me. We start to-night
for Marseilles, and so farewell. I will write to you from Egypt.
Yours affec.,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON
Cairo, _September 28th_, 1883.
MY DEAR EDDY,
I promised to write to you, and I will keep my promise, but you must not
expect me to say anything pleasant or flattering. I found Baring
extremely amiable and willing to listen to all I had to say, and I
believe he told me his own views frankly. Our ideas on many of the
reforms wanted in Egypt were the same. His scheme for relieving the
debts of the peasantry seemed a sound one—and he struck me generally as
being a man of sympathy and courage. But when I have said this I have
said all. On the main point of giving Egypt back her liberty we are
worlds apart. He neither wishes it, nor has the least idea of attempting
it. “What Egypt wants,” he told me, “is peace and order, not another
revolution; we have restored the Khedive and the Circassians to power,
and I shall do my best to keep them there.”
With regard to Dufferin’s famous Charter I find neither he nor any one
else look upon it as in the least serious or in the least important—and
they are right. The elections are not serious, nor were ever intended to
be by those who drafted the Charter. The electoral lists are drawn up by
the Government, the voting takes place under the eye of the Governor and
in the Prefecture of Police—and in most instances the Governor or the
Prefect of Police are the candidates chosen. It could not have been
otherwise. The Circassians have been encouraged to re-establish their
rule by a reign of terror. There is no protection of any kind against
arbitrary arrest, arbitrary confiscation of property, and imprisonment
without trial. The prisons in the country districts are still full of
untried men. There is no liberty of speech, or of the press—and at
Alexandria they began the elections by hanging two more men charged with
instigating the riots of last year. How should any one but the Prefect
of Police be chosen? Mr. Gladstone, who knows everything, doubtless
knows that in India, where the people have been crushed for ages, they
worship Siva the god of destruction. Here they worship the Prefect of
Police. Yet less than two years ago there were both freedom of speech
and of the press, elections fairly representative, and the beginning of
a real Constitution. It may have been necessary for Imperial or
international reasons to destroy this and to revert to a system of
“peace and order” as Baring calls it, but it cannot be necessary to talk
of having given the Egyptians liberty!
Baring himself is too honest to pretend that his system is anything but
“Egypt for the Turks.” But he fancies he can manage Tewfik and the half
dozen men who form his party, and give Egypt a mitigated and not
altogether inhuman despotism. If he succeeds in this he will have
accomplished something, but I cannot believe that he will at all
succeed. Tewfik and Sherif have no following in this country beyond the
palace walls, and, even supposing them to be the absolutely supple tools
Baring believes them to be, they have no kind of moral influence and
very little energy. The minor English officials tell me they are unable
to redress the least wrong or introduce the simplest reform in the
departments in which they serve; and that Baring and Maxwell should be
able, through the weak medium of Tewfik, and Sherif, and Fakri, to do
more than obtain a shadow of justice and compassion for the people I
cannot understand. You know how different this is from my own idea of
reforming the people through men of their own race whom they respect,
and are ready to work with, and you may imagine my disappointment at
getting from Baring nothing better than poor Malet’s stale idea of Egypt
for the Turks.
I spoke to Sir Benson Maxwell, who is a really good man, about getting
some kind of protection for the people from arbitrary arrest, and he has
promised to do so. But he is going away on leave and nothing will be
even begun before Christmas. On the whole it seems to me that no fate
could possibly have been devised for Egypt more sad or more hopeless
than what I see before me, and it would have been far more merciful to
have put the Egyptians at once out of their misery by annexing their
country last year than to play at giving them “_native_ rule,” under
conditions which through much suffering will lead to exactly the same
result a year or two years hence. I consequently leave Egypt a sadder
and a wiser man than I came. I shall publish my poem—and make my protest
and set out “to-morrow for fresh fields and pastures new.”
Yours, etc.,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
PS.—I wonder whether Mr. Gladstone knows that there are still twelve
Bedouins in prison at Suez arrested for the Palmer murder and untried.
Among them a woman and two or three children kept as hostages!!
MR. BLUNT TO SIR EVELYN BARING
Cairo, _Oct._ 1, 1883.
MY DEAR SIR EVELYN,
I have received a letter from Abd el Razak Bey, F.R.G.S., ex-director of
the Naval College, who with some four others has been in prison here for
the last three months on a charge originally of connection with a
political plot. He was, however, ordered to be dismissed by the
Commission appointed to inquire into the matter, but was nevertheless
retained by Osman Pasha Ghaleb through superior orders “on suspicion,”
and is still in the Zaptieh prison. He now asks me to come and see him,
and as I am leaving Cairo to-morrow I shall be much obliged to you if
you can kindly obtain me an order to enter the prison.
Since seeing you on Wednesday I have had opportunities of ascertaining
the feelings of the people here, and I am convinced that unless
something is speedily done to relieve their sufferings you will have
trouble.
I am, dear Sir Evelyn, yours truly,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
SIR EVELYN BARING TO MR. BLUNT
Cairo, _Oct._ 1, 1883.
DEAR MR. BLUNT,
I regret that I am unable to accede to the request contained in your
letter. The decision as to permission being given to prisoners to
receive visits lies entirely within the competence of the Egyptian
Government. I must decline to interfere in the manner in which they
exercise their discretion in dealing with the subject.
Very truly yours,
E. BARING.
MR. BLUNT TO SIR EVELYN BARING
_Private._
Suez, _October 3rd_, 1883.
MY DEAR SIR EVELYN,
Your note by some accident was posted by your cavass instead of being
sent by hand, and so did not reach me till just as I was leaving Cairo
yesterday morning, and I think it is right you should know that
receiving no answer I had already gone to the prison, and seen Abd el
Razak Bey and the others. I found them comfortably lodged and in good
health, with the exception of Mustapha Bey Sidki, who seemed seriously
ill, and I received from them all the same account, that their release
had been ordered by the Commission (which included two of the Belgians
who came here as judges) more than three months ago, since which time no
further inquiries had been made into their case. Abd el Razak had
written to the Khedive, but without reply, and they believe themselves
to be detained by the order of Osman Pasha Ghaleb. No English inspector
had been to see them, and no inquiry had been made into their case. Now,
however, that I have got your letter I fear that, should my visit become
known to the Prefect of Police, or the fact that they wrote to me, the
prisoners might be made to suffer from their and my imprudence. They
believe themselves likely to be sent without further trial to the
Soudan, and, as so many have suffered that fate during the past year, I
trust that you will give them your protection. They were arrested on a
charge which would seem to have been false, for their release was
ordered by the court which examined it, and in any other country in the
world they would be now at liberty.
As far as I can learn, Lord Dufferin interfered with these matters as
long as he was here, for he had promised a political amnesty at the time
of Arabi’s trial, but after his departure arrests were again made, and I
understand on very high authority that there are at the present moment
several thousand untried prisoners in the various towns of the Delta and
Upper Egypt. I can speak from experience of the terror in which
respectable people, in no way connected with the army, but known to have
sympathized with the Liberal party, are now living in Cairo, and, as I
said before, the excessive tyranny of the police and the Mudirs is
goading men to new disquiet. Trusting that you will forgive me for not
having waited for your answer, and that as far as the prisoners are
concerned the fact of their having written to me and of my having seen
them may be kept a secret, I remain, dear Sir Evelyn,
Yours very truly,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON
Suez, _October 3rd_, 1883.
MY DEAR EDDY,
You will have perceived that when I wrote the other day I was very
angry, and I think that I had cause. But that is no reason why I should
not write again. When I saw Baring I had not had any conversation with
my own political friends, and I could not guess the condition of
affairs. Now I have seen and talked to a great number of them, and I can
speak with certainty as to their feelings and, I believe, with equal
certainty as to the general feeling of the country.
The first and only obstacle that I see to a peaceable settlement of the
country is the present Khedive. It is absolutely impossible he should
remain, unless it is intended to occupy the country permanently with our
troops—and I doubt if even that would altogether protect him. I have
asked people of every class about him and I have not found one that did
not despise him. The Circassians and the rest of the fanatical class
look upon him as a traitor to his religion, and the liberals as a
traitor to his country. You know that till the bombardment I supported
him with the National party as against Halim or Ismaïl or other
pretenders, but I am certain that no reconciliation is possible. You do
not believe in his culpability in the matter of the riots of June, but
all the Egyptians here do, and within the last three days I have had
very important evidence on that head offered me. Now, I don’t wish to
make too much of this—it was a stroke of party politics. But what the
Nationalists will never forgive is that he has had innocent men as well
as men who acted at his instigation hanged for these very acts. I have
now the evidence of two men of the highest respectability, one of whom
is Ahmed Bey Minshawi, the Sheykh who is so honourably mentioned in the
Blue Books as having saved the lives of several hundred Christians at
Tantah, to the effect that the riots there were equally the work of the
Khedive’s friends, and that Yusuf Abu Diab, who was hanged for the
affair, was not only innocent but did his best to save lives. Innocent
men have everywhere been arrested and imprisoned on charges connected
with these things to gratify the spite of the Khedive and his few
partisans. You will say perhaps that these tales are not true, but they
are certainly believed in—and in the belief lies all the difficulty of
reconciliation. For myself I believe so strongly in the Khedive’s
treachery that I would certainly not advise Arabi to return to Egypt,
were the option given him, under Tewfik’s rule.
The Circassians of course do not quarrel with him on this account (for
they look on the fellahin as their proper scapegoats), but for his
conduct during the war and his feebleness of character. As you know,
they are very few in numbers in the country, only a few thousand, and
they say they want a _man_ not a woman to protect them against Europe
and against another rising of the fellahin. I believe there is a strong
party among them for Ismaïl Pasha, a few for Husseyn on account of his
extreme bigotry, and a few for Hassan, his brother. Among the more
liberal-minded Halim is a favourite, as he is among many of the
Egyptians through Abu Nadara’s advocacy, though very few people know
him. His enemies say he is not a politician and cares only for cats and
birds. Nobody will hear at all of Ibrahim on account of his letter to
the Duke of Cambridge. The Khedive of course has a party, though he has
no friends. This consists first of the Ministers who have come into
power through his restoration—though all these cannot be counted
on—secondly of Butros Pasha and other rich Copts, and I believe the
Coptic money-lenders of the Said. The Patriarch and the mass of the
Coptic clergy belong to the “Hesbu el Horiye,” the party of liberty,
which now occupies the place of the National party of two years ago.
Also, thirdly, of the financiers, bankers, and rich Syrian and Greek
merchants of Alexandria. It is, however, safe to say that there is
nobody of the Khedive’s party, except the Ministers, who do not support
him as a natural stepping-stone to annexation.
The fellahin of the Delta, as far as I can gather, are divided in
opinion, those of the remoter districts caring nothing for politics, and
having still a traditional respect for Effendina—whoever he may be—the
other part believing that Arabi will return. Of this there has grown up
within the last few months a very strong belief in Cairo and the
towns—and there is no doubt in the world that he is popular in spite of
his misfortunes. I have heard people complain of him for his conduct in
the war, for his neglect of blocking the Suez Canal, for his praying
when he ought to have been fighting, and for his running away at Tel-el-
Kebir. But they talk kindly of him and are proud of him as the first
_fellah_ who ever held supreme power in Egypt, and I had abundant proofs
of their goodwill to myself as his friend. Except the Khedive I see no
obstacle to his recall. Sherif might, I believe, work with him again as
far as the Nationalists are concerned, and Ismaïl Eyoub certainly could.
But Ali Mubarak Pasha, Khairi Pasha, Omar Lutfi Pasha, and Osman Ghaleb,
the Prefect of Police, and Sultan Pasha would have to retire from power.
I cannot conceive their being any loss—and there are certain Mudirs,
too, in the provinces, who have been exceptionally bloodthirsty and
tyrannical, whose position would be incompatible with a return of the
liberal party to office. I am of opinion that the only prince of the
family of Mehemet Ali who could unite parties is Halim. But I think you
would do far better to make Arabi himself the chief of the state—Halim
after all is a Turk and the people only look to him as the alternative
to the present regime.
The more I have seen of the people the more convinced I have become that
the present reign of terror cannot continue. If you withdraw the troops
without establishing something and somebody that the people like, you
must have trouble. The army may be as fond of Sir Evelyn Wood as he is
said to think, but that will not prevent them owning the first resolute
man who proposes to dethrone the Khedive—he is too unpopular with the
people to be popular with the army—and, if the Nationalists are too
crushed to turn on him yet awhile, the Circassians certainly will. You
will then find yourselves with some really unscrupulous adventurer at
the head of a revolution, and you or your successors will annex the
country. I am writing in the belief that you do not intend or wish for
such a result, but to persist in thrusting Tewfik on the Egyptians is to
invite annexation.
I had intended to write this to the “Times,” but I write it instead to
you, hoping that you may show it to Mr. Gladstone. I would rather you
did not show it to the F. O., for they would only use it to my friends’
disadvantage. The whole thing depends now on Mr. Gladstone. If he
insists on restoring liberty to Egypt nothing is easier—but not on the
present lines.
Yours affectionately,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT
Haddo House, Aberdeen,
_21st October_, 1883.
MY DEAR WILFRID,
Your two interesting letters written from Egypt, for which many thanks,
have both reached me while I am holiday making in Scotland; but I have
taken steps to secure their being seen by Mr. Gladstone. Your account of
affairs in Egypt is, to say the least of it, depressing. I won’t make
any comments on what you say. I will content myself with being the
receptacle of bad news and the conduit pipe of it to headquarters. I
will only say that I can’t conceive how it would be possible, without
the grossest breach of faith, for the English Government to countenance
the ousting of Tewfik, whatever sort of fellow he may be.
Holiday making is neither conducive to letter writing, I find, nor to
the catering of news, so I am afraid I shall, as far as being a
correspondent is concerned, make a poor return for your budgets. Good
luck to you and a pleasant trip to India.
Yours affectionately,
E. W. HAMILTON.
SIR EVELYN BARING TO MR. BLUNT
Cairo, _December_ 31, 1883.
SIR,
I have received a letter from Chérif Pasha informing me that the
Egyptian Government intends to forbid your disembarkation in Egypt on
your return journey from India—His Excellency adds: “Par courtoisie, et
en vue d’empêcher tout incident facheux de se produire dans le cas où il
entrerait dans les intentions de Monsieur Blunt de s’arrêter en Egypte,
à son retour des Indes, je crois devoir vous demander Monsieur le
Ministre, de vouloir bien informer d’avance votre compatriote de cette
interdiction.”
In compliance, therefore, with the request of the Egyptian Government, I
beg to communicate their decision to you.
I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,
E. BARING.
MR. BLUNT TO SIR EVELYN BARING
Delhi, _January_ 26, 1884.
MY DEAR SIR EVELYN,
I have to acknowledge the receipt, under flying seal from Mr. Primrose,
of your letter of the 31st December, which reached me yesterday. I
confess that the contents surprised me, not merely on account of the
nature of the message your letter contained for me from the Khedive’s
late Prime Minister, but still more from the fact that you should have
transmitted it in an official form without comment, explanation, or
expression of disapproval.
That the Government of which Sherif Pasha was the head should have
disliked my presence in Egypt I can well understand, for I have been
more than once, as you know, instrumental in bringing their abuse of
power to official ears; but I am ignorant of having offended against any
law which should authorize my exclusion, as the subject of a friendly
Power, from Egypt; and still less am I conscious of having done what
should forfeit me my right to your diplomatic protection. Indeed, the
circumstances of my recent visit to Egypt would seem to entitle me to
this last in an especial manner; for you will not have forgotten that I
came there last September with special recommendation to you from the
highest official quarter, and that my renewed interest in Egyptian
politics was authorized by suggestions emanating from the same high
source. But for this, I believe I may say with truth that I should not
have stopped in Egypt at all on my way eastwards, and most certainly
that I should not have encouraged hopes there which the sequel might
fail to justify.
With equal truth I can assure you that, had you informed me in a less
formal manner that the interests of Egypt would be best served by my not
returning to Cairo this spring, I would have willingly consented
inasmuch as at the moment of my receiving your letter I had all but
abandoned my intention of so doing, partly on account of quarantine
difficulties, partly because I recognized in Nubar Pasha’s accession to
office an adjournment by our Government of the special hopes which
interested me.
Now, however, in face of your official communication, I feel myself
obliged to do something towards asserting the right, which is mine as a
British subject, of residing where I will abroad under British
protection, and especially, because I hold property there, in Egypt.
Nubar Pasha is an enlightened man, with whom I have the pleasure of
being personally acquainted, and he is not likely of his own motion to
renew his predecessor’s threat of excluding me from the country, but I
fear I must ask you, as I do most formally ask you, to be good enough to
give me your written assurance either that the prohibition forwarded by
you has ended with Sherif Pasha’s dismissal, or that you are prepared,
should I be so disposed as to wish to land in Egypt, to take all
necessary measures to protect me from annoyance. Less than this would be
equivalent to my abandoning a right which, as a matter of principle as
well as of convenience, I am not prepared to forego.
I will only add that letters from you in this sense will reach me, if
addressed to the Rubattino Steamer “China,” at Aden on the 8th of March
or at Suez on the 12th, and will prevent further misunderstanding.
I am, my dear Sir Evelyn, yours faithfully,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
_Private._
Bombay, _January_ 30, 1884.
MY DEAR EDDY,
What, in the name of all that is blunder-headed, does Baring mean by
sending me _in official form_ and without explanation a threat of the
late Sherif Pasha’s that he would prevent my landing in Egypt? You
surely explained to him the meaning of my last visit and the
encouragement which had been given me (I don’t mean merely through
yourself) to make a move in Egyptian politics. Or what is the history of
it? Of course I have been obliged to answer, but as yet have done so
semi-officially only, and without putting all the dots upon the I’s, and
have left him a door of retreat from what you must see is quite a false
position. Please don’t let him force me to go any further.
Seriously, would it not be better to work with me frankly at last by
telling me exactly what it is you want in Egypt. Unless you really mean
annexation, you will need every honest man’s help to get you out of your
difficulties, and the day will come when you will not despise mine. It
is only two years ago if I remember rightly that you told me Gordon was
mad. But you must not drive me too far. I have a serious work to do in
the East, a work of which the establishment of good government in Egypt
is only a small part, and one way or other, with God’s help, I mean to
do it. It is a good work and you could further it greatly in Downing
Street if you chose to trust me, but I am sure you cannot hinder it,
certainly not by shutting me out of Egypt. I had nearly given up the
idea of going back there this spring, for my thoughts were in another
direction, when I got Baring’s letter. But I shall most certainly fight
the matter out if he insists. Only I beg of you think it carefully over
and if possible let Baring be advised to send me a sensible reply.
We leave Bombay on the 1st of March.
Yours affectionately,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
SIR EVELYN BARING TO MR. BLUNT
Cairo, _Feb._ 26, 1884.
DEAR MR. BLUNT,
On receipt of your letter of January 26th I placed myself in
communication with Nubar Pasha. I enclose for your information a copy of
my letter and of Nubar Pasha’s reply.
You will observe that Nubar Pasha’s views are identical with those
entertained by Cherif Pasha.
Very truly yours,
E. BARING.
MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT
10, Downing Street, 28 _Feb._, 1884.
MY DEAR WILFRID,
Thanks for writing to me. I know nothing whatever of the steps which the
Egyptian Government have taken with regard to yourself; and I am
certainly not aware that they were taken at the instance of the English
Government or of its representative at Cairo.
I am afraid—and my fears are confirmed by what you say in your last
letter—that you have considered the fact of your corresponding with the
Prime Minister’s Private Secretary on Egyptian matters as an
encouragement, however intentionally guarded the correspondence may have
been on my side. This may lead to misunderstanding; and I feel bound to
consider not so much myself (for that matters little) as my master.
Moreover it is difficult for me in writing to show exactly how far I
write on my own account—a difficulty which is enhanced by the
impossibility of my devoting the time and care necessary for
corresponding on important subjects.
Having regard then to these considerations I think it my duty not to
attempt to write about such subjects, and that it will be better for you
and me if we drop writing to one another on public questions. I daresay
I am to blame in this matter, as it has always been an interest and
pleasure to me to hear your views which you have the power of expressing
so well, and I have been tempted to egg you on. I hope you will not
misunderstand what I have said. I don’t think I need have any fear on
this account, for I am sure our friendship is strong enough not to be
affected by anything I may do from a sense of public and official duty.
I have been awfully busy of late, busier than ever. Whenever not wholly
absorbed in work, my thoughts have of late been mainly occupied by the
long and very serious illness of poor Pembroke. . . . I wish I had time
to send more news; but that is not possible.
For the sake of your friends, if not for your own sake, I hope you won’t
act in the matter of the order of the Egyptian Government in such a way
as to bring yourself into trouble. I hope I have said nothing which will
annoy you, and you will make due allowance for the difficulties and
delicacy of my position.
Yours affectionately,
E. W. HAMILTON.
MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT
10, Downing Street, _April_ 4, 1884.
MY DEAR WILFRID,
Welcome back. I am truly glad to hear of your and Lady Anne’s safe
return. I shall like of all things to arrange an early meeting, etc.
Thanks for taking my remarks in such good grace.
Yours affectionately,
E. W. HAMILTON.
MR. BLUNT TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.
Crabbet Park, _April_ 23, 1884.
MY DEAR SIR,
A few days ago some gentlemen of the many interested in the fate of
General Gordon called on me to ask my advice as to the best means of
extricating him from the imminent peril in which he lies, and they
suggested the formation of a band of volunteers which should endeavour
to run the gauntlet of their besiegers and having forced their way to
Khartoum should bring him back with them in safety by the same road. The
idea seemed to me a generous but wholly impracticable one, and I told
them so, frankly adding that much as I should wish to join in any
reasonable attempt to save General Gordon’s life, I could not with the
principles I hold, be a party to an armed attempt against the Arabs whom
I hold to be in the right as I hold General Gordon to be in the wrong. I
promised however that should anything in the shape of peaceful
negotiation be proposed I would willingly aid them to the full extent of
my power.
Since then I have most opportunely received information which leads me
to feel certain that if properly approached not only could terms be
obtained from the besiegers of Khartoum which should include General
Gordon’s safe return with such of his companions as might choose to
accompany him, but that a general pacification of the Upper Nile might
at the same time and by the same means be effected. In view therefore of
the urgency of the situation (for believe me, Sir, it is urgent), I deem
it a duty to offer through you my services to H. M.’s Government as
mediator in this matter. I say to H. M. Government, because it is clear
that no merely private negotiations could be effectual in a case where
such large public interests are involved. But I do not apprehend that
any absolute departure from the general principles of policy announced
by the Government would be required in conducting them to a successful
termination.
With regard to my own part in the matter I will only add that, although
I believe it would not be necessary for me to go myself to the Soudan, I
should be ready to do so if the circumstances of the case should
absolutely require it.
I am, my dear Sir, yours faithfully,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT
_Private._
10, Downing Street, Whitehall.
_24th April_, 1884.
MY DEAR WILFRID,
Mr. Gladstone is obliged for your letter. He must to-day confine himself
to saying that he is communicating its contents to his colleagues in the
Cabinet.
Yours,
E. W. HAMILTON.
_Private._
Same date.
MY DEAR WILFRID,
I add a private line. Considering all that has gone before, I can’t help
thinking you would do well to approach the Government by other means
than those in Downing Street. Could you not take Harry Brand into
confidence with a view to your viewings sifting through him to Lord
Hartington?
Yours aff.
E. W. H.
MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON
10, James Street, Buckingham Gate,
_April_ 24, 1884. 7 o’clock p.m.
MY DEAR EDDY,
If it was a matter concerning my own wishes or one of small importance I
would willingly consult Harry Brand, who would do all he could I know to
serve me. But this is the most serious step I have taken in my life and
one which involves consequences not to me only but to this country and
to many besides, and I dare not treat it except with those wholly
responsible. If Mr. Gladstone cannot see me now, perhaps he may be
willing to do so later. I was in the House this afternoon and listened
attentively to his declarations, and I gathered from them that he has
not yet closed the door to negotiations by any absolute decision of an
immediately warlike nature. So that I will wait his time, confident that
if I can be of use he will not scruple, on a point of formality in
connection with past events, to give me timely notice. Only I fear that
perhaps the time given us all may be shorter than he thinks, for already
according to my latest advices the tribes are gathering from every side
in arms, and though I still think it not too late it may well be so
soon. I shall be in London till Saturday when I go back to Crabbet but
shall be always within reach if required.
Yours affectionately,
WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.
MR. HORACE SEYMOUR TO MR. BLUNT
10, Downing Street, 30 _April_ 1884.
MY DEAR BLUNT,
Mr. Gladstone desires me to thank you for your offer to act as mediator
in the Soudan, of which, however, Her Majesty’s Government are not able
to make use, inasmuch as it must already be known throughout that region
that they, in common with the Government of Egypt, have no other desire
than to promote the evacuation of the country and the restoration of its
liberties.
Believe me, yours truly,
HORACE SEYMOUR.
SIR PHILIP CURRIE TO MR. BLUNT
Foreign Office, _May_ 17, 1884.