SIR,

I am directed by Earl Granville to acknowledge the receipt of your

letter of the 1st instant in which you complain of the refusal of the

Egyptian Government to allow you to land in Egypt on your return from

India, which refusal was communicated to you through Her Majesty’s Agent

and Consul-General at Cairo.

I am to inform you that the decision not to permit you to visit Egypt is

one with which Her Majesty’s Government are not prepared to interfere.

I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

PHILIP W. CURRIE.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Private._

10, Downing Street, _21st May_ 1884.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Rumours have reached me that you are about to found your complaint

against the Government for being excluded from Egypt partly on the

ground of certain “interviews” which you had with me last autumn.

I feel bound to notice these rumours by writing you a line; but I may

say at the outset, knowing you as I do, that I wholly and entirely

discredit them for more than one reason.

In the first place, I unfortunately saw so little of you before you left

England that I know we had no “interviews” with the solitary exception

of your coming to say good-bye to me, when I recollect that our

conversation was limited to wishing you “bon voyage,” adding as I

believe I did that letters from you abroad would continue to interest me

as they always had.

In the second place, I studiously avoid ever attempting to quote Mr.

Gladstone’s views—(and his views alone have weight)—which I have no

title whatever to represent.

In the third place, had I committed any indiscretions—as to which my

conscience is absolutely clear—any use of them by yourself could only

have one result; and that would be, to show that I was quite unfit for

my present post of confidence. Of doing this I am sure you have not the

smallest intention.

You will I know excuse my bothering you on this matter. All that I want

is the shortest authority from yourself to deny the truth of the

rumours. For this purpose only do I ask for such an assurance, and not

for my own satisfaction, because I am convinced that you would be the

last person in the world to take at a disadvantage one of your oldest

and sincerest friends, who occupies a place of great trust and delicacy.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. HAMILTON.

I hope if fortune favours me to see you again soon.

MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON

Crabbet Park, _May_ 22 1884.

MY DEAR EDDY,

I have no wish to make a scandal of this or any other matter, unless

absolutely forced into it, and still less to do you an injury; and so I

have decided, before going further, to lay the whole facts privately

before Mr. Gladstone. He will then be able to decide whether I have or

have not cause to complain. You may rely upon me to be scrupulous in not

exaggerating anything that passed between us, but I have a memorandum of

the circumstances written at the time, imperfect indeed but sufficient

to prove to me, if I had any doubt of the accuracy of my recollection,

that our conversation in Downing Street the day I saw you there before I

went abroad was by no means limited, as you suppose, to “wishing me bon

voyage.” I do not however rely wholly upon this for what I have all

along asserted, namely that I was encouraged to stop in Egypt on my way

Eastwards. Unless I was altogether deceived by another person, whom you

probably know, Mr. Gladstone was at that time desirous of a reasonable

excuse for restoring the Exiled Nationalists, and I went to Egypt and

called on Baring distinctly under this impression. You will say that I

have been the subject of a mystification, but I find this very difficult

to believe, and at any rate the doubt should be cleared up. I repeat, I

have no wish to have it done in public, if I can have it done in

private. I do not wish to make a scandal. I look upon Mr. Gladstone as

in reality a friend to most of my ideas, and I would far rather not be

driven into a position of antagonism to him. But the withdrawal of my

right of protection in Egypt is a violent proceeding and one that I

cannot accept without protest. The notice was served on me formally,

publicly and I may say brutally, and Lord Granville has refused me even

a reason. This is not fair, and my only resource is to force an answer

through Parliament, when the whole matter will be sifted. I have

fortunately made it a rule to have no political secrets as regards my

own acts, and so am prepared to argue it out. But I quite understand

that others are not in my free position; and, if you can assure me that

Mr. Gladstone will give the matter his serious private attention and not

merely put me off with an official reply I will write to him on the

subject. With regard to my really going to Egypt I have no wish in the

present position of affairs to do so. I could do no good there

politically nor could I even if I wished it make matters worse; and I am

far from well and want rest and not a new campaign. But my right to

protection is a matter of principle and I have certain real, if not very

large, material interests in Egypt which I may at any time require to

see to. Indeed Baring’s action in withdrawing his protection and

preventing my landing has already cost me perhaps a couple of hundred

pounds. This is exactly how things stand, and I await your answer,

before taking further steps.

Yours ever,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Private._

10, Downing Street, _24th May_ 1884.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Thanks for your letter.

I am very sorry that your recollection of what took place last autumn

should be so entirely at variance with my own recollection of it. But I

cannot conceive that any private conversation between friends, whatever

complexion you may put upon it, can be construed into what you call “a

scandal”; and I recognize the kindness of your desire not to cause me

bother.

Mr. Gladstone never fails to give his personal attention to every

communication made to him; so I need hardly assure you that a statement

coming from you will be fully considered by him.

I am very sorry to be the cause of adding at all to your labours, etc.

Yours as always,

E. W. H.

MR. BLUNT TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

Crabbet Park, _May_ 31, 1884.

MY DEAR SIR,

The privilege you have, at various times during the last three years,

accorded me of addressing you on public matters must be my excuse if I

now appeal to you on a matter mainly personal, namely my recent

exclusion from Egypt on my return from India, and the still more recent

refusal of H. M.’s Government to afford me protection there invariably

given to British subjects. The circumstances of my case are briefly as

follows:

Towards the close of last session I received a visit from a gentleman

well known to yourself but not otherwise connected with political life

or at all with Egypt, during which he urged upon me the desirability of

my “making a new move” in Egyptian politics. His idea was that public

opinion in England had sufficiently changed during the previous twelve

months for it to be possible to propose with some chance of success a

restoration of the National party before the British troops were

withdrawn from Egypt; and he furthermore suggested that the matter might

best be brought forward if a popular demonstration should occur on the

occasion of the Elections under Lord Dufferin’s Charter. He thought that

the leaders of the liberal party if such there still were at Cairo might

be advised to propose Arabi as their Candidate and, if his election were

secured, that there would afterwards be no difficulty in bringing about

his recall from exile. The idea was a new one to me, and I confess that

at first it seemed to me a quite impracticable one; and I did not

encourage it, especially as at the time I had abandoned all immediate

thoughts of again taking an active part in Egyptian politics. It seemed

to me that, without the concurrence of H. M.’s Government, it would only

result in failure, and I knew how little real liberty of choice the

Electors would have and how certain would be the punishment imposed upon

the leaders in any such movement. I nevertheless on this suggestion

wrote to an intelligent friend at Cairo, on whom I believed I could

rely, to inform me what chance of success the plan would offer, and I

received his answer towards the end of August. He informed me that

“though there was no _party_ in favour of Arabi’s return, it was because

it was not thought of as possible. Many regretted him, but the

punishment inflicted on him and the spite wreaked on all who were mixed

up with his revolution, which continued daily to be exercised, prevented

any one from attempting to follow his example. There was a big party

which thought of him with regret, but until quite lately my

correspondent had hardly heard a word about his return at Cairo. Lord

Dufferin’s parliament had always been a mere toy and a thing to laugh at

by all who knew Egypt. With the existing system of Palace and

Ministerial supremacy, where no man dared do right because he instantly

made himself a marked man, the Parliament would be a convenient tool for

the Government. The bare idea of its showing independence under the

existing regime would be ridiculous. At the same time if Arabi returned

to Egypt, any constituency would return him, unless pressure were put on

the Electors. If the elections were left alone, pressure would certainly

be put on any constituency for which Arabi might present himself as

Candidate. But, if Englishmen watched the ballot, he might get returned,

although that constituency would most certainly be made to suffer in a

hundred ways for its temerity. . . . If the people thought that a new

era was dawning and they might vote fearlessly, of course Arabi would be

returned by any constituency in Egypt, but they had had a severe lesson

and ‘a burnt child dreads the fire.’”

This letter, dated the 20th of August 1883, reached me if I am not

mistaken on the 29th; and on the same day, I again called, by his

invitation, on the gentleman already referred to, and he then told me

that since his last talk with me he had seen you and that he could now

assure me that it was your personal wish to find an excuse for restoring

the exiles, and he advised me strongly to go to Cairo, where I should be

well received by Sir Evelyn Baring and where I could talk the matter

over with him. “Sir Evelyn Baring,” he said, “will arrive in a few days

at Cairo and he had _carte blanche_ to begin a new policy in place of

Sir Edward Malet’s which had failed.” This put the matter in a more

hopeful light, and I at once determined to stop in Egypt on my way to

India, and, if I found Sir Evelyn Baring in reality favourable to the

idea, to propose Arabi’s Election to the Liberals of Cairo. Although I

will not say that the communication was delivered to me in terms as a

message from you, I certainly accepted it as in some sort such, and I

find it difficult to believe that it was wholly unauthorised by you or

at least that you were unaware that it would be made. Nor can I doubt

that a restoration of the National Party was a most natural and wise

resolve, for it was only by such a course that the promised evacuation

of Egypt could with any prudence have been effected, or the Charter of

Egyptian liberty been made a reality.

I therefore began to prepare my plans of action, as well as it was

possible to do so beforehand, and arranged to leave England on the 12th

of September, for Suez, whence I could visit Cairo and learn how matters

really lay and whether my stay there could with any advantage be

prolonged.

Moreover on the day of my departure I received a note from Mr. Hamilton,

your private secretary, asking to see me before I left, and I went to

call on him in Downing Street and talked the matter of my visit to Egypt

over with him. I told him of my plan with regard to the Cairo Elections,

and he approved of it or seemed to approve, and assured me of Sir Evelyn

Baring’s readiness to confer with me, and we discussed certain details

regarding my visit and he gave me advice on other political matters.

Although Mr. Hamilton and I are old friends, I had not seen him for some

time previously to this visit and we did not talk, as far as I am aware,

at all on private matters; nor had I been to Downing Street for nearly a

year, and, notwithstanding his reserve which I noticed as to yourself, I

remained distinctly under the impression that his language on the

occasion was authorised by you. You had left England some days before

for Norway; and Mr. Hamilton, if anyone, was there to represent you.

Thus I was and still am convinced that my journey was made with your

sanction, and that on that account I had special claims on Sir Evelyn

Baring for his protection in case my visit should give rise to

annoyance.

As a matter of fact I only stayed ten days in Egypt, and meddled in no

way at Cairo with the Elections. I found them half over when I arrived;

and on calling on Sir Evelyn Baring found him with quite other views

from what I had been led to expect. He received me indeed most amiably

and discussed with me the whole situation; but when I talked of a

Nationalist restoration we no longer agreed. I spoke my mind perhaps

rather too freely to him about his policy which I felt certain must end,

as it has ended, in failure; but I have nothing else to reproach myself

with in my communications with him, and beyond giving some advice and a

very qualified encouragement to the friends and relations of the Exiles

as to their eventual return and ascertaining some valuable facts with

regard to the history of the previous two years, I did little while

there that had a political significance. It was therefore with real

surprise that I received Sir Evelyn’s notice delivered officially and

without explanation excuse or remark four months later that I was not to

disembark in Egypt on my return from India.

This, Sir, is the principal point in the case which I would lay before

you. A second is that the decision to exclude me from Egypt seems to

have been come to simultaneously with a determination to inflict certain

petty annoyances on me in regard to a small property I have in Egypt,

annoyances which, reckoned only in money value, will represent a loss to

me of perhaps a couple of hundred pounds. It is equally difficult to

understand that these should have been entered on with or without Sir

Evelyn Baring’s knowledge, _with_, because they are an act unworthy of a

public servant towards a political opponent, _without_, because they

occurred precisely at the extreme plenitude of Sir Evelyn’s power, when

hardly a sparrow fell to the ground in Egypt without his knowledge.

A third point is the refusal of the F.O. to _assign me any reason_ for

declining to support my demand of admission as a British Subject into

Egypt. Although I am advised that the Egyptian Government has a

technical right to refuse entrance into Egypt, as far as I have been

able to ascertain, it is a right which has never before been enforced

there against a British Subject; and the British Government have never

before refused protection _without assigning reason_. It seems to me

therefore that it is a public duty with me not to let this pass without

protest, for if it be admitted in my case that it depends upon the

arbitrary goodwill and pleasure of the Foreign Minister of the day to

decide who among British Subjects shall and shall not be protected

abroad, it surely establishes a dangerous precedent, limiting criticism

on foreign affairs to agreement with the Government. I have ventured to

disagree with Lord Granville on his policy in Egypt. _Without assigning

reason_ he excludes me from Egypt, the inference seems clear that I am

subjected to pains and penalties for my free speaking, a thing

altogether out of accordance with English political practice. Nor can I

think that the immediate convenience of excluding me from Egypt, which I

presume is the unavowed motive, can be worth so very new and

questionable a departure.

Under all these circumstances I am induced to believe that by a personal

appeal to you I shall be best consulting the general interests as well

as my own. I have been advised that my remedy lies with Parliament and

the publicity which should oblige the Foreign Office to give me a fair

answer; but I have no wish, in the presence of such large public

questions as are at the present moment being debated with regard to

Egypt, to bring a personal grievance of my own in connection with that

country unnecessarily before the public; and I feel sure that you will

admit the soundness of my reasoning, and will so far favour me as to

place before Lord Granville my unofficial request that he will

reconsider his decision with regard to my recent application.

I am, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

P.S.—I may add that should you feel any doubt as to the accuracy of my

recollection of the two conversations here recorded, I possess

reasonable proof of it in the shape of memorandums written at the time.

These I should be happy if you required them to show you privately.

[N.B.—Sir Evelyn Baring subsequently, 1891, assured me that the

annoyances complained of in this letter in regard to my property were

none of his instigation, and I accepted and accept his assurance

implicitly.

My correspondent in Egypt quoted in the letter was Mr. Ardern Beaman,

late official interpreter to the British Agency, and one well qualified

to give the opinion quoted. The friend of Mr. Gladstone referred to was

of course Sir James Knowles.]

MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON

St. James’ Club, Piccadilly, W., _May_ 31, 1884.

DEAR EDDY,

I send you my letter to Mr. Gladstone, which I have very carefully drawn

up, so as to be within the limit of things which I am quite sure of, and

which I could, if necessary, support by reasonable evidence. With regard

especially to my conversation with you, I have kept myself well within

the limit of things written. I am convinced that the little I quote will

remind you of much more that was said. As to the main fact of Mr.

Gladstone’s having last year the thought of restoring the Nationalist

party and of allowing it to be helped through my instrumentality, the

more I think it over the less I doubt it. Please then forward my letter

to him without delay, and let me have his answer before Parliament meets

again so that I may lose no further time, which in the present critical

position of affairs is becoming valuable. I am sure you cannot say that

I have shewn impatience.

Yours affectionately,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

MR. HORACE SEYMOUR TO MR. BLUNT

10, Downing Street, 10 _June_ 1884.

DEAR BLUNT,

Mr. Gladstone has received and considered your letter of the 31st ult.,

and he desires me to say in reply that it is, in his opinion, impossible

that any friend of his could, without the grossest error of judgment,

have given you any ground for the suppositions that he was favourable

(_a_) to the restoration of the exiles to Egypt, and the election of

Arabi under Lord Dufferin’s scheme; or (_b_) to your stopping in Egypt

on your way to India for the purpose of promoting Arabi’s candidature.

With regard to your account of your interview with Hamilton on the day

you started for Egypt, Mr. Gladstone is convinced that you entirely

mistook Hamilton.

Without, however, questioning in any way your intentions or your honour,

Mr. Gladstone has deplored your proceedings in Egypt as alike injurious

to Egyptian and British interests, and he has entirely concurred in the

course which has been taken by the Foreign Office in reference to

yourself.

I am, yours truly,

HORACE SEYMOUR.

MR. BLUNT TO MR. SEYMOUR

James Street, _June_ 11, 1884.

DEAR SEYMOUR,

I beg you to thank Mr. Gladstone for me for the courteous form of his

answer to my letter, and to say that I do not propose bringing the

matter of my exclusion from Egypt before Parliament until after the

present crisis.

Yours truly,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

10, Downing Street, 5 _Aug._ 1884.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Thanks for your friendly note. I did not, however, need to be assured

that, so far as you were yourself concerned, any allusion to our

conversation last September had no unfriendly intent towards me. I am

only sorry that our memories should not be more in accord; but I can

honestly say two things. One that my asking you to come and say good-bye

was merely the impulse of a friend who values the friendship of another.

The other, that I have no recollection whatever of any announcement of

your intentions in Egypt, and that the strictly private nature of our

goodbye meeting is confirmed by my own diary, and by my not having

reported any part of it to Mr. Gladstone.

If I was incautious, I shall try to amend my ways in future.

I am going off to Scotland almost immediately; and whatever your

movements may be, pray be assured that they will always carry with them

the best wishes of

Yours affectionately,

E. W. HAMILTON.

MR. BLUNT TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

Crabbet, _Novr._ 18, 1884.

MY DEAR SIR,

I venture once again to address you on a matter of very large importance

connected with past events in Egypt, and which is still exercising a

powerful influence for evil on the prospects of Government in that

country and our own good name throughout the East.

You will not have forgotten the charges brought by Lord Randolph

Churchill last year against the Khedive of complicity in organizing the

riots of Alexandria, or the opinion which I have more than once

expressed that they were well founded. My original knowledge of the

matter came through my connection with Arabi’s trial, and when I found

that in spite of the promised amnesty men were still being tried and

executed on accusations connected with that affair I did not hesitate to

put in Lord Randolph’s hands the few facts then at my command. At the

same time I took no leading part myself in bringing the matter before

the public. Since that time, however, a variety of accidents have put me

into possession of a complete chain of new evidence, giving me the right

to speak at last with absolute certainty on all the great events of that

time. I am able now not only to trace the history of the Alexandrian

riots with a sure hand, but to produce full evidence of the Khedive’s

orders having been given for the riots of Tantah, Dumanhour, and other

towns of the Delta a month later. Moreover (and this I consider the most

important feature of the case) I have ascertained and am prepared to

prove that there was a total miscarriage of justice under the Commission

instituted to try cases connected with these massacres after the war.

The chief offenders were not punished; in many instances innocent men

were put forward by the Khedive’s officers to suffer for the guilty; and

in others those condemned were not only innocent, but had taken an

active part in saving Christian life. In the case of Lord Randolph

Churchill’s indictment, the written statements it was objected were

unsigned. But the witnesses I can now bring forward are men of

acknowledged character, and much of their evidence was officially

acquired, while they are ready to appear in person either publicly or in

private in support of their assertions.

Such being the case I feel that I cannot do better than lay the facts

privately before you, and request that you will personally examine the

value of my new evidence. I have as yet communicated it to none of my

political friends; and I can assure you that I had far rather keep it

remote from public dispute. It is a question of justice to be done and

reparation made; for there are innocent men still in prison, and the

families of others who have suffered death are in distress; and it is

you alone who can adequately repair the wrong or restore the honour of

English justice where it has been compromised.

At the same time I am aware of the many calls upon your time, and should

you consent to an inquiry I should be satisfied if you would allow

yourself to be represented by deputy in all the details, begging you

only to retain the responsibility in your own hands, and not to refer me

to the Foreign Office, which has been throughout deaf to my

representations, also as it is a question of evidence and witnesses I

would suggest that persons of judicial training would best discharge the

duty of representing you in an inquiry. I should ask no better than that

the case should be referred for decision to ordinary English judges.

Having said this, I need hardly add that I am myself absolutely certain

of all the main facts of which I propose to produce evidence, as certain

as I am of any in history; nor need I assure you that I have a perfect

confidence that when you too shall have been convinced of the deceptions

practised upon our agents in Egypt, you will hasten to do justice. It is

not too much to affirm that this initial failure of justice after the

war has been the cause of all subsequent failures, and that there is

little prospect of renewing honest life in Egypt through our

intervention as long as so great and notorious a treachery remains

unpunished.

I am, my dear sir, yours very faithfully,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

10, Downing Street, _21st Nov._ 1884.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Your note was most welcome as it gave me tidings of your whereabouts, as

to which in spite of many inquiries of friends I could ascertain

nothing. I send this half line in anticipation of any reply Mr.

Gladstone may send you when he has been able to read your letter—which

was not feasible for him to do to-day.

You don’t say where you have been betaking yourself; but I hope we may

soon meet.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

MR. HORACE SEYMOUR TO MR. BLUNT

10, Downing Street, 25 _November_, 1884.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

Mr. Gladstone desires me to say in reply to your letter of the 18th of

this month, that under your inhibition to communicate with the Foreign

Office, he cannot do more than acknowledge its receipt.

Yours faithfully,

HORACE SEYMOUR.

MR. BLUNT TO MR. GLADSTONE

(_Précis._)

London, _March_ 12, 1885.

A letter saying that since the fall of Khartoum he has put himself once

more in correspondence with those in Europe who are in correspondence

with the Mahdi, with the result that he has ascertained that the road to

peaceful negotiation is open. He is authorized by them to say that a

preliminary discussion might be opened in Egypt, but not through the

ordinary diplomatic or military channels—the basis of negotiation to be:

1. Release of captives. 2. Immunity for the tribes involved in the war.

3. Retirement of British or Egyptian forces to Wady Halfa and Souakin.

4. Evacuation of Souakin and Massowah in favour of the Sultan. 5.

Recognition of the Mahdi as sovereign within these limits. 6.

Establishment of diplomatic relations with England. 7. Freedom of

commercial intercourse. 8. Possibly a convention limiting the Slave

Trade. He is further authorized, in order to save further bloodshed, to

offer the services of an Arab gentleman to convey an immediate message

explaining the attitude of the English Government towards the Soudan.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Confidential._

10, Downing Street, _March_ 14, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Mr. Gladstone is obliged to you for your letter, which he wishes me to

acknowledge on his behalf.

You imply that the Mahdi would not deal with Lord Wolseley and Sir E.

Baring, our accredited representatives in Egypt. But why then does not

the Mahdi send either some representative of his own with his views

ready to be presented to the Government here, or some communication of

those views, which might come to head-quarters at once? One may almost

say that anything short of this is paltering with the case.

Yours always,

E. W. HAMILTON.

MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON

(_Précis._)

London, _March_ 16, 1885.

Explains the difficulty in the way of a representative being sent, the

road not being open and the Mahdi being unaware whether his

representative would be well received. Suggests sending an Arab

gentleman under a safe conduct to Khartoum. Will Mr. Gladstone be

disposed to facilitate the journey of such a gentleman, giving him a

sufficient knowledge of the disposition and ideas of the British

Government to enable him to arrange a formal embassy on the part of the

Mahdi?

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Private._

10, Downing Street, _March_ 19, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Many thanks for your note. It did not occur to me to connect Drummond

Wolff’s Question with your letters. It is not my fault that you have not

had a further letter from me on the subject of your last communication.

All I can for the moment say is that it is the subject of consideration.

I am aware of what you consider the urgency of the matter to be.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Confidential._

21 _March_, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Your letter to me of the 16th has been taken into consideration. I am to

remind you that Lord Wolseley has been instructed to forward any

overtures which may be made by the Mahdi, for the immediate

consideration of the Government. If it is thought that the Mahdi is not

aware of these instructions, it might possibly be arranged that the Arab

gentleman should convey the information through the British lines. But

the Government would require to be satisfied as to the gentleman’s

character and intentions.

Yours always,

E. W. HAMILTON.

MR. BLUNT TO MR. GLADSTONE

(_Précis._)

_March_ 24, 1885.

Thanking for message received through Mr. Hamilton, which, however, is

not sufficiently definite to be acted on, but holds himself in readiness

to give any further explanations, and suggests doing it by word of

mouth.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Confidential._

10, Downing Street, _March_ 28, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Mr. Gladstone cannot perceive that the last letter I wrote to you by his

direction was really indefinite. It practically conveyed to you an

intimation that, if the Government could be assured of the Arab

gentleman’s character and intentions, a passage through the British

lines might be arranged for him. Mr. Gladstone is afraid that he cannot

suggest any other mode of proceeding.

Yours always,

E. W. HAMILTON.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Private._

10, Downing Street, _March_ 28, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

I am sorry I cannot say more; but I must adhere to instructions.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

10, Downing Street, _March_ 30, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Mr. Gladstone went out of town on Saturday night; and according to

present arrangements he will not return to London before the 9th of

April. Under these circumstances I am afraid any interview is out of all

question.

All I can do for the moment is to communicate on the subject of your

letter received this morning with Lord Hartington, who is not only Mr.

Gladstone’s locum tenens, but who is now more directly concerned as War

Minister than any other member of the Cabinet in matters affecting the

Soudan.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON

_March_ 30.

Saying it would not be worth while sending a special messenger to say

that Lord Wolseley would forward communications. What is required is an

explanation of what the terms might be if a mission was sent. While Mr.

Gladstone says there is no intention of restoring Egyptian rule in the

Soudan, Wolseley is appointing Prince Hassan Governor-General, Graham is

pounding the “rebels” at Souakin, and Baring is arresting Zebehr at

Cairo. Mr. Blunt is going abroad and will see those in communication

with the Mahdi, and will ascertain their further views.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Confidential._

10, Downing Street, Whitehall,

_April 2nd_, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

All that I am at liberty further to say to you, before you go abroad, is

to remind you that H.M. Government have again and again declared their

objects to be the security of Egypt and the freedom of the Soudan; and

to point out to you that the Mahdi has indicated to them nothing

whatever. If it is thought that the objects of the British Government

are not known to the Mahdi, why cannot steps be taken to communicate

them to him? If they are known to him, surely it is for him then to make

some declaration upon them in return?

Yours always,

E. W. HAMILTON.

Bon voyage and au revoir.

MR. BLUNT TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

Paris, _April_ 8, 1885.

MY DEAR SIR,

Yesterday the Mahdi’s principal agent in Europe met me here, and I went

through the whole subject of our recent correspondence carefully with

him, and especially the draft of terms suggested in my first

communication, and read to him Mr. Hamilton’s last letter containing the

declaration that the Government policy is that of freedom for the Soudan

and security for Egypt. Of the draft of terms I am glad to say he fully

approves, as a possible basis of negotiation with the Mahdi, and he is

willing to accept the declaration of policy as generally compatible with

that basis. Also he is prepared to send the Arab gentleman as bearer of

a communication stating that England’s policy is one of “freedom for the

Soudan and security for Egypt,” and he assures me that the Mahdi will in

turn despatch a mission of peace to England, which may be expected to

arrive not later than September. The Arab gentleman will, moreover, if

the Government is willing, arrange in the interval for an armistice, for

the better treatment of captives, and for immunity for such tribes as

may have joined the English arms.

The Mahdi’s agent also begged me to say that he trusted the Government

would not be deceived by the reports recently circulated of defection

from the Mahdi’s standard, and so delay despatching the messenger to

Khartoum. There was no truth at all in these reports, but on the

contrary, there was every certainty that as soon as the agricultural

season was over on the Upper Nile, hostilities would be resumed, nor

would these permanently cease as long as a British or Egyptian army

remained in the Soudan. With regard, however, to an advance upon Egypt

proper, he made the remark that the Mahdi was a reformer, not a

conqueror; that he had no quarrel with the Egyptians either there or

elsewhere, many thousands of them being actually gathered under his

flag; and that the establishment of a just and legal Egyptian Government

at Cairo would at once end any danger of such an advance by depriving it

of excuse in popular sympathy. The Mahdi was popular with the fellahin

of Egypt, because he had rid their brethren, the Soudanese, of an

intolerable tyranny, and they would continue to look on him as a

possible deliverer as long as their wrongs remained unredressed. If

through the means now placed at the Government’s disposal a truce of two

or three years was concluded, England would have time to do justice, and

it would be her fault if at the end of it the war was renewed. The Mahdi

had no mission of conquest in Egypt.

Finally he requested me to explain that Ministerial declarations made in

England are not understood in the Soudan, and that there is a great

mistrust of all military communications. If the Mahdi had understood

General Gordon as having a really friendly mission towards the Soudanese

he would certainly have entered into friendly communications with him.

But, up to the present moment, it has been the universal belief in the

Soudan that England has no other object than to conquer and retain the

country. For this reason it is essential that the communication of a

contrary policy should be made through some one known to them and

promising credit with the people.

From all I heard yesterday I am satisfied that it depends wholly now

upon the Government to prolong the Mahdi’s hostility, or change it into

friendship; and I therefore await with much hope your answer to this

letter.

Believe me, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Confidential._

10, Downing Street, _April_ 11, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Mr. Gladstone is obliged for your letter, written from Paris on the 8th,

which I duly delivered to him.

He does not well see how he can add anything material to the letter

which I wrote to you on the 2nd, and of which he himself was cognisant,

though he was away from London. In that letter there were reiterated the

declared objects of the British Government in the Soudan, objects which

they are as desirous as ever of securing, and which hardly need to be

enlarged upon.

Let me add a word on my own account. I cannot help thinking you must

understand the delicacy and difficulty which the Government must feel

about holding communications with you, on matters relating to Egypt,

directly or indirectly, when it is believed that you mistrust and are

opposed to the Ruler of that country whom they are bound and likewise

intend to support.

Yours always,

E. W. HAMILTON.

MR. BLUNT TO THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

10, James Street, _April_ 14, 1885.

MY DEAR SIR,

I returned yesterday from Paris, and hasten to answer your last letter.

The Mahdi’s agent is ready now to send the messenger whenever it suits

you to give him the necessary facilities. But he has impressed very

strongly and repeatedly upon me the necessity there is of his having a

_written_ message in Arabic to deliver. This need not go beyond the

sense of the words Mr. Hamilton has already used in writing to me, but

it must be in a form intelligible to the Mahdi and others whom it

concerns. Without this, he says, it will be impossible to convince the

Mahdi that the message is quite sincere on the Government’s part, or at

any rate that his followers should be so convinced. My knowledge of Arab

ideas leads me to feel sure that in this he is only reasonable, nor do I

conceive that the Government, which has already sent written

communications through their Generals to Osman Digna and other chiefs,

would now find a difficulty in writing this message to their supreme

chief Mohammed Ahmed. It will not be necessary that the title “el Mahdi”

should be employed towards him in the letter, and I could, if desired,

suggest a form of address which would be considered friendly without

acknowledging this special pretension. The strictest secrecy would be

maintained by the messenger until his delivery of the letter at the

Mahdi’s camp.

Thus the suggestion made in Mr. Hamilton’s first letter to me, that the

Mahdi should send a mission to England, can be conveyed to him in a way

he will understand as being sincerely offered; and all that need further

be done will be to instruct the military authorities to receive with

scrupulous courtesy the Envoys on their arrival at the British lines.

I am, my dear Sir, yours very faithfully,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

MR. BLUNT TO MR. HAMILTON

St. James Street, _April_ 15, 1885.

MY DEAR EDDY,

I have replied to the first part of your letter in the enclosed to Mr.

Gladstone, and I add a few words in answer to your own remarks, as I

should be sorry there should be additional difficulty through

misunderstanding. For reasons which you know, and for others which you

do not know, I have of course, as you say, “mistrust” of the Khedive,

but the extent of my “opposition” to him you probably exaggerate. I have

had very little correspondence with Egypt since my last visit there

under circumstances which you will remember, and the failure of Baring’s

policy since has been due to its inherent weakness far more than to the

action of his opponents, certainly than to mine. I believe still what I

have always believed, that there is no course open to the Government, if

it would keep its pledges and have peace in Egypt, but to restore the

National party; and, if that is impossible, then annexation by Europe,

if not by England, is the only end. Tewfik has seemed to me up to the

present to stand in the way of such a possible arrangement, and on this

ground especially I have from time to time opposed him; but, if it could

be shown to me that the peace and happiness of Egypt was compatible with

his rule, I should not surely out of obstinacy refuse to be reconciled.

The questions, however, of the Soudan and Egypt may for the immediate

present perfectly well be kept apart; and I see no reason why the

Government should hesitate to communicate with me on the former if not

on the latter. They have publicly declared the Soudan to be independent

of Egypt, and Mr. Gladstone has recently assured me through you that he

earnestly desires to maintain its freedom.

Yours affectionately,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Confidential._

10, Downing Street, _April_ 16, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Mr. Gladstone is afraid that he cannot draw a distinction for present

purposes between Egypt and the Soudan; and so I am obliged again to

point out the difficulty of his holding communications with yourself on

the subject of your correspondence with him.

It is to be observed that H.M. Government has received no application

from any agent of the Mahdi to be allowed a pass through the British

lines to enable him to deliver a message. I cannot say with what

response such an application might meet.

Yours always,

E. W. HAMILTON.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

_Private._

10, Downing Street, 25 _April_, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

My last note was not intended to invite further remarks. It aimed rather

at hinting that under altered circumstances the correspondence should

close. I am afraid this must be the case. I have no authority to

communicate further with you on the matter.

Yours always,

E. W. H.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

10, Downing Street, 12 _May_, 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Mr. Gladstone is much pleased by your kind gift. The little volume will

much interest him; and he hopes you will accept his best thanks. He says

it will be a pleasure to him to turn from the Soudan to Proteus.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. HAMILTON.

MR. HAMILTON TO MR. BLUNT

10, Downing Street, Whitehall, 11 _June_ 1885.

MY DEAR WILFRID,

Many thanks for your kind note. I hope we have never met but as friends;

and that the only difference which pending changes will make will be

that I may see more of you in relations of “greater freedom and less

responsibility.” I am afraid for some little time to come I shall be

awfully pressed by the ordeal of packing. I have to turn out not only of

office, but of home.

In haste.

Yours affectionately,

E. W. H.

MR. BLUNT TO THE RIGHT HON. ROBERT BOURKE, M.P.

10, James St., _July_ 3, 1885.

MY DEAR BOURKE,

As you are doubtless considering the Soudan question just now at the

F.O. I think it may be of assistance to you to know briefly what has

passed between me and the late Government in regard to possible

negociation with the Mahdi.

It began in April, 1884, when I wrote to Mr. Gladstone in connection

with schemes then on foot for rescuing Gordon, and offering my services

as mediator. Mr. Gladstone seems himself to have had some inclination to

accept, but on reference to the rest of the Cabinet my offer was

declined.

Secondly I made an attempt in December, through one of the Peace

Societies, to gain a hearing. I had ascertained that the Mahdi would be

accessible to offers of withdrawal for Gordon and the garrison from

Khartoum; and I went to Hawarden with the hope of seeing Mr. Gladstone

and explaining the position to him. But I was not received.

Thirdly, after the fall of Khartoum, I again wrote to Mr. Gladstone

delivering a message I had received from a religio-political personage

in correspondence with the Mahdi proposing to open negociations for

peace or truce. It was just before Graham’s second campaign in March;

and this time Mr. Gladstone responded, and a correspondence followed

which led to my being authorised to give certain messages to the

personage in question, and I went abroad at Easter to deliver them. It

was then proposed to send a messenger through the British Lines to

explain the pacific views of the Government, and arrange for the opening

of more formal negociations, and it seemed as if the matter would be

arranged; when for some reason which I do not exactly know the thing

collapsed. I fancy it was on account of the news spread just at that

time of a rival Mahdi having sprung up in Kordofan and the idea that

Mohammed Ahmed was no longer in full power at Khartoum, but I am not

sure. In any case the correspondence suddenly came to an end.

Although all this was more or less confidential as between myself and

Downing Street, there is no reason I think now that I should make any

mystery about it to you, especially as it would probably be open still

to Lord Salisbury if he liked to take the negociation up at the point

where Mr. Gladstone dropped it—and I should be glad if you would show

this letter to Lord Salisbury and offer him the confidential perusal of

the papers I have relating to it. I will not say more at present than

that I still think it would be possible as it would certainly be most

desirable to come to terms with the Mahdi.

Yours very truly,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

[N.B.—I cannot find any answer to this letter, nor do I remember its

purport. It led to nothing, the Mahdi’s death being shortly after

announced. But for this it is probable that Lord Salisbury would have

negotiated.]

MR. BLUNT TO THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

_September_, 1885.

MY LORD,

I have the honour to lay before your Lordship the fact that I have

received a summons through the Lords of H. M. Treasury to present myself

before the Tribunal of First Instance at Cairo on the 19th of October

next on a matter connected with a property I hold in Egypt, and to beg

your Lordship to inform me whether I shall receive there the protection

usually accorded to British subjects. I make this request in consequence

of a notification served on me two years ago by Sir Evelyn Baring with

Earl Granville’s approval to the effect that I should not then be

allowed to land at Suez on my passage from India.

For further particulars regarding the case of my exclusion from Egypt by

the late Government I beg to refer your Lordship to Blue Book, Egypt,

No. 27, of 1884, containing my correspondence with the Foreign Office;

to the report of a debate in the House of Commons of the 4th August of

the same year; and to the enclosed memorandum.

Your Lordship will observe that Sir Evelyn Baring’s action against me

seems to have been based originally upon a misstatement of Sherif Pasha

regarding a visit paid to Egypt in 1883, and afterwards to a fear

entertained by the late Government that my influence there would be

prejudicial to their policy. But I venture to hope that your Lordship

will not regard me with the same apprehension, and that, having inquired

into the facts, you will restore to me the protection generally accorded

to British subjects abroad. I may mention that my prolonged absence from

Egypt has occasioned and is occasioning me considerable money losses.

I am, my Lord, your obedient humble servant,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY TO MR. BLUNT

Foreign Office, _Oct._ 5, ’85.

MY DEAR MR. BLUNT,

We have applied to the Egyptian Government to obtain permission for you

to return—but we have received the most decided negative. Of course it

is in our power to apply pressure to the Egyptian Government. But if we

do so, we shall make ourselves responsible for the consequences. It is

therefore a matter of duty to us, first to ask you, whether you will

undertake not to meddle in any sense with political questions or

projects while you are there? If you will give us this undertaking we

will telegraph to Egerton to do his best.

Yours very truly,

SALISBURY.

MR. BLUNT TO THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

10, James St., _Oct._ 6, 1885.

MY DEAR LORD SALISBURY,

I most readily undertake not to meddle with political questions or

projects while in Egypt, my object in going there being first to look

after my property and secondly to assert the right I possess as an

Englishman of claiming the protection of my Government while travelling

abroad.

Nor do I wish, if it can be arranged that the case I am cited to appear

on can be postponed so long as till December or January, to complicate

Sir Henry Drummond Wolff’s diplomacy by appearing at Cairo during his

special mission. I quite understand that my arriving there with him on

whatever errand might cause embarrassment. But, if I do not now insist

upon my right, I run the risk of being perpetually excluded from a

country where I have property and where I may one day desire to reside.

I therefore hope that you will insist with the Egyptian Government on

the necessity of permitting my visit unmolested.

Yours very truly,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY TO MR. BLUNT

Châlet Cécil, _September 10th_, ’85.

DEAR MR. BLUNT,

I am much obliged to you for your letter. We are in communication with

Egypt upon the subject matter of it. I have no wish to cause you any

inconvenience, and I hope it will be possible for us to accede to your

wishes. Supposing, however, that we can do so, it will be necessary to

interpose some delay in the manner you suggest, because I am afraid that

your appearance and that of Sir Drummond Wolff at the same moment in

Egypt might lead to unauthorised and wholly exaggerated rumours upon

questions of future policy.

Yours very truly,

SALISBURY.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY TO MR. BLUNT

Foreign Office, _October_ 10, ’85.

DEAR MR. BLUNT,

I did not get your note till my return from Newport. I telegraphed

immediately and have received to-night the answer that the Khedive, as a

matter of deference to H. M. G. is willing to permit you to come to

Egypt, freely for the purpose of looking after your private affairs. The

permission is evidently given with much apprehension. I need only add

that now my honour as well as yours are involved in your abstaining from

any political action—but that I feel assured we may confidently count

upon.

Believe me, yours very truly,

SALISBURY.

APPENDIX D

AUTHOR’S CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Gastein, _August_ 3, 1883.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

Many thanks for your letter, also for the Cairo papers which amused me.

I am sorry to tell you I have not received your book, “The Future of

Islam.” I hope it will reach me as I have every opportunity of reading

so interesting a work with the care and attention which it deserves.

Have you done anything yet about getting into Parliament. Northcote has

come to awful grief over the Canal which has been much more fatal to him

than to Gladstone. I hope Gorst and Wolff will make long and damaging

speeches against the Khedive on Baring’s vote; Mind you egg them on.

This is a horrid dull place and we are badly lodged. I wish I had done

with it.

Yrs. most sincerely,

RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, M.P., TO MR. BLUNT

Gastein, _August_ 14, 1883.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

I have to thank you for your two very interesting letters and

enclosures. I cannot see my way to doing anything myself in the matter,

for I am too far off to communicate effectually with you and secondly it

is a sine qua non of these baths that one should do absolutely nothing.

I hope you will write to the Times just to keep the thing alive, and in

the winter by one or two speeches in the country I shall try to rub it

all in. The awkward fact remains that the Government has made no answer

to my indictment and in all probability cannot make one. You appear to

have given up your intention of going to Ceylon to see Arabi which I am

sorry for. This a desperately dull place and time hangs heavily. The

Baths are lowering I think and one feels quite indisposed for any

exertion. I shall hope to be back in London by the 2nd week in September

in case you should still be there. We leave this on the 29th.

Yrs. most sincerely,

RANDOLPH S. C.

P.S. I have to thank you for your most interesting book which reached me

safely. When is Ninet’s book coming out?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, M.P., TO MR. BLUNT

Innspruck, (end of) _August_ 1883.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

I arrived here this morning from Ischl and found your letter for which

many thanks. I have read your poem with pleasure and I need not say with

perfect sympathy. Publish it. Poetry often makes converts where prose

fails. I have no doubt that you are a Cassandra and that we shall pay

dearly for our freaks in Egypt. But it is a despairing task to try and

right the wrong. But I mean to do what I can in my little way when the

proper season for extra Parliamentary utterances may arrive. I have a

horrid idea that the advent of the opposition to office might be worse

for Egypt than any conceivable eventuality. I imagine from your last

letter that you are still decided on your journey to India, and I wish

you a safe and speedy return.

The idea of having Arabi elected to the new Senate is ingenious, but to

be effective he should be elected in many districts. Otherwise it might

turn to ridicule.

Believe me Yours most faithfully,

RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, M.P., TO MR. BLUNT

Blenheim Palace, _Dec._ 26, 1883.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

I have to thank you for three long and highly interesting letters. I

have not written before because I really did not know whether letters

had much chance of reaching you. However if I do not write you will

think I do not value your letters which would be a great error on your

part. I have not much to tell you. I hope by the time you get this that

you will have seen the speech I made at Edinbro’ on Egypt which is fully

reported in the Times of the 19th. I cannot tell you what effect it

produced as you would think me very conceited. All I can say is that I

am more than satisfied. Tewfik’s position grows more hopeless every day.

There is no Government in Egypt at all. I think we shall be able to make

it very hot for the G. O. M. when Parliament meets. Your poem was very

highly praised in the reviews. Gorst is in India at Hyderabad on legal

business of the Nizam. Please remember me most kindly to Lady Anne and

accept for her and yourself from me the warmest wishes of the season. Do

not delay your return too long. We must have stirring times in the

spring.

Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.

WRITTEN BY MR. BLUNT AND APPROVED BY LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

“AM I A TORY DEMOCRAT?”

_May_ 1885.

With regard to English Home Politics I am prepared to support the

Conservative party. That is to say, I desire no change in the existing

Constitution or in the relations between Church and State. I am opposed

to merely secular Education. I am a strong supporter of the House of

Lords. On the land question I should like to see any measure introduced

which should make the acquisition of land easier for the man of the

people, believing this would be a popular, and in the truest sense, a

Conservative measure. I consider, however, that the principles of

liberty and property are closely connected, and I am altogether opposed

to the Radical views of State ownership in land.

I am inclined to favour the idea of special commercial advantages being

given to the British Colonies and India; and I am anxious to see the

union between the Colonies and the Empire preserved.

In India I am for large reforms in the direction of self-government,

believing these to be absolutely necessary on financial and political

grounds if India is to remain loyal.

So, too, in Ireland I am in favour of Home Rule. I consider it urgent to

accept the principle of Nationalism, both for Ireland’s sake and for

England’s. My motto would be “Ireland for the Irish and England for the

English.” The plan has succeeded in Hungary and Galicia in reconciling

the Hungarians and Poles to the Austrian Crown. Why not, therefore, in

Ireland?

Foreign politics are my strongest ground. With regard to these I am

quite clear in my opinion that what is required for England is a return

to plain dealing and respect for international law. These have been

grossly outraged during the last four years by Mr. Gladstone’s

Government, and it is we with our complicated commercial interests in

every part of the globe that will eventually suffer from the example

given. Our relations with the States of Europe should be based upon a

recognition of the fact that our system of parliamentary and popular

government makes special alliances and secret treaties impossible. Our

old-fashioned diplomacy, with its tortuous dealings, its equivocations

and its concealments, is out of date and needs reform; and I would have

the contrary to all these things introduced as a cardinal point of

policy. As towards Europe we should make the most of our insular

position, increase our navy and protect our shores. But in Asia we

cannot be insular, and we must submit to the conditions of Empire as

long as India remains in our charge. In this view we need the alliance

of the Mohammedan nations against Russia, and I am in favour of England

accepting the full responsibility of her position, as the heir of a

great Mohammedan Empire. My quarrel with Mr. Gladstone’s action in Egypt

was not based on any principle of non-intervention, for I am not a non-

interventionist, but because he intervened unjustly, unwisely and in

such a way as to alienate Mohammedan sympathies. I consider that a duty

of reparation is required of England for the wrong done to the Egyptians

and I advocate a reconciliation with the Sultan and a restoration of the

Egyptian National party. I need hardly say that I am in favour of

immediate peace with the Soudan.

Lastly, I consider that justice, not mere expediency, should be the

determining law of our conduct towards all nations. I am strongly averse

to the Manchester doctrine which allows injustice to weaker nations in

the interests of finance and trade, though not of military glory. I

believe, on the contrary, that it is England’s duty to protect weaker

nations from injustice where they come in contact with her. Nor can I

convince myself that a high standard of national morality is

incompatible with the extremest Conservative principles. I believe, on

the contrary, that much of what was best in the so-called “Midlothian”

doctrines has more real affinity to Tory than to Whig instincts; and I

should be glad to see these adopted, now they have been discarded by the

Radicals, as part and parcel of Conservative ideas. Truth, justice,

liberty—these are great names, going at this moment in beggars’ weeds

about the world. Can these find an asylum in the new temple of Tory

Democracy?

WILFRID BLUNT TO LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

_June_ 8, 1885.

MY DEAR CHURCHILL,

I am glad you have stated so clearly the Conservative policy, in nearly

all of which I heartily agree, though on some points, such as Ireland, I

have larger views than you are prepared for of Home Rule. The necessity

for an inquiry into the working of the Indian Government is very urgent,

and the fact that you should have included it in your programme, and are

to support Mr. Slagg’s motion, gives me more hope than any thing else

which has happened regarding India during the past year. The truth is

that if India had to trust solely to the Whigs for reform it might wait

till eternity, or rather till that crash came which certainly will come

if the rigidity of the present bureaucratic system is not modified. The

Whigs are bureaucrats born and bred and will not stir a finger to help

us.

With regard to Egypt too, I think you are right. The day for such a

policy as Mr. Chamberlain’s, which he has just announced, has gone by,

and the only agreement which France is likely to come to with Mr.

Gladstone is one which will put Egypt practically into France’s hands.

Two years ago, or even perhaps a year ago, before the conference and the

Nile campaign, Egypt’s complete independence, under a strong and popular

government might have been secured, but Mr. Gladstone would not hear of

it then, and by persisting in keeping Tewfik as the corner stone of his

policy he has thrown away his chance. Now France will not be content

with anything from him less than her own protectorate, or Europe with

anything less than the letter of her bond. To get back our right to give

Egypt liberty, the first condition will be that we guarantee her debt;

the second that we make peace with the Sultan and act under his

authority. Here, again, therefore, I look rather to you than to the

Whigs for practical help. One knows by experience so exactly what Mr.

Chamberlain’s arrangement would come to—an independent Egypt would be an

Egypt separated from the rest of the Mohammedan world, but governed

really in the sole interests of France and the bondholders. The form of

a “native” government would be preserved, perhaps, but the form only.

Egypt’s “independence by arrangement with Europe” means Egypt for the

bondholders, with France for their protector and Ismail for their king.

If Mr. Chamberlain had said a word about repentance for past errors I

could have better believed him; but we heard all the promises and

declarations he now makes, two years ago, and in far stronger language

from Mr. Gladstone himself, and with what result? No; I prefer your

programme for Egypt, though it seems to promise less.

I will take this opportunity of giving you my view of what a

Conservative Government might do for Egypt and generally for Western

Asia. The Whigs will never do anything but harm, because they are Whigs

and because they hate the Mohammedans, and the Radicals will never do

anything at all, because they are Radicals and will undertake no

responsibility. You know that the Mohammedan faith is in solution—that

it is seeking to place itself on a new basis—to regenerate its political

and social life. Enormous abuses exist everywhere, enormous injustices.

The poor are ground down by the rich, the weak by the strong. The whole

earth, as Arabi used to say, is famished for justice, and calls out for

a deliverer. The recognition of this was the secret of his own

influence. It is the secret of the Mahdi’s. It may any day be the secret

of England’s. But in Mohammedan lands it is not sufficient to administer

an equal law for it to be accepted by the people even for their own

good. The law must be connected with their religious beliefs and

sanctioned by their religious authority. I am not arguing whether it is

best so—though I believe it is best—but am stating a fact. And it is the

perverse refusal to acknowledge facts which has made of Lord Granville’s

policy in Egypt so piteous a failure. His idea would seem to have been,

and Sir Evelyn Baring’s with him—if idea at all they had—that the

people’s faith and social traditions were a “negligeable quantity,” and

that, no matter what the law and no matter who administered it, it would

be accepted with thanks. For this reason, though Tewfik was notoriously

regarded as a traitor to his faith and nation, they placed him in

authority, and men with him for Ministers whose only merit was that they

had preferred their interests to their beliefs and were without moral

principle or religious prejudice. Even these, however, in later times

have refused to serve them, and they have been forced to take up with

Nubar and his speculating crew of Armenians as the element supple enough

to do their bidding. This has had its effect. The whole of the religious

forces of the country are against them, and the whole of the people.

Their reforms have remained sterile, their attempts to pacify, impotent.

The people have refused their friendship and their justice, and will

have none of their advice. The Liberal party of Mohammedan reform have

been driven out of the country, the honest men have been driven from the

Administration, and the mass of the people into the arms of the Mahdi.

It is in the power of England, and England alone, to repair the evil

done—and, what is more, it is England’s duty. But it cannot be effected

except at the cost of assuming Egypt’s sole protection, and the

protection also of general Mohammedan interests. The Sultan must be

taken into confidence, peace must be made with the Mahdi, and Arabi must

be recalled. Europe, too, must be bought out by accepting Egypt’s debt.

These conditions observed, all difficulty, it will be found, will

disappear, and the regeneration of Egypt may at last be begun, and with

it gradually of all the Mohammedan East.

It seems to me, therefore, that the Conservative Party, if it acts on

your idea, has a great and satisfactory work before it, which, if

honestly performed, and avoiding the snare of turning Egypt’s protection

into a means of providing Englishmen with places and pay, may yet redeem

the past and give reality to the dreams of reformers. You especially,

with your sympathy for popular causes, will know that the only

foundation of success in the East, as in the West, is the consent of the

people. Get the Egyptian people on your side, and all Mohammedans will

follow you, and with hardly an effort you will transform the world.

I wish you, therefore, all success in your electoral campaign. You have

given too many proofs of your sincerity and steadfastness in this matter

of Egypt for me to doubt you, and I know that you will do your best for

her. Of the present Government I have long ceased to have any hope.

[N.B.—This letter was read to and approved by Lord Randolph Churchill

for publication in the “Times,” with the alteration of a single phrase

concerning Ireland, the words “than you are prepared for of Home Rule”

being changed into “than you are apparently yet prepared for.”]

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL TO MR. BLUNT

_Most Private._

India Office, _Aug._ 13, 1885.

DEAR BLUNT,

The enclosed explains itself. Will you see to it?

Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. C.

COPY OF TELEGRAM FROM SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

(_Enclosure._)

Dated Vienna, 12 _August_, 1885.

Received at London Office, 5.10 p.m.

“I think it would be well for Jemal-ed-din Afghani to come. Have you

(any objection?),[135] if involving no responsibility or complicity on

my part, and if it can be done without his coming into collision with

Turkish authorities. I leave this probably to-morrow evening or Friday

morning.”

MR. A. W. MOORE TO MR. BLUNT

_Private._

India Office, 15 _August_ /85.

DEAR MR. BLUNT,

I have just deciphered the enclosed from Sir H. Wolff. Lord Randolph is

unwell and in bed, but I shall see him during the afternoon. I think it

is best however to send you the telegram at once, as I understand the

present arrangement is that Jemal-ed-deen leaves to-morrow.

Please let me hear from you what I am to reply to Sir H. Wolff.

Yours very truly,

A. W. MOORE.

COPY OF A TELEGRAM FROM SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

(_Enclosure._)

“Buda Pest, 15 _August_.

“From something I have heard it would be well for Jemal-ed-deen not to

leave England till I can telegraph to you from Constantinople.”

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, M.P., TO MR. BLUNT

India Office, _November_ 1, 1885.

DEAR BLUNT,

Many thanks for your letter and enclosures which I return. I feel sure

that your lecture on Egypt at Newcastle must have been profoundly

interesting and instructive to the audience and a little more

circulation of such facts would do much good. You will certainly not

receive an encouraging reply from Lord Salisbury about Arabi. Even if he

was disposed (as I should be) to favour your views he would not dare

take such a step on the eve of the Elections.

Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.

MR. BLUNT TO LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Crabbet Park, _Dec._ 24, 1885.

MY DEAR CHURCHILL,

I am obliged to come to an immediate decision about continuing my

connection with Camberwell or indeed in any active form with party

politics, my pressing difficulty being Ireland. About this, now that Mr.

Gladstone has taken up Home Rule, it is necessary for me to speak and at

once to my Electors; and, unless I hear from you that there is still

hope of an agreement between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Parnell on a really

solid basis, I shall conclude, as everybody tells me it is, that

Conservatism and Home Rule are for the present incompatible terms and

give up trying to make them agree. I fear I have not in me the spirit of

a good party man, but I thought at one time I could help you

individually in the pursuit of better things. Egyptian affairs seem in

the same deadlock they were a year ago, and altogether I am far from

hopeful or disposed for further combat.

Yours very truly,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL TO MR. BLUNT

_Private._

India Office, _Dec._ 26, 1885.

MY DEAR BLUNT,

There is no question or doubt about the matter. If you want Home Rule

you must go to Gladstone for it. We cannot touch it.

Yours ever,

RANDOLPH S. C.

APPENDIX E

ARABI’S PROGRAMME OF 1883 AND MOHAMMED ABDU’S VIEWS

I. MR. BLUNT’S LETTER REPRINTED FROM THE “TIMES” OF 13TH DECEMBER 1883

Colombo, _5th Nov._, 1883.

SIR,

I am sure the “Times” has many readers who will be interested to receive

an account from an authentic source of the manner of life and present

views of Arabi Pasha and his fellow exiles in the place of residence

which nearly a year ago was assigned to them by the British Government.

I have been staying with them now for over three weeks, as their guest,

and am therefore able to speak with some authority as to their ideas;

and I think the time has come when these may be of service to the

public, and, if I may be allowed to suggest it, perhaps even to those

all-wise authorities who are still seeking to regenerate Egypt by

putting round men into square holes, and square into round from their

official chairs in Downing Street.

With regard to the material welfare of the exiles, I am glad to have an

excellent account to give. Although some of them suffered at first from

the extreme dampness of the climate, all are now acclimatized; and even

Toulba Pasha, who six months ago was pronounced by the doctors to be

incurable with asthma, is enjoying perfect health.

They are all, too, I think, contented in mind and grateful for the

treatment they receive from the Colonial authorities, which has been

throughout most courteous to them; and except for certain inequalities

in the amount of their allowances, with which I will not here trouble

you, they would have nothing to complain of beyond the unavoidable

bitterness which mingles with the bread of all exiles.

The way of life of the exiles is simple. Each family occupies a separate

dwelling, and most of them have chosen to reside in a rather remote

suburb of Colombo, which has ceased to be fashionable, and where house

rent is proportionately low. They send their children to school, attend

the local mosques, pay visits to each other or to their neighbours, and

attempt, with more or less success, themselves to learn a little

English. Their society they find in the numerous Mohammedan community at

Colombo, which, unlike such communities in many parts of India, is

entirely mercantile, and possesses not a few men of substance, whose

commercial establishments the more practical of the exiles hope that

some day their sons will enter, and thus be enabled to earn an

independent livelihood.

The Mohammedan community regard their Egyptian guests with feelings of

the highest respect, as martyrs to their religion, and especially Arabi,

as its late most famous champion; and so strong is this feeling

regarding him among the lower class in Colombo that on Fridays, whatever

mosque Arabi may choose to attend is sure to be thronged with a special

crowd of worshippers. Besides this, however, there are certain English

houses where the exiles are well received; and, on the whole, I think I

may say that they are as popular as their ignorance of English will

allow with the official community and the official residents.

I have naturally had constant conversations with the exiles on political

matters, and more especially with Arabi, and have learned from him and

unlearned much as to the events of last year. We have spoken, too, not a

little of the future, and of the hopes which the national leader still

cherishes of being one day recalled to Egypt, there to work out to its

accomplishment the plan of reform he had conceived, and which I firmly

believe that he alone possesses the genius to realize. For, whatever may

have been his faults and failings (and they were doubtless great and

many in his conduct both of the political and of the military campaigns

of last year), I have been more than ever impressed during my present

visit with the reality of Arabi’s claim to be considered a patriot and a

man of genius. By a man of genius I understand one who is capable of

large and new ideas, who has the passion to impress these strongly upon

others, and who above all possesses the courage and persistence required

to work them to their end. These qualities Arabi certainly has, and I

know of no other Egyptian of whom anything corresponding can be said.

His view of the present situation in Egypt is worth quoting:

“The English Government is attempting,” he says, “an impossible task.

They wish to make Tewfik popular and they wish to introduce reforms. But

Tewfik will only remain popular as long as he is supported by the

English troops; and when these are withdrawn he will fall. Personally,

Tewfik is without a friend in Egypt. The Egyptians hate him for having

betrayed his country, and the Circassians despise him for having

betrayed his religion. The better friend he is to the English the less

chance he has of conciliating his countrymen. In one way or other he

will disappear. Then it will be for the Powers finally to decide what it

is they really intend for Egypt. If they mean to annex it, one or other

of them will do so at the cost of a new revolt. If not, they must allow

the Egyptians to choose their ruler and to work out their freedom for

themselves.”

The choice of a ruler should be made, Arabi thinks, by the Notables. The

fellahin are not sufficiently instructed yet for a plebiscite. But the

Sheikhs of the villages with the Notables of the towns would form a

reasonable elective body. They would choose whom they would, a

Mohammedan, a man of mark, Arabi hopes an Egyptian. But before investing

him with power they would bind him by some Constitutional form which

should prevent the recurrence of mere arbitrary rule, the rule which has

ruined Egypt. Lord Dufferin’s charter, Arabi considers, is insufficient

for that purpose. It is a make believe, too weak to restrain the abuse

of power, and liable through its weakness to become itself an instrument

in the hands of despotism. Egypt, however, under a leader elected by the

Notables, would find Notables capable of asserting and maintaining their

rights; and a Constitutional Chamber would form itself without the need

of any more foreign assistance. The Liberal Party, it is true, is now

crushed and in hiding; but it would start from the ground with the least

encouragement and find life again. Arabi does not at all despair of his

countrymen, could the present unnatural regime be replaced by one

sanctioned by public approval. The approval of the people is the basis

of all stable government; and, whoever the new ruler of Egypt is, he

must be made to understand that Egypt is not given him as a property but

as a trust. Ismaïl Pasha thought all Egypt was his private garden.

Tewfik Pasha is being taught to think that there is no law but what

rests on his decree. This must not be in the future; the Prince must

obey the law, not make it.

Again, the English Government is trying to introduce reforms, but

through what instruments? It has driven away all the real reformers.

They are in exile or in prison, or have been fined and otherwise

frightened by police persecution to live “underground.” The men who are

left are either those who are too timid or too indifferent to join the

party of liberty, or else the very men against whom the reformers rose.

“How,” asks Arabi, “can the English Government expect to establish

justice through the Pashas who served Ismaïl, or liberty for the

Egyptians through those very Turks and Circassians who have always hated

liberty, and who look upon the Egyptians as their natural servants?”

With regard to finance, Arabi is of opinion that the best chance of

permanently saving the solvency of the country lies in a new arrangement

with the creditors. He says that the calculations of the Budget in

recent years have been made without reference to the periodical

recurrence of seasons of scarcity. There have been now five good Niles

in succession, and there must come soon a bad one, which will upset the

estimates. Also no allowance has been made for the recent great loss of

capital by the fellahin, the murrains which have destroyed their oxen,

the debts they have incurred, their now universal poverty. Unless the

burdens of the fellahin are made very light for them for several years

to come, they will never recover their prosperity and the land will

become deteriorated and impoverished. Arabi is of opinion that in the

interest of the creditors themselves it would therefore be prudent to

lower the rate of interest for a fixed number of years, full payment to

be resumed only at the end of the term when the country would be able to

afford it. He thinks this, with great economy everywhere, is the best

means of averting bankruptcy. The private debts of the fellahin should

be settled also without delay by an arrangement to be made with the

creditors by the Government; and I may say here that while I was

recently in Egypt I ascertained from some of the leading money lenders

that a composition would probably be accepted by them at from eight to

ten millions, the total debts being valued by the same persons at about

fifteen millions.

The future of the Suez Canal we have thoroughly discussed together, and

it is Arabi’s opinion, as it has long been mine, that the Canal is

certain, sooner or later, to be internationalized. Arabi considers that

it would be far better for Egypt that she should abandon as soon as

possible all sovereign rights over it. The Isthmus of Suez, he says, is

not necessary to Egypt, and the connection as long as it exists will

form a pretext with Europe for intervention. If ceded to Europe this

danger would cease, and Egypt might even claim a money indemnity for the

rights yielded and so relieve herself of part of her financial

difficulties.

Another important point on which the late national leader has distinct

views is the Soudan question. Although he is of opinion that a certain

connection will always be necessary between the lower and the upper

waters of the Nile, he holds that in the present military and financial

position of Egypt it is unwise to attempt the reconquest of all, or

perhaps any of the lost provinces. He believes that the movement of the

so-called Mahdi is not one merely of fanaticism, or that it is only a

revolt of the slave dealers. He thinks that Mohamed Ahmed commands the

goodwill of the inhabitants, and that it would be far wiser for the

Egyptian Government to come to terms with him than to continue their

military operations against him. The Soudan brings nothing into the

Cairo treasury, and if Egypt is to enjoy liberty at home she should

avoid ideas of conquest abroad. What terms could be made with the Mahdi

Arabi has been too long out of Egypt to judge; but from the

communications which reached him while in power, he does not believe a

friendly arrangement acknowledging Egypt’s suzerainty to be impossible.

The suzerainty of the ruler of Egypt the Soudanese would probably be

glad to acknowledge, for it would protect them against European

aggression.

Lastly, Arabi suggests the following as the most urgent matters

requiring reform in his country:

“1. That a settlement should be made by the Government of the existing

debts of the peasantry, accompanied with a return to the old laws

affecting the mortgaging of land and the recovery of debt so that the

peasantry shall be thenceforth protected against usury.

“2. That the mixed tribunals should be abolished.

“3. That there should be a reformed common law in Egypt for all who

reside there, placing Europeans and Egyptians on an equal footing in

civil and in criminal matters.

“4. That there should be security against arbitrary arrest and

imprisonment (habeas corpus).

“5. That the village Sheykhs should be chosen by the villages, not

appointed as now by the Mudirs.

“6. That the abuses connected with forced labour should be reformed.

“7. That education should be extended to girls as well as boys in Egypt.

“8. That domestic slavery should be completely abolished.

“9. That the position of officials in public offices should be made

independent of ministerial caprice.

“10. That taxes should be made equal to all, foreigners alike with

Egyptians.

“11. That a settlement should be made as soon as possible of the

Moukabala claims.”

Such are Arabi’s ideas. I believe many of his reforms will be found

identical with those contemplated by Sir Evelyn Baring, but I fear their

realization will have to wait the advent of a more enlightened policy

than any which now prevails at Cairo. As Arabi says, schemes of reform

are of value only when in the hands of reformers, and there is no sign

as yet in Egypt of any such being employed. Still, common sense will in

the long run assert itself over political experiment, and there is an

old proverb about the stone which the builders rejected, which may well

in the present instance prove itself a true one; and I cannot help

thinking that the day will come when the man who first proclaimed

Egyptian wrongs will be called upon to right them, and when Arabi, the

first fellah who ever gloried in the name “Egyptian,” will be brought

back with something more than his old prestige to Egypt.

A rather severe attack of fever, from which I am hardly yet recovered,

prevents me from continuing this train of thought. But I hope on a

future occasion to renew it, and in the meanwhile I am sure that Arabi’s

friends may make themselves happy as to his present lot. He is not yet

forty-five years of age, and can well afford to wait a while for the

hour of his restoration, and till it comes he could hardly have a

pleasanter home or a more secure abode than that which Providence and

the humanity of the British public have chosen for him.

I am your obedient servant,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.

II. INTERVIEW WITH SHEYKH MOHAMMED ABDU, AS PUBLISHED IN THE “PALL MALL

GAZETTE,” AUGUST 17TH, 1884

Sheykh Mohammed Abdu is, we are inclined to believe, the first real

Egyptian who has visited this country. We have had among us false

Egyptians in plenty—Turks, Circassians, Syrians, Armenians, Jews—all

claiming the nationality of the Nile; but a true son of the Ahl el Ful,

“the Race of Beans,” never. Sheykh Mohammed Abdu, however, is an

undoubted fellah. He wears a blue gown and a white turban, talks neither

French nor English nor even Turkish, but only his mother tongue, Arabic,

and is without the least varnish of western manners. He is a man of

middle height, dark-skinned, black-bearded, and keen-eyed, grave in his

general demeanour, but possessed of a pleasant smile, and, when excited,

speaking with much modest eloquence and cheerful vigour. His countenance

is decidedly an agreeable one, and brimful of intelligence. His father

was and is still a peasant of the Delta, cultivating forty acres of land

at Mehallet Nasr, and laying no claim to nobility of birth other than

that given by countless generations of peasant ownership on the same

plot of ground. But the son is far more now than a peasant. Sent twenty

years ago as a promising boy to Cairo, he received his education in the

ancient religious seminary of El Azhar, and is now one of the most

distinguished of its Ulema, or rather was, for, in common with the rest

of the Liberal religious party in the university, he is in disgrace with

the powers that be, and is now an exile both from it and from Egypt.

Although by temperament a moderate man, he joined Arabi and the popular

movement before the war, became one of its chief leaders, and was

involved in its ruin; and after Tel-el-Kebir he was singled out by his

eloquence no less than by his liberalism as a dangerous man, and having

narrowly escaped hanging was glad to reach Syria with his head safe upon

his shoulders, but condemned to three years’ exile and its attendant

penury. Now he is on his first visit to Europe, to see with his own eyes

the country which has been the ruin of his own. These particulars our

representative, who called two days since on the Sheykh at Mr. Wilfrid

Blunt’s house in James Street, learned from his lips, and being

acquainted with Arabic he was able to hold with him the following

conversation:

_Our Representative_: Without discussing past history, which we all

admit to have contained fearful mistakes, what is your opinion of the

present state of Egypt and of the policy now to be pursued?

_Sheykh Mohammed Abdu_: Since I have been in England all have asked me

the same question. Every Englishman says he wishes Egypt well; but which

of your statesmen has tried to prove his declarations? We Egyptians of

the Liberal party believed once in English Liberalism and English

sympathy; but we believe no longer, for facts are stronger than words.

Your liberality we see plainly is only for yourselves, and your sympathy

with us is that of the wolf for the lamb which he designs to eat. You

have ruined everything that was good in us so that you may have an

excuse for keeping possession of our country.

_O. R._: Believe me, this is not true. It may appear to you so; but it

is not so. Neither Mr. Gladstone, nor any of the Ministers, wish

otherwise than to leave Egypt as soon and as absolutely as possible. No

one wishes to annex your country.

_Sheykh_: If so, why not leave it at once? The only thing that the

English Government has taught us is to be united in the wish to see you

gone. Before the war and during the war we quarrelled with each other.

We wished to break down the tyranny of our rulers; we complained of the

Turks as foreigners; we wished to improve ourselves politically, and to

advance as the nations of Europe have advanced in the path of liberty.

Now we know that there are worse evils than despotism, and worse enemies

than the Turks. We see in them our brothers in religion, if not in race;

and if you would only leave us alone with them we should know how to get

on in peace. There is no Mohammedan in Egypt so oppressed as to wish for

any more of your help. We ask only one thing of you, and that is that

you will leave us at once and for ever.

And Tewfik, do you include him in your forgiveness of the Turks?

_Sheykh_: Tewfik Pasha did us a great wrong in bringing you into our

country. He joined the enemies of his religion at the time of the war,

and it is impossible he can command our respect. But if he should

repent, and especially if he should get rid of you, we might yet forgive

him. Only we desire no traitors with Egyptian faces and English hearts.

And the French? Our leaving Egypt now would surely mean that they would

occupy your country in our place.

_Sheykh_: We do not think so. The French know that they could not gain

our consent to their rule any more than you have gained it for your own.

We should resist them, as we have resisted you. We want no foreign

rulers from any country, and we know how to make all such rule

impossible. The French could not in any case do us more harm than you

have done.

And the Mahdi?

_Sheykh_: Mohammed Ahmed is only dangerous to Egypt through your

presence there. Were you to leave Egypt he would neither wish to attack

us nor would his doing so be any danger. At present he has the sympathy

of the masses, because they see in him a deliverer from Christian

aggression, and they will join him when he comes to them.

And when will this be?

_Sheykh_: The partisans of Mohammed Ahmed are already in the Saïd (Upper

Egypt), but he will only himself advance when Khartoum is taken. Your

Government are doing all they can to strengthen him.

How so?

_Sheykh_: By the treaty they have made with the King of Abyssinia. This

has made every man a fanatic, for it is written in our traditions, and

is known to all, that through the Abyssinians our Holy City, Mecca, will

be one day attacked and destroyed. The people everywhere see in this a

new danger to their religion. How can your statesmen have made an

alliance with this barbarous people? How can they have added this new

trouble to the rest?

But were not all the Soudan people fanatics already?

_Sheykh (laughing)_: The Soudani are no more fanatics than I am. When I

taught philosophy at Cairo many of the Egyptian students were afraid to

come to my lectures; but there were eighty-four students from the

Soudan, and every one of them came. When, however, they are threatened

with a foreign invasion they become fanatical, just as you would be if a

Mohammedan army were in the streets of London.

And has this anything to do with the news of a rising in Arabia?

_Sheykh_: The news is true. We had been expecting it for a long while;

and I do not doubt that your treaty with the Abyssinians has hastened

it. When they are threatened, the Moslems take up arms. The people of

Yemen are not fanatics more than the Soudani; but they love their

liberty, as all the Arabs do.

And what ought we to do to allay the storm?

_Sheykh_: Cease to threaten us, and leave our country.

But what would become of the Christians in Egypt were our troops to

leave? Would there not be new massacres?

_Sheykh_: There have been no massacres in Egypt except those caused by

yourselves. The arrival of your fleet at Alexandria made the riots there

begin. The landing of your troops brought on the riots at Tantah. There

was no loss of Christian life until you came; nor will there be any when

you go away. We have no quarrel with Christians as long as they abide by

our laws and do not attempt to interfere with our Government.

There is then, you think, no obstacle to peace and prosperity in Egypt

except our presence there? Would you not wish to see the National party

restored before we go? Would you not like yourself to return to Egypt?

_Sheykh_: If I believed that your Government had any serious wish for

our good I would propose a policy. But what is the use of my wasting

words?

Speak, nevertheless. Whatever the Government may mean or wish, there are

many in England who would see justice done to Egypt at any cost.

_Sheykh_: If England wanted to repair the wrong she has done us she

would, as I have said, give us a first proof of her sincerity by

ordering back her troops from Egypt. Next she would agree with the

Powers of Europe and his Majesty the Sultan, with regard to a new ruler

for us. It is not for me to say who this ruler should be. But whoever

may be chosen, he should be some one not distasteful to the people and

approved by the Sultan, and he should be named for a term of years, say

seven or ten, at the end of which term the people should be allowed to

elect their rulers finally for themselves. If he proved an honest man he

might then retain office. But if dishonest, the people would have the

comfort of thinking that he would not be there for ever, and so would

take patience.

But how could we ascertain the wishes of the people? By what form of

election?

_Sheykh_: Any new ruler now who should be a Moslem, and should come into

office as the deliverer of Egypt from the English troops, would be loved

by the Egyptians. Only he must be a Mohammedan, and, if possible, an

Egyptian by birth. It is essential, however, that he should be content

with limited power. What we want is not a new king, but a chief of our

Egyptian nation, acting under the religious sovereignty of the

caliphate. This kind of ruler the Egyptians understand, and they do not

want a king.

And under such a ruler you and your fellow exiles could return to Egypt?

What do you say about Arabi?

_Sheykh_: I should like to see his return. If he holds office Arabi’s

place is in the Council, which must always supplement and control the

ruler of Egypt. He speaks well. His ideas are noble. He is an honest

man. His influence would all be on the side of good. But he is too

careless of details to be a good administrator or a good general. Let

him return as President, if they choose him, of the Mejliss—that is his

place.

And the Ministry? What our Government complains of is that they cannot

get a working set of men to rule the country.

_Sheykh_: It is their fault if they have failed. Egypt is not wanting in

honourable men, or men of capacity. But you insist on having those who

will do your work; and no honest man in Egypt will work for the English

Government. Again, you insist that they must rule your way and speak

your language. The honest men generally do not speak English. They do

not love English ways. Let us have a ruler we like, and we will all join

to help him. We all want reform. We all want justice. We all want

instruction. But there is an old proverb which says that “if the fish

stinks at the head there is no freshness in the tail,” and we want a

ruler we can respect. Give us an honest chief for our nation, get him

the sanction of our Sovereign the Sultan, and leave us to ourselves.

With God’s blessing we will have peace. We will even try to pay our

debt.

But do all the Egyptians think as you do? I am inclined to believe that

nine out of ten of the fellaheen would sooner have their taxes lessened

by a Christian Government than raised by a Mohammedan.

_Sheykh_: Do not delude yourself. The fellaheen are overtaxed, but at

the present moment they do not complain of their taxes. They think first

of how to deliver their country from the stranger; and, if it were

possible, they would willingly pay more to see this end accomplished. I

know it, as I have correspondents everywhere in Egypt. You might abolish

all taxation, and they would not bless you if at the same time you took

it as an excuse to stay. No, no. Leave us now, and we will call on God

to reward you as our benefactors. But do not attempt to do us any more

good. Your good has done us too much harm already.

APPENDIX F

EXTRACTS FROM LADY ANNE BLUNT’S DIARY

_Dec._ 8, 1882, _Friday_ [10, James Street].—General C. G. Gordon came

to breakfast at 9. I am only sorry, now I have made his acquaintance,

not to have known him sooner. He does not appear to be otherwise than in

perfect possession of perfect common sense. So much has been said to

imply his being “touched” in the head that I put this down as a very

distinct impression. But he is a man of ideas and in a prominent

position, and as such it is convenient to find his ideas utopian or

“mad.” He staid about two hours talking to Wilfrid—told us he believed

the Government now “sincerely” (because it suits them) intend to carry

out liberal policy—Chamber of Notables, etc.—in Egypt. Wilfrid replied

that he would believe it when he saw that on the Budget question they

act in such a manner, and he will judge them by what they settle about

taxation. If they lighten the taxes of the fellahin it will be a proof

of their sincerity. Nothing short of that will do, as the condition of

the poor people is too desperate to be otherwise mended. General Gordon

would not allow that any _party_ in Egypt could really abolish slavery.

It was in their nature to keep slaves—they could not change their

nature. He does not, I think, quite know the state of feeling in the

Mohammedan world or make allowance for the growth of a determination to

reform on the part of those who, not having great possessions of slaves

or anything else, will not be making great sacrifices in joining to

suppress it.

He is going out to “Palestine,” he says, next week. He must be being

sent, though he did not say it, to inquire into the state of the

Mussulman world there. Wilfrid promised to send the papers about the

Sheykhs in Jerusalem to him (copies) and asked him to occupy himself

with their case, which he said he would inquire into.

And so we parted. I hope we shall see him again.

_August_ 18, 1883 [London].—At 1 o’clock Colonel [D.H.] Stewart came to

luncheon. He has become very official in his views, though not in his

manners. He spoke of the hanging of the Bedouins at Tantah, and said

that a friend of his who saw it remarked how easily they died; they had

hardly to be touched by the rope before they were dead. There would be

no fear of any Englishman being attacked in the desert, he thought, for

a long time owing to the terror spread by these executions. He seemed

surprised when I said on the contrary that anywhere in the Arabian

desert it would be very unsafe in consequence. Wilfrid added, of course

in the Sinai peninsula it would be safe—there it always was safe (the

danger had been from the war). In the end Colonel Stewart exclaimed,

“Ah, well, I see we shall never agree, I wish England to be successful,

justly if possible, and unjustly if it cannot be justly.” He went away

at 3.

_Sept._ 30 [Cairo].—List of persons arrested in connection with the

pretended “Société des Vengeurs”:

Huseyn Bey Fehmy

Mustafa Bey Sidky

Abd el Razak Bey

Abd el Rahman Bey Hoja

Mohammed Bey Fenni

Ali Bey Fauzi

Sheykh Ahmed Nur

Mohammed Bey Shami

Huseyn Eff. Sagr

Saad Eff. Zaghloul

Mustafa Eff. Nashaat

Mahmud Eff. Soudani

Mohammed Bey Tahir

Osman Bey (his son)

Ahmed Eff. Rashaat

Mohammed Said (the French doctor)

also one Iskander and five servants.

_Sept._ 30.—Suleyman’s account of Yusuf Abu Diab’s death: Yusuf was a

great friend of his (Suleyman’s), and of Abd el Aal whose A.D.C. he was,

a very good fellow, and all that had been said against him was false. On

the day of the Tantah massacre Yusuf abu Diab arrived from Damietta at 4

of the day. The massacre had begun at 1 of the day and was still going

on, for it lasted twelve hours or more. At the station on getting out of

the train Yusuf saw a poor Christian woman from Alexandria whom the

people were about to kill. Yusuf saved her and taking her by the hand

conducted her to the Governorat, to the Mudir Ibrahim Adhem, who was

sitting in his room. Yusuf placed her in the Mudir’s charge, and

afterwards reproached the Mudir for sitting still there while the

massacre was going on. He said, “You are Mudir and all the troops and

police are under your orders. You must take soldiers and go out and stop

this. I shall inform Arabi Pasha of what you have allowed to happen.” He

took the next train and went to inform Arabi. A few days after, Ali

Pasha Fehmi was sent to Tantah to arrest the Mudir and bring him to

Cairo where he was imprisoned in the Kasr en Nil for a few days and then

sent to his house and ordered to remain there.

After the war Suleyman (the narrator) was for a month in prison with

Yusuf. He had been arrested with Abd el Aal saying, “If you are to die I

will die with you,” and he was with Abd el Aal in prison at Cairo. In

the meantime Ibrahim Adhem was reinstated by Tewfik at Tantah, and

hearing Yusuf was in prison at Cairo he had him sent for to be tried

before the Commission of Inquiry at Tantah. On his arrival Ibrahim came

to visit Yusuf. Suliman was present in the courtyard of the prison.

Ibrahim Adhem took Abu Diab by the moustache and said, “The day of the

massacre here you came and brought a _Nasranieh_ to me; you abused me

and you said you would inform Arabi Pasha. Was it you who did this?” “It

was I.” “_Inshallah_, you shall not come out of this but to be hanged.”

This was just outside the room in the courtyard. Ibrahim Adhem then

brought half-a-dozen men, Copts and Muslims, from the station and Abd er

Rahman the zabit of Tantah, and said to them, “You will go before the

_Mejliss Tahkik_, and say that on the day of the massacre I saw Yusuf

abu Diab saying to the people, “Kill the Christians,” and also that he

often told Arabi Pasha that he ought to “kill Tewfik or let me do so,”

but he was not willing. A certain Mahriz Bey of Alexandria also bore

witness against him falsely; these men swore through fear. The

Commission sent Yusuf back to the Court Martial at Cairo with the

_procès-verbal_, and the Court-Martial sentenced him to be hanged. Three

days later he was sent to Tantah and executed. He was brave. Suleyman

remained with him to the end. His last words to the people standing

round him were “O my brothers, I suffer injustice. But God grant you may

not see a day the like of this again and that I may be the last of those

unjustly condemned.” Then Ibrahim Adhem came up and said, “O Yusuf

Effendi, forgive me.” And Yusuf answered, “I do not forgive with my

tongue, for if I should forgive with my tongue my heart would not

forgive, and if my heart should forgive my children here would not

forgive, and if my children should forgive, our Lord (God) would not

forgive, for you are the cause of my being unjustly destroyed.” Then he

said, “Give me some water.” And they give it him and he drank a few

mouthfuls and said, “Put the rope on me.”

APPENDIX G

LETTERS TO MR. BLUNT ALLUDED TO IN, AND EXEMPLIFYING, THE TEXT

I. FROM SIR WILLIAM AND LADY GREGORY (EXTRACTS)

(_From Lady Gregory._)

Coole, _Sep._ 20, 1883 (received in Egypt). I am very glad you will stay

in Egypt, even long enough to let in a little ray of light on what is

going on. Moberly Bell is really excelling himself just now. I don’t

know if you have missed his accounts of the triumphal progress of the

“amiable and virtuous” (Tewfik). I am delighted at it, because, as I

wrote to Chenery, no one can say it is necessary to keep troops in the

country to keep up so popular a ruler! The account of the prisons also

would have been entertaining if they were not revolting—so many poor

wretches kept there for months and years, and then the door is opened

and they are shut up again, after having been allowed to kiss Moberly’s

boots! I am afraid Clifford Lloyd, the new “Adviser,” won’t be an

acquisition. I don’t know him, but by all accounts he is ambitious,

pretentious, and autocratic. He kept the country quiet here by driving

the whole population of a town into prison, on suspicion, and his

photograph reminds me of Colvin. There is not much to say of Ireland,

for there is a strange lull in the agitation of the last few years. The

people for the moment are busy with the harvest, and I fancy Parnell is

trying to keep things as quiet as possible until the next session, when

Gladstone has, I believe, promised him a very large measure of Home

Rule, much more than his colleagues approve of . . . I hope Arabi’s

election will take place, so that we may put M.P. after his name in

future. I hope they will think also of electing you, and that you will

become the Randolph of debate in the Cairo House of Commons. What a

farce the whole thing is! It will be as before. The wretched Notables

will be left alone until they speak of the Budget, and then will be

gagged.

_Oct._ 4. Sir William writes to me from London that you are credited

with having gone to India with the intention of overturning English

supremacy and establishing Mohammedan rule and rapine throughout the

Peninsula. So I think you have still a chance of Tower Hill! Kinglake

especially has been lamenting over you.

_Oct._ 17. Thank you for your letter from Suez. It gave me great

pleasure to hear of the success of your visit (to Cairo), for I call it

a success having seen so many of your friends, and learned that the

Khedive’s state is so hopeless. I was pretty sure Baring would not do

much for you; he has only just begun, and has not yet realized the

difficulty of his position, and I am sure the Government here are

trusting to him now as their last hope of helping them out of their

mess, and won’t take any new line till he fails. I am glad the poem

(“The Wind and the Whirlwind”) is to be published. It will make a more

lasting impression than any prose could do, and ever since it was

written I have felt it was pure waste of steam power keeping it shut up.

Sir William is very much struck with it, and I feel it must convert the

world. If this should reach you in Ceylon do homage to Arabi for me.

_Nov._ 13. I see Moberly Bell takes Gladstone’s announcement of the

withdrawal of the troops calmly, as they will be quite as effective at

Alexandria, and easy to bring back at a moment’s notice. None the less,

I shall be glad when they are out of Cairo. I hate the idea of ever

seeing them there, and perhaps the Khedive may think they are really

going to let him be his own master, and commit some atrocity which

Gladstone will have to notice, and which will give England an excuse to

let him topple over.

_December_ 18. Your letter in the “Times” (from Colombo) appeared the

same day I heard from you. Sir William tells me to say how extremely

good he thinks it. The time has nearly come when you will be appealed

to, the mess is so great, and the bankruptcy of the country seems within

measurable distance, and, indeed, is the first thing to hope for, and

every one is so much at sea about the Soudan, and all the

philanthrophists will be down on the Government for allowing Zebehr, the

king of the slave-dealers banished by Gordon, to be sent back at the

head of an army. It will be just the thing for those benevolent

beings—Randolph and Labouchere—to take up.

_Jan._ 10, 1884. I saw in the “Times” that you had arrived and been

warmly received at Calcutta. I wonder how Colvin received you. I think

the time has come when you are wanted in Egypt. Dicey goes there to-day,

a fellow passenger of Sir William’s (on his way to Ceylon), evidently to

help to form the Nubar-Dicey Ministry, which I have always looked

forward to as the last possible combination before Arabi’s return. I am

glad old Sherif has gone. We shan’t hear much more of his enlightened

policy! If you could find any Nationalists in Egypt who would dare to

lift up their voice and call for Arabi’s return, I believe the English

Radicals would take up the cry. Both Labouchere and Randolph are

speaking out like men, but they must have some support from Egypt. Sir

William sails to-day for Colombo. He writes from London that Hayward is

very ill, shut up in his room and hardly expected to recover. Kinglake

says of him: “He is too weak to hold his cards at whist, but not too

weak to d—— his partner.” I am sorry Chinese Gordon goes to the Congo

instead of the Nile.

_August_ 1. Many thanks for the printed correspondence, which is full of

interest. I have been looking over your letters to me of last year, and

have copied the only passage relating to Mr. Hamilton or Knowles, which

I enclose. I would lay as little stress as possible on the encouragement

you had from Downing Street, as the G.O.M. is capable of denying

everything, and as much as possible on the incontrovertible fact of your

threatened arrest. I hope the debate will come on soon. I was sure

Mohammed Abdu would create a good impression, between his graceful dress

and his graceful manner, which recalled Arabi’s. Mind you cultivate

Parnell, now you have broken the ice. He will be a great power in the

next Parliament, and his support will be worth a good deal.

(Extract enclosed.) “_Sep._ 3, 1883. Both Knowles and Button encourage

me to try the elections, and say that Baring is sure to be delighted to

see me, and will perhaps help. It appears he has _carte blanche_ to make

another new policy for the Government, and as he is one of Lord Ripon’s

strongest supporters in India, it is supposed that he will favour

Arabi’s return, or, at any rate, the restoration of a National Party in

some form or other.”

(Second extract enclosed) _Sep._ 21. “Everything up to the moment has

gone most prosperously. The morning we left I got a note from Mr.

Hamilton asking to see me before I went, and I accordingly went, after

nearly a year’s absence to Downing Street, and found him very amiable. I

told him exactly what I was going to do, and he approved and said he was

sure Baring would be very pleased to see me, and that he would write to

Lord Ripon’s private secretary to do all he could for me in India. About

Egypt I told him I should try and get Baring to restore the National

Party, but unless he would help me it was quite useless my trying, and I

should not stay in Egypt. So I shall know as soon as I get to Cairo

whether it is possible or not. I am certain Gladstone wants to restore,

but wants to have his hand forced by a manifestation of popular desire

in Egypt.”

(_From Sir William Gregory._)