AN INDIAN REFORMER
(1874-1879)
Never to know that you are beaten is the way to victory. To be
before one's Government is an honourable distinction. What greater
reward can a good worker desire than that the next generation
should forget him, regarding as an obsolete truism work which his
own generation called a visionary fanaticism?--FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE
(1877).
Miss Nightingale was in one sense never more in office than when she was
"out of office." The passion of her later life was the redress of Indian
sufferings and grievances, and during the years 1874-79, and for many
years afterwards, she did an enormous amount of work to that end. It was
the kind of work which a Minister does, or sets his subordinates to do,
when he is getting up a subject for parliamentary debate, or framing a
project of legislation. The _milieu_ in which Miss Nightingale did this
work was also in a sense official. Her excursions into difficult
problems of Indian policy and administration were regarded by many
people as unsafe and inexpedient, and this view was not confined to such
officials as disagreed with her conclusions. Mr. Jowett was alternately
overborne by her enthusiasm into trying to help her Indian work, and
insistent upon her giving up most of it. The latter attitude
predominated. Indian land questions were not her special subjects; she
could never hope to know the ins and outs of them. Her sister was
uniformly of the same opinion: "What _can_ you know about such things,
my dear?" But, after all, how much does a minister know at first-hand of
the business of a Department new to him? Generally, far less than Miss
Nightingale knew of Indian business. A minister either accepts the
views of his subordinates, or becomes himself a master of his subject by
using access to the best sources of information. Miss Nightingale, to a
considerable extent, had access to the same sources. She corresponded
with successive Secretaries of State and Viceroys. She was in close
touch during many years with the Permanent Under-Secretary, Sir Louis
Mallet, who, though he did not always agree with her particular
conclusions, was entirely sympathetic in her general aims, and, so far
as official propriety admitted, gave her every facility for pursuing her
researches. Indian Governors and ex-Governors were at her service for
information or discussion. There is voluminous correspondence during
these years with her old friends, Lord Napier and Ettrick and Sir Bartle
Frere, and with new friends, Sir George Campbell and Sir Richard Temple.
With Sir George, a frequent visitor at South Street, she was especially
well pleased. "Not for years," she wrote to M. Mohl (Aug. 10, 1874),
"have I seen a man in such heroic passion against oppression."
Anglo-Indians, when in retirement in South Kensington, are seldom averse
from imparting their views, and Miss Nightingale had a retinue of them,
pleased to give her information. Those who had inside experience knew
how much she had done for India, and took it as a compliment that she
should notice their work and ask them for advice. "Accept my most
grateful thanks," wrote General Baker, on retiring from the India Office
Council (Oct. 11, 1875), "not only for your very kind letter[164] and
important pamphlet, but also for one of the most complete and agreeable
surprises that I have ever met with. It never occurred to me for a
moment that my humble efforts for the sanitation of India were so
indulgently watched by the High Priestess of the Science." Colonel Yule,
the member of Council who succeeded Sir Bartle Frere in the charge of
sanitary affairs, and Mr. W. T. Thornton, the Secretary for Public
Works, were in frequent correspondence with her. On the special subject
of irrigation, she was "coached," not only by a leading authority
presently to be mentioned, but by General Rundall (ex-Inspectorgeneral
of Indian irrigation), Colonel J. G. Fife, Colonel F. T. Haig, and many
other experts. When she turned to Indian education, Mr. A. W. Croft, the
Director of Public Instruction, corresponded freely with her. Of her
private studies, there is evidence in a great accumulation of Indian
Blue-books, Proceedings, Minutes, pamphlets, and other papers, of which
many are annotated, abstracted, collated. She had, too, a network of
correspondents in India. There were in various parts of the country
Sanitary Commissioners, doctors, engineers, Irrigation officers, who
wrote to her constantly, and sometimes more freely than in official
reports. There were occasions--as in a dispute, once hot, now as dead as
the unhappy subjects of it[165]--when her friends in the India Office
had to admit that her information was earlier and better than theirs.
So, then, if her friends asked why she meddled in affairs of which she
could not really know anything, she only set the harder to work in
mastering the voluminous information at her disposal.
[164] Miss Nightingale's letter is given at p. 51 of Colonel Yule's
_Memoir of General Sir William Erskine Baker_ (privately printed
1882).
[165] There is a reference to this subject--of Famine mortality--in a
letter from Mr. Gladstone quoted below, p. 292.
Yet, all the while, she was "out of office." The conjunction of
circumstances which gave her much immediate power at the War Office,
through Sidney Herbert, and afterwards in the earlier stages of Indian
sanitary reform, was no longer operative; and there was now
disproportion between her expenditure of effort and the immediate effect
which it produced. In this part of her life's work Miss Nightingale
suffered from some confusion of aim. Her official connections, though
they gave her the advantage of some good information, interfered with
the effect of her work as a publicist. Her work as a publicist made her
distrusted in some official circles. She would perhaps have done better
to confine her exertions to the influencing of public opinion by more
consistent and sustained writing. The pity of it is, as we shall learn
presently, that the book which she designed as a permanent contribution
to the Indian question was never completed in her life-time. Still, in
spite of all, Miss Nightingale's work as an Indian Reformer, which
absorbed many hours of every day in her life for twenty-five years, was
not without effect. In various specific matters she exerted some
influence at the time; whilst her personal influence and her writings
did something to form the public opinion which made later reforms
possible.
II
Miss Nightingale's primary interest in India was in connection with
sanitation, and I shall give one or two instances of her resumed
activity in this field before passing to the larger sphere into which
that interest came necessarily to be absorbed. From time to time she
still intervened, and not without success, to promote the health of the
Army in India. Thus, on July 21, 1874, the Commander-in-Chief, Lord
Napier of Magdala, wrote to her, enclosing a Minute which he had "been
obliged to write in defence of the soldiers," as improvements to
barracks and in other respects were "delayed year after year." The
Minute, he explained, was Private and Confidential, but he wished that
the facts which had called it forth could be used in some legitimate
way. "I cannot help telling you, dear Miss Nightingale, as I know you
love the soldiers as well as you did in the Crimea when you broke down
the doors of red tape for them, a scene which I hope to see embodied in
marble before I die." On receipt of this letter, Miss Nightingale called
a meeting of _her_ Indian Council--Sir Bartle Frere and Dr. Sutherland.
Sir Bartle made inquiries about the Minute, and found that the
Government of India had not yet communicated it to the India Office. He
prepared the ground by informing the Secretary of State of the fact that
such a Minute had been written. He suggested to Miss Nightingale that,
without using any private and confidential information, it would be
possible to draw up a statement upon measures urgently needed for the
further improvement of the health of the soldiers in India. With the
help of Sir Bartle Frere and Dr. Sutherland this was done; and Miss
Nightingale in Council sent a dispatch to the Secretary of State. In
Disraeli's second Administration Lord Cranborne (now become Marquis of
Salisbury) had resumed his former place at the India Office:--
(_Miss Nightingale to Lord Salisbury._) LEA HURST, _Oct._ 28
[1874]. DEAR LORD SALISBURY--As you were so very good, when you
were kind enough to acknowledge my paper on "Life or Death in
India," as to _ask_ me (where permission was all that I could have
expected as most gracious on your part) to submit any facts or
suggestions to you, I venture without troubling you with more
apology to lay before you the following:--(1) The grasp of the
Famine is now relaxed, though to make it relax has cost a vast
expenditure with very little return except in lives. Other lives
seem now to be in jeopardy from the economy consequent upon this
noble and never to be regretted expenditure, viz. soldiers' lives.
There is no greater extravagance than extravagance in lives. The
Crown Prince of Germany said two months ago[166] (a very remarkable
doctrine for him) that we could add to the strength and numbers of
organized armies by sanitary works, and that money well employed in
these will as much contribute to military force as money spent on
fortifications and on direct military organizations. A great deal
has been done already in India, and great results to our Soldiers'
health have followed; but does not much more remain to be
done before the results of 2 or 3 favourable years (for there was
little cholera) can become permanent? Does not experience show
that, as the greatest saving in outlay is that which can be
effected in the cost of the military defences of the country, so it
is the truest economy not to stay your hand in improving the
military stations and their surroundings until every station in
India has been put in the most healthy state practicable? In the
meantime, if it is necessary to check outlay, should not the check
be exercised on things that can stand over for a few years? (2) For
in reality points connected with the soldier's health cannot stand
over. The man is dead or invalided--the man, the most costly
article we have; and you have to replace him with another costly
article. Is not every neglect or miscalculation on this point sure
to add to the national expenditure a far higher amount than would
be the capitalized cost of the improvements? The improvements
required now at many Stations are the following.... [a detailed
list, under various heads of kind and place]. (6) To you it is
needless to say that this relates to one half only of the Indian
Army (_i.e._ that under the direct control of Lord Napier of
Magdala), and that Madras and Bombay have (between them) at least
an equal proportion of unsupplied wants, for they have not had five
years of Lord Napier's wise and humane advocacy. (7) In India it is
always possible to fall into the mistake of spending money
uselessly. Fortunately, however, there is a way out of it in the
appointment of Mr. Clark, the great Calcutta Municipality Engineer,
who has drained and water-supplied Calcutta, to go out and do a
similar scheme for Madras.... [detailed suggestions for further
instructions to Mr. Clark].
[166] The Crown Princess had seen Miss Nightingale on August 8, 1874.
(_Lord Salisbury to Miss Nightingale._) ARLINGTON STREET, _Nov._ 4
[1874]. DEAR MISS NIGHTINGALE--I assure you we are not blind to the
importance of the objects which you advocate, nor are we the least
inclined to interpose any unnecessary delay in their prosecution.
The difficulty, of course, is money. It is perfectly true that, if
the remedies were as certain of their effect as the existence of
the evils is certain and serious, we might obviate the difficulty
of the money by borrowing without stint. But the consideration
which withholds the Indian Government from such a course is the
very fact that the remedies are by no means absolutely certain.
Take the case of Peshawur for instance. A great deal of money has
been spent there already, and a great deal more will be spent; and
yet, if I am to believe the reports which I receive from
trustworthy authorities, when all the money is spent, it will still
be a very unhealthy station, and a very small improvement upon the
death-rate will ultimately be the result. I heard Sir George Clark
the other day state in Council that one of the new stations in
Rajpootana,--I forget which it was,--had become decidedly more
unhealthy since remedial measures recommended by the sanitary
authorities had been adopted.
There may be something of prejudice and something of timidity in
these apprehensions. I do not wish to give to them more weight than
they deserve. But it is obvious that in sanitary action we are
still groping our way, and that we are far from having arrived at
that point of certainty at which it would be safe, on account of
any particular series of undertakings, very heavily to pledge the
future industry of the Indian people. You must always bear in mind
that at this moment our expenditure treads very closely upon the
heels of our revenue, and that we absolutely do not know where to
turn in order to obtain any great increase of revenue. But if we
borrowed very largely, a great increase of revenue would be
absolutely necessary to meet the interest of the new debt. However
great the value of the improvements, we cannot afford to be
bankrupt, and a new productive Indian tax seems as distant as the
philosopher's stone. I do not say all this to indicate that we
shall slacken in our efforts towards sanitary improvement, or fail
to push them forward as fast as we possibly can. But I want you to
believe that financial considerations are of some importance; and I
feel sure that we should only hinder sanitary improvement, and
prevent sanitary truths from being heartily accepted, either by
statesmen or by the public at large, if we associated them with a
disregard of those financial exigencies upon which such enormous
interests depend. We must not let it be said, or even suspected,
that sanitary improvement means reckless finance.... But I think
the best answer I can give you to the details of your letter is to
send it out to the Viceroy, and ask him to let me have a
confidential and unofficial report of his intentions in each of
these cases. I am sure he feels the importance of these matters as
strongly as any one; but I repeat that no one can thoroughly
appreciate the difficulties of his position in respect to them who
does not understand the extreme anxiety that is connected with the
management of Indian finance.
No time was lost, for on January 2, 1875, Lord Salisbury forwarded to
Miss Nightingale, with a private note, the reply which he had received
from the Governor-General:--
(_Lord Northbrook to Lord Salisbury._) CALCUTTA, _Dec._ 11 [1874].
I am much obliged to you for sending me Miss Nightingale's letter
to you, and although at the risk of answering it imperfectly, I
will not delay putting down what occurred to me till another
mail--especially as one never can feel secure of one's time in
India. First, I beg you to assure Miss Nightingale that I am not
likely so much to forget my training under Sidney Herbert at the
War Office as to feel indifferent about the health of the soldier
in India. She knows as well as I do how much has been done of late
years and how satisfactory the result has been, as is shown by the
death and sickness returns, and admitted by the Army Sanitary
Commission and Sir William Muir (the doctor) in evidence recently
given before a Parliamentary Committee. Miss Nightingale is
evidently more anxious for the future than dissatisfied with the
past. The best thing I can say to reassure her is that in the face
of the financial difficulties of last year I left the expenditure
upon military public works untouched. It stands for the year at
something more than a million, which is as much as we can afford
and nearly as much as can be properly supervised. The year before,
although most anxious to show a budget which would justify me in
discontinuing the Income Tax, I gave an addition of £100,000 to the
sum allotted to military public works at the request of Lord
Napier. So much for my personal disposition and what I have done
hitherto.
As to what remains to be done, I know there is much.... I quite
agree in principle with Miss Nightingale's views as to the relative
importance of different sorts of works, and we should be guided by
the same considerations as far as possible. But there are practical
considerations which must interfere with their universal
application. For instance, in many places in India owing to a want
of labour we can only go on at a certain rate unless at a very
greatly increased cost. Again, it is better for many reasons to
carry out all the necessary works at one station at the same time,
and these works may very probably include some which in themselves
may not be so much wanted as other works at other stations. Subject
to these qualifications, barracks, hospitals, water-supply, and
drainage should come first, and recreation-rooms, &c., follow....
Miss Nightingale has evidently carefully studied some of the
details of our requirements, and is not very far out in her list of
works. She will be glad to hear that it is not very different from
that of the works the Commander-in-Chief has lately brought to our
notice, so that their relative importance is sure to be well
weighed. Lord Napier takes the liveliest interest in all the
military public works, and having nothing to do with finding the
money, is pretty sure to have no scruple in pressing us hard. Some
of the works mentioned in the list I know myself, so I will make
one or two remarks ... [detailed observations]. I am very glad to
hear that Mr. Clark is well enough to come out to India again. When
he has done his work in Madras I think we may very probably ask him
to advise us as to the water-supply of some stations. I was much
taken with the apparent simplicity and economy of a plan which he
showed me. As regards Miss Nightingale's observations on the
subject of recreation-rooms and the sale of spirits in canteens:
the soldiers are uncommonly well off in India generally for
recreation-rooms and take advantage of them largely. The reason for
selling spirits at canteens is, I believe, that if not sold men
would buy noxious spirits in the bazaars. No head of the Army in
India has ever recommended that the sale should be prohibited. The
temperance movement is spreading widely among the troops in Bengal.
By the last returns there were between 5 and 6 thousand members of
the Temperance Society in the British Army in Bengal (including
women and children). I have been struck generally with the good
conduct and respectable appearance of British soldiers in India,
and think we may well be proud of our army.
I have written on, as the subject is one in which I have for a long
time taken a personal interest, and Miss Nightingale may be glad to
know that I have not neglected it here. I can promise you that, so
far as our funds will permit, every attention shall be paid to the
health of the British and the Native Army in India.
Such intervention, as is disclosed in the foregoing documents, was
repeated from time to time in connection with various sanitary measures,
and was not without effect in keeping those matters to the front. A
parliamentary debate, even sometimes a mere question in Parliament, has
effect upon bureaucracy. In the times with which we are now dealing,
"Members of Parliament for India" were few. "I could have kissed Lord
Cranborne," exclaimed Miss Nightingale once, "for saying that in the
approaching elections for a Parliament which is to decide on the
destinies of 180 millions, the future representatives who are to
represent India as well as us had only in two instances in their
addresses mentioned the existence of India."[167] Miss Nightingale's
private letters and printed articles did something to fill the gap. She
had the ear of the great personages; they knew how much she knew, and
they respected her devotion and sincerity. They listened to her, and her
letters often produced the kind of stimulating result that sometimes
follows a parliamentary intervention. She showed the correspondence with
Lord Salisbury and Lord Northbrook to Sir Bartle Frere. "That Caesar,"
he wrote (Jan. 16, 1875), "should at once sit down and write six sheets
of quarto letter paper, to show he is taking proper care of his Legions
is satisfactory; as proving that your letter moved him and that the
subject greatly interested him." "The result is just what I expected,"
wrote another Anglo-Indian, on the occasion of a later intervention by
Miss Nightingale. "They treat me with contempt, but they don't ignore
you. The first thing the Governor did on seeing your letter was to sit
down and write a full exoneration of himself to the Secretary of State.
The second, I have no doubt, will be to call for his officials and hurry
on the work."
[167] Letter to Madame Mohl, Oct. 31, 1868.
III
As Public Health Missionary for India, Miss Nightingale made the state
of the town of Madras a text for constant exhortations. Madras ranked at
that time second for unhealthiness among the great cities of India
(Delhi being first[168]). Whereas the death-rate in Calcutta and in
Bombay was falling, in Madras it was rising.[169] Miss Nightingale,
like every other sanitary expert who had examined the facts, ascribed
the high rate of mortality to the deplorable state of the drains; and
there were Indian officials, both in London and in India, who turned to
her in the hope that she might be able to stir up the higher authorities
to insist on something being done. Her friend, Mr. Clark, had devised a
scheme; either it should be carried out, or a better one should be
substituted. On this subject there is a long correspondence amongst her
Papers; and as her principal correspondent was Lord Salisbury, it is not
devoid of dry humour. Lord Salisbury confessed that the subject was
beyond him; all he could clearly ascertain was that there were as many
different opinions as there were persons professing to understand it;
but he had good news for his correspondent. The next Governor of Madras
was to be the Duke of Buckingham, and the Duke had a curious passion for
details. He might be expected, it seemed to be suggested, to take to
drains like a rat. So Miss Nightingale waited, and presently Lord
Salisbury was sent to the Constantinople Conference on the Eastern
Question. At Madras nothing had come of the Duke's love of detail; and
as soon as Lord Salisbury returned to England, Miss Nightingale returned
to the charge. Lord Salisbury sent her memorandum of suggestions to the
Duke, and in due course forwarded to her the Duke's reply (of July 24,
1877). The Governor was studying the question closely, and Lord
Salisbury hoped that Miss Nightingale would be pleased. True, there was
delay; but then, as he had previously written to her, "The period of
growth of all projects in India, in point of length, savours much of the
periods of Indian cosmogony." "I think you will be satisfied," he now
wrote (Aug. 22), "that the Governor of Madras is giving his mind very
heartily to the question; and that his previous experience, and the kind
of observations into which his singular taste for detail has guided him,
have given him some special qualifications for coming to a right
decision." And then came what in a postscript to the High Priestess of
sanitation might be thought a "blazing indiscretion," if it were not
obviously a piece of teasing: "I was much impressed at Constantinople
with the advantage of having no drains at all, but keeping dogs
instead." I am afraid that from the moment of the receipt of this letter
Miss Nightingale's opinion of Lord Salisbury fell; but she was not to be
shaken off, and, in consultation with Dr. Sutherland (with hints, too,
from an Indian official), she sent a reasoned reply to Lord Salisbury,
to his jest about the Constantinople dogs (erroneously called
scavengers) and all. She had the advantage of knowing all about
Constantinople, and the merits of its natural drainage. As for Madras,
she thought that there had been "consideration" enough (it had lasted
for more than 20 years), and that the Secretary of State ought to insist
on action, in which connection she sent various proposals. Lord
Salisbury's reply to Miss Nightingale did not appear to be promising.
"The indecision of the Madras Government," he said (Sept. 19), "is
partly due to the fact that various authorities have to be consulted,
and no orders from the Secretary of State will prevent those authorities
from differing. But the real difficulty," he added, "is money." It was
all that the Madras Government could do to find money for "imperious
necessities." The implication was that the protection of the public
health was not an imperious necessity. A rank heresy, this, in Miss
Nightingale's eyes. In sending on Lord Salisbury's letter to Dr.
Sutherland, her comment was: "And they call _me_ a dangerous man!" To
which Dr. Sutherland replied: "So you are! They tell you a thing can't
be done, and you won't believe them! It is all nonsense that the
Municipality cannot find money to drain with, and no number of letters
can make it sense." Lord Salisbury's action was, however, more
favourable to Miss Nightingale than his letter, for it was presently
announced in the Madras papers that the Secretary of State had ordered
drainage works of some sort to be carried out at once. If this were so,
the words "at once" were interpreted with some reference to "the periods
of Indian cosmogony." The scientific drainage of Black Town, the most
thickly populated quarter of Madras, was begun in 1882; that of the
remainder of the town was in progress twenty-five years.
[168] In view of its selection as the new capital of India, the
"sanitary regeneration" of Delhi is at last to be taken in hand.
(_See_ the _Times_, April 22, 1913.)
[169] In 1871 it was 28.96 per 1000; in 1874, 37.1. In some parts of the
town, the rate was as high as 80 per 1000.
IV
Miss Nightingale's interest in details of sanitary reform was gradually
merged into larger questions. Recurrent Indian famines gave a new turn
to her thoughts. "I have been doing sanitary work for India for 18
years," she explained in a letter to Lord Houghton (Nov. 27, 1877); "but
for the last four have been continually struck by this dreadful fact:
What is the good of trying to keep people in health if you can't keep
them in life? These ryots are being done to death by floods, by drought,
by Zemindars, and usurers. You must live in order to be well." This
indisputable proposition appealed strongly to her emotions. "My mind,"
she wrote to Mr. Chadwick (Sept. 14, 1877), "is full of the dying Indian
children, starved by hundreds of thousands from conditions which have
been made for them, in this hideous Indian famine.... How I wish that
some one would now get up an agitation in the country--as Mr. Gladstone
did as regards Bulgaria--which should say to the country, _You shall_,
as regards Indian famines and the means of preventing them, among which
Irrigation and Water Transit must rank foremost; if we had given them
water, we should not now have to be giving them bread." Miss Nightingale
had reached this conclusion by herself in 1873, and it was strongly
confirmed in the following year. In February 1874 she was moved to write
to Sir Arthur Cotton, "the greatest living master," as she truly called
him, "of the Water Question." Her letter--the letter of one enthusiast
to another--greatly delighted the old Anglo-Indian. "If," he wrote (Feb.
4), "fifty years of hard work and contempt had produced no other return
but a letter from you, it would be an honour beyond what I deserve. The
plot is now rapidly thickening, and I have not the smallest doubt that
your having taken up this great subject will turn the scale. It is
impossible for any person not resident in India to conceive the strength
of the prejudice in the minds, not only of the civil officials, but of
multitudes out of office on both the points of irrigation and
navigation in India. I am assured that there is not a single person in
high office now in India who is not in his heart opposed to them both.
But we have arrived at a most remarkable crisis now, first in the
occurrence of this most terrible famine, and, second, in the revolution
in the India Office. Lord Salisbury will think for himself in spite of
an Indian Council composed--with only the exception of Sir B. Frere--of
men of incurable old Indian bias." Sir Arthur Cotton's inventive genius
has left a permanent impress upon India; but he was now _en
disponibilité_, and he was one of those enthusiasts who, when out of
office and unable to carry on their plans, conceive the world to be in
wilful conspiracy against them. Moreover, in urging the case for canals,
he overstated it by too uncompromising a criticism of railways. During
ensuing years Sir Arthur Cotton was one of the most voluminous of Miss
Nightingale's correspondents. She was fully alive to the faults of
manner which hindered the acceptance of his ideas, and from time to time
she pleaded with him for more moderation and less asperity. She herself
was sometimes blamed, by Mr. Jowett and others, for over-emphasis. She
would laughingly wonder in reply what they thought of Sir Arthur Cotton
who gave the public "strong alcohol," in comparison with which anything
of hers was but "watered milk." She had not far pursued her researches
into the Irrigation question before she perceived that it was intimately
bound up with the Land question. Who was to pay for irrigation? Were the
ryots willing to pay a water-rate? Could they pay it? Were not the
Zemindars rapacious? Was not the cultivator at the mercy of the usurers?
Sir George Campbell was full of such subjects, and Miss Nightingale
proceeded, with his assistance, to master the intricacies of Land tenure
in various parts of India, and especially of the "Permanent Settlement"
in Bengal. One subject led her on to another, and she became deeply
interested in the questions of representation, land, education, usury.
She became, in short, an Indian Reformer, or an Indian Agitator, at
large.
V
Her immediate effort, however, was thrown into the advocacy of
Irrigation. In view alike of the poverty of India, and of the ever
present danger of famine, she held that it was the duty of the
Government to promote Irrigation in every way--by great works as well as
small, by wells and tanks as much as by great and small canals--by
encouraging private capital as well as by making great national grants
and loans. The Indian tax-payer was poor, it was said to her; the way to
make him less poor, she replied, was to irrigate his land.
Miss Nightingale began her Irrigation campaign with an appeal to Lord
Salisbury, and she approached him on a point which she thought would be
common ground. She knew that he was of a scientific turn of mind, and
hoped he would agree with her that the first thing needful was to obtain
complete and trustworthy statistics. She sent him some tentative figures
as to the cost of irrigation works already carried out, and the
financial results accruing therefrom, confessing, however, that she
had experienced great difficulty in obtaining the figures. "I have been
too long on the search for such returns myself," he replied (May 10,
1875), "not to sympathise with your distress." He proceeded at some
length to enumerate "the difficulties in the way of a really rigorous
exhibit," and to state the questions which seemed to him still unsolved
with regard to irrigation in general; for instance, "Is irrigation," he
asked, "the creation or merely the anticipation of fertility? Does it
make vegetable wealth, which but for it would never have existed, or
does it crowd into a few years the enjoyment of the whole productive
power of the soil?" Meanwhile he had her figures submitted to critical
annotation at the India Office, directed various Papers to be sent to
her, and promised to see whether fuller returns could be obtained. As
nothing definite resulted, Miss Nightingale suggested the appointment of
a Committee or Commission to investigate and report. The suggestion
elicited a characteristic reply from Lord Salisbury. "As for a
Commission," he wrote (Nov. 1, 1875), "I doubt its efficiency.
Commissions are very valuable to collect and summarize opinion, and they
are often able to decide one or two distinct issues of fact. But they
are too unwieldy for the collection and digestion of a great variety of
facts and figures. With the best intentions, their work is slow and
_routinier_, and in their report they gloss over the weak places with
generalities.... As a rule, administrative force is in the inverse
proportion of the number of men who exercise it. One man is twice as
strong as two; two men are twice as strong as four. Boards and
Commissions are only contrivances for making strong men weak."
From time to time she jogged Lord Salisbury's elbow, asking whether he
had yet been able to obtain trustworthy figures, and beseeching him to
initiate a great irrigation policy. "Do not for a moment imagine," he
wrote (Feb. 27, 1876), "that I have forgotten the question. The more I
go into it, the deeper the mystery appears. Every one who has a right to
entertain an opinion on it vindicates that right by entertaining a
different one from his neighbour. General Strachey and Sir Barrow Ellis
have been engaged upon the matter for years. Both of these assert with
confidence that one set of statements is true, while the Government of
India, backed by Mr. Thornton, our excellent Public Works Secretary,
assert it with no less confidence to be false.... When I am able to get
a little light I will let you know; but as long as my oracles flatly
contradict each other, I am not likely to get nearer certainty than I am
now." As Lord Salisbury was disinclined to a Committee of experts, she
begged him to procure returns from India, and she drew up a model form
of inquiry, on which particulars might be asked of the extent of
cultivated land in each district, the amount of land under irrigation,
the cost of annual repairs, and so forth, and so forth. Lord Salisbury
took the suggestion into consideration, and some returns were called
for, but nothing came of it for the time. Miss Nightingale then tried to
obtain information in another way. There were, she was told, masses of
data in the India Office itself, which only needed analysis and
tabulation to yield valuable results. Lord Lawrence had introduced to
her Mr. Edward Prinsep (late Settlement Commissioner, Punjab) as a man
likely to be helpful in such work. She made friends with him; Sir Louis
Mallet gave facilities, and Mr. Prinsep began making researches on Miss
Nightingale's behalf. Unfortunately for her success, she had the
correctitude to ask Lord Salisbury's permission. Lord Salisbury referred
her request to the Revenue Department, who in a solemn minute
represented the serious precedent that would be set by allowing an
outsider to delve in official archives, and Mr. Prinsep had to
discontinue his researches. "You are doubtless aware," Sir Louis Mallet
told her dryly, "that in the India Office opinions diametrically opposed
are usually entertained on every subject which is discussed." There was
only one certainty, he added, that any decision taken at one time would
be reversed at another. Ultimately a good deal of information was
collected by a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Works
in India (1878) and by Famine Commissions. Returns, such as Miss
Nightingale asked for, are now regularly made.
Some irrigation works were carried out during these years,[170] but no
great forward policy in that direction was instituted. The "forward
policy" presently adopted was of a very different sort. The thoughts of
the politicians were absorbed in other things; the opinions of the
bureaucrats were divided, and there was stringency in Indian finance. If
the experts could not agree on the proper basis of estimating the
results of irrigation, still less were they at one on the kind of
irrigation work that was desirable. Every one was agreed in favour of
irrigation "in principle"; but as soon as it became a question of
detail, whether in finance or in engineering, there were as many
opinions as there were experts. One school said, "Borrow the money and
the land will be so enriched that the ryot will be able to pay increased
taxation." Another school retorted, "But he will be squeezed out of
existence first; therefore, retrench all round, and wait for better
times." Or, if the financial difficulty were overcome, engineering
difficulties were raised. One school said, "Make navigable canals," but
that meant fulness of water in them. Another said, "Make canals
primarily for irrigation," but that meant depletion. And so the
controversy continued, with no decided impulse from the men in office.
Famines came and went; some works were carried out as a form of
"relief"; no great preventive policy was established.
[170] _E.g._ the "Buckingham Canal," connecting the canals N. and S. of
Madras (made as a Famine Relief work, after being "under
consideration" for a quarter of a century). Miss Nightingale
celebrated this tardy achievement in an article in the press: see
Bibliography A, No. 99.
Miss Nightingale was much disheartened, but she persevered. She
corresponded with everybody of importance whom she could hope to
influence. With Lord Lytton, who had succeeded Lord Northbrook as
Viceroy in 1876, she was not acquainted; and Lord Beaconsfield she never
approached, except on another matter, and then without any encouragement
on his part.[171] In April 1878 Lord Salisbury became Foreign Secretary,
and was succeeded at the India Office by Mr. Gathorne-Hardy (Lord
Cranbrook), Mr. Edward Stanhope becoming Under-Secretary. Mr. Stanhope
came to see her (June 1878); and in the following year she sent him the
figures of mortality in the last Indian famine, which she had compiled
with great labour from various sources of information, and
correspondence ensued. She saw and corresponded largely with Sir James
Caird, the English representative on the Famine Commission. She tried to
incense Lord Houghton on the subject of Indian grievances. She saw and
corresponded with Mr. Fawcett. She saw Mr. Bright. She kept up a large
and regular correspondence with officials in India. She supplied
materials for lectures in England; and, with skilled assistance, she had
some maps drawn and engraved, to show the principal works which might be
constructed. These maps did service at lectures; and Miss Nightingale
also wrote repeatedly in newspapers and magazines--heralding
"water-arrivals,"[172] pointing out districts which famine had not
visited owing to previous irrigation, and others where similar works
might be expected to prevent famine in future; comparing the cost of
relief and prevention; urging the importance of extending education;
calling attention to oppression in forms of land-tenure and by
money-lenders; and generally seeking to arouse public interest at home
in the life and sufferings of the voiceless millions in India.
[171] In 1879 the Registrar-General retired, and Miss Nightingale wrote
to Lord Beaconsfield urging the claims of Dr. Farr to the post. As
the greatest of English statisticians, and as the senior in the
Registrar-General's office, he would have been the right man, but
Lord Beaconsfield gave the appointment to Sir Brydges Henniker.
Dr. Farr thereupon retired from the Public Service. In the
following year he was made C.B. (at Miss Nightingale's instance,
through Sir Stafford Northcote).
[172] The title of an article by Miss Nightingale in _Good Words_. For
it, and other Indian writings, see Bibliography A., Nos. 82, 84,
90, 92, 97-100.
The piece by Miss Nightingale which attracted most attention was an
article on "The People of India" in the _Nineteenth Century_ for October
1878. Sir James Knowles's magazine was then in the early days of its
influence, and he gave the first place to this article, in which Miss
Nightingale administered a wholesome shock to British complacency. "We
do not care for the people of India," she exclaimed. "The saddest sight
in the world" was to be seen in the British Empire; it was the condition
of the Indian peasant. She gave pitiable facts and figures of Indian
famines, and passed on to describe in more detail the evils of usury in
the Bombay Deccan. "I cannot tell you," she wrote to a correspondent in
the following year,[173] "the intense interest that I take in the
subject: how to raise the indebted poor cultivators of India out of
their wretched bondage of poverty, whether by _monts de piété_, by some
National Bank, such as you propose, by some co-operative system, or by
all or any of such means." Miss Nightingale's article was received as a
kind of manifesto by those who sympathized with her point of view, and
the publication brought a large accession to her Indian correspondence.
In official circles it caused some flutter. "I have read your article,"
wrote a friend in the India Office (Aug. 8), "with the greatest interest
and admiration. The official mind is much disturbed. I overheard a
conversation between two magnates (not in the present Government) in
which the article was described as a shriek, and the question was
whether something could not be done to counteract the impression." Lord
Northbrook, after reading the article, sent to Miss Nightingale an
elaborate criticism, not traversing her case in all points, but
pleading that she had exaggerated the shadows. With Lord Salisbury's
successor at the India Office there was the following correspondence:
(_Miss Nightingale to Lord Cranbrook._) _August_ 10 [1878].
DEAR LORD CRANBROOK--Very meekly I venture to send you a poor little
article of mine on the People of India in the _Nineteenth Century_. I
hope if you read it you will not call it a shriek (I am astonished at
my own moderation). I am not so troublesome as to expect that you can
find time to read it, but the India Office has untold treasures (which
it does not know itself) in Reports on these subjects which will
engage your busy time; and especially the Deccan Riots Commission
Report, on the relation of the ryots and the extortionate
money-lenders in the Bombay Deccan, will, I am sure, call for your
attention. Can there be any private enterprise in trade or
commerce, in manufacture, or in new interests, when to
money-lenders are guaranteed by our own Courts the profits, the
enormous and easy profits, which no enterprise of the kind that
India most wants can rival? What are the practical remedies for
extortionate usury in India, and principally in the Bombay Deccan?
The Bill now before the Legislature at Simla does not seem to
promise much. Does it? The whole subject is, I know, before you.
Pray believe me (with some wonder at my own audacity), ever your
faithful and grateful servant, FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE.
(_Lord Cranbrook to Miss Nightingale._) INDIA OFFICE, _August_ 13
[1878]. DEAR MISS NIGHTINGALE--Having been out of town for two days
your note only reached me this morning. I read your article last
week with much interest; but, without underrating the griefs of
India, I think you generalise too much from one locality.
Nevertheless there is enough to stir the heart and mind in search
of remedies for admitted evils.--Yours very sincerely, CRANBROOK.
[173] Mr. Francis William Fox; he had sent to her his pamphlet on _Reform
in the Administration of India_, suggesting _inter alia_ a National
Agricultural Bank. Miss Nightingale's letter of three sheets
(June 18, 1879) is eloquent both of her profound knowledge of
Indian conditions and of her enthusiastic interest in Indian
problems.
The Secretary of State wrote to the Viceroy, Lord Lytton, in much the
same sense; calling his attention to Miss Nightingale's article, saying
that she had generalized too much, but adding, "I shall be truly glad if
your legislation can afford a remedy."[174] The Viceroyalty of Lord
Lytton was more famous, however, for the forward policy in Afghanistan
than for internal reforms. Miss Nightingale, as a disciple of Lord
Lawrence, was wholly opposed to an aggressive policy which, moreover,
had the effect of causing retrenchment in all departments except the
military.
[174] The letter to Lord Lytton is printed in vol. ii. p. 80 of
Mr. A. E. Gathorne-Hardy's _Memoir of Lord Cranbrook_ (1910).
VI
Miss Nightingale in her propagandist zeal now turned to Mr. Gladstone.
She made an article of his, called "Friends and Foes of Russia," which
appeared in the _Nineteenth Century_ (January 1879), the occasion of a
letter to him. In this article he had incidentally referred to the loss
of "1,400,000 lives" in the last Indian famine. She pointed out to him
that his estimate was far below the truth, and she sought to enlist him
in a crusade for the Indian causes dear to her heart:--
(_Mr. Gladstone to Miss Nightingale._) HAWARDEN, _Jan._ 26 [1879].
How many years have elapsed since your name used to sound daily in
my ears, and how many sad events, events of varied sadness, have
happened in the very place where I used to hear it! All through
this Eastern controversy, the most painful of my life, it has been
a consolation to know that I was in sympathy with you--especially I
remember your most striking declaration about the war against
Turkey. I am glad that you approve of my article on the Friends and
Foes of Russia, glad that the error you notice is one of
under-statement. I had not the means of complete reference when I
sent off the sheets, and 1,400,000 seemed to me so awful that I
trembled lest I should be over-stating. The first correction I
received put four millions--and now you raise it higher still.[175]
The Indian question under most vicious handling is growing gigantic
and most perilous. Depend on it I will do what I can in it: but I
fear this must be little. I fear that--apart from other reasons
weighty enough--my taking a leading part in it would at once poison
its atmosphere, now that it has come to be a main ground of the
controversy between Government and Opposition. When I dealt with
the Vernacular Press Act last year, there was no Indian
controversy, and I took all the care in my power not to treat it as
a contentious question. All this is now changed: and whatever I
recommend about India the Tories will oppose. You can hardly be
aware of the extraordinary degree in which prejudice and passion
have gathered round my very name (as well, I am bound to say, as
favour and affection) since the Eastern Question came up. Whether
by my fault or not, I can hardly say: but such is the fact. In the
line I have followed I must steadily persist to the end of the
conflict; but I have all along foreseen the likelihood that it
would probably disable me, even if age and other circumstances did
not, for rendering any other _serious_ public service in the way of
acting, which, it must always be remembered, is so different from
that of objecting and censuring.... The whole Indian question will,
however, force itself forward, and there will be plenty of hands to
deal with it. Mr. Bright is coming here in two days, and I hope to
have full conversation with him about it. Believe me, with warm
regard and respect, sincerely yours, W. E. GLADSTONE.
[175] The India Office gave 1,250,000 as the total of deaths in the
Famine. Mr. Caird, after investigating the question in India, gave
4,050,000 as his estimate. Miss Nightingale's was 5 to 6 millions.
"I begin to think now," wrote Sir Louis Mallet (March 10, 1879)
when Mr. Caird's estimate was made, "that your 'Shriek' was a
better expression of the truth than any other utterance."
Miss Nightingale continued the correspondence, and presently
Mr. Gladstone called upon her to talk over Indian affairs, which were
now beginning to assume some importance in his general campaign against
the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. Mr. Gladstone's visit was in May. On
June 26 Lord Lawrence died, and Miss Nightingale was deeply moved:--
(_Miss Nightingale to Mr. Gladstone._) _July_ 6 [1879]. I see you
were at Lord Lawrence's funeral yesterday, and you may care to hear
the story of his last days from one who has been privileged to know
and serve with two such men as Sidney Herbert and John
Lawrence--very different, but alike in the "one thing needful"--the
serving with all their souls and minds and without a thought of
self their high ideal of right. Lord Lawrence's last years were
spent in work: he did not read, he studied; though almost blind, he
waded with the help of a Private Secretary (who was a lady[176])
thro' piles of blue books--chiefly, but not wholly Indian--bringing
the weight of his unrivalled experience to bear upon them. Up to
Tuesday night, tho' very ill (he died on Friday), he worked. On the
Thursday before, he had spoken in the House of Lords on the Indian
Finance question. The disease, tedious and trying, of which he
died, was brought on by the London School Board work. He used to
come home quite exhausted, saying that he could have done the thing
himself in half-an-hour; yet having entered, with a patience very
foreign, to his nature, into all the niggling crotchets of
everybody on the Board. He gave the impression, I believe, of
sternness in public, but the tenderness and the playfulness of his
intercourse in private were beyond a woman's tenderness. He was a
man of iron; he had gone thro' 40 years of Indian life, in times of
danger, toil, and crisis; had been brought seven times to the brink
of the grave; and had weathered it all--to die of a School Board at
last! He had the blue eye, and the expression in it (before his
operation), of a girl of 16, and the massive brow and head of a
General of Nations rather than of Armies.... I received a letter
from him the day _after_ his death--dictated, but signed by
himself, sending me some recent Indian Reports--private
papers--which he had read and wished me to read--all marked and the
page turned down where he had left off. This was his legacy. O that
I could do something for India for which he lived and died! The
simplicity of the man could not be surpassed--the unselfishness,
the firmness. It was always, "Is it right?" If it was, it was done.
It was the same thing: its being right and its being done.... A
photograph was taken a few hours after death. If it had been a
sketch by Carracci, or Leonardo, or Michael Angelo, we should have
said, How far Art transcends Nature. In the holiest pictures of the
Old Masters, I have never seen anything so beautiful or so holy.
The lips are slightly parted (like those of a child in a rapture of
joy on first awakening), with a child-like joy at entering into the
presence of the Heavenly Father whom he had served so nobly and so
humbly. The poor eyes are looking down, but as if they were looking
inward into the soul to realize the rapture--like Milton's "And joy
shall overtake him like a flood." The face is worn. I think
sometimes the youth, the physical beauty in the old Italian
pictures of Christ do not give the full meaning of "it behoved Him
to have _suffered_ these things that He might enter into His
glory"; or else, like Titian's "Moneta," it is the _mere_ ascetic.
But here it was the joy arising out of the long trial, the Cross
out of which came the Crown. The expression was that of the winged
soul, the child-soul as in the Egyptian tomb-paintings, rising
somehow without motion (spiritually) out of the worn-out body. (He
said on the Sunday, "I can't tell you how I feel: I feel worn
out.") All India will feel his loss. No one now living knows what
he did there--in private, I mean, as well as in public--the raising
of the people by individuals as well as by Institutions--the
letters and messages from Sikhs to him, the Indian gentlemen who
used to come to see him here and treated him as their father. The
little curs here have barked and bit round the heels of the old
lion. He heard them but he heeded not. And now he is gone to
undertake yet greater labours, to bless more worlds in the service
of God. Lady Lawrence wished to give every one something which had
belonged to his personal use. But it was found he had nothing.
There were some old clothes, and a great many boots, patched; but
nothing else, not even a pin, except his watch, 20 years old, and
his walking-stick, which she kept. The lady who served as his
secretary after his blindness had his old shoe-horn, and told me
this story with an infinite relish of its beauty. It was so
characteristic of him. Pardon me if I have taken up your time with
my thoughts of John Lawrence. I felt as if I were paying him a last
tribute in commending his memory to you.
[176] Miss Gaster.
VII
"O that I could do something for India!" She had done much, and was yet
to do more; but it was a constant regret of her later years that she had
failed to carry through one piece of work which she had planned. This
was a book on the allied questions of Indian Irrigation and Indian Land
Tenure, to which, in her first draft, she had given the fanciful title
_The Zemindar, the Sun and the Watering Pot as Affecting Life or Death
in India_. Miss Nightingale had first written the book in 1874, and she
had several copies privately printed. The earliest copies are prefaced
by the following notes on "Dramatis Personæ." They introduce, besides
the Minister on whom at this time she pinned her hopes, her principal
informants, and they show the spirit of the book:--
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY: A real workman and born ruler of men.
Secretary of State for India by the grace of God.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Ex-Lieutenant Governor of Bengal. Gulliver
among the Lilliputians.
SIR ARTHUR COTTON, R.E.: The most perfect master of the water
question living.
COLONEL RUNDALL, R.E.: Head of Water Department of Bengal, then of
all India; now at home.
COLONEL HAIG, R.E.: Head of Water Department of Bengal; now at home
ill.
THE ZEMINDAR: Created Landlord out of Tax-Gatherer. Growing rich.
THE RYOT: Created Slave out of Landowner or Privileged Cultivator.
Starving. For while "wealth accumulates, men decay."
Mr. Jowett revised the book many times, and among the first things
which he cut out was the characteristic "Dramatis Personæ." His
unfavourable opinion of the book as a literary work prevented the
publication of it in 1874. "The style," he wrote (Aug. 11, 1874), "is
too jerky and impulsive, though I think it is logical and effective. You
must avoid faults of taste and exaggeration. The more moderate a
statement is the stronger it is. But strength lies in paragraphs, in
pages, in the whole; not in single sentences. The form should appear to
flow irresistibly from the facts and reasonings. 'What does the man mean
by talking to me about style when I am thinking only of the sufferings
and oppression of 100,000,000 of Ryots?' Yes, but if you want to make
the English people think about the Ryots you must be careful of the
least indiscretion or exaggeration. You must make style a duty, and then
your book will last." And again, "I find myself amid striking
expressions, but I do not know where I am." He told her that she must
rewrite the whole thing before publishing it. He offered to help her,
and drew out a more methodical scheme; but she was impatient of his
"passion for making heads"; besides, his heads "do not cover the ground
that I must cover, and do cover ground that I don't want to cover." She
was disheartened, and laid the book aside for a while; but at various
times during the following years she resumed work upon it. The book was
in two Parts, the first dealing with the Land Question, and being a plea
for a reform of the Permanent Settlement, with an appendix (largely
contributed by M. Mohl) "On Prussian, Austrian, and Russian Reforms in
Abolition of Servitude." The second Part dealt with Irrigation as
affecting Life or Death in India, with an appendix of statistical data.
For the first Part she had prepared a series of illustrations of Indian
agricultural life and customs. Many of the woodcuts were from sketches
by the son of her old friend, Sir Ranald Martin. For the second Part she
had prepared the Irrigation maps already mentioned. Meanwhile, the
tables of statistics which she had compiled had, owing to the delay,
become out of date. Some of her friends--Sir Bartle Frere and Sir George
Campbell and Sir Arthur Cotton--urged her to revise the book and publish
it; and there are in existence a series of proofs, in various stages,
and belonging to various years, corrected by the three friends just
mentioned and by many others. Lord Lawrence too had read the book
carefully, and one of his last letters to Miss Nightingale contained a
full discussion of many of the points involved in it. Clearly the book
first written in 1874 required in 1879 large revision, and she could not
bring herself to do it. In later years she used some of the material in
other ways; it served, indeed, as a quarry for many articles, papers,
and private letters; but she never ceased to regret that she had not
been able to leave in permanent literary form her views on the questions
discussed in the book. In her Will, made in 1896, she left special
provision for the publication of "such part, if any," as her executors
might think fit, of the "books, papers (whether manuscript or printed),
and letters relating to my Indian work (together with two stones for
Irrigation maps of India, and also with the woodcut blocks for
illustration of those works)." By "those works" I take it that she meant
principally the book written in 1874. I do not know whether her
suggestion will be carried out. If it were, much revision and editing
would be necessary. Indian reform moves, it is true, at a rate which
"savours much of the periods of Indian cosmogony"; but yet it moves.
There is a good deal in Miss Nightingale's published and unpublished
writings about India which might be collected and still serve as Tracts
for the Times; but there is at least as much which is now happily out of
date. Of the reform of the Bengal Land System, projected by Lord Ripon,
and carried into effect by Lord Dufferin, we shall hear something in a
later chapter (VI.). Some of the principal Irrigation works which Miss
Nightingale advocated were presently carried out with success, and to
the great benefit of the country, notably the Swat river canal (1885),
the Chenab canal (1887), and the Jhelum canal (1902). Her Irrigation
map, "brought up to date by statistics at the India Office," was
published in 1900;[177] and maps brought up to a later date are
accessible.[178] Twenty years after the date of Miss Nightingale's
paper on "The People of India," the area irrigated by "productive"
canals had increased from 5 million acres to 9-1/2 million, and since 1901
a consistent policy of "preventive" irrigation has been adopted.[179]
The policy of introducing some element of representation and of
admitting the natives of India more largely to administrative and
judicial posts has slowly but steadily progressed since the years when
Miss Nightingale turned her attention to such questions.
[177] In _General Sir Arthur Cotton: His Life and Work_, by his
daughter, Lady Hope.
[178] See _The Irrigation Works of India_, by Robert Burton Buckley,
C.S.I., Chief Engineer, Indian Public Works Department (retired),
second edition, 1905. This is an exhaustive work on the subject,
with maps, woodcuts, and statistics (such as Miss Nightingale had
asked Lord Salisbury to obtain). An account of some later
irrigation works may be found in the Engineering Supplement of the
_Times_, May 21, 1913.
[179] Foreshadowed in Lord Curzon's "Statement on Famine" in the
Legislative Council, Simla, October 19, 1900: see _Speeches of Lord
Curzon_ (Calcutta, 1900), vol. ii. pp. 25-27.
VIII
On all these matters, Miss Nightingale suffered much disappointment and
felt great impatience. The positive and statistical bent of her mind
inclined her to the conviction that for every acknowledged evil there
must be a definite remedy. She wanted a positive policy, clearly laid
down and immediately carried out. The attitude of successive Secretaries
of State and Governments of India in the years under consideration in
this chapter was different. There is a State Paper in which Lord
Salisbury, when Secretary for India, wrote a Philosophic Defence of the
Policy of Drift.[180] The immediate reference in the Paper was to the
land question in Madras, but its argument is applicable to larger
ground: it is entirely in keeping, as the reader will observe, with Lord
Salisbury's letters to Miss Nightingale on the subject of Irrigation in
India. "We must be content to contribute our mite towards a gradual
change.... Sir George Campbell appears to dread this gentle mode of
progression which he denounces under the name of drifting. I cannot
accept the metaphor in its entirety, for I believe that there is still
left some, though not a very important, influence for the helm. But with
this reservation, I see no terror in the prospect of 'drifting.' On the
contrary, I believe that all the enduring institutions which human
societies have attained have been reached, not of the set design and
forethought of some group of statesmen, but by that unbidden and
unconscious convergence of many thoughts and wills in successive
generations, to which, as it obeys no single guiding hand, we may give
the name of 'drifting.' It is assuredly only in this way that a
permanent solution of these difficult questions will be given to the
vast communities of India. The vacillation of purpose, the chaos of
opinion we are now deploring, only indicate that the requisite
convergence has not yet been attained."
[180] India Office Memorandum, April 26, 1875.
When statesmen assume only an unimportant influence on the helm, the
need is the greater for independent workers to guide public opinion in a
definite direction. In 1879 Miss Nightingale thought that her work as an
Indian Reformer had failed; but she is entitled to an honourable place
among the company of clear thinkers who prepared public opinion for the
era of Indian reform which was inaugurated during Lord Ripon's
Viceroyalty, and whose persistent advocacy helped to produce at last
"the requisite convergence" of opinion in favour of Irrigation as the
best, if not the only or all-sufficient, preventive of famine. The
"fanaticism," which she shared with Sir Arthur Cotton, is not now so
"visionary" as it once seemed. "Lord Napier," she wrote,[181] "calls Sir
Arthur Cotton a splendid madman. And so he is. But all these must be
splendid madmen who initiate any great thing, any great work, which does
not recommend itself to the present knowledge, or ignorance, of minds
which do not see so far as the splendid madmen of this age, who will be
sensible men to the next age and perhaps a little in arrear to the age
after that."
[181] Letter to Sir Bartle Frere, February 16, 1869. The Lord Napier of
this letter was Lord Napier and Ettrick.