CHAPTER II
DUFFERIN AND LANSDOWNE
THE success of the great Liberal leader in stemming the Conservative Reaction, which had begun in 1874, was only temporary. No statesman can battle against his times. Never had Mr. Gladstone a more arduous and difficult duty before him than during the four years of his second administration. He had an ingrained and unalterable hatred of aggression; but the nation was bent on expansion. In Afghanistan, he had the strength to withdraw from a mischievous and wasteful expedition. In Egypt, he was forced to take action against Arabi Pasha; he halted and hesitated after the victory of Tel-el-Kebir; he was compelled in the end to occupy the country. In South Africa, Mr. Gladstone had the courage to restore independence to the Transvaal Republic; and his countrymen considered this act as a shameful humiliation. In the Soudan, he had not the decision either to withdraw at once, or to advance at once; and the fall of Khartoum and of General Gordon was condemned by his countrymen a crime.
It was plain, Mr. Gladstone was not the man for the hour. He had been a Peace-Minister all his life; he would not now turn an Imperialist. He had befriended small nations all over the world; he would not annex small States now. His soul was bent on domestic and popular reforms; the nation wanted a leader who would extend the limits of the Empire. His high character, his strong personality, and his unrivalled powers, still inspired respect and admiration; but his influence declined because the nation was bent on a different policy. When, therefore, he had carried the Third Reform Act in December 1884, his work was done. The Liberal Ministry resigned in June 1885. Twice after, Mr. Gladstone became Prime Minister with the help of the Irish vote; but he was never as popular in England after 1885 as the “People’s William” had been before 1874. He was not the man that England wanted for her new foreign policy.
Lord Beaconsfield had died in 1881, and Lord Salisbury had become the Conservative Leader. When, therefore, the Conservatives came into power in 1885, Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister. And he remained in that high post until 1902, except during the brief periods when the Liberals were in power—from February to July 1886, and from 1892 to 1895. Lord Salisbury was not an Imperialist himself. He desired peace, and strove for peace. But he had the capacity to yield, and to drift with the tide, when he could not oppose it. He had ridiculed a forward policy in India, and had then yielded in 1875. He prevented a war with Russia by the limitation of the Indian frontier in 1885. He avoided a war with the United States by the Venezuela arbitration in 1895. He avoided unpleasantness with Germany by the delimitation of African possessions. And he settled amicably, and with signal success, the claims of Great Britain and France, both in Fashoda and on the Niger. All these high services will be remembered to the credit of a Prime Minister who always strove for peace. But he yielded, when he could strive no longer, in the closing years of the century.
In India, the first result of this growing demand for expansion was the conquest of Upper Burma. Lord Dufferin had succeeded Lord Ripon as Viceroy of India. He was an able and accomplished statesman, possessing great tact and varied experience. He had been Under-Secretary for India from 1864 to 1866, when Lord Lawrence was Viceroy of India. His brilliant administration of Canada from 1872 to 1878 marked him out as an able administrator. He was then ambassador at St. Petersburg and at Constantinople; and he had some share in abolishing the Dual Control and establishing British administration in Egypt. In December 1884 he succeeded Lord Ripon in India, at the mature age of fifty-eight.
Complaints had been made against the King of Burma from time to time. The British Mission had been withdrawn from Ava in 1879. But the British Cabinet had advised the Indian Government to be “slow to precipitate a crisis.” Negotiations for a new treaty, which took place at Simla in 1882, came to nothing. The demarcation of the Manipur frontier by Colonel Johnstone did not receive the assent of Burma. British merchants at Rangoon held a public meeting in October 1884, and urged the annexation of Upper Burma. The sins of the King were, as usual, exaggerated to inflame the public mind. Handbills were distributed describing King Thibaw as a drunkard. The Rangoon Chamber of Commerce addressed a circular letter to various Chambers of Commerce in Great Britain, desiring them to bring pressure to bear on the British Cabinet. It was suggested that British Burma should be cut adrift from India, and formed into a Crown Colony.
In the meantime King Thibaw was endeavouring to strengthen his position by negotiations with the Powers of Europe. The Court of Ava despatched a Mission to Europe in 1883; and by April 1885 it had concluded commercial treaties with France, Germany, and Italy. The French Envoy, M. Haas, who reached Mandalay in May 1885, exerted to establish a dominating French influence in Burma. Arrangements were made for the establishment of a French bank and the construction of a French railway. Lord Salisbury took note of these negotiations. He spoke to M. Waddington, the French Ambassador in London, and brought the facts to the notice of M. Freycinet. The French Government disclaimed all knowledge of M. Haas’s doings, and M. Haas was recalled. The danger was passed.
Advantage was then taken of a petty quarrel to annex the kingdom. A British Company had for years past worked the Ningyan teak forests in the kingdom of Burma. The High Court of Ava delivered judgment against the Company for having defrauded the King of revenue amounting to £73,000. The Company remonstrated, and Lord Dufferin insisted on a further inquiry. The King of Ava questioned the right of the Indian Government to raise the subject. Lord Dufferin replied by an ultimatum, demanding that King Thibaw should receive a permanent British Resident; suspend proceedings against the Company till the arrival of the Resident; regulate his external relations according to the advice of the Indian Government; and grant facilities for the development of British trade with China through Bhamo. The Burmese Government declined to discuss the Company’s case with the British Government; said that a British Agent would be permitted to come and go as in former times; asserted that the friendly relations of Burma with France, Italy, and other Powers would be maintained; and declared that British commerce with China would be assisted in conformity with the customs of the country.
Lord Dufferin considered himself justified in declaring war on receipt of this reply. A great Power does not need stronger reasons for crushing a small Power. Hostilities were commenced in November 1885; there was virtually no opposition. King Thibaw was deported to Ratnagiri on the Bombay coast; his kingdom was annexed on January 1, 1886. The annexation was virtually the conquest of a new country by Great Britain; but the cost of the conquest, and of proceedings taken for years after to break down the armed resistance, was charged to the revenues of India. A railway has since been constructed from Mandalay towards China at the cost of the Indian tax-payer. But the hope of a brisk Chinese trade, which was so strong a reason of the annexation, has proved a myth.
Beyond the Western frontiers of India, the Russian attack on the Afghans at Penjdeh threatened for a time to disturb the peace between Great Britain and Russia. But the danger was averted; and a Boundary Commission, appointed in concert with Russia, delimited the Afghan frontier on the Oxus and towards Central Asia.
There was an increasing demand on the part of the people of India for representation, and for a larger share in the administration of their own concerns. The Indian National Congress was founded, and its first meeting was held at Bombay, in December 1885. And year after year, at Christmas time, it has given expression to the views and aspirations of the most moderate and the best educated men of India. Mr. W. C. Bonnerjee, a leading citizen of Calcutta, Mr. P. Mehta, a leading citizen of Bombay, and other eminent Indian leaders, cordially helped by Mr. A. O. Hume, ensured its success by their strength, their moderation, and their patriotic endeavours. There was at first some uneasiness among officials at this new movement; but the sober sense and the calm persistence of Indian leaders have removed all anxiety, and have made the Congress a representative institution of the educated people of India.
Lord Dufferin himself was not opposed to progress. He appreciated the Indian National Congress at its first formation; but ultimately he was misled as to its object and scope. He appointed a Public Service Commission with the object of opening some of the higher branches of the administration to the people of India; but some of the best recommendations of the Commission remained a dead letter. And he is believed to have recommended a system of election for the appointment of some members to the Legislative Councils of India, a recommendation which ultimately led to the India Councils Act, passed by Parliament in 1892. On the other hand, the army and military expenditure of India were vastly increased under his administration; and there was a mischievous and wasteful activity once more beyond the North-West frontier of India.
Lord Lansdowne succeeded Lord Dufferin in 1888. He, too, had been Governor-General of Canada, and therefore went out to India with considerable experience as an administrator. But he was wanting in the tact and discretion and the quiet strength of Lord Dufferin. A silly Imperialism predominated in his Council, and wasteful expenditure beyond the Indian frontiers proceeded at a more rapid pace. A distinguished administrator, who was himself behind the scenes during these years, says that while Lord Lansdowne’s urbanity and high distinction conciliated and impressed all with whom he was brought into personal contact, yet, as time passed, it became evident that his thoughts were more occupied with affairs beyond the North-West frontier of India than with the interests of good government within its limits. The influence exercised over the Viceroy by his chief military and political advisers became more and more matters of universal comment. Under their influence, and probably with the approval of the British Cabinet, Lord Lansdowne renewed in substance Lord Lytton’s policy, and the wars which have drained India of money and men since 1896, were due to the course of action adopted by Lord Lansdowne in the years preceding. There never was a time since 1838, when Simla was more actively the centre of ambitions, and of designs beyond the Indus. “The most favoured type of Indian official was no longer the Provincial Governor or the sagacious Resident, but that Warden of the Marches of Beluchistan, Sir Robert Sandeman, whose unique aim was to extend the zone of British influence beyond the frontier, and whose method was to participate in tribal dissensions, and to benefit by them. ‘Sandemania,’ which had proved so contagious, then first became epidemic in high quarters.”1
In pursuance of this restless and ambitious policy, Lord Lansdowne took some action in regard to the State of Kashmir which created alarm in India, and brought on a discussion in the House of Commons. The post of Gilgit is over a hundred miles to the north of Kashmir; and it was Lord Lytton’s policy, as we have seen before, to have a hold over this distant place through the Kashmir State. Lord Lansdowne improved on this policy; for a time he set aside the ruler of Kashmir; and he virtually controlled the affairs of that State through the British Resident.
A Resident had been first appointed in Kashmir by Lord Dufferin in 1885, on the accession of the new ruler, Maharaja Pratap Singh. Mr. Plowden became Resident in the following year, and began to assume an authority over affairs which alarmed even the Foreign Office of India. “I do not agree with Mr. Plowden,” wrote the Foreign Secretary to Lord Dufferin. “He is too much inclined to set Kashmir aside in all ways.” “If we annex Gilgit, or put an end to the suzerainty of Kashmir over the petty principality of the neighbourhood, and above all if we put British troops into Kashmir just now, we shall run a risk of turning the Darbar against us, and thereby increase the difficulty of the position.” “If we have a quiet and judicious officer at Gilgit, who will get the Kashmir force into thorough order and abstain from unnecessary exercise of his influence, we shall, I hope, in a short time, have the whole thing in our hands without hurting any one’s feelings.”2 Lord Dufferin was a cautious statesman. Plowden was transferred from Kashmir in 1888. And in the same year Lord Dufferin himself left India.
His successor, Lord Lansdowne, acted with less tact and wisdom. Early in 1889, the new Viceroy of India deprived the ruler of Kashmir of all powers, and placed the administration in the hands of a Council to act under the advice of the British Resident. The reasons which led to this measure, as stated by Lord Lansdowne himself,3 were these:—
(1) Unfavourable reports about the administration.
(2) Disorder in the finances.
(3) Neglect to carry out reforms.
(4) Treasonable letters alleged to have been written by the Maharaja.
(5) Offer of the Maharaja to abdicate.
The first three charges were of a general nature, and had no special application to the short time that Pratap Singh had been on the throne. His State was annually visited by hundreds of Englishmen, and they spoke of no oppression and no misery among the people. There was worse distress in the British Provinces of Madras and Orissa, in the very year when the letter was written.
The fourth charge was never proved and never relied on. Lord Lansdowne himself wrote to the Secretary of State: “We are not disposed to attach any excessive importance to these letters.” And the Under-Secretary for India said in the House of Commons in April 1889: “The Government of India attach very little importance to the intercepted letters.” The letters were never proved, and were probably forged by the Maharaja’s enemies.
The fifth charge was based on a letter, written by the Maharaja to his brother under some pressure, and was not an abdication.
The action of Lord Lansdowne was therefore unaccountable. There was an alarm in India, and the impression gained ground that the Viceroy desired to virtually annex Kashmir in pursuance of his Gilgit policy. Mr. Bradlaugh, M.P., who at the time took a keen interest in Indian affairs, gave expression to this alarm. He moved adjournment of the House on July 3, 1890, and brought on a debate on the subject. The motion for adjournment was lost, but the debate stayed the hands of the Indian Government. Maharaja Pratap Singh has since been restored to power, and has ruled Kashmir in peace. No charge of misgovernment or of treason has been brought against him.
Great events had in the meantime followed in rapid succession in England. Mr. Gladstone had endeavoured to pass his Irish Home Rule Bill in his third administration, February to July 1886, and had failed. Ninety-three Liberals had receded from Mr. Gladstone, and had joined the Conservatives in support of the Union with Ireland. In the general election which followed, the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists formed the majority, and Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister for the second time.
The Unionist Government lasted for six years, from 1886 to 1892. But Mr. Gladstone, now over eighty years of age, was still determined to carry through his Irish Home Rule scheme, and vehemently attacked the Government. A general election took place in 1892. The Home Rule was the leading question, and the contest was stubborn. Mr. Gladstone triumphed, and became Prime Minister for the fourth time, with a majority of forty on his side. Lord Kimberley, who had been his Secretary of State for India in 1886, was again appointed to the post, succeeding Lord Cross the Conservative Indian Secretary. But in 1894 Lord Kimberley became Foreign Secretary, and was succeeded by Mr. Fowler, now Sir Henry Fowler, in the India Office.
Great hopes were entertained in India from the return of the Liberal Government, and from Mr Fowler’s accession to the India Office. His undoubted abilities and his clear grasp of facts would surely enable him to comprehend Indian questions in their true light.
Mr. Fowler had been a staunch supporter of Irish Home Rule, and would support and extend Self-Government in India. He had been President of the Local Government Board, and would make the District Boards of India real centres of popular administration. He was a man of the people, and would sympathise with the just ambitions of the people of India. These hopes were widely entertained in India, but they were doomed to disappointment. Under the influence of the times, and under the Imperialist administration of Mr. Gladstone’s successor, Lord Rosebery, Mr. Fowler fast drifted into Imperialism. His administration proved more autocratic than that of his titled predecessors. He adopted with vehemence the official idea of an absolute Government in India uninfluenced by popular opinion. He resented, on occasions, with equal vehemence, the just demands and aspirations of the people. He passed no large remedial measures, made no popular concessions. He was a joy to the ruling classes; he disappointed the people of India.
Mr. Fowler continued large extensions of Indian railways on borrowed capital, beyond the resources and the immediate needs of the country. He sanctioned the mischievous activity and the wasteful expenditure of the Indian Government beyond the frontiers of India. A mission was sent to the Amir of Kabul. A delimitation of the frontier was effected. Chitral, Swat, and Wazaristan were included within the British sphere of influence. Seeds were sown for the frontier war which broke out three years after.
Mr. Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill had been passed by the House of Commons in 1893, but had been rejected by the House of Lords. Early in 1894 the aged Minister had retired from Parliament; and in 1898 he passed away, mourned by the entire nation. His greatest political opponents, those who had bitterly resented his foreign policy and his Home Rule scheme, joined with his most ardent followers in doing honour to the memory of a man who was God-fearing, great, and good. His deep earnestness, his unrivalled powers, his high personal character, and his lifelong services to his country, had created an impression on the popular mind. Above all, it was the combination of his greatness with private Christian virtues that struck the imagination of a nation. “A great example,” said his political opponent, Lord Salisbury, “to which history hardly furnishes a parallel, of a great Christian Man.” They laid his remains in Westminster Abbey, where sleep England’s greatest and best.
Footnotes