CONCLUSION
1869-1879
On March 15th, 1869, Sir John Lawrence landed in England after an
absence of more than five years, his wife having preceded him thither
the year before. The friends, who welcomed his return, thought him
looking worn and broken. He was immediately raised to the peerage under
the title of Baron Lawrence of the Punjab and Grateley. The Prime
Minister (Mr. Gladstone), in the kindest terms, communicated to him the
pleasure of the Sovereign. For his armorial bearings he
characteristically adopted as supporters, two native Indian soldiers, a
Sikh and a Mahommedan, in order to perpetuate, so far as might be
possible, the remembrance of what he and his country owed to the men of
these classes. The name Grateley he took from the small estate on
Salisbury Plain which his sister Letitia, Mrs. Hayes, had left him on
her death. His home at Southgate had been transferred to Queen’s Gate in
South Kensington; and he very soon made a short tour to Lynton to see
his sister’s grave, and to Clifton near Bristol, the home of his
childhood.
In the spring of 1869, then, Lord Lawrence took his seat on the cross
benches of the House of Lords, apparently indicating that he had not as
yet attached himself formally to either political party, though he
certainly continued to be, what he had always been, a very moderate
Liberal in politics, anxious to preserve all the good institutions which
the nation possesses, while striving for such reforms as might prove to
be just, expedient or needful. His first rising in his place to say a
few words, on a matter relating to the organisation of the Council of
India at Whitehall, was greeted with significant cheers from both sides
of the House of Lords. At that time the Bill for disestablishing the
Irish Church was before Parliament, and in his heart he grieved over
this measure, being much moved by all the Ulster associations of his
youth, and well acquainted with all the considerations from a
Churchman’s point of view through his wife’s relations or connexions.
His regret was even intensified by his respect and esteem for the
Ministry of that day, especially for the Duke of Argyll, and for the
political party which comprised many of his best friends. When the Bill
came to the Lords from the Commons, he followed with keen but melancholy
interest the important debates which ensued, without however taking any
part in them. He voted for the second reading, in the belief that
resistance to the main principle of the measure had become hopeless in
the circumstances, and that it only remained for the friends of the
Church in the House of Lords to try and make the terms of
disestablishment more favourable to her than those offered by the House
of Commons, and to preserve as much of her property as possible. He
rejoiced when the House of Lords succeeded in doing much towards this
end.
At this time the loss of the troopship _Megæra_, off the south-western
coast of Africa, attracted much public attention; the Government
appointed a Commission of Inquiry of which he accepted the chairmanship.
Much evidence was taken and an elaborate report made, into all which
business he threw his wonted energy.
During the summer of 1869 his aspect brightened in the English air, and
the tired look began to disappear, as if the oppression of care had been
lightened. His circumstances were easy, and his means were adequate for
his requirements with that good management which he always gave to his
affairs. Though the inevitable gaps had been made by death among his
relations and connexions, still his domestic circle was more than
ordinarily peaceful and fortunate. His daughters were being married
happily, and his sons were growing up or entering the world
successfully. Thus the first year of his final return home drew to its
close favourably. The next year, 1870, he spent placidly at Queen’s
Gate, Kensington, recruiting his strength, until the autumn, which for
him became eventful.
He found that the Elementary Education Act had come into effect, and
that a great School Board for all London was to be assembled,
representing the several divisions of the metropolis. The elections took
place in November, and having accepted a nomination by the ratepayers of
his district, Chelsea, he was elected to be one of the members. When the
members of the Board assembled in the Guildhall, he was chosen by them
to be their Chairman, with Mr. C. Reed (afterwards Sir Charles) as
Vice-Chairman. His acceptance of this position, within a short time
after relinquishing the Government of India and returning to England,
gladdened his friends as proving at least a partial recovery of health,
but also surprised them. Thankless drudgery, as they thought, would be
his lot, while wearisome debates would tax his patience, and a
multiplicity of details would harass one who had been bred amidst
stirring affairs in distant lands. Some even wondered whether such work
as this would be for him _dignus vindice nodus_. He thought otherwise
however; and his immediate recognition, at the very outset, of the great
future in store for the London School Board, is a token of his
prescience and sagacity. He shared the anxiety then felt by many lest
the education given in the Board Schools should fail to include
religious instruction, and he decided for this reason among others to
put his massive shoulder to the wheel. He had the happiness soon to see
this instruction properly afforded. The work, too, was for the children
of the labouring poor, and--while looking towards high education with
due deference--he had fixed his heart always on elementary education. In
India he rejoiced in village schools, and during his sojourn in England
he had given attention to the schools near his house at Southgate.
Having accepted the Chairmanship, he was prepared not only to guide the
deliberations of the Board in a statesmanlike manner, but also to take a
personally active part in its business. The permanent officers of the
Board still remember the ardour and enthusiasm which he seemed to throw
into the work. Much as it might differ from that to which he had long
been used, yet he remembered the command,--that which thy hand findeth
to do, do it with all thy might.
On this Board he found many members in company with whom any man might
be glad to act: Lord Sandon (now Earl of Harrowby), Lord Mahon (the
present Earl Stanhope), Mr. W. H. Smith (now leader of the House of
Commons), Professor Huxley, Samuel Morley, the Reverend Anthony Thorold
(now Bishop of Rochester), and others. He presided regularly at the
weekly meetings, and when the executive business came to be done by
several committees, he attended them also with the utmost assiduity. On
this occasion, as on other occasions in his life, the acceptance of
fresh work seemed to have an electric effect on him. After the lapse of
seventeen years the operations of the Board are seen by all men to be
vast, probably the largest of their kind under any one Board in the
world; but in his day there was at first only a small beginning. The
number of children in the metropolis at voluntary schools (elementary)
of all kinds was little over three hundred thousand, too few for a
population of more than four millions, so the Board under his presidency
was to ascertain the total number of children of a school-going age,
then about three-quarters of a million, deduct therefrom the number
actually at voluntary schools, and for the remainder (technically called
the deficiency) provide Board Schools, after making allowance for those
who must unavoidably be absent.
In the very first instance he and his colleagues had to arrange the
working of the Board itself, which, as a representative body of
considerable importance, needed rules to be framed for the conduct of
its debates. He soon found the benefit of a definite procedure, because
public elementary education was new, and many questions which having
been since settled are now regarded as beyond dispute, were then in an
inchoate condition, and tossed about with diverse forces of argument.
Many of his colleagues were positive thinkers, fluent debaters, and
persons with independent or original ideas, so he had to preside
patiently over protracted discussions on grave subjects wherein, after a
survey of the arguments, his own mind was soon made up. So fast has been
the progress of public opinion, that nowadays, after the lapse of
seventeen years, we may wonder at the heat and pertinacity with which
several educational topics were debated before him: such as the exercise
of the powers for compelling attendance at the schools,--the
introduction of sound religious teaching,--the principles on which the
Board should calculate the educational wants which it was to
supply,--the curriculum of the subjects which should be taught in the
schools, as coming within the scope of elementary education,--the part
to be taken by the Board in carrying into effect the beneficent
principles of the Industrial Schools Act throughout the metropolitan
area,--the gradation of the fees payable by the scholars, and so on. He
rejoiced in the Resolution passed by the Board in 1871, that “The Bible
should be read, and that there should be given such explanations and
such instructions therefrom in the principles of religion and morality
as are suited to the capacity of children; provided that no attempt be
made to attach children to any particular denomination.”
He and his colleagues saw at once that the administration of so growing
a business as this could not be conducted by a deliberative body of more
than fifty members assembled once a week. He and they knew that the
executive work must really be done in Committees. So he arranged that on
one or more of the Committees every member of the Board should serve,
and that the recommendations of each Committee should be brought up to
the weekly meetings of the whole Board, for adoption, or for such other
orders as might be passed. Thus he saw those several Committees
constituted,--which have during the subsequent sixteen years done what
must be termed a mighty work,--for determining the provision of
school-places, according to the needs of the population,--for procuring,
and if necessary enforcing by law, the attendance at school,--for
distributing the large staff of teachers among a great number of
schools,--for dealing with the waif and stray children in the
streets,--for the purchase of sites for school-houses in densely peopled
quarters, and for the erection of buildings,--for managing the debt
which the Board must incur in building school-houses,--and for
determining annually the amount to be levied by precept from the
ratepayers of the metropolis.
He also saw a Divisional Committee appointed for each of the ten
electoral divisions of the metropolis, to consist of the members of the
Board representing that division with the assistance of local residents.
Then his Board furnished the Divisional Committees with a staff of
Visitors whose duty it was to make a house-to-house visitation, and to
register every child of a school-going age throughout the metropolis,
so that the attendance of all might be by degrees enforced; and this
far-reaching organisation still exists.
The elections being triennial, his Board, which had been elected as the
first Board in November, 1870, yielded place to its successor in
November, 1873. He then, from fatigue which necessitated repose,
resigned the Chairmanship after three years’ incumbency, and did not
seek re-election as a member. In fact, within his term, he had been once
obliged to be absent for a few months on account of sleeplessness
attributable to mental exertion. At the last meeting of his Board a vote
of thanks was accorded to him, on the motion of Samuel Morley seconded
by W. H. Smith, for the invariable kindness and ability which he had
evinced in the Chair.
Then it was announced that £400 had been contributed by members of the
Board in order to form a scholarship to perpetuate the memory of his
chairmanship, and £1000 were added by the Duke of Bedford “in order to
mark his sense of the services of Lord Lawrence and of the Board over
which his Lordship had presided.” The permanent officers of the Board
caused a portrait of him to be painted, which now hangs in the large
hall of the Board-meetings right over the Chair which is occupied by his
successors. A banquet was given in his honour by his colleagues, at
which a tribute to his labours in the Board was paid by Mr. W. E.
Forster, then a member of the Government, as vice-president of the
Council.
It may be well to cite some brief passages to show the estimation in
which he was held by the Board. When the vote of thanks on his
retirement was proposed, Mr. Samuel Morley, speaking as “an acknowledged
Nonconformist,” said that gentlemen of the most opposite opinions had
been able to work together harmoniously, and this result he attributed
in a large measure to the character of the Chairman. Mr. W. H. Smith
said “the way in which Lord Lawrence came forward had greatly tended to
rouse the minds of the people to the absolute duty of providing for the
education of the destitute children, not only of London, but of
England.” Another member said “his friends out of doors, the working
classes, would find fault with him if he did not on their behalf tender
their thanks to Lord Lawrence.”
From his reply one significant sentence may be quoted as showing that
his Board had been friendly to the Voluntary system of education in the
metropolis. “We have in no way trodden upon those who have gone before
us, or done anything to injure them, but on the contrary our sympathies
and feelings have been in the main with those who have preceded us, and
all we desired to do was to supplement the good work which they had
begun.”
Lastly, at the banquet Mr. Forster said that “the greatest compliment he
could pay to the Board would be to say that the work of the last three
years will not be the least interesting part of the history of Lord
Lawrence, and will bear comparison with many another passage in that
history.”
Thus ended the crowning episode in the story of his public life. He who
had been the master of many legions, had used the pomp and circumstance
of the East for exerting beneficent influence, had defended an empire
daring war and guided it in progressive ways during peace--now rejoiced
that the sunset of his career should be gilded by services to the poor
of London.
He continued, however, to take interest in matters cognate to education.
Being one of the Vice-Presidents of the Church Missionary Society, he
frequently attended the meetings of its General Committee. Once at a
gathering held in furtherance of the mission cause, he bore testimony on
behalf of the Missionaries in India, with words that are affectionately
cherished by all whom they concern.
“I believe that, notwithstanding all that the people of England
have done to benefit India (that is, by philanthropic effort), the
Missionaries have done more than all other agencies combined. They
have had arduous and uphill work, often receiving no encouragement,
and have had to bear the taunts and obloquy of those who despised
and disliked their preaching. But such has been the effect of their
earnest zeal, untiring devotion, and of the excellent example which
they have universally shown, that in spite of the great masses of
the people being opposed to their doctrine, they are, as a body,
popular in the country. I have a great reverence and regard for
them, both personally and for the sake of the great cause in which
they are engaged.”
In his three months’ absence, already mentioned, during his incumbency
in the School Board for London, he visited at Paris the scenes of the
Franco-German war and subsequent disturbances there. He also renewed his
recollections of Rome and Naples. Since 1871 he had taken for a summer
residence the beautiful Brockett Hall in Hertfordshire, fragrant with
the memories of Palmerston, and he kept it till the autumn of 1875. The
place and its surroundings always delighted him. The last years of
physical comfort that he was destined to enjoy were spent there. He
appeared to think himself old, though he was hardly so in years, being
then sixty-five; but over-exertion during his life of action may have
aged him prematurely. To his friends he would write that old age was
creeping over him.
Early in 1876 the eyes, which had been keen-sighted originally but had
for many years troubled him occasionally, began to fail, and an
operation was afterwards performed in London. During the summer he
suffered dreadful pain, and had for weeks to be kept in complete
darkness. From this misery he emerged in the autumn with one eye
sightless and the other distressfully weak. In the spring of the
following year, 1877, he submitted to a further operation, and took up
his abode in London at Queen’s Gate Gardens. Though unable to read or
write, he was relieved from the fear of blindness; so he made a short
tour in the New Forest, and attended the House of Lords occasionally
during the summer. In the autumn he visited Inverness, and was thankful
on finding himself able to read the Bible in large print. For the winter
he returned to Queen’s Gate Gardens, and in August of the next year,
1878, he moved for a while to Broadstairs in the Isle of Thanet. Soon he
began to take an anxious interest in the intelligence from Afghanistan,
which was then agitating the public mind in Britain. He dictated several
letters to the _Times_, reiterating with the old force and clearness his
well-known views on Afghan policy, which have been set forth in the
preceding chapter. He in conjunction with some of his political friends
pressed the Government in London for the production of papers that
might elucidate the circumstances, which had led to the military
operations by the British against Afghanistan, and especially the
conduct, as proved or surmised, of the Amir Shir Ali. He saw, however,
that events came thick and fast; the war advanced apace, and was
followed by a treaty with Shir Ali’s son Yakoob; the papers were
produced in England, and the whole matter was disposed of in Parliament
by a late autumn session.
Early in 1879 he seemed fairly well, though he himself had felt warnings
of the coming end. But in the spring he paid flying visits to Edinburgh
and Manchester. In May he made a wedding-speech on the marriage of his
second son. On June 19th he attended the House of Lords for the last
time. His object in so doing was to make a speech on a License Tax which
had recently been imposed in India. He did not object to such taxes
being introduced there to touch the rich and the comparatively
prosperous middle classes; indeed he had levied such himself. But he
deprecated them extremely if they reached the poor, and he was
apprehensive lest this particular tax should go too far in that
direction. Therefore he wished to raise his voice on the subject. But it
was with him that day as it had been with dying statesmen before, and
the sad history repeated itself. His once resonant voice, his strong
nerve, his retentive memory, failed him in some degree, and he was not
able to deliver fully a speech for which he had made preparations with
his wonted carefulness. Yet it was fitting, even poetically meet, that
this supreme effort of his should have been put forth on behalf of the
industrial poor for whom he had ever cared at home and abroad. However
he sat out the debate and drove home exhausted. During the ensuing days
drowsiness set in, and he, the indefatigable worker at last complained
of fatigue. But for the briefest while he revived enough to attend to
private business. He was present, too, at an anniversary meeting on
behalf of the asylum at Hampstead for the orphan daughters of soldiers,
and proposed a vote of thanks to the Duchess of Connaught. The next day
the sleepiness again overtook him, and continued for the two following
days, though he aroused himself enough to attend to business. Then he
became too weak to leave his bed, and shortly afterwards died
peacefully, surrounded by those who were nearest and dearest to him.
Two statues are standing in memory of him; one opposite the Government
House at Calcutta, on the edge of that famous plain, called the Mydan,
which is being gradually surrounded with monuments of British heroism
and genius; the other at Waterloo Place in London, side by side with
Clyde and face to face with Franklin. No stately inscriptions
commemorate his achievements in classic terms. His friends deemed it
best to engrave his great name on the stone, with the simplest
particulars of time and place.
But the most sympathetically human demonstration was that at the funeral
on July 5th, when his body was laid “to mingle with the illustrious
dust” in Westminster Abbey. The Queen and the Prince of Wales were each
represented in this closing scene. All the renowned Anglo-Indians then
in England were present. The gathering, too, comprised much that was
representative of Britain in war and peace, in art, literature and
statesmanship. The decorations of the officers, won in Eastern service,
shone amidst the dark colours of mourning. The words of the anthem were
“his body is buried in peace but his name liveth for evermore.” As the
coffin was lowered, the concluding lines of the hymn were sung:
“And at our Father’s loved abode
Our souls arrive in peace.”
The funeral sermon was preached in the choir by Dean Stanley, who
exclaimed as he ended: “Farewell, great Proconsul of our English
Christian empire! Where shall we look in the times that are coming for
that disinterested love, that abounding knowledge of India, like his?
Where shall we find that resolution of mind and countenance which seemed
to say to us,
‘This rock shall fly
From its firm base as soon as I’?”
THE END
_Printed by_ R. & R. CLARK, _Edinburgh_.
* * * * *
_Vols. I.-IV., with Portraits, Now Ready, 2s. 6d. each._
English Men of Action.
=General Gordon.= By Colonel Sir WILLIAM BUTLER.
The _Athenæum_ says:--“As a brief memorial of a career that
embraced many momentous spheres of action, that included some of
the principal military and colonial crises of the past fifty years,
and that ended in a halo of transcendent self-immolation, Sir
William Butler’s volume is the best we possess.”
The _Spectator_ says:--“This is beyond all question the best of the
narratives of the career of General Gordon that have yet been
published.”
The _St. James’s Gazette_ says:--“Sir William Butler tells the
story of Gordon’s life as a brother officer should. The interest
never flags, and the narrative is imbued with a deep feeling of
reverence.”
The _Broad Arrow_ says:--“If the succeeding biographies of ‘English
Men of Action’ do not in interest fall beneath, whilst in
compilation they attain, the standard excellence of this volume,
with which the series begins, they will form a notable addition to
the library and furnish a valuable source of reference to the
student of history.... To Plutarch’s Lives we would now recommend
our young officers to add the ‘Life of Charles George Gordon’ as
related by Sir William Butler.”
=Henry the Fifth.= By the Rev. A. J. CHURCH.
The _St. James’s Gazette_ says:--“The incidents in Henry’s life are
clearly related, the account of the battle of Agincourt is
masterly, and the style is eminently readable.”
The _Scotsman_ says:--“No page lacks interest; and whether the book
is regarded as a biographical sketch or as a chapter in English
military history, it is equally attractive. This series of books
promises to be as successful as the ‘English Men of Letters’
Series.”
The _Spectator_ says:--“Mr. Church has told well his interesting
story.”
The _Yorkshire Post_ says:--“The story of Henry V. is told here
with remarkable skill--the whole history is gathered up in the most
lucid and vigorous way.”
=Livingstone.= By Mr. THOMAS HUGHES.
The _Spectator_ says:--“The volume is an excellent instance of
miniature biography, for it gives us what we seek in such a book--a
sketch of his deeds, but a picture of the man.... This excellent
little book.”
The _Scotsman_ says:--“The stirring story is narrated in terse and
vivid language, and with remarkable completeness ... a better
biographer than Mr. Hughes could not have been found for so
excellent a type of the muscular Christian as Dr. Livingstone. He
was a man, and his was a life after the biographer’s heart.”
=Lord Lawrence.= By Sir RICHARD TEMPLE.
The Volumes to follow are:--
=Wellington.= By Mr. GEORGE HOOPER.
[_In June._
=Monk.= By Mr. JULIAN CORBETT.
[_In July._
The price of each is half a crown, and the volumes named below are
either in the press or in preparation:--
=Sir John Hawkwood.= By Mr. F. MARION CRAWFORD.
=Warwick, the King-Maker.= By Mr. C. W. OMAN.
=Peterborough.= By Mr. W. STEBBING.
=Strafford.= By Mr. H. D. TRAILL.
=Montrose.= By Mr. MOWBRAY MORRIS.
=Dampier.= By Mr. W. CLARK RUSSELL.
=Captain Cook.= By Mr. WALTER BESANT.
=Clive.= By Colonel Sir CHARLES WILSON.
=Warren Hastings.= By Sir ALFRED LYALL.
=Sir John Moore.= By Colonel MAURICE.
=Sir Charles Napier.= By Colonel Sir WILLIAM BUTLER.
=Havelock.= By Mr. ARCHIBALD FORBES.
=Marlborough.= By Colonel Sir WILLIAM BUTLER.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
* * * * *
POPULAR EDITION, ONE SHILLING EACH.
Popular Edition, now Publishing in monthly Volumes (Volume I., January
1887) price 1s. each in Paper Cover, or in Limp Cloth Binding, 1s. 6d.
ENGLISH MEN OF LETTERS.
EDITED BY JOHN MORLEY.
“This admirable series.”--_British Quarterly Review._
“Enjoyable and excellent little books.”--_Academy._
JOHNSON. By LESLIE STEPHEN.
SCOTT. By R. H. HUTTON.
GIBBON. By J. C. MORISON.
SHELLEY. By J. A. SYMONDS.
HUME. By T. H. HUXLEY, F.R.S.
GOLDSMITH. By WILLIAM BLACK.
DEFOE. By W. MINTO.
BURNS. By Principal SHAIRP.
SPENSER. By the DEAN of ST. PAUL’S.
THACKERAY. By ANTHONY TROLLOPE.
BURKE. By JOHN MORLEY.
MILTON. By MARK PATTISON.
HAWTHORNE. By HENRY JAMES.
SOUTHEY. By Prof. DOWDEN.
BUNYAN. By J. A. FROUDE.
CHAUCER. By A. W. WARD.
COWPER. By GOLDWIN SMITH.
POPE. By LESLIE STEPHEN.
BYRON. By JOHN NICHOL.
DRYDEN. By GEORGE SAINTSBURY.
LOCKE. By THOMAS FOWLER.
WORDSWORTH. By F. W. H. MYERS.
LANDOR. By SIDNEY COLVIN.
DE QUINCEY. By DAVID MASSON.
CHARLES LAMB. By Rev. A. AINGER.
BENTLEY. By Prof. R. C. JEBB.
DICKENS. By A. W. WARD.
GRAY. By EDMUND GOSSE.
SWIFT. By LESLIE STEPHEN.
STERNE. By H. D. TRAILL.
MACAULAY. By J. C. MORISON.
FIELDING. By AUSTIN DOBSON.
SHERIDAN. By Mrs. OLIPHANT.
ADDISON. By W. J. COURTHOPE.
BACON. By the DEAN of ST. PAUL’S.
SIR PHILIP SIDNEY. By J. A. SYMONDS.
COLERIDGE. By H. D. TRAILL.
KEATS. By SIDNEY COLVIN.
⁂ _Other Volumes to follow._
MR. JOHN MORLEY’S COLLECTED WORKS.
A New Edition. In Ten Volumes. Globe 8vo. Price 5s. each.
VOLTAIRE. One Vol.
DIDEROT AND THE ENCYCLOPÆDISTS. Two Vols.
ROUSSEAU. Two Vols.
ON COMPROMISE. One Vol.
MISCELLANIES. Three Vols.
BURKE. One Vol.
=On the Study of Literature.= By JOHN MORLEY. Globe 8vo. 2s. 6d.
=Aphorisms.= By JOHN MORLEY. Globe 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Now Publishing. Crown 8vo. Price 2s. 6d. each.
TWELVE ENGLISH STATESMEN.
The _Times_ says:--“We had thought that the cheap issues of uniform
volumes on all manner of subjects were being overdone, but the
‘Twelve English Statesmen,’ published by Messrs. Macmillan, induce
us to reconsider that opinion. Without making invidious
comparisons, we may say that nothing better of the sort has yet
appeared, if we may judge by the five volumes before us. The names
of the writers speak for themselves.”
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR. By EDWARD A. FREEMAN, D.C.L., LL.D.
[_Ready._
HENRY II. By Mrs. J. R. GREEN.
[_Ready._
EDWARD I. By F. YORK POWELL.
HENRY VII. By JAMES GAIRDNER.
[_Shortly._
CARDINAL WOLSEY. By Professor M. CREIGHTON, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.
[_Ready._
ELIZABETH. By E. S. BEESLY.
OLIVER CROMWELL. By FREDERIC HARRISON.
[_Ready._
WILLIAM III. By H. D. TRAILL.
[_Ready._
WALPOLE. By JOHN MORLEY.
[_Shortly._
CHATHAM. By JOHN MORLEY.
PITT. By JOHN MORLEY.
[_Shortly._
PEEL. By J. R. THURSFIELD.
[_Shortly._
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:
the Jullandur Doab=> the Jullundur Doab {pg 27}
serving in Oudh=> serving in Oude {pg 126}