_THE TRUE REASONS OF BURTON’S RECALL_
No might nor greatness in mortality
Can censure ’scape: back-wounding calumny
The whitest virtue strikes. What king so strong,
Can tie the gall up in the slanderous tongue?
SHAKSPEARE.
At this point of the narrative it is necessary to turn aside to deal
with Miss Stisted’s impeachment of Lady Burton, in the matter of her
husband’s recall from Damascus.
Miss Stisted asserts that the true cause of Burton’s recall was Isabel
his wife, who had espoused with more zeal than discretion the cause
of the Shazli converts to Christianity. She adds: “And while her
husband, continually absent exploring or attending to the duties of
his Consulate, knew nothing, or next to nothing, about her dangerous
proceedings, she impressed upon the people that she acted with his
full permission and approval.”[4] It was (according to Miss Stisted)
Isabel’s “imprudence and passion for proselytizing” which so enraged
the Moslems and the Turkish authorities against Burton that they
clamoured for his recall. Thus it is argued that “the true cause of the
terrible crash in 1871” was Isabel, and Isabel alone.
This, in brief, is the sum and substance of Miss Stisted’s indictment
of Lady Burton on this point. She makes her accusation without adducing
a scrap or shred of evidence in support of it, and she makes it in the
teeth of the most positive evidence on the other side. Let us examine
her charges in the light of facts.
Fortunately, in searching for the true reasons of Burton’s recall from
Damascus, I am not dependent, like Miss Stisted, on a mere opinion of
my own, nor am I dependent on the testimony of Lady Burton, which,
though correct in every detail, might be refused acceptance, on the
plea that it was biassed. The true reasons are to be found in an
official Blue Book,[5] which contains a review of the whole case. This
book publishes the complete correspondence, official and otherwise,
for and against Burton, and comprises a review of his Consulship at
Damascus from the time he was appointed, in November, 1868, to the day
of his recall, in August, 1871.
It is impossible to read this correspondence dispassionately without
wondering how it was that Burton was not removed from his post at
Damascus before. In the brief space of two years he seems to have
managed to set against himself almost every creed, nationality, and
interest in Damascus. From the time he went there to the day he
was recalled it was little but one long strife. Complaints to his
Consul-General at Beyrout, to his Ambassador at Constantinople, to his
Chief at the Foreign Office, were incessant; and as they came not from
one part of the community of Damascus only, but from several, it is a
marvel that the authorities at the Foreign Office, who love nothing
better than that things should run, or seem to run, smoothly at the
embassies and consulates, were so patient and long-suffering. That
they were so forbearing was, I think, largely due to his wife--this
same Isabel who, according to Miss Stisted, was responsible for her
husband’s recall and the consequent ruin of his official career. It was
Isabel who fought Burton’s battles on every charge against him, and she
defended him against every attack. Her letters to Lord Granville, to
Sir Henry Elliot, Ambassador at Constantinople, to the Consul-General
at Beyrout, to Lord Derby and other influential friends in England,
and to the permanent officials at the Foreign Office, explaining and
defending her husband’s action in every particular, are marvels of
special pleading. They are not published, because they would fill
volumes; but they can be produced, if necessary.
My contention is, that Isabel had nothing to do with her husband’s
recall from Damascus. On the contrary, had it not been for her, he
would have been recalled long before. I also submit that she had very
little to do in the matter of the Shazlis, and that little she did with
her husband’s full consent and approval. Burton alone was responsible
for his recall in that he managed to offend nearly every part of
the community at Damascus, and so gave the Turkish authorities, who
disliked him from the first, an excuse for demanding his recall. I do
not say that he was wrong in every instance--far from it; he was often
in the right; only it is possible to do the right thing in the wrong
way, and this Burton generally did.
And now for the proofs. It is necessary to begin at the beginning. From
the first Burton took up his work at Damascus with “pinioned arms,”
to use his own phrase. In other words, he started with a prejudice
against him. Lord Derby (then Lord Stanley), as we know, gave him the
appointment; but before it was confirmed Lord Clarnedon succeeded Lord
Stanley at the Foreign Office, and in the interval Burton’s enemies,
chiefly Protestant missionaries, who feared he was anti-missionary,
took steps to work upon Lord Clarendon to prevent his appointment
going forward. So strong and influential was this opposition that Lord
Clarendon sent for Burton specially, and had a long conversation with
him. He told him that “very serious objections” to his appointment at
Damascus had reached the Foreign Office, and, although he allowed the
appointment to go forward, on receiving from Burton assurances that the
objections were unfounded, he warned him that, if the feeling stated to
exist against him on the part of the authorities and people at Damascus
should prevent the proper performance of his Consular duties, it would
be the duty of the Government immediately to recall him.
In a subsequent letter Lord Clarendon directed his Secretary to repeat
to Burton what he had already told him verbally.[6]
To this letter Burton replied: “I once more undertake to act with
unusual prudence, and under all circumstances to hold myself, and
myself only, answerable for the consequences.”[7]
Whether or not he acted with “unusual prudence” the following will show:
1. _His difference with the English missionaries._--The first
unpleasantness occurred in June and July, 1870, with the Superintendent
of the British Syrian School at Beyrout. This gentleman, who was
a Protestant missionary, came to Damascus to proselytize, and to
distribute tracts among the Moslems, and doubtless acted with little
discretion. Burton reprimanded him, and reported him to the Foreign
Office. In this no doubt he was right; but his manner of doing it
apparently inflamed many against him, especially the wife of the
missionary aforesaid, who vigorously espoused her husband’s cause, and
in this was supported officially by the Consul-General at Beyrout. The
matter blew over for a time, but the attack was renewed again in 1871,
and there was constant friction going on the whole time of Burton’s
sojourn at Damascus between himself and the missionary and his wife and
their friends, who were very influential persons in Syria.
2. _His squabble with the Druzes._--This occurred in 1870. Here we
find Burton protecting the missionaries against certain Druzes, who had
plundered and maltreated two English missionaries travelling amongst
them. Burton’s method of punishing the Druzes was summary. He wished to
impose a fine upon them. This the Consul-General at Beyrout refused to
impose, and again Burton came into conflict with his Consul-General.
It was obvious that, whether the Druzes deserved to be fined or not,
the man to impose the fine was not the British Consul, but the Turkish
Governor-General, as they were Turkish subjects. In this matter
therefore, although Burton acted with the best intentions, he exceeded
his jurisdiction.
3. _His dispute with the Jews._--This was one of the most serious
affairs in which Burton was engaged; and here again, though there is
no doubt that he was perfectly right in what he did, his manner of
doing it gave dire offence. He curbed the rapacity of some Jewish
money-lenders, under British protection, who wished to “sweat” the
native peasantry for the payment of their unjust debts, and desired the
British Consul to help them in their extortions. This Burton rightly
refused to do. And a little later he arrested two Jewish boys, servants
of British-protected Jews, for drawing crosses on the walls--the usual
sign for an outbreak of Christian persecution at Damascus--and took
away temporarily the British protection from their masters. This gave
the usurers the opportunity they had been waiting for, and they wrote
to the Foreign Office an untrue and unjust report, saying that the
Consul was full of hatred against the Jews, and demanding his recall.
Lord Granville sent a special letter, requesting to know the truth of
these charges, which he described as “most serious.” Fortunately Burton
was able to satisfy him, and the storm blew over. But the Jews neither
forgot it nor forgave him.
4. _The Greeks stone him at Nazareth._--Lady Burton has already
given a long account of this incident, and there is no reason to doubt
the correctness of her description. Here we find that the Greek Bishop
and his people disliked Burton because he had exposed a fraudulent
transaction of theirs with the Jews. But whatever was the cause,
there was no doubt that they were opposed to him; and the riot, which
arose from an apparently accidental cause, was really an outbreak
of bitterly hostile feeling against the British Consul. The Greek
Bishop of Nazareth at once drew up a grossly exaggerated report of the
proceedings, which was endorsed by the Wali of Syria, and forwarded
to the authorities at home. Will it be believed that Burton never
sent home any report of the affair until some weeks afterwards, when
he returned to Damascus, and found a telegram awaiting him from the
British Ambassador at Constantinople, asking what it all meant? His
silence in this matter, though not intentional, created the very worst
impression among the authorities at home. Sir Henry Elliot wrote to
Isabel subsequently:
“I received versions of the affair from different quarters, without
having a word of explanation from Captain Burton, from whom I got
letters of a date much subsequent to the occurrence.”[8]
Considering how very fond Burton was of referring all sorts of
questions on the internal government of Syria, with which he had
nothing to do, to his Ambassador at Constantinople, his silence on this
occasion, in a matter with which he had all to do, was, to say the
least, somewhat unfortunate.
5. _His dispute with the Wali._--The Wali (the Turkish Governor-General
of Syria) was, from the first, exceedingly jealous of Burton, because
of his knowledge of Eastern affairs, and his habit of interfering with
the internal government of the country, with which he had no concern.
Corrupt though Turkish rule undoubtedly was, and is, it was no part
of the British Consul’s duty to be perpetually meddling in disputes
between the Wali and his subjects. Sir Henry Elliot wrote to Isabel, in
reply to a letter of hers excusing her husband:
“I should not be frank if I allowed you to suppose that your letters
had satisfied me that there were not grounds for the complaints which
have been made of Captain Burton going beyond the proper attributions
of a Consul, who ought to be very careful to avoid encroaching upon
the domain of the legitimate authorities, who are responsible for the
administration of their district, which he is not. He can be of great
service as long as there is a proper understanding with the Government,
but a very dangerous state of things is created if he makes himself a
rival authority to whom the disaffected think that they can look for
redress.”[9]
This (there is no doubt about it) Burton was always doing; and his
knowledge of oriental affairs and methods made him all the more
formidable to the Wali. Matters came to a head when Burton went to
visit the Druzes in the Haurán, a month or two before his recall. By
some means or other he spoiled the Wali’s game in that quarter; and
this incensed the Governor so much against him that he tried first to
have him assassinated in the desert, and that failing, demanded his
recall. Of this incident Burton himself says:
“I was not aware that the Wali (Governor-General) had a political move
in the Haurán which he did not wish me to see, or that, seeing, it was
the signal for him to try and obtain my recall.”[10]
If this matter had stood alone, perhaps it would not have been
sufficient ground for his recall; but coming as it did on the top of
all the others, it was, I think, the most potent factor.
There was another little annoyance too about this time--that is, just
before Burton’s recall. It had reference to the case of one Hasan, a
Moslem converted to Christianity, whom the Wali wanted to punish, but
whom Burton protected against him. Burton’s action in this matter was
chivalrous and generous no doubt, but it did not tend to make him any
better friends with the Wali at a time when the irritation between them
was already at its height. With regard to what followed, I think that
I had better give Burton’s own words, as they will show very distinctly
what were the culminating causes of his recall:
“He (the Wali) actually succeeded in causing the Foreign Office to
confine me to Damascus at a time when the climate was peculiarly
hot and unwholesome--mid-July. I was suffering from fever, and the
little English colony was all in summer quarters. He affected to
look upon a trip to the Haurán as an event pregnant with evil to
his administration, and actually composed a circular from me to the
Druzes. I was compelled, in return, to make known Rashid Pasha’s
maladministration of Syria, his prostitution of rank, his filling every
post with his own sycophants, who are removed only when they have
made money enough to pay for being restored; his fatuous elevation
of a Kurdish party; his perjuries against the Druzes; his persistent
persecution of Moslem converts to Christianity in the teeth of treaties
and firmans; his own sympathy with the Greeks, and through them with
Russia; and, finally, his preparations for an insurrection in Syria,
should Egypt find an opportunity of declaring her independence. I
meanwhile continued to push my demand for the six million piastres
claimed by British subjects in Syria. My list shows a grand total of
eleven, and of these five are important cases. On July 4, 1871, I wrote
to the Foreign Office and to the Ambassador, urging that a Commission
be directed to inquire into the subject and to settle the items found
valid. I expressed a hope that I might be permitted personally to
superintend the settlement of these debts, with whose every item the
study of twenty-one months had made me familiar, and another six months
would have seen Syria swept clean and set in order. On August 16, 1871,
I was recalled suddenly, on the ground that the Moslems were fanatical
enough to want my life. I have proved that to be like all the rest of
Rashid Pasha’s reports--utterly false.”[11]
With regard to the reasons given by Lord Granville for Burton’s recall,
I may say that, in a letter which he sent under Flying Seal, dated
July 22, 1871, and which reached Burton on the day of his recall, he
recapitulated the dispatch written to Burton by Lord Clarendon on his
appointment to Damascus, reminding him of the conditions under which he
was appointed to the post, and saying that the complaints which he had
received from the Turkish Government in regard to his recent conduct
and proceedings rendered it impossible that he should allow him to
continue to perform any Consular functions in Syria, and requesting him
to make his preparations for returning to England with as little delay
as possible.[12]
I think that the foregoing statements will fully explain the true
reasons which led to the recall of Burton from Damascus. It will be
seen that in the above charges against Burton the question of the
Shazlis does not enter; and in the face of all this evidence, how is
it possible to maintain that Isabel was the true cause of her husband’s
recall? The converted Shazlis, whose cause she is supposed to have
espoused with fanatical zeal, hardly entered into the matter at all.
Indeed, in the whole of the Blue Book from which I have quoted, there
is only one reference to the Shazlis, and that is in a letter which
Burton addressed to Sir Henry Elliot on the revival of Christianity
among them. Miss Stisted says that Burton was as likely to assist
in increasing the number of the Syrian Christians, “of whom he had
the lowest opinion,” “as to join in a Shakers’ dance.” Yet in this
letter to his official chief Burton dwells at length on the revival
of Christianity in Syria, and calls attention to the persecution and
increasing number of the converted Shazlis, and asks for instructions
as to what he is to do. “The revival,” he says, “is progressing,” and
“this persecution,” and he regards it in the “gravest light.”[13] Also
in a special letter to the Protestant missionaries Burton writes:
“Meanwhile I take the liberty of recommending to your prudent
consideration the present critical state of affairs in Syria. A
movement which cannot but be characterized as a revival of Christianity
in the land of its birth seems to have resulted from the measures
adopted by the authorities and from the spirit of inquiry which your
missions have awakened in the breasts of the people. The new converts
are now numbered by thousands: men of rank are enrolling themselves
on the lists, and proselytizing has extended even to the Turkish
soldiery.”[14]
All this bears out Isabel’s statement that her husband was interested
in the Shazlis; but, all the same, it does not enter into the question
of his recall. Even if it did, so far from acting without her husband’s
consent in this matter (and she really did very little), she did
nothing without his approval, for he actively sympathized in the case
of the Shazlis. His letters to the missionaries and to Sir Henry
Elliot form proof of this; and in face of this documentary evidence
the “Shakers’ dance” theory does not hold good. Miss Stisted, however,
makes her assertion without any evidence, and says that Lord Granville
evaded the main question when sounded on the subject of Burton’s
recall. How she became aware of the inner mind of Lord Granville is not
apparent, and under the circumstances dispassionate readers will prefer
the testimony of the Blue Book to her cool assumption of superior
knowledge. Something more than mere assertion is needed to support a
charge like this.
Equally baseless too is the insinuation against Isabel contained in the
following passage:
“Significant enough it is to any unprejudiced reader that the next
appointment [_i.e._ of Burton’s] was to a Roman Catholic
country.”[15]
The “unprejudiced reader” would probably see the significance in
another light--the significance of refusing to appoint Burton again
to a Mohammedan country, and of repeatedly refusing him the post he
coveted at Morocco.
None of these accusations or innuendoes against Isabel can be
entertained when confronted with sober facts; they are in short nothing
but the outcome of a jealous imagination. Isabel the cause of her
husband’s recall, the ruin of his career! She through whose interest
Burton had obtained the coveted post at Damascus; she who fought his
battles for him all round; she who shielded him from the official
displeasure; she who obeyed his lightest wish, and whose only thought
from morning to night was her husband’s welfare and advancement; she
who would have died for him,--this same woman, according to Miss
Stisted, deliberately behind her husband’s back ran counter to his
wishes, fanned the flame of fanaticism, and brought about the crash
which ruined his career! Was there ever a more improbable charge? But
the accusation has overshot the mark, and, like the boomerang, it
returns and injures no one but its author.